RAJPUT SIKHS : INFO. REQUIRED
RHS
of Punjab. Prominent ones include Akali Phulla Singh (Chief of Khalsa
Fauj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh)& also Jathedar of Akal Takht, Sant Baba
Nidhan Singh of Nanded, Baba Mati Singh, Talwinder Singh Parmar, etc.
Does anyone know what % of Sikhs are Rajputs ?
Are they limited to Punjab only, or do they come from other areas ?
Are there any Rajput Sikh organisations outside India ?
(I've heard that Rajput Sikhs being prominently landowners are closer to jatts
in work needs, but donot like to be called Jatt (ie jattboot manners))
Thanks
Nicole Josan
> Does anyone know what % of Sikhs are Rajputs ?
There are 0% Sikhs who are Rajputs, because anyone considering
castes as something real is definitely
NO SIKH!
So all other questions are answered in one sentence too.
Ranbir Kaur
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---
Reply to nicole...@hamburg.netsurf.de
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---
Raghu Seshadri
: on 25 Jan 1996 14:04:41 GMT RHS <man@comp> wrote:
: > Does anyone know what % of Sikhs are Rajputs ?
: There are 0% Sikhs who are Rajputs, because anyone considering
: castes as something real is definitely
: NO SIKH!
: So all other questions are answered in one sentence too.
: Ranbir Kaur
Is this true of Jats too ?
RS
Gurupdesh Singh
>
>I've heard that there are some Rajput Sikhs from doaba area
>of Punjab. Prominent ones include Akali Phulla Singh (Chief of Khalsa
>Fauj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh)& also Jathedar of Akal Takht, Sant Baba
>Nidhan Singh of Nanded, Baba Mati Singh, Talwinder Singh Parmar, etc.
>
areas ?
> Are there any Rajput Sikh organisations outside India ?
>
>(I've heard that Rajput Sikhs being prominently landowners are closer to
jatts
>in work needs, but donot like to be called Jatt (ie jattboot manners))
>
> Thanks
>
Why, do they like to be called "Kirars" (synonym with coward) or Bahmans.
Your stupid game is to easy to figure out - keep trying.
Bimparmar
>of Punjab. Prominent ones include Akali Phulla Singh (Chief of Khalsa
>Fauj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh)& also Jathedar of Akal Takht, Sant Baba
>Nidhan Singh of Nanded, Baba Mati Singh, Talwinder Singh Parmar, etc.
>Does anyone know what % of Sikhs are Rajputs ?
areas ?
>Are there any Rajput Sikh organisations outside India ?
>(I've heard that Rajput Sikhs being prominently landowners are closer to
jatts
>in work needs, but donot like to be called Jatt (ie jattboot manners))
>Thanks
Actually there are a lot of Rajputs who now call themselves Jats for
example the Chauhans and Rathores are Rajputs but for some reason want to
be called Jatts. We do not like to be called Jatts because Rajput means
"Sons of Kings" as with Rajasthan where we are originally from. Jatt was a
lower caste relating to the laborers and other rabble who worked the
Rajput's lands.
The Rajputs were the heroes of Fuedal India and renowned as fierce
warriors and men of courage and honour. Unfortunately because we did all
the fighting our population was greatly reduced.
Now all of a sudden the Jatts were in the majority and claiming all kinds
of superiority.
ASNG/F95
: >I've heard that there are some Rajput Sikhs from doaba area
: >Thanks
sorry...just testing something out
Sahdra Harjinder S
: Actually there are a lot of Rajputs who now call themselves Jats for
: example the Chauhans and Rathores are Rajputs but for some reason want to
: be called Jatts. We do not like to be called Jatts because Rajput means
: "Sons of Kings" as with Rajasthan where we are originally from. Jatt was a
: lower caste relating to the laborers and other rabble who worked the
: Rajput's lands.
: The Rajputs were the heroes of Fuedal India and renowned as fierce
: warriors and men of courage and honour. Unfortunately because we did all
: the fighting our population was greatly reduced.
: Now all of a sudden the Jatts were in the majority and claiming all kinds
: of superiority.
You are living in your own make-believe world. The fact that Jatts
dominate and the Rajputs have been reduced to claiming to be Jatts surely
suggests that your people are not as "superior" as you suggest.
Jatts accept no one as their superior. Look at Punjabi legends and songs
about valour and romance, it is not Rajputs that are romanticized but
JATTA DEY PUT.
Gurupdesh Singh
to create some Jatt/Rajput disharmony among Sikhs. In my knowledge of
Punjabi culture, the difference between Jatts/Rajputs in Punjab is almost
indistinguishable due to intermarraige and cultural similarities. This
fact is confirmed by Sir Ibbetson (who was in charge of the 1881 Census
in Punjab).
The reason why the Brahmin-lead caste orthodoxy (e.g. banias, khatris,
brahmins and other traditionally non-landowning castes claiming to be the
"upper castes") incessantly promotes the Rajputs and Rajput history
over that of the Jatts is because they have become more integrated into
the Brahmanical social system than the Jatts who have always shown a
steady cooleness to the caste creed. However, despite religious
similarities, Rajputs have maintained their separate cultural identity
and never intermarried into the caste orthodoxy whom they typically look
down upon as "cowardly" ("Kirars") and "unmanly" ("bey-mard") due to
their traditional occupation as soothsayers, shopkeepers and traders
("hati-walas") in the fuedal society of the past. Most Rajput groups are
believed to be descended from the "Huns" or "White Ephalites" of Central
Asia who overran many northern regions of the subcontinent such as
Rajasthan, U.P, Madya Pradesh and Bihar between 500 - 100 A.D.
The shallow presence of Brahmanism in the traditional Punjabi culture may
be due to the fact that Bhuddism, the dominant religion in
the Indian subcontinent from around 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. was strongly
entrenched in Punjab and Afghanistan. Due to the strong anti-caste and
anti-Brahmanical traditions of Bhuddism, when Brahmanical Hinduism
appeared in India during the 7th century A.D., it received a luke-warm
reception in Punjab region.
However, you have made some statements about Jatts which need correction.
Please see comments below in your text.
In article <4f49i6$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bimp...@aol.com says...
>
>>I've heard that there are some Rajput Sikhs from doaba area
>>of Punjab. Prominent ones include Akali Phulla Singh (Chief of Khalsa
>>Fauj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh)& also Jathedar of Akal Takht, Sant Baba
First of all, Ranjit Singh was a Jatt, not a Rajput (see works
by 19th century authorities such as Ibbetson, Cunningham, Todd, Elliot).
>>Nidhan Singh of Nanded, Baba Mati Singh, Talwinder Singh Parmar, etc.
>
>Actually there are a lot of Rajputs who now call themselves Jats for
>example the Chauhans and Rathores are Rajputs but for some reason want
to
>be called Jatts. We do not like to be called Jatts because Rajput means
>"Sons of Kings" as with Rajasthan where we are originally from. Jatt was
a
>lower caste relating to the laborers and other rabble who worked the
***********************************************
>Rajput's lands.
The origins of the Jatts has been placed in the Scythians, a people who
held sway ove Central Asia from around 400 - 300 B.C. During this peiod,
may southern Scythic groups such as the MassaGatea or "Big Gatae" (hence
the origin of the word "Jat"), settled the ancient Punjab region in a
number of migratory waves during this peiod (rf. Herrodondus, Plotemy,
Pliny, Ibbetson, Elliot, Cunningham and more recently Dr. Dhillon (1995)
and Dr. Dahiya (1980)). If you consult the authors mentioned above, you
will find that Sindh and Central Punjab - the region from river Chenab to
present-day Haryana - has always been the dominion of Jatts (infact, the
Jatt expansion in western U.P. is a much later development after the 12th
century A.D.).
Direct evidence of this comes from the invasion of Sindh and Punjab
in the year 1024 A.D. by Mahmud Ghaznavi. His historian Ferista who
travelled with him during his campaign states that as Mahmud was
returning from his first escapade in Somnath, he was attacked by Jatts
fron Sindh and Punjab who inflicted considerable damage on him. This
event, convinced Mahmud that in order to expand his empire into North
India, he had to suppress Jatt power in the Punjab. Therefore, in 1026,
he conducted his second campaign into Punjab and again Feristha mentions
that "this was a war against the Jatts". He also records, that after
taking Multan, he "built a thousand boats" to cross the Chenab as the
Jatts also excelled in naval warfare.
This war finally culminated with the death of the Jatt King AnangPal
from Batinda who lead the combined Jatts forces at Attock in the North
West Frontier. Ironically, near the end of the 18th century this is
exactly where the Khalsa army of Ranjit Singh - composed primarily of
Jatt Sikhs - defeated the last Pathan invasion of the subcontinent.
Therefore, direct historical records and chronicles from the time show
that the Punjab region was the dominions of Jatt rulers prior to the
arrival of the Muslim period, and not a Rajput one as you claim. This
also explains, the position of Jatts in the Punjabi folk-lore in which
Jatts are expounded for their bravery, courage and ability for sacrifice
- these tales and songs of the Punjabi culture make no mention of
Rajputs.
Dr. Hari Ram Gupta (former Dean at Punjabi Univerity, Chandigarh)
has estimated in his 1991 book "The History of the Sikhs", that over
200,000 Jats sacrificed their lives during the 18th century in the
Khalsa's struggle against Moghal tyranny - this amounts to over 30% of
the Jatt population from the time.
>The Rajputs were the heroes of Fuedal India and renowned as fierce
>warriors and men of courage and honour. Unfortunately because we did all
>the fighting our population was greatly reduced.
>Now all of a sudden the Jatts were in the majority and claiming all
kinds
>of superiority.
Incidently, these are the same Moghals, the Rajputs of Rajasthan and
beyond were marrying their daughters to in order to maintain their
positions as tributary Rajas to the Moghal throne. I know a Muslim with
Mughal/Rajput background from Awadh (U.P.), who informs me that almost
all Moghals and Pathans during the Mughal period (roughly 1560 - 1750
A.D.) married Rajput women and claim partly Rajput heritage. This same
person, whose father moved to East Punjab, Pakistan in 1947 tells me that
the Jatts are one of the few martial groups from pre-Muslim India who did
not hand over their women to the Moghals/Pathans in order to maintain
their comforts.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <4fc2k1$n...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, gs...@cornell.edu
says...
>
>You have fallen into a trap some mischevious Kirar or Bahman has thrown
>to create some Jatt/Rajput disharmony among Sikhs. In my knowledge of
>Punjabi culture, the difference between Jatts/Rajputs in Punjab is
almost
>indistinguishable due to intermarraige and cultural similarities. This
>fact is confirmed by Sir Ibbetson (who was in charge of the 1881 Census
>in Punjab).
>
>The reason why the Brahmin-lead caste orthodoxy (e.g. banias, khatris,
>brahmins and other traditionally non-landowning castes claiming to be
the
>"upper castes") incessantly promotes the Rajputs and Rajput history
>over that of the Jatts is because they have become more integrated into
>the Brahmanical social system than the Jatts who have always shown a
>steady cooleness to the caste creed. However, despite religious
>similarities, Rajputs have maintained their separate cultural identity
>and never intermarried into the caste orthodoxy whom they typically look
>down upon as "cowardly" ("Kirars") and "unmanly" ("bey-mard") due to
>their traditional occupation as soothsayers, shopkeepers and traders
>("hati-walas") in the fuedal society of the past. Most Rajput groups
are
>believed to be descended from the "Huns" or "White Ephalites" of Central
>Asia who overran many northern regions of the subcontinent such as
>Rajasthan, U.P, Madya Pradesh and Bihar between 500 - 700 A.D.
Bimparmar
raja
>
>You are living in your own make-believe world. The fact that Jatts
>dominate and the Rajputs have been reduced to claiming to be Jatts surely
>suggests that your people are not as "superior" as you suggest.
>Jatts accept no one as their superior. Look at Punjabi legends and songs
>about valour and romance, it is not Rajputs that are romanticized but
>JATTA DEY PUT.
Prithvi Raj Chohan was a Rajput king whose valour & romance combination
are legendary. Which Jatt king romanced like Prithvi Raj Chohan,
Toddar Mall ?
Can you name a few Jatt Dynasties that ever ruled India ?
Have you heard of Chandra Gupta Maurya ?
Have you heard of Gautum Budha and Ashoka ? They were Rajputs.
(sons of KINGS).
NO ! I am not trying to show that jatts are inferior BUT that their
claims of superiority are all false. Its derived from jatts
having a larger population. After all there is only one King.
If Behari Farm Labourers obtain a majority in parts of
Punjab, what is there to prevent them from Claiming Superiority ?
I think jatts are better off in a democratic society because there
majority will count ( just like the lot of Scheduled castes will improve
in a democratic set-up because they comprise a mojority of the Indian
population).
I Believe all humans are equal and jatts (not all of them) claimimg superiority
is silly.
Bhagat Ravidas was born in a chamar family. That does not make him inferior
to Jatt. Neither is Kabir inferior to a Jatt.
I believe all humans are equal. Its their actions that make them
chamar, jatt , or rajput.
I am sure I have offended the "pride" of some of you folks, but I am
trying to defend the minority population whose voice is not being heard.
After all one has to think of everybody.
raja
Sahdra Harjinder S
: Where? In which legends?
Read the post titled "Jatt/Rajput" relations on this ng and you will find
your answer. If I were you I wouldn't get too proud of being a rajput
because it seems that your ancestors gave away your women to the Mughals
so the Mughals wouldn't kick rajput men around like pieces of dirt. Man
what heroic traditions these rajputs have. Ha Ha Ha.
singh
>
>
>>
>>You are living in your own make-believe world. The fact that Jatts
>>dominate and the Rajputs have been reduced to claiming to be Jatts surely
>>suggests that your people are not as "superior" as you suggest.
>>Jatts accept no one as their superior. Look at Punjabi legends and songs
>>about valour and romance, it is not Rajputs that are romanticized but
>>JATTA DEY PUT.
>
> Prithvi Raj Chohan was a Rajput king whose valour & romance combination
> are legendary. Which Jatt king romanced like Prithvi Raj Chohan,
>
> Toddar Mall ?
>
Gurupdesh Singh
>
>4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Sahdra Harjinder S) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You are living in your own make-believe world. The fact that Jatts
>>dominate and the Rajputs have been reduced to claiming to be Jatts
surely
>>suggests that your people are not as "superior" as you suggest.
>>Jatts accept no one as their superior. Look at Punjabi legends and
songs
>>about valour and romance, it is not Rajputs that are romanticized but
>>JATTA DEY PUT.
>
> Prithvi Raj Chohan was a Rajput king whose valour & romance
combination
> are legendary. Which Jatt king romanced like Prithvi Raj
Chohan,
Yeah, what a romantic he was - he married his brother's wife
while his brother was still living.
If you want to know romance, see the story of Mirza Jatt or Hir-Ranja
(also a Jatt).
>
> Toddar Mall ?
>
> Can you name a few Jatt Dynasties that ever ruled India ?
*********************************
I am constructing a complete answer to this, but Asoka Maurya was
an Indo-Sycthic dynasty and the Jatts are descended from the Scythians
who colonized northern India during the period 400 B.C. - 500 A.D.
A good reference to this is Dr. Dahiya(1980), "Jats: The Ancient Rulers",
and also Dr. Dhillon (1994), "The History and Study of the Jats".
Using Greek and Persian sources from antiquity, the Jats as Scythians
have been established by these authors along with the same by 19th
century authorities such as Todd, Cunningham, Elliot, and many more.
>
> Have you heard of Chandra Gupta Maurya ?
> Have you heard of Gautum Budha and Ashoka ? They were Rajputs.
*******************
You need to learn some elementary history before you make a fool of
yourself with outlandish and false claims. The Rajputs did not even
exist in India during the time of Ashoka or Gupta. Research has shown
(Todd, Elliot, Cunningham, etc.) that Rajputs in India are descended
from the "Huns" who entered and settled in parts of the northern
subcontinent (e.g. Rajasthan, U.P., M.P., Bihar) between the 5th-7th
century A.D. Therefore, how could Ashoka, who ruled during 3rd century
B.C. have been a Rajput.
> (sons of KINGS).
>
The Jatt population in India is around 1.5, while those claiming to be
Rajputs is over 2.5% - who is a better minority.
Also, read my other post for why the Brahmin historians like to promote
the Rajputs as the saviors of Hinduism.
Vivek Khare
>The reason why the Brahmin-lead caste orthodoxy (e.g. banias, khatris,
>brahmins and other traditionally non-landowning castes claiming to be the
>"upper castes") incessantly promotes the Rajputs and Rajput history
>over that of the Jatts is because they have become more integrated into
>the Brahmanical social system than the Jatts who have always shown a
>steady cooleness to the caste creed. However, despite religious
>similarities, Rajputs have maintained their separate cultural identity
>and never intermarried into the caste orthodoxy whom they typically look
>down upon as "cowardly" ("Kirars") and "unmanly" ("bey-mard") due to
>their traditional occupation as soothsayers, shopkeepers and traders
>("hati-walas") in the fuedal society of the past. Most Rajput groups are
>believed to be descended from the "Huns" or "White Ephalites" of Central
>Asia who overran many northern regions of the subcontinent such as
>Rajasthan, U.P, Madya Pradesh and Bihar between 500 - 100 A.D.
>The shallow presence of Brahmanism in the traditional Punjabi culture may
>be due to the fact that Bhuddism, the dominant religion in
>the Indian subcontinent from around 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. was strongly
>entrenched in Punjab and Afghanistan. Due to the strong anti-caste and
>anti-Brahmanical traditions of Bhuddism, when Brahmanical Hinduism
>appeared in India during the 7th century A.D., it received a luke-warm
>reception in Punjab region.
Mr. Gurupdesh Singh,
You really, desperately need an elementary-level course in the rise
of Buddhism as well as the rise of Brahmnical Hinduism.
As starters, I suggest that you read Romila Thapar's excellent
book, "From lineage to state" and Uma Chakravarti's book "Social dimensions
of early Buddhism".
Regarding the development of the Hindu thought, I suggest that
you read B. Allchin's books on Ancient India.
By no stretch of imagination will the above mentioned authors
be labeled "Bahmanic".
Also, try for a change reading literature that seeks to date the
major "Brahmanical" works - the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Puranas.
Hopefully after this reading, you will not make such stupid
statements as "when Brahmnism appeared in India during the 7th century A.D."
I sincerely hope that you read some *objective* works on History.
I suggest that you do so soon.
Only then will your anti-Brahmanic diatribes and arguments have
some punch, which is absent in any of your present contributions....
Regards,
Vivek
Gurupdesh Singh
kh...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Vivek Khare) wrote:
>gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>
>Mr. Gurupdesh Singh,
> You really, desperately need an elementary-level course in the rise
>of Buddhism as well as the rise of Brahmnical Hinduism.
> Hopefully after this reading, you will not make such stupid
>statements as "when Brahmnism appeared in India during the 7th century A.D."
**********************************************************************
>
> I sincerely hope that you read some *objective* works on History.
*************************************
>I suggest that you do so soon.
>
> Only then will your anti-Brahmanic diatribes and arguments have
>some punch, which is absent in any of your present contributions....
>
>
>Regards,
>
The purpose of my original message was to counter the claims about Rajput
superiority and misrepresentation on Punjabi and Jat history. But I see
that you missed the whole point and are affixated on discussing Bhuddist
History which was really a tangential issue in my response.
Any way, I am quiet familier with the "Brahmanically correct" version of
Bhuddist history. As usual, they would have you believe that Bhuddism and
Hinduism are essentially the same despite the fact that even a cursory look at
the fundamental doctrines and beliefs will show that the concepts of Godhood,
social equality and justice are fundamentally orthogonal in Bhuddism and
Brahmanicalism.
For example, the Buddha completely rejected the worship of Brahmanical
dieties, their caste creed, and their religious rituals (the hallmarks of
Brahmanism) while upholding the oneness and equality of mankind. Despite the
fact that these beliefs and doctrines completely clash with those of
Brahmanism, we are to believe that Bhuddism and Brahmanism very close. So much
for "objective" thought.
I think what happened to the Bhuddist civilization in India is a very
important question which has not been completely answered. The dynamics
of how Indians who were mostly Bhuddists prior to the 7th century A.D.
converted to Brahmanism need to be explained. In addressing this, some
fundamental issues needs to be kept in mind:
i) Why did the masses who had dignity and social equality under Bhuddism
convert to a religious and social order which creates inferior and
superior pedigrees of humanity and denies them their basic
rights and dignity?
ii) Could this have occurred voluntarily as many Hindus like to argue
or was it done through coercion and terror? This is especially relevant
in India's current unstable political climate with the rise of Hindu
chauvanism.
Most of the history on Bhuddism, written primarily by member from India's
caste orthodoxy who also profit most from the caste order, is very
neglegent in addressing these issues.
Just because you find the truth behind how Bhuddism came to an end
uncomfortable, does not mean that you can negate or re-write history.
I hear now that some Hindu historians are claiming that the Taj Mahal was
a Hindu palace before it was converted to its present state through "some
minor" cosmetic changes ! Do you want me to read this "objective" history
book too in order to get the "correct" history on the Taj ?
Regards.
singh
>
>I think what happened to the Bhuddist civilization in India is a very
>important question which has not been completely answered. The dynamics
>of how Indians who were mostly Bhuddists prior to the 7th century A.D.
>converted to Brahmanism need to be explained. In addressing this, some
>fundamental issues needs to be kept in mind:
As far as Rajput/Jatt relations go:
1) Budha was Rajput. Budhism was the religion in Punjab, and Pakistan
2) Rajput dynasties ruled even when Hinduism was the religion in India.
So where were the "sher jatts", "Jattan de Putt" and all the other "jatt supremists (sp?)" ?
This post is not to suggest Jatt Inferiority, BUT that jatt "superiority" is a self created myth that Jatts like to believe in.
Jatts are much better off now, with their number count (like the lot of Sceduled castes will improve in a democractic set-up)
It pains me to hurt someones pride, but one has to defend the minorities over which (some) jatt supremists
are trying to dominate with false claims. Nothing wrong with being a jatt, chamar or Rajput. Does it matter ??
Jagbir S. Hooda
> 1) Budha was Rajput. Budhism was the religion in Punjab, and Pakistan
Quite intriguing! I'm sure you must be having a quite a few self-evident
proclamations to claim `Shakya' as a rajput gotra --instead of being a Jat
gotra-- and some hand waving arguments to prove the existence of rajput
cast before 647 A.D.
regards,
jagbir.
Vivek Khare
> kh...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Vivek Khare) wrote:
>>gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>>
>>Mr. Gurupdesh Singh,
>> You really, desperately need an elementary-level course in the rise
> *********************************************
>>of Buddhism as well as the rise of Brahmnical Hinduism.
>> Hopefully after this reading, you will not make such stupid
>>statements as "when Brahmnism appeared in India during the 7th century A.D."
>**********************************************************************
>>
>> I sincerely hope that you read some *objective* works on History.
> *************************************
>>I suggest that you do so soon.
>>
>> Only then will your anti-Brahmanic diatribes and arguments have
>>some punch, which is absent in any of your present contributions....
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>The purpose of my original message was to counter the claims about Rajput
>superiority and misrepresentation on Punjabi and Jat history. But I see
>that you missed the whole point and are affixated on discussing Bhuddist
>History which was really a tangential issue in my response.
No, I didn't miss the crux of your argument. Notice that I have not
commented at all on what you said about the Jat-Rajput history. Not
because what you said IS true, but because I myself know very little about
it to comment on it.
However, the paragraphs I quoted have some factual inaccuracies, and
these pertained to the Buddhist-Brahmanical question.
For instance, you give some reason for the Punjab being unsympathetic
to the Brahmanical cause. But, are you aware that the Kuru-Panchal region
was the strong hold of the Brahmins, when Buddhism was nascent? That these
Brahmins felt an antagonism to the people from the middle Ganga basin, the
"progressives" who came to support Buddhism?
It is in response with these factual inaccuracies that I
responded to your post. If you can forward the entire post to me, I will
point out other inaccuracies. And yes, these ARE factual inaccuracies and
not interpretational ones....
>Any way, I am quiet familier with the "Brahmanically correct" version of
>Bhuddist history. As usual, they would have you believe that Bhuddism and
>Hinduism are essentially the same despite the fact that even a cursory look at
>the fundamental doctrines and beliefs will show that the concepts of Godhood,
>social equality and justice are fundamentally orthogonal in Bhuddism and
>Brahmanicalism.
Yes, there are authors who would like us to believe that Buddhism or
all other -isms actually are offshoots of Hinduism, and one can justifiably
take umbrage over what they say. But this does not give one the right to
invent one's own version of history, which is something you seem quite fond
of doing. Care to give some cogent argument supporting "Brahmanism began in
around 700 AD"?
I for one DO NOT believe that Buddhism and Hinduism are essentially
similar... But, do you deny that the Buddhist thought is totally
and completely absent in the Hindu system? If you do, I suggest that you are
biased.
>For example, the Buddha completely rejected the worship of Brahmanical
>dieties, their caste creed, and their religious rituals (the hallmarks of
>Brahmanism) while upholding the oneness and equality of mankind. Despite the
>fact that these beliefs and doctrines completely clash with those of
>Brahmanism, we are to believe that Bhuddism and Brahmanism very close. So much
>for "objective" thought.
Do give references of people claiming that Buddhism and Brahmanism are
very close. I am confident that I can furnish more which claim the contrary...
Part of my response is also related to the continued anti-Brahmanical
line that you have consistently espoused. I find many shortcomings in it.
My impression is that you think that
assume the Varnashrama Dharma to comprise the totality of Brahmanical beliefs.
And in doing so, you are ignoring the enormous body of Hindu Thought and
Metaphysics. Perhaps if you take a more objective stance, you will find that
the Buddhist ideas are indeed echoed in *some* of the bodies of the Hindu
beliefs...
>I think what happened to the Bhuddist civilization in India is a very
>important question which has not been completely answered. The dynamics
>of how Indians who were mostly Bhuddists prior to the 7th century A.D.
Care to substantiate this claim of yours, that the Indians were
mostly Buddhists prior to the 7th century AD?
>converted to Brahmanism need to be explained. In addressing this, some
>fundamental issues needs to be kept in mind:
> i) Why did the masses who had dignity and social equality under Bhuddism
> convert to a religious and social order which creates inferior and
> superior pedigrees of humanity and denies them their basic
> rights and dignity?
You are basing this question on several wrong premises.
What makes you think Buddhism offered social dignity and equality
to the masses? Just the fact that any person of any caste could join the
Sangha and become a Bhikku? Do you know of any *conscious* attempt by
Buddhist Bhikkus to correct the social inequalities prevalent among the
laity? Was there any mass-movement to fuse the "inferior and superior
pedigrees of humanity" which was lead by prominent Buddhists?
The fact is that Buddhism is a very personal religion, not a social
one. A person strives to achieve liberation of one's own self. So, it is
essentially immaterial what proffession one practices, as long as one
follows the correct path. Sure, this correct path precludes any Brahmanical
sacrifices, and diminishes the Brahmin's role in society. But, apart from
this, does it in any way seek to bridge the social inequalities?
> ii) Could this have occurred voluntarily as many Hindus like to argue
> or was it done through coercion and terror? This is especially relevant
> in India's current unstable political climate with the rise of Hindu
> chauvanism.
>
Again, a question based on the premise that Buddhism indeed was
THE dominant religion of ancient and medieval India....
Yes, the question of the eventual debacle of Buddhism in India
is very intriguing. (More so, because there isn't much available evidence
of it having been forced out?)
> Most of the history on Bhuddism, written primarily by member from India's
> caste orthodoxy who also profit most from the caste order, is very
> neglegent in addressing these issues.
You will be surprised at the number of works on Buddhism (and its
downfall) that are 'out there', written by Indian authors. I suggest that
you make the effort and read some of these. I will assure you, you will
find them enlightening.
> Just because you find the truth behind how Bhuddism came to an end
> uncomfortable, does not mean that you can negate or re-write history.
Again, a false premise. What makes you think that *I* find the
truth behind how Buddhism came to an end uncomfortable? Care to highlight
the instances where *I* have tried to negate or re-write history?
> I hear now that some Hindu historians are claiming that the Taj Mahal was
> a Hindu palace before it was converted to its present state through "some
> minor" cosmetic changes ! Do you want me to read this "objective" history
> book too in order to get the "correct" history on the Taj ?
>
Is the fact of some lunatics going to one extreme enough justification
of your going to the other extreme?
You seem to have taken offence over my suggesting you some references
which I termed as *objective*. Do read them, and then pass judgement of
what I feel is the "correct" version of history. Till then, please do not
make any inferences over my stance on the issue. Also, just the fact that
I don't agree with your interpretation of history is not enough reason to
assume that I will be enthusiastic about "Hindu historians claiming that the
Taj Mahal was a Hindu palace....."
>Regards.
>
Regards
Vivek
Anonmy7327
Chamar or Chanda?
You are responsible for what you are and what you become
Is that not the whole essence of Gurus's updesh and Buddha's sermons?
People like exaggerated myths and stories makes good bed time reading
rathod
>singh <singh@ss> writes:
>> 1) Budha was Rajput. Budhism was the religion in Punjab, and Pakistan
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anonmy7327
According above definition we are all Rajputs
singh
>Jis ke Raj uske poot= Rajput.
>According above definition we are all Rajputs
100% CORRECT !!!
Always thought Jatts were better off in a democratic society
where their number count became significant!!
Aaayo Thakur !!
GHALIB
this rubbish cast system. No offense intended.
We have enough problems with etnicity like Punjabi, Mohajir garbage anyway.
Regards
GHALIB
rathod
>because it seems that your ancestors gave away your women to the Mughals
>so the Mughals wouldn't kick rajput men around like pieces of dirt. Man
>what heroic traditions these rajputs have. Ha Ha Ha.
Maharana Pratap was a Rajpoot King who kicked ass and is a legend.
Prithvi Raj Chohan was a Rajpoot King who romanced, lived and died
in a rajput tradition.
Joahar was a rajput practice in which women threw themselves in a
fire that was ALWAYS lit inside the RAJPOOT FORT during battle incase
all men died.
By laughing at peoples heroic traditions you are just insulting
your own caste.
Kunal Singh
Actually, there's a funny story related to this. It seems that
western scholars were not used to Kings ploughing their own fields.
So some have mistakenly expressed doubt on whether Buddha was the son
of a king or a peasant. But what they don't seem to have realized,
probably because they don't have the cultural context, was that most
people of the Kshatriya caste of the time were very attached to the
land and on occasions did plough their own land themselves, even kings
like Janaka. They were surprisingly agricultural, perhaps even
switching between their jobs of farming and fighting in the army
periodically.
Anonmy7327
From: singh <singh@ss>
***** MR. GHALIB,
MS. BENAZIR BHUTTO, PM OF PAKISTAN, IN HER AUTOBIOGRAPHY TRACES
HER ANCESTRY TO RAJPUTS. *****
@@@ She forgets her grandmother Lakhi Bai nee kurshid begum, the
maharastrian Dancing girl( Prostitute) from Poona who was picked up by his
grandfather Shahnawaz. Read Zulfi Bhutto biography by Wolpert to know
juicy details.
By the way Pakistanis are not immune to casteism read NY Times article on
influence of caste at the time of last election@@@@@@
Anonmy7327
******In case you have been sleeping for the past 50 years,
the current "Rajas" of India after the British left have been Brahmins
and the their allies in the caste orthodoxy (i.e.
traditionally non-landowning castes such as Banias, Khatris, Kayasth,
etc. claiming to be the real"upper castes").*******
@@@@ Wake up the real rulers and son-in -laws of govt today are SC and BC
who have 70% reservation@@@
**** More than 90% of all the
executive and decison-making position in the govt, machinery, army, and
police are filled by these groups.*****
@@@ Wrong again@@@@@
****The Rajputs, Jats, and Sikhs - the traditional martial
qaums (nations) - are today nothing more than their
chownkidars.****
@@@ We have to get away from the concept of martial nations which is as
bad as Brahminical superiority. Rajput were the sword arm of Mughals just
as Sikhs were the sword arm of British@@@@@
Yeah ... some Raja's puts - more like their shit patrol.
singh
>Would you keep this nonsense in SOI or SOPunjab etc. SOPakistan has no place for
>this rubbish cast system. No offense intended.
>
>We have enough problems with etnicity like Punjabi, Mohajir garbage anyway.
>
>Regards
>GHALIB
>
Kunal Singh
singh <singh@ss> writes:
> 1) Budha was Rajput. Budhism was the religion in Punjab, and Pakistan
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quite intriguing! I'm sure you must be having a quite a few self-evident
proclamations to claim `Shakya' as a rajput gotra --instead of being a Jat
gotra-- and some hand waving arguments to prove the existence of rajput
cast before 647 A.D.
regards,
jagbir.
Buddha was from the same race as Rama was. He was a Kshatriya from
the solar race. Thus he would have a lineage different from both
Rajputs, mostly Huns in the west converted during 647 AD, and Krishna
who was from the lunar race descended from Yadu -- I think Kunti was
also a Yadav. Where did I get all this from ? From the Brahma Purana
which does quite a nice job of lineage-tracking as one would expect
from the Brahma school.
Gurupdesh Singh
>>> 1) Budha was Rajput. Budhism was the religion in Punjab, and
Pakistan
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
on, then Prince Charles is also a Rajput!
The historical reality is, no Rajput geneology goes back further than
the 7th century A.D. The historical fact is that groups
in India claiming to be Rajputs are descended from the
"White Epthalites" or "Huns" who overan parts of the northern
subcontinent (e.g. Rajasthan, U.P., M.P., Bihar) at the time.
Prior to this invasion India was a Bhuddist state and society.
Read my original post "Jatt/Rajput - relations" for details.
Gurupdesh Singh
>
>Jis ke Raj uske poot= Rajput.
>According above definition we are all Rajputs
In case you have been sleeping for the past 50 years,
the current "Rajas" of India after the British left have been Brahmins
and the their allies in the caste orthodoxy (i.e.
traditionally non-landowning castes such as Banias, Khatris, Kayasth,
etc. claiming to be the real"upper castes"). More than 90% of all the
executive and decison-making position in the govt, machinery, army, and
police are filled by these groups.
The Rajputs, Jats, and Sikhs - the traditional martial
qaums (nations) - are today nothing more than their
chownkidars.
Yeah ... some Raja's puts - more like their shit patrol.
Gurupdesh Singh
This is typical of many ruling muslim classes in India (as I pointed out
in my original article) who have Mughal/Pathan background - Muslim father
and Rajput mother. But, is this really something to be so proud above?
I noticed that 3 persons identifying themselves as "rajputs"
replied in this thread - all of them hiding their complete identity
behind anonymous and cryptic names such as "anonmy7327",
"singh", and "rathod". If you are so proud and brave as you pretend to
be, why hide behind obscure identifiers?
Anonmy7327
From: gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh)
***I noticed that 3 persons identifying themselves as "rajputs"
replied in this thread - all of them hiding their complete identity
behind anonymous and cryptic names such as "anonmy7327",
"singh", and "rathod". If you are so proud and brave as you pretend to
be, why hide behind obscure identifiers?*****
@@@ You have to be proud about what you are and what you accomplished.
Being proud of what you belong to is casteism and bigotism.
Rajputs like Sikhs or Muslims or rest of Hindus have mixed legacy. Rajputs
can genuinely be proud of some of their historical figures like Rana
Pratap who resisted bravely and underwent hardships in pursuit of freedom.
They can equally be not proud of numerous Rajputs like Jai singh who
collobrated with Mogul empire and served them faithfully against rest of
Indians> There would not have been a Mogul empire if Rajputs did not
cooperate with Moguls. The co-operation was extended later into British
who made them marital class. It is interesting that British made all
collobrators and merceneries Martial castes to rule rest of Indians tru
them@@@@@@@@@@
Vivek Khare
>Prior to this invasion India was a Bhuddist state and society.
>Read my original post "Jatt/Rajput - relations" for details.
Again, tangential to the subject of the thread, but this gets to
me. I agree that most areas in the subcontinent were indeed Buddhist
states. But, can you give any reasons or cite any books that claim
the India was a Buddhist society then?
Regards
Vivek
rade
in the 7th Century AD.
I am curiuos about when Attila invaded and pushed Europe into the
dark Ages.
Are there any Hun traditions left in Modern India ?
raj
>
>This is typical of many ruling muslim classes in India (as I pointed out
>in my original article) who have Mughal/Pathan background - Muslim father
>and Rajput mother. But, is this really something to be so proud above?
>
Mr. Guruupdesh,
Whats wrong with being proud of ones parents. Why ? Are you
ashamed of your mother or father ??
Kamal
> Rajputs are descended from the
>"White Epthalites" or "Huns" who overan parts of the northern
>subcontinent (e.g. Rajasthan, U.P., M.P., Bihar) at the time.
>
from the atmosphere into Rajasthan, U.P., M.P., Bihar.
But where were the Jatts ?? (just to mention the word to make
it relevant to the thread)
Sahdra Harjinder S
Distribution:
raj (raj@rani) wrote:
: gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) wrote:
Duh, you are missing the point. Rajput women were handed over to Mughal
men as "gifts" from the Rajputs, so the Rajputs would receive favourable
treatment. How would any child of such a relationship be proud??
Bimparmar
Queer that post does not answer my question.
If the Jatts have such a heroic tradition where are the no legends? There
are Indian battleships named Rajput I yet to hear of one named Jatt.
Gurupdesh Singh
subcontinent from central asia - the Khyber pass and the Bolan pass -
through which most of the invading groups entered. The former is a
northern contact point while the Bolan is a more north-westerly route
opening up into the south Sindh and Rajasthan regions.
The entry of the Huns into the subcontinent during the 7th century A.D.
occurred through the Bolan pass from where they primarily expanded into
the easterly direction. The direct evidence of this comes from their
pattern of distribution in the north - it is in exactly the states I
metioned - and also from various chroniclers like Feristha (Mahmud
Ghaznavi's historian) in the 10th century who writes about Mahmud's
war against the Jats in Punjab.
Most probably, the Huns (later known as Rajputs) also tried moving north
before the Afghan period (post-10th century) from Rajasthan but this must
have proven unsuccessful as they were not present there to take on
Mahmud when he arrived.
Gurupdesh Singh
> > 1) Budha was Rajput. Budhism was the religion in Punjab, and
Pakistan
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
self-evident
> proclamations to claim `Shakya' as a rajput gotra --instead of being
a Jat
> gotra-- and some hand waving arguments to prove the existence of
rajput
> cast before 647 A.D.
>
regards,
>
jagbir.
>
>Buddha was from the same race as Rama was. He was a Kshatriya from
>the solar race. Thus he would have a lineage different from both
>Rajputs, mostly Huns in the west converted during 647 AD, and Krishna
>who was from the lunar race descended from Yadu -- I think Kunti was
>also a Yadav. Where did I get all this from ? From the Brahma Purana
>which does quite a nice job of lineage-tracking as one would expect
>from the Brahma school.
>
sun according to Brahmin scriptures while Krishna and Yadu arrived from
the moon. Is their any scientific or archeological evidence to support
these claims?
Gurupdesh Singh
kh...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU says...
>
>gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>
>
>>Prior to this invasion India was a Bhuddist state and society.
>>Read my original post "Jatt/Rajput - relations" for details.
>
> Again, tangential to the subject of the thread, but this gets to
I am sorry, if Buddhist history gets to you, I cant do anything about
it, nor can you. Many things have happenned in history which we do not
like given our current illusions of cultural identity and
political conciousness. Maybe you should try to figure out why it "gets
to" you.
>me. I agree that most areas in the subcontinent were indeed Buddhist
>states. But, can you give any reasons or cite any books that claim
>the India was a Buddhist society then?
To most people (with the exception of Brahmins who always have an axe to
grind with anyone who was/is not under their hegemony) this would
be self-evident. If Buddhism was the dominant religion in India from
around 400 B.C. to 700 A.D., meaning that it was the religion of choice
for both the masses and the rulers, I fail to see why you would disagree
with stating the obvious - that India during this period was a Buddhist
state and society.
Do you want me to conclude that Buddhist India was a Brahmanical state
and society ? But, I cant and wont say this - unless of course you make
it "worth my while".
As for the books, I will try to create a bibliography for your enjoyment
when I find some spare time. If you go to a library and open up a few
texts on ancient India written by "non-Hindutva" historians, you are
bound to encounter the essential contours of what I have stated before.
One thing I assure you is that these ideas are not mine originally, but
come from a number of authorities who pioneered research into the history
of ancient India during the 19th century (of the top of my head check Sir
Denzil Ibbetson, Cunningham, Todd). These experts had access to not just
Brahmanical texts but also reliable Chinese, Tibetan, and ShriLankan
sources along with archeological evidence is doing their research.
>
>Regards
>
>Vivek
Gurupdesh Singh
kh...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU says...
>invent one's own version of history, which is something you seem quite
So, any one who says that Buddhism was the dominant religion in India
from around 400 B.C. to 700 A.D. is "inventing history". I believe it is
you, who need to read a few other history books than those written by
"Hindutva historians" and other champions of "Hindu history" from the
caste orthodoxy.
*****************************************************************
beliefs.
********
Are you one of those who frequently claim in this newsgroup that
Manusmati played an insignificant role in the evolution of Brahmanism and
that caste has nothing to do with caste?
Brahmanism has a complex history given the myriads of mythologies and
reincarnation geneologies of Brahmnaical dieties, but there is a unifying
thread - a theme - which underlies all of this. These central doctrines
of Brahmanism can, however, easily be identified and include:
i) Claims to the spiritual and social supremacy of Brahmins and
inferiority of the backward and "untouchable" castes (who make
up over 90% of Hindus).
ii) Promotion of the social ideology of the caste system through
the Karma/Reincarnation theory. (From the 19th century on,
Western style racial theories have been mixed in with this to
promote Brahmanical desires for hegemony.)
iii) Worship of dieties and idols.
>And in doing so, you are ignoring the enormous body of Hindu Thought and
*******************************
And this enormous body is primarily devoted to promoting and supporting
the above mentioned goals and neutralizing any threats which emerged to
Brahmanical elitism during early history. So we have the case of the
Buddha, who was procclaimed a Vishnu avtar 1200 years after he was born.
What many Brahmins and other so-called "high castes" have continued to
fail to realize over time (as the Bhuddha, Kabir, the Sikh Gurus, Sufi
saints, etc. did) is that what is wrong in principle cannot be right in
practice. And this is the reason why these spiritual men rejected
Brahmin supremacy, their idols and rituals, the caste creed and spoke
about the equality of mankind.
*************************************
Every religion ultimately is a very personal thing. But why do you
attempt to minimize Buddhism during a period when it really had no
competition from Brahmanism. Also it was more than a personal religion,
for during Buddhist India, the whole subcontinent was sprinkled with
universities, institutes and temples which were generously supported by
the rulers.
In fact, it is Brahmanism which was essentially "personal" when it was
revived in the 7th century since it did not have any where the same
institutional and logistical support and was primarily promoted
individually by village-level Brahmins. This group was connected
basically by their caste credo rather than any well developed
institutional framework.
social
>one. A person strives to achieve liberation of one's own self. So, it is
>essentially immaterial what proffession one practices, as long as one
************************************************************
This is more modern spin on Brahmanism, but nonetheless a healthy one.
>follows the correct path. Sure, this correct path precludes any
Brahmanical
>sacrifices, and diminishes the Brahmin's role in society. But, apart
*****************
from
>this, does it in any way seek to bridge the social inequalities?
*******************************************************
This is not historical fact but your own opinion. Apparently, Buddhism
was infinitely more egalitarian in practise as it was egalitarian in its
basic doctrines which espoused human equality, rejected Brahmin supremacy
and their caste system, and promoted non-violence.
>
>> ii) Could this have occurred voluntarily as many Hindus like to
argue
>> or was it done through coercion and terror? This is especially
relevant
>> in India's current unstable political climate with the rise of
Hindu
>> chauvanism.
>>
> Again, a question based on the premise that Buddhism indeed was
>THE dominant religion of ancient and medieval India....
*******************************************
Yes, it was and any historian worth his salt would aggree that it was
a dominant religion prior to the Brahmanical revival in the 7th century
A.D. In the rest of your message, you continue to
reject this basic reality so I will stop here.
Raghu Seshadri
: Okay, lets get this right. Rama and Buddha descended to earth from the
: the moon. Is their any scientific or archeological evidence to support
: these claims?
This is like a layman reading a physics book,
coming across names of quarks like "strange",
"top" etc and the "color" of quarks, and
asking if there are green and blue quarks.
These are mere names, Gurupdesh. Braodly
all Indian ruling dynasties were classified
into two groups - the solar and the lunar.
The glorification of royal lineages
with fantastic legends is a common
phenomenon all over the world. You may wish
to look up the Arthurian legends for
reference.
RS
kamal
After reading all your winding pontifications, you are
still not factually convincing that Rajputs were not rulers in Indian
history, and that they never ruled the jatt class/caste.
Himanshu Pratap Singh
>Subject: Re: Jatts/Rajputs - relations
>From: gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh)
>
>
>***I noticed that 3 persons identifying themselves as "rajputs"
>replied in this thread - all of them hiding their complete identity
>behind anonymous and cryptic names such as "anonmy7327",
>"singh", and "rathod". If you are so proud and brave as you pretend to
>be, why hide behind obscure identifiers?*****
Isn't it funny that someone who himself doesn't identify himself with
his name admonishes others not to. Identifying anybody with the last
name "Singh" as a Rajput is faulty too, because Jatts, Sikhs and other
Kshatriyas use this last name as well. Even "rathod" is not a Rajput
last name (at least exclusively) since a number of SC/ST's in Gujrat
have adopted this last name. Rathore, however, is another story.
Finally if it pleases you, I am a Rajput and proud of being one to the
extent that I don't have to hide behind any anonymous addresses.
>@@@ You have to be proud about what you are and what you accomplished.
>Being proud of what you belong to is casteism and bigotism.
Being proud of one's own roots doesn't in the least mean being castist
or being a bigot. To have and keep self-pride is not only important but
necesary to survive, read some Sigmund Freud for more. Similarily, just
cause some one is proud of being Indian doesn't and shouldn't make him a
racist!
>Rajputs like Sikhs or Muslims or rest of Hindus have mixed legacy. Rajputs
>can genuinely be proud of some of their historical figures like Rana
>Pratap who resisted bravely and underwent hardships in pursuit of freedom.
>They can equally be not proud of numerous Rajputs like Jai singh who
>collobrated with Mogul empire and served them faithfully against rest of
>Indians> There would not have been a Mogul empire if Rajputs did not
>cooperate with Moguls.
I am not sure whether you relize that people like Raja Jai Singh wer
ethe exceptions rather than the rule in Rajput history. Read the
histories of many other Rajput's like Rana Sangha, and the many valiant
kings of Ranthambhor, Bundi for reference.
The co-operation was extended later into British
>who made them marital class. It is interesting that British made all
>collobrators and merceneries Martial castes to rule rest of Indians tru
>them@@@@@@@@@@
Funny that you think that all Rajput's were British collaborator's, your
lack of knowledge of Indian history is pathetic. Do you forget Raja
Kunwar Singh who at the age of 82 fought against the British during
1857. He was not an isolated example as many other Rajputs bear
testimony Eg. Rani Jhansi and the brave freedom fighters of Ballia
(Uttar Pradesh) who during 1942 got Ballia independence from the
British for about three weeks, an oft ignored incidence in the Indian
struggle for Freedom.
Before you make other such postings please read your history books, and
don't forget to use your name!!
Cheers
Himanshu Pratap Singh
Sahdra Harjinder S
: I'm still asking where and in which legends because you dumbass Queen's
: Queer that post does not answer my question.
: If the Jatts have such a heroic tradition where are the no legends? There
: are Indian battleships named Rajput I yet to hear of one named Jatt.
My apologies, I was under the impression that you could read and
understand english. As i said before, read Gurupdesh's post on
"Jatt/Rajput" relations and you will have your answer. By the way, how
many punjabi songs about rajputs? Ever hear of - "Put Jattan Dey", "Jatt
Soorme", "Jatt di dushmani", songs about Mirza and Ranjha, "Pagri sambal
Jatta" etc etc - who is being romanticized?
As for the mistreatment of women in your culture - Jatts do not share the
tradition of widow burning.
Sahdra Harjinder S
:
: Joahar was a rajput practice in which women threw themselves in a
: fire that was ALWAYS lit inside the RAJPOOT FORT during battle incase
: all men died.
I've stated on another post that such actions should be deemed as
martyrdom, however on further reflection, I am convinced that had these
been JATT WOMEN they surely would have taken up the sword themselves and
slayed as many of the foe as possible before breathing their last breath
- is that not the difference b/w Jatts and the Brahmanised Jatts ( now
referred to as rajputs)?
kamal
>Soorme", "Jatt di dushmani", songs about Mirza and Ranjha, "Pagri sambal
>Jatta" etc etc - who is being romanticized?
Since jats are in majority in Punjab, songs for a jat audience is in NO
surprise. Just dont believe everything to be true, because it isn't. And dont
extrapolate too much, because that would be a HISTORICAL LIE.
Most songs initially covered innocent topics like village fairs, and small time
romances. I enjoy them too...Its good music....
>As for the mistreatment of women in your culture - Jatts do not share the
>tradition of widow burning.
Rajput women committed jauhar on their own. Rather than get caught by the enemy,
THEY threw themselves into a fire to save their honour, and show their loyalty to the
men they loved.
YES!! This is the stuff that makes legends ......!!!!!
Its OK if jats dont have this tradition. I still like the my jat friends.
kamal
>I am not sure whether you relize that people like Raja Jai Singh wer
>ethe exceptions rather than the rule in Rajput history. Read the
>histories of many other Rajput's like Rana Sangha, and the many valiant
>kings of Ranthambhor, Bundi for reference.
>
>
>lack of knowledge of Indian history is pathetic. Do you forget Raja
>Kunwar Singh who at the age of 82 fought against the British during
>1857. He was not an isolated example as many other Rajputs bear
>testimony Eg. Rani Jhansi and the brave freedom fighters of Ballia
>(Uttar Pradesh) who during 1942 got Ballia independence from the
>British for about three weeks, an oft ignored incidence in the Indian
>struggle for Freedom.
Can you please elaborate on the above.
Sahdra Harjinder S
[ . . . ]
The songs about Jatt exploits are telling of how they are perceived as a
people. Such perceptions are based on reality and historical fact. Read
the following:
Book: JATS: THE ANCIENT RULERS
Author: B. Dahiya
"With their irresistible might, they earned the name "Massa Getae" from
th eancient Greeks, and Ta-Yue-Che from the Chinese - both words meaning
the "Great Jats". Massa in Pehlavi language means "Great" and the Chinese
word "Ta" also means "Great". . . Inseperable from their horses, riding
them awake and asleep, the first bowmen to shoot accurately from the
horsebacks, they defeated Tamerlane the Great (Taimur Lunh) whom they
forced to become the adviser of their own crown prince, Khoja Oghlan - a
Jat from the Oghlan clan. Born rulers, haters of dependence, quick
tempered, an odd mixture of happy-go-lucky and sanguinary talents, they
adopted but Royal names - all their clan names mean, "royal", "prince",
"head", or "chief". Breathing war and battle every moment of their life,
they had no time mourn their dead. They deliberately hid and covered the
graves of their kings so that nobody could know their burial place and it
was for this purpose that they sometimes killed the gravediggers and made
rivers flow over the sacred graves of their kings. Like the great
Pandava, Prince Bhima (who vowed to drink the blood of Dusasana and did
so), they vowed to drink blood from cups made out of their enemies'
shulls, and to be constantly reminded of their vows, they mixed their own
blood with the blood of their dead. Most secular and open-minded people
in the world, their lack of religious fanaticism is reflected in their
easy adoption of Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Budhism, Hinduism, Islam,
Sikhism and christianity. Their coins too reflect the symbols of
practically all these religions of the world."
dilshad
>They deliberately hid and covered the
>graves of their kings so that nobody could know their burial place and it
>was for this purpose that they sometimes killed the gravediggers and made
>rivers flow over the sacred graves of their kings.
Can you please share this Nobel prize winning technology of making
rivers flow and change direction ?
Its a pity we have lost all the science and technology of the ancients.
>Most secular and open-minded people (ha ha ha)
>in the world, their lack of religious fanaticism is reflected in their
>easy adoption of Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Budhism, Hinduism, Islam,
>Sikhism and christianity. Their coins too reflect the symbols of
>practically all these religions of the world."
The world should then certainly be a better place....
Since Sikhism is against caste system, then
Why dont jat-sikh girls marry low caste boys and vice versa ?
Something to think about ??
regards,
Buddy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Manas Kee Jaat Sabhey ek e pahchanbo" Guru Gobind Singh
Sahdra Harjinder S
: 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Sahdra Harjinder S) wrote:
: >They deliberately hid and covered the
: >graves of their kings so that nobody could know their burial place and it
: >was for this purpose that they sometimes killed the gravediggers and made
: >rivers flow over the sacred graves of their kings.
: Can you please share this Nobel prize winning technology of making
: rivers flow and change direction ?
: Its a pity we have lost all the science and technology of the ancients.
:
It is a greater pity that your envy of the Jatt people makes you respond
in such a manner.
As for the rivers: Go ask the historian who wrote the above - I didn't make
the claim.
: >Most secular and open-minded people (ha ha ha)
: >in the world, their lack of religious fanaticism is reflected in their
: >easy adoption of Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Budhism, Hinduism, Islam,
: >Sikhism and christianity. Their coins too reflect the symbols of
: >practically all these religions of the world."
: The world should then certainly be a better place....
: Since Sikhism is against caste system, then
: Why dont jat-sikh girls marry low caste boys and vice versa ?
: Something to think about ??
Yes, but do you refute the point made by the author above - are you
claiming that Jats in fact did not adopt any of the religions named.
The fact that you refer to some people as "low caste" means you yourself
consider yourself superior to some people - shame on you - in this day
and age!
: regards,
: Buddy
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Manas Kee Jaat Sabhey ek e pahchanbo" Guru Gobind Singh
I agree with the quotation above, but do you, in seeking to ridicule Jatt
history and Jatt people - are you practicing what you readily quote.
Harjinder.
Ms. X
>
>>As for the mistreatment of women in your culture - Jatts do not share the
>>tradition of widow burning.
>
> Rajput women committed jauhar on their own. Rather than get caught
by the enemy,
>THEY threw themselves into a fire to save their honour, and show their
loyalty to the
>men they loved.
>
> YES!! This is the stuff that makes legends ......!!!!!
>
mmmm... i heard widow burning started because women kept poisoning their
husbands!!!! What you wrote above is a very weak justification for the
practice...anyhow..the question was widow burning..not killing oneself to
avoid capture..
Ms.X.