Wednesday, December 25, 2024
What's new

Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?

Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.

Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.

Your thoughts?

@Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz

When chauhan Rajput took wife from jat or gujjar clan progeny are chauhan jat or Chauhan gujjar .rajputts are born they can not be made.
 
.
The other day you were claiming that you were a Bara and now you are a Gujjar !! First Make up your mind dude

Bara is a clan among Gujjars . The fact that you distinguish between the two only proves my point.

Tell me about your 'al'(sub caste) if you are a Gujjar

My family are mixed in terms of clans, but most of my recent family members (that are Gujjar) are Bara, Toor, and Khatana. Since my paternal clan is Bara, that's what I identify as.

When chauhan Rajput took wife from jat or gujjar clan progeny are chauhan jat or Chauhan gujjar

I highly doubt it's that simple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . .
Clans would be the sub-groups among these groups I mentioned.

Terms like Rajput just denote a community that tends to intermarry with each other. I use the term title/community to refer to them interchangeably.



Gujjar.



I'm not hiding it, I'm just opening a discussion about how necessary they are. They don't denote our lineage (that would be clans), they don't denote our occupation, they don't denote our religion, they literally mean almost nothing. A Chauhan Rajput would be more related to a Chauhan Jat/Gujjar than a Janjua Rajput.



Most of my family are Gujjars, in terms of clans we're mixed by I identify with my patrilineal one (Bara).



Wth has an identity crisis got to do with any of this? You low IQ monkeys love to toss around that word without even knowing what it means.



Read my original post again, because you clearly didn't understand it.



Nobody claims to be "pure blood", in Pakistan you identify with your paternal lineage, i.e your unbroken chain of male ancestors.



I think it's best you keep your nose out of this.



It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.



That's a different topic entirely, but I'll leave it at the fact that it clearly hasn't helped you guys much, and that most kids from cousin marriages end up OK:

http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809



No it's not lol. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can chuck random words at it.



Because all three share many of the same clans.



Except me and you are not ethnic Gujjars. Ethnic Gujjars are the nomads who still speak Gojri.



How so?

Instead of resorting to silly remarks, why don't you guys try and prove what I'm saying is stupid?

@Great Janjua @Max @Winchester @SorryNotSorry
You are grasping at straws when you go back to colonial theories of these castes (not clans) coming from Eurasia during prehistoric eras.
The physical traits you list don’t describe Rajputs.
Also, please stop channeling your inner caste obsessed Hindu.

My advice to you: You’re clearly not claiming to be from this caste to create a sense of community here. If you were using this topic as an instrument to spread positivity or connecting with others- I wouldn’t be laughing at you. Instead You’re trying to prove to us and yourself that you come from a lineage of some superior warrior caste. You went on to claim how the Pakistani castes are superior/better to the Hindu ones.
Improve your self confidence and don’t rely on this caste BS to feel better about yourself. Try not to let your personal inferiority complex and identity crisis manifest in this manner. I assume you’re a Muslim- and should practice your deen to be a better human everyday. Make peace with this topic and move on.

Even now, if you claim to be a certain caste, accept the fact that your ancestors must have lost and chickened out. They didn’t ascend as Rajputs from Arabia/Eurasia as Muslims.
Castism is a flaw in Hindu culture- try not to wear it so loud and proud. We ourselves are trying to move away from this.

Please stop!
 
. .
Gujjar pratihar are original Kshatriya clans .

Some Gujjars were Kshatriyas (like the Pratiharas, Tomars, Chauhans, etc). Others were viewed as peasants. Like the Jats, we're mixed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
ignorância deliberada ....


While Rajput maybe a title and Jat an elastic label, Gujjars definitely are an ethnic group.

I agree with you. Rajput is prestigious title that originated in Rajasthan, it doesn't mean anyone who claim to be rajput have origins there or related to Rajasthani royal rajputs. Gujjar isn't title but more like a nomadic "ethnic" group, from NW Pakistan to India these gujjars all have same origins.
 
.
You are grasping at straws when you go back to colonial theories of these castes (not clans) coming from Eurasia during prehistoric eras.

Not really. Most people from these groups have been shown via DNA studies to also have higher amounts of Eurasian ancestry than others.

The physical traits you list don’t describe Rajputs.

I never listed any. You're confusing me with @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

My advice to you: You’re clearly not claiming to be from this caste to create a sense of community here. If you were using this topic as an instrument to spread positivity or connecting with others- I wouldn’t be laughing at you. Instead You’re trying to prove to us and yourself that you come from a lineage of some superior warrior caste.

Lmao I made no such claim.

You went on to claim how the Pakistani castes are superior/better to the Hindu ones.

Again, you're confusing me with @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Improve your self confidence and don’t rely on this caste BS to feel better about yourself.

I don't, I'm just discussing something. It's not my fault if racism seeps in (although I'll definitely remember this for the future).

Try not to let your personal inferiority complex and identity crisis manifest in this manner.

Lmao I suffer from no such thing, and there is no evidence of that. Again, you're just tossing around random words.

Even now, if you claim to be a certain caste, accept the fact that your ancestors must have lost and chickened out. They didn’t ascend as Rajputs from Arabia/Eurasia as Muslims.

Converting to a superior ideology is not "chickening out", and just because they converted doesn't mean it was by force. And my paternal clan is descended from a Sufi so it doesn't matter anyway.

Castism is a flaw in Hindu culture- try not to wear it so loud and proud. We ourselves are trying to move away from this.

I don't lol, we're trying to do the same.

Gujjar isn't title but more like a nomadic "ethnic" group, from NW Pakistan to India these gujjars all have same origins.

Not quite, we're an amalgamation of multiple different clans who just intermarry with each other.
 
. .
Most of these conversions happened during Mughal time.

Actually, my impression is that large sections of the Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats converted during the Sultanate, rather than during the Mughal imperium. But this is from memory and general impressions, and if you challenge me, I will have to seek two or three days to check and tell you.

Hinduism never talked about monotheism as we know it now. It is only in the A.D.s during Adi Shankaracharya time that advitya philosophy came about which itself is not monotheism but talk about one truth. Correct me if need be

LOL.

I am laughing at our temerity in taking up a subject such as this.

No, I can't deny that this was the case. But I quake in my shoes at the prospect of summarising it into a few sentences. Perhaps the best I can do is to point to your statement that it is not monotheism but talk about one truth, and supplement it by saying that it is a form of monism, and defines reality as unified, that the self and the divine are unified. This wording is so clumsy even to me that I suggest it is best to leave it alone and move on.

Although the philosophical roots go back to the Upanishads, and to Vedanta, and to the six schools of Hindu philosophy, another way to look at it is as Shankaracharya's rebuttal of Buddhism. Since Buddhist thinking left out the question of divinity and divine identity and concentrated on the nature of moksha, of the self, atman, and of how to attain moksha, ignoring the possibility of attaining it through divine intervention or judgement, this counter also focussed on moksha, on the self and on the identity of the self with brahman. I hope I am not struck down by Shankaracharya's outraged spirit, if it still exists somewhere, and that it finds me so funny that it is laughing a cosmic laugh and is too busy to do anything else.
 
.
Clans would be the sub-groups among these groups I mentioned.

Terms like Rajput just denote a community that tends to intermarry with each other. I use the term title/community to refer to them interchangeably.



Gujjar.



I'm not hiding it, I'm just opening a discussion about how necessary they are. They don't denote our lineage (that would be clans), they don't denote our occupation, they don't denote our religion, they literally mean almost nothing. A Chauhan Rajput would be more related to a Chauhan Jat/Gujjar than a Janjua Rajput.



Most of my family are Gujjars, in terms of clans we're mixed by I identify with my patrilineal one (Bara).



Wth has an identity crisis got to do with any of this? You low IQ monkeys love to toss around that word without even knowing what it means.



Read my original post again, because you clearly didn't understand it.



Nobody claims to be "pure blood", in Pakistan you identify with your paternal lineage, i.e your unbroken chain of male ancestors.



I think it's best you keep your nose out of this.



It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.



That's a different topic entirely, but I'll leave it at the fact that it clearly hasn't helped you guys much, and that most kids from cousin marriages end up OK:

http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809



No it's not lol. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can chuck random words at it.



Because all three share many of the same clans.



Except me and you are not ethnic Gujjars. Ethnic Gujjars are the nomads who still speak Gojri.



How so?

Instead of resorting to silly remarks, why don't you guys try and prove what I'm saying is stupid?

@Great Janjua @Max @Winchester @SorryNotSorry
Sirji replying to my posts reply. Yes your patriarchal lineage marries Muslim women whose patriarchal lineage could be Muslims.. it's not hard for mixed blood to join.
 
.
Jat and gujjar were titles originally based on profession, this is like 2500 years before. The caste system itself was based on the profession and it was allowed to change your caste by changing profession. Later on, it became rigid and inter caste marriage was banned and caste became an identity by birth. You are talking about forgetting history of more than 2000 years.
 
.
Keep telling yourself you come from a great caste.

I don't. There is no such thing as a "great caste". We are all related one way or another and share a common origin, no point in trying to say x group of Homo sapiens is better than y group of Homo sapiens.

this is like 2500 years before.

None of the groups I mentioned are that old.

The caste system itself was based on the profession and it was allowed to change your caste by changing profession.

I'm not talking about caste, these groups aren't castes.

You are talking about forgetting history of more than 2000 years.

I'm not talking about "forgetting history", I'm talking about the idea of people just sticking with their paternal origin by going by their clan. I wanted to see what others thought, and it's clear almost nobody agrees with it.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom