Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars

[Joe Shearer]

What was violent towards hindus?

That was before my medication. After that, and after a healing walk, I am able to collect my thoughts and answer more reasonably. My apologies for the earlier asperity.

The generally accepted theory, or perhaps, the generally least rejected theory is that Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats were none of them part of the original migration of Indo-Aryan speaking breakaways from the mainstream Indo-Iranian body, but were much later, but allied, migrants who entered the sub-continent during the turbulent times between 300 BC and 100 AD. That does not mean that they were not known to their cousins who entered India earlier; Indian epic literature is full of references to the further-most tribes, the Uttara Madras, the Parama Kamboja and others, who lived on the fringes of Indo-Aryan society, speaking an archaic but allied language that was no longer identical to that being spoken in the Indian plains. The most well-known of these were the Kamboja, quite possibly descended from the Parama Kamboja of Indian epic references.

Immediately before this, the Achaemenids, Zoroastrians, expanded their empire to the Indian marches of the Indus Valley, and further north to the foothills of the Pamirs and the Himalayas. Takshila was apparently part of their empire, the Achaemenid satrapies being Sogdiana (the land bordering Scythian-dominated steppes), Bactria (modern-day Balkh) and Gandhara (more or less the Kabul region) in the north, and in the south, the provinces of Arachosia and Gedrosia (now Balochistan, bordering the sea). The Scythians are generally considered to be a nomadic people who spoke East Iranian.

After Alexander III the Great overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, and died untimely at 33, his successors fought a series of wars among themselves. The part that concerns us is the breakaway of Balkh, or Bactria, and Sogdiana and Gandhara, under the Greek colonists of Alexandrine cities founded there, their clashes with Indian monarchs and their successes, culminating in their dominion of northern India at least as far as Mathura. But they were to meet their downfall at the hands of the Scythians and their allies, the Pahlavi, who were pushed out of the steppelands that they dominated by the Yueh Chi, earlier associated with the Kushana, and thought to have been speakers of the lost Centum language, Tokharian. These Scythians first moved into Sogdiana and Bactria, having been neighbours of Sogdiana, and in their influx destroyed the Bactrian Greeks, or the Indo-Greek kingdoms of Bactria, as political powers. This is sometime around 125 BC. The Scythians continued to press towards the core lands of Iran, putting pressure on the Iranian Empire of the Parthians, that was slowly emerging from the wreck of the Greek successor kingdoms to the Alexandrine Empire. They killed two Parthian Emperors, before the Parthians gathered themselves up and beat them back further east.

Very briefly, summarising centuries of battle, conquest, settlement, imperial rule and merging with the existing culture of the locations, the Scythians, in Indian languages, the Saka, settled in the old Arachosia and Gedrosia, and some parts of present-day southern Afghanistan came to be named after them, Sakasthan or Seistan. That was the western boundary; on the east, they ruled as the Northern Satraps in the Gandhara region, and the Western Satraps in the Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat region right into Malwa, until being thrown back by a powerful southern emperor, Gautamiputra Satakarni, Emperor of the Satavahanas, sometime in the second half of the first century AD. However, their influence in Gujarat continued till as late as the 5th century AD, when they were conquered (but not expelled) by the Gupta Emperor, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, around 395 AD.

To return to the point that you made, the first Indic religion adopted by the Scythian-Saka or the Kushana was Buddhism, that having got a grip on the people of the north-west by then. Buddhism began to decline under the Guptas, and it is then, in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, that the Scythians, or Saka, the Kushana and others began to be 'Sanskritised', or brought into the Hindu social system by Brahmins who created genealogies for them, accounted for their entry into Hinduism (technically impossible) through the legends of the Sun Dynasty, the Moon Dynasty and the Fire Dynasty.

It is at this point that the fierce steppe warriors were gradually settled into an Indian social framework as Kshatriyas, as Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.

So it was not that they got rough treatment from Hindus, but the other way around. They came as conquerors; Alexandria on the Oxus was left a smouldering ruin by them when they conquered it. They put their mark permanently on India; two calendar eras were triggered by them, the Vikram Era of 57 BC, marking their expulsion from Malwa by King Vikram of Ujjain, and the Saka Era of 78 AD, marking their return.

That is why I expressed surprise at what you wrote.

 

[Tea addict]

This is a VERY complex question. The Rajput is a very flexible grouping, and rather than fake, it may be proper to consider the grouping as an avenue for upward social mobility. For instance, the Rathore was a descendant of the Rastrakutas, originally, who were feared in middle India during the period of the Tripartite Rivalry (that was before bin Qasim, so before the beginning of the world); I was intrigued and deeply interested to find that one of my students, a Lambada, had started calling himself a Rathore!

There are a number of interesting ethnographic studies about Rajputs, especially about the use and spread of the name across north India, but if you wish, I will look up and send you a Facebook page with a young contributor, a Rajput himself, who puts in the most interesting notes and posts.



Violent? What on earth do you mean? It was violent towards the Hindus, not for the Rajputs. Are you sure you know what was going on?



Although I deprecate the whole martial races concoction of the British, I have to agree with you on this point. Whatever their nationality, the Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats are true to their salt.

To be honest I also believe Rajput is only a title which was initially used by ruling class of region. There are Rajputs with gotra as "Badgurjar" and many northern Rajasthan,Haryana and west UP Rajputs have same gotras (tanwar,chouhan,etc) as Gurjar and both group look almost similar..the Rathores of marwar are completely different..I also believe it's not an ethnicity..then there are Pahadi Gurjar in Uttrakhand, dogras in Jammu.. certainty not an ethnicity.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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

Thank you for a most interesting post. This shall be my very pleasant after-dinner reading. Many thanks.

 

[Tea addict]

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

Find me a single poem,folklore or story which defines anything close to Eurasian feature of Rajputs..there are poems ,folklores and everything which defines Rajputs as "sawla"(wheatish complexion), "angry brown red eyes" "facial hairs" and stuff which is completely opposite of eurasian feature.. widely known is PDF does not equal to widely known in history.

 

[Hamza913]

,folklores and everything which defines Rajputs as "sawla"(wheatish complexion), "angry brown red eyes" "facial hairs" and stuff

Those are literally features that the Ancient Iranic conquerors (who Rajputs are said to be descended from) possessed.

Back then, most natives were pretty dark. Only foreigners had a wheatish complexion. This isn't just the case for Bharat, the same can be said for Pakistan.

 

[Tea addict]

Those are literally features that the Ancient Iranic conquerors (who Rajputs are said to be descended from) possessed.

Back then, most natives were pretty dark. Only foreigners had a wheatish complexion. This isn't just the case for Bharat, the same can be said for Pakistan.

Then again what is your reference? Or just "widely known in PDF"?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Please, gentlemen, this is a sensitive subject, our lineage and heritage is dear to each of us, let us consider the matter dispassionately and in a spirit of detached academic enquiry. I find the subject of absorbing interest, because these social structures served a purpose once upon a time, a negative or a positive purpose, depending on our own individual points of view. We can do worse than look at what impact these had on society, and what continued impact it has at the present day. Is it helping us in our social development? Is it holding us back? We have already watched it for seventy years after independence; there is now enough evidence to consider the matter.

Some of us are less knowledgeable than others. In a very selfish way, let me appeal to other participating members to overlook our glaring errors, and to correct them instead of criticising them and their authors.

 

[Yogijaat]

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.



None of the groups I mentioned are that old.



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



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.

The caste system by profession is this old and recorded by greeks also. It's very hard to give it away, since it's made by blood.

 

[Hamza913]

or linkage of Pakistanis to Iranians, Turks, Arabs, Afghans or whatever else.

No, it's linkage to the Islamic conquerors. And that's not an "identity crisis", it's just a fact. They didn't pick up their bags and disappear when the Islamic rule over the region ended. They assimilated into the Muslim communities of the region.

The only ones who claim to be closer to Iranians/Afghans from an ethnic perspective are Pashtuns and Baloch, which is pretty factual.

Others say that people from the Indus prior to 1947 used to speak Farsi which also links us to them. Again, this is factual.

It's like you consider yourself to be inferior in some way so you have to cling on to other nations or races.

IVC is not from another nation/race.

It's comes off as you guys having no identity of your own apart from being "not Indian".

Our identity is that we're Muslims from the Indus. That's it. That's all it's ever been. As far as other ones go (e.g ethnicity), they vary because Pakistan is pretty diverse.

And I don't see how my thread relates to this.

The caste system

I already told you, I'm not speaking about castes.

Then again what is your reference? Or just "widely known in PDF"?

You can read this up for yourself if you don't believe me. Or better yet, just look at Pashtuns (the closest living examples of what these Ancient Iranic conquerors looked like) and then look at low caste Hindus (the closest living example of what Ancient Bhartis looked like).

 

[313ghazi]

I am Jatt.
So what?
Is it good, is it bad; it matters not.

People need to get over their identity complexes.

I don't understand this pride sense of shame/pride that some people have about what their ancestors where/weren't. What difference does it made if they worshipped, fire or elephants or some other pagan diety?

If your worried about your "muslimness" focus on your aqeeda not your caste.

If your worried aobut your "Pakistaniyat" focus on civic duty, not re-writing history.

What is a nation? Basically lines in the dirt which define what resources you have access too. Your focus should be on best utilising those resources for the benefits of the people who are within those lines. That is a matter to be proud of, not ancestory. What your ancestor did/did not do was his or her own deed and the merit of it ends with them.

 

[Sam.]

That was before my medication. After that, and after a healing walk, I am able to collect my thoughts and answer more reasonably. My apologies for the earlier asperity.

The generally accepted theory, or perhaps, the generally least rejected theory is that Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats were none of them part of the original migration of Indo-Aryan speaking breakaways from the mainstream Indo-Iranian body, but were much later, but allied, migrants who entered the sub-continent during the turbulent times between 300 BC and 100 AD. That does not mean that they were not known to their cousins who entered India earlier; Indian epic literature is full of references to the further-most tribes, the Uttara Madras, the Parama Kamboja and others, who lived on the fringes of Indo-Aryan society, speaking an archaic but allied language that was no longer identical to that being spoken in the Indian plains. The most well-known of these were the Kamboja, quite possibly descended from the Parama Kamboja of Indian epic references.

Immediately before this, the Achaemenids, Zoroastrians, expanded their empire to the Indian marches of the Indus Valley, and further north to the foothills of the Pamirs and the Himalayas. Takshila was apparently part of their empire, the Achaemenid satrapies being Sogdiana (the land bordering Scythian-dominated steppes), Bactria (modern-day Balkh) and Gandhara (more or less the Kabul region) in the north, and in the south, the provinces of Arachosia and Gedrosia (now Balochistan, bordering the sea). The Scythians are generally considered to be a nomadic people who spoke East Iranian.

After Alexander III the Great overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, and died untimely at 33, his successors fought a series of wars among themselves. The part that concerns us is the breakaway of Balkh, or Bactria, and Sogdiana and Gandhara, under the Greek colonists of Alexandrine cities founded there, their clashes with Indian monarchs and their successes, culminating in their dominion of northern India at least as far as Mathura. But they were to meet their downfall at the hands of the Scythians and their allies, the Pahlavi, who were pushed out of the steppelands that they dominated by the Yueh Chi, earlier associated with the Kushana, and thought to have been speakers of the lost Centum language, Tokharian. These Scythians first moved into Sogdiana and Bactria, having been neighbours of Sogdiana, and in their influx destroyed the Bactrian Greeks, or the Indo-Greek kingdoms of Bactria, as political powers. This is sometime around 125 BC. The Scythians continued to press towards the core lands of Iran, putting pressure on the Iranian Empire of the Parthians, that was slowly emerging from the wreck of the Greek successor kingdoms to the Alexandrine Empire. They killed two Parthian Emperors, before the Parthians gathered themselves up and beat them back further east.

Very briefly, summarising centuries of battle, conquest, settlement, imperial rule and merging with the existing culture of the locations, the Scythians, in Indian languages, the Saka, settled in the old Arachosia and Gedrosia, and some parts of present-day southern Afghanistan came to be named after them, Sakasthan or Seistan. That was the western boundary; on the east, they ruled as the Northern Satraps in the Gandhara region, and the Western Satraps in the Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat region right into Malwa, until being thrown back by a powerful southern emperor, Gautamiputra Satakarni, Emperor of the Satavahanas, sometime in the second half of the first century AD. However, their influence in Gujarat continued till as late as the 5th century AD, when they were conquered (but not expelled) by the Gupta Emperor, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, around 395 AD.

To return to the point that you made, the first Indic religion adopted by the Scythian-Saka or the Kushana was Buddhism, that having got a grip on the people of the north-west by then. Buddhism began to decline under the Guptas, and it is then, in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, that the Scythians, or Saka, the Kushana and others began to be 'Sanskritised', or brought into the Hindu social system by Brahmins who created genealogies for them, accounted for their entry into Hinduism (technically impossible) through the legends of the Sun Dynasty, the Moon Dynasty and the Fire Dynasty.

It is at this point that the fierce steppe warriors were gradually settled into an Indian social framework as Kshatriyas, as Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.

So it was not that they got rough treatment from Hindus, but the other way around. They came as conquerors; Alexandria on the Oxus was left a smouldering ruin by them when they conquered it. They put their mark permanently on India; two calendar eras were triggered by them, the Vikram Era of 57 BC, marking their expulsion from Malwa by King Vikram of Ujjain, and the Saka Era of 78 AD, marking their return.

That is why I expressed surprise at what you wrote.

Sir from my bloodline i was told we are Chandrvanshi Kshatriyas as described by you moon dynasty but love to take your head for my history in the Sub continent.

I am Jatt.
So what?
Is it good, is it bad; it matters not.

People need to get over their identity complexes.

I don't understand this pride sense of shame/pride that some people have about what their ancestors where/weren't. What difference does it made if they worshipped, fire or elephants or some other pagan diety?

If your worried about your "muslimness" focus on your aqeeda not your caste.

If your worried aobut your "Pakistaniyat" focus on civic duty, not re-writing history.

What is a nation? Basically lines in the dirt which define what resources you have access too. Your focus should be on best utilising those resources for the benefits of the people who are within those lines. That is a matter to be proud of, not ancestory. What your ancestor did/did not do was his or her own deed and the merit of it ends with them.

What is your surname if you don't mind me asking?

 

[saiyan0321]

Please, gentlemen, this is a sensitive subject, our lineage and heritage is dear to each of us, let us consider the matter dispassionately and in a spirit of detached academic enquiry. I find the subject of absorbing interest, because these social structures served a purpose once upon a time, a negative or a positive purpose, depending on our own individual points of view. We can do worse than look at what impact these had on society, and what continued impact it has at the present day. Is it helping us in our social development? Is it holding us back? We have already watched it for seventy years after independence; there is now enough evidence to consider the matter.

Some of us are less knowledgeable than others. In a very selfish way, let me appeal to other participating members to overlook our glaring errors, and to correct them instead of criticising them and their authors.

I am Going to back Joe up here and second his request. I would also like to know more about the genealogical history of these tribes.. I am surrounded by them. :p

On top of it I sincerely believe that a good historical discussion can come of it and I love reading history.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Your other id (paksarzameen) got banned ... I know who you are, that's why I don't take you seriously Afghani ''gujjar"

I know him, he's a gujjar. Stop calling anyone who doesn't conform to your narrative an Afghani.

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.

It's not a part of the caste system and they are not originally based off of profession. These are distinct tribes; with some even having their own languages like Gojri; they are based off of the Biradari system of Punjab.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Those are literally features that the Ancient Iranic conquerors (who Rajputs are said to be descended from) possessed.

Back then, most natives were pretty dark. Only foreigners had a wheatish complexion. This isn't just the case for Bharat, the same can be said for Pakistan.

Irani (Aryan) tribes were fair skinned compared to the Gangetic Dravidians from which most Indians are descended from.

Our ancestors were racist and looked at them with disdain, we have no ill feelings toward dark skinned people now because of Islam.

Rajputs were traditionally arrogant and viewed themselves as superior to the natives of the Gangetic plains.

It is will well known that only the most warlike and martial of the Rajput clans could survive the constant warfare of the Punjab. Minor clans were exterminated or fled to other areas.

This is why this region has always been known to supply some of the best soldiers, warriors, and generals throughout history from Alexander’s time, Dilli Sultanah, Afghan empires, Persian rule, Arab conquest, Mughal dynasty, British rule, and now Pakistan.

What I don’t understand is Hindu pseudo-historians who come to Pakistani history or identity threads and act like they are superior?

They will get a rude awakening.

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.

Again with this nonsense.

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!

When the realization hits Indians that even according to their caste system, Pakistanis are high born with more prestigious castes and lineages.

Now, they are telling us to forget our ancestry. Lol.

All while they harp on about their supposed superiority day in and out.

Pakistanis are generally fair skinned compared to Indians, this is a fact and not racist to admit it.

It is not only a result of Arab, Persian, Turk genes, but Pakistani clans and tribes even according to Hindus were high born Iranis (Aryans.)

Many tribes in Pakistan have absolutely no foreign Middle Eastern DNA but still have fair complexion, light hair, light eye colors.

I am not talking about Pukhtoons, Baloch, or Kalash, but Punjabi, Sindhi, and Kashmiri clans.

 

[M. Sarmad]

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

In BC era, Gujjars have remained one of the most vibrant identities of Central Asia. They later migrated to Northern India (Gujarat and Rajasthan) and it was there they developed their unique identity and culture, and established several Kingdoms (from the fifth century onward). Later on, due to multiple reasons, they moved out of the plains towards Himalayas and Punjab/KP (from the tenth century onward). While moving in towards the Indian subcontinent and then moving 'out' of Northern and Central India to Himalayas, the Gujjars went on giving names to their settlements.

I know him, he's a gujjar. .

And who are you? And why should I believe in what an anonymous/incognito poster on internet has to say about another anonymous/incognito person? .. not even sure if you two are different persons in real life...

No Gujjar who knows his history will ever try to dissociate himself from his ethnic roots. The OP is a known racist, a multiple id troll.