Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars

[Great Janjua]

History of my roots http://www.apnakharian.com/html/history.html

 

[atya]

Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.

I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.

Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.

When I ask a supposed Indian Hindu Rajput what is their lineage and clan, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.

In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.

We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.

 

[313ghazi]

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.


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

My surname is not a caste based surname. It is an Arabic name. Obviously I don't want to disclose personal details on the Internet.

Our family have been settled in Rajouri District of IOK for about 15 generations. Before then we were cattle herders who migrated north.

I asked at home - we originated from Pindi Bhatti an. We are Jatt Bhatti.

 

[Great Janjua]

Well interesting story my family moved from a small rural village in gujrat during 1600s to now what now is known as awana pind in kharian our whole village is basically from two guys one who is mehar gujjar and the other half from my family lineage the jatts so basically these two guys fought over several sites in order to establish their rightful ownership over an area my great great great great grandparent the jatt guy established himself and his wife on the higher grounds and began multiplying and the mehar gujjar took the less elevated sites in our village and began multiplying so basically my village is half gujjar and half jatt even till this day if you visit my village you would be able to tell the clear difference but now syeds and other clans have migrated and established their roots on the edges of our village

 

[M. Sarmad]

We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.

Rajput is not a tribe. This "Real" vs "Fake" Rajput debate is based upon a false premise.
While some Rajput clans appeared in India in BC era, they did not use term "Rajput" to describe themselves. It was only after the ruin of Gupta empire by the Huns that "Rajputs" came into existence. Huns, Jats, Gujjars, hephthalites etc assimilated to form Rajput community around 1500 years ago.
This 'title' was then taken up by several other non-related ruling clans across Northern India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

This is the only thing that matters. We are Indians because we choose to be Indians. You are Pakistanis because you choose to be Pakistanis. All the rest is time-pass.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Would you care to educate me?

I wish I could detail, but it't time consuming, and I don't think you are interested in learning the difference. Anyway,
For starters, there is no puranism which literally means old 'ism'. And vedism translates to knowledge 'ism'.
In simple terms, Vedas are divided into four (not the divisions of Vedas like Rig, Yajur, Sama, Adharva), but four sections in all these four Vedas.

We have Vedanta, part of Vedas which has itihas like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita and the most important part of it is Upanishads. Other parts include Brahmana, Samhitas, Aranyaka.

General Hindus may or may not learn Vedas, Upanishads are philosophies and itihas are for the people to learn and take examples from them to practice in their life. Itihas is simplified epics on how those people like lord Ram, Krishna, Arjun etc.. uphold the Dharma.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.

That is not impossible, but it is wrong to say that 'real' Rajputs are from their progeny. There was nothing called a real Rajput in the first place; it was an artificial construct to give the steppe warriors and rulers of north India and west India a kshatriya status. As has been pointed out by @M. Sarmad , others then aligned to this new elite, and continued doing so even until recent times. I gave you an example; there are self-upgradations upto this day and age, and the carefully-preserved bloodlines will not matter for several concrete reasons. You can work out those reasons for yourselves, from the answers and posts in this thread itself.

I wish I could detail, but it't time consuming, and I don't think you are interested in learning the difference. Anyway,
For starters, there is no puranism which literally means old 'ism'. And vedism translates to knowledge 'ism'.
In simple terms, Vedas are divided into four (not the divisions of Vedas like Rig, Yajur, Sama, Adharva), but four sections in all these four Vedas.

We have Vedanta, part of Vedas which has itihas like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita and the most important part of it is Upanishads. Other parts include Brahmana, Samhitas, Aranyaka.

General Hindus may or may not learn Vedas, Upanishads are philosophies and itihas are for the people to learn and take examples from them to practice in their life. Itihas is simplified epics on how those people like lord Ram, Krishna, Arjun etc.. uphold the Dharma.

I suspect @TMA is referring to an implied belief in the Vedas per se having been developed in the Punjab, or in the north-west in general, against the extensions and additions incorporated into the Puranas. You surely know the correct response to that mistaken notion. And it is a mistaken notion, especially when one comes to the 'itihasa', a term that has led to a great deal of grief and confusion. Or the Bhagavad Geeta.

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.

Don't go overboard about that 'gotra' bit; in my region, Brahmins and we share the same gotras (some Brahmins and we; there are five kinds). But there are possibly ethnic reasons for that. This is not the place for that discussion; you might like to look up which were the only two sets of people that Vidyasagar accepted as students in the Sanskrit College.

For those who have spent a great deal of time posting on this thread, may I strongly recommend looking up the history of the period after Alexander's invasion, before the rise of the Gupta Empire, and especially in what @Indus Pakistan would define as the Pakistan that was to be. It is a fascinating history, especially due to its being the precursor, the prelude, as it were, to the happenings from the 7th century onwards, through into the Sultanate of Delhi. It is difficult to avoid seeing it as a continuous narrative, with enormous context for Pakistanis in particular.

There used to be a series called The Comprehensive History of India, and that was the best for this period. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series also has a volume on the period, but the writing does not attract interest; it is difficult to stay awake. I am not familiar with the oeuvre of Professor Dani, but that polymath must have written extensively on this. Perhaps someone familiar with his writing for UNESCO can tell us. But whatever posts have been made need to be read and re-read with that historical foundation and background in mind.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I suspect @TMA is referring to an implied belief in the Vedas per se having been developed in the Punjab, or in the north-west in general, against the extensions and additions incorporated into the Puranas. You surely know the correct response to that mistaken notion. And it is a mistaken notion, especially when one comes to the 'itihasa', a term that has led to a great deal of grief and confusion. Or the Bhagavad Geeta.

I clearly understand what he implied. This thread is all about drawing difference of 'you/me' and 'them'. I replied to it because, out of all the casteist buffoonery in the this thread, his comment stand out (on a different level of buffoonery) which draw my attention.

I wouldn't give a great deal of importance to epics/itihasa (personally, I'm more interested in the philosophical aspects of the Upanishads). It was twisted and used on convenience throughout the history (be it Vaishnavites vs Shaivites or the recent events relating to temples).

 

[Joe Shearer]

I clearly understand what he implied. This thread is all about drawing difference of 'you/me' and 'them'. I replied to it because, out of all the casteist buffoonery in the this thread, his comment stand out (on a different level of buffoonery) which draw my attention.

I wouldn't give a great deal of importance to epics/itihasa (personally, I'm more interested in the philosophical aspects of the Upanishads). It was twisted and used on convenience throughout the history (be it Vaishnavites vs Shaivites or the recent events relating to temples).

I prefer 'mistaken impression' to 'buffoonery'. Really.

The Upanishads is a different thing altogether. Which are your favourites? Maybe we should take this discussion elsewhere.

 

[Yogijaat]

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


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.

I will take words of my elders over you. It is very much based on profession.
Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary. None of them originally from Punjab. Jat came from sindh, Rajput says their forefathers were born in mount abu Rajasthan, gujjars came much earlier than both jats and rajputs.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will take words of my elders over you. It is very much based on profession.
Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary. None of them originally from Punjab. Jat came from sindh, Rajput says their forefathers were born in mount abu Rajasthan, gujjars came much earlier than both jats and rajputs.

These are very narrow regional interpretations; the Ahirs and Yadavs have better credentials (in western India only) as cowherds. Everyone is a farmer, not particularly the Jat. And the Rajput is born to battle, with or without the money; 'mercenary' has strong connections. Jats from the Sindh is quite possible; remember where the Sakas ruled? Rajputs talk about Mount Abu because the archetypical fire sacrifice took place there. Gujjars coming in much earlier is merely a memory of the phased, pulse nature of the incursions of this period.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I will take words of my elders over you. It is very much based on profession.
Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary. None of them originally from Punjab. Jat came from sindh, Rajput says their forefathers were born in mount abu Rajasthan, gujjars came much earlier than both jats and rajputs.

Professions came later. They are original lineages with common ancestors.

Indus people also did not follow caste system as Gangetic people did.

Rajput is not a tribe. This "Real" vs "Fake" Rajput debate is based upon a false premise.
While some Rajput clans appeared in India in BC era, they did not use term "Rajput" to describe themselves. It was only after the ruin of Gupta empire by the Huns that "Rajputs" came into existence. Huns, Jats, Gujjars, hephthalites etc assimilated to form Rajput community around 1500 years ago.
This 'title' was then taken up by several other non-related ruling clans across Northern India.

May be the case for some, however there are three original lineages of Rajputs descended from one common ancestor.

 

[M. Sarmad]

These are very narrow regional interpretations; the Ahirs and Yadavs have better credentials (in western India only) as cowherds. Everyone is a farmer, not particularly the Jat. And the Rajput is born to battle, with or without the money; 'mercenary' has strong connections. Jats from the Sindh is quite possible; remember where the Sakas ruled? Rajputs talk about Mount Abu because the archetypical fire sacrifice took place there. Gujjars coming in much earlier is merely a memory of the phased, pulse nature of the incursions of this period.

As pointed out by Col. James Todd (the British Surveyor General of Rajasthan), the Sanskrit inscriptions (since sixth century AD) on ancient palaces, temples, forts etc. tell us that those buildings had been built by the Gujjars and not by the Rajputs (several supposedly 'Rajput' kings of medieval India were ethnic Gujjars in fact). Similarly,while the association of the Gujjars with the Mount Abu is noticed in many inscriptions and epigraphs, the association of Rajputs with Mount Abu is mostly 'legendary'. I believe archaeological studies and sources give a more accurate account of the past than literary or legendary history.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

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.

A beautiful history, no doubt.

Much love to our Gujjar brothers.