Talk:Jats/Archive 1

message: The term Gotra is fron sanskrit meaning Cowpen.
So, Chaudhary's are Jats?  Either way, parts of this article are horrible, with their overly flowery language, and I would think that they might violate NPOV.  DigiBullet 18:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article still needs a lot of improvement. If you find copyrighted material, you should feel free to remove it or rewrite it; same with POV material. Tom Radulovich 17:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clans

message: There is no historical reference that can be found regarding conflicts between Jatts and any of the above mentioned Clans. The Janjua records and archives do not show any major conflict or rebellion to their rule until the time of Raja Ranjit Singh when many Jatts allied with him together with other clans. The Ghakker federation records also record similarly no conflict with them before Raja Ranjit Singhs conquest. There were however some disputes between varying communities which were normal in Indias long civil unrest between each Kingdoms, but to make the above point without proof is quite exaggerated. 
These points are not meant to offend any one, just clear up some points regarding the historical reference of key events and the positions of a certain clan in contrast to a class.
>>Valid points above,but please state sources.
- Ghakker Kiani federation of Rawalpindi- entire family tree and records of the ghakker/Kokkhar clan.
- Janjua Rajput archives and records of Jhelum Pakistan records of all imperial wars and judgement include political alliances. Also Tahreek-e-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Janjua
- Islamic History of the 1st 4 Caliphs- many authors of the subject and references that the Zott tribes were essentially localised tribes of the name Zott. making the point unlikely that it was the class name. The only pople classified openly by class were the Bedouin. 
The above points are genuine and actually call into question the authors assertions about them. I feel in this context it is up to the author to justify his/her claims.
*******
I agree.
This  account of "constant conflict" appears untenable.
Can we have details of the genealogical trees, and other details from the Ghakkar Federation, and Janjua Sahib's book?
ravi 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jatts and Janjua, Ghakkars and Awan being in constant Conflict 

message: Takhar is a gotra of Jats. I personally know many families. It can be included in the list of Jat gotras. burdak 07:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Takhar

message: Bhim Singh Dahiya has established that Kushan or Yuezhi were Jats. There were two branches of Yuezhi people. One of the branches was called "Ta-Yuezhi" which means "The great Jats". The other branch was "Siao-Yuezhi" which means "The little Jats". The Greek historian Herodotus wrote Massagetae for Ta-Yuezhi and Thyssagetae for Siao-Yuezhi. The Yuezhi people inhabited the Outer Mongolia and Gansu province of China.burdak 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jats are yuezhi

message: I have largely completed the copyediting of the article. I did not change much of the content because I admittedly do not know much about the Jats;  I leave that to the other editors.  The books section is now more standardized, though I do doubt my abilities to cite books correctly.  Also, I did not yet edit the section of references.  MToje
Hullo - I ran through it and did a little more copyediting, though I too didn't change content because I don't know much about the Jats either.  I'd suggest striking the paragraph in the beginning about their military history, though - it's made redundant later in the article.  Also, I take it Jat and Jatt are acceptable alternative spellings? If not, then there's quite a few small changes to make.Candle-ends 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jat copyediting 

message: I finished copyediting this article and removed the tag.  Many specific claims made in the article still need to be connected with specific references; see Wikipedia:Footnotes.
:The Malwa plateau was under their rule and Harsha, last ruler of the city of Thanesar.
If Harsha was a Jat (it doesn't mention that in his article), he can be re-added to the article. I removed the second part of the above sentence because it was unclear what it has to do with the Jat.
I moved the section on Germanic tribes to Germanic peoples, since it did not have anything to do with the Jat.  
The section on genetics is rather murky.  I tried to clarify what "Y-SNP" means, but more explanation needs to be given about which halogroups are being referred to at various points.  The reference to yhrd.org was non-specific, and not helpful to me in sorting this out or verifying any of the information in the section.  Some of what is claimed in the article may be original research, but I'm not sure, due to the unclear references.  Also, this section needs a clear summary for laypeople about what the scientific evidence does or does not show about the relationships between the Jat and other ethnic groups.
The intro to the list of clans does not explain the relationship between caste and clan well enough for me to understand it. 
Many of the titles in the "Famous Jat people" section need clarification, and acronyms need to be expanded.  Some should be linked to articles on the title, if appropriate, after being disambiguated.
* Bhupinder S. Liddar - P.C., M.P., Consul General 
Based on the reference, I'm not sure this is correct, especially if these are supposed to mean "Privy Counselor" and "Member of Parliament".
-- Beland 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "ajay jarto hunan" means as under word by word
ajay = conquered i.e. past form of jay
jarto = jat, when it is sanskritized
hunan = to huns, in sanskrit
burdak 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text, references, and copyediting 

message: "But before the earliest Muslim conquests the Jats had spread into Punjab proper, where there were firmly established in the beginning of the eleventh century. By the time of Babar, the Jats of the salt range had been in constant conflict with the Gakkhars, Awans and Janjuas. Tod classed the Jats as one of the great Rajput tribes; but here Cunningham differed from him holding the Rajputs to belong to the original Aryan stock, and the Jats to a late wave of immigrants from the north west, probably of Scythian race.
In 'Punjab Castes', Sir Denzil Ibbetson wrote: " .... the original Rajput and the original Jat entered India at different in its history. But if they do originally represent to separate waves of immigration, it is at least exceedingly probable, both from there almost identical physique and facial character and from the close communion which has always existed between them, that they belong to one and the same ethnic stock; and it is almost certain that the joint Jat Rajput stock contains not a few tribes of aboriginal descent, though it is probably in the main Aryo-Scythian, if Scythian be not Aryan."
(Both are just self serving theories of colonial bureaucrats.Unless someone objects with evidence I will remove these two paras)
Ravi Chaudhary 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''proposed deletion of paras from main article''' 

message: Kaswan or Kuswan or Kasuan is a gotra of Jats in Rajasthan and Haryana in India. The word Kaswan is 'XWN' of Tocharian language meaning 'King'. The Taxila Ladle Copper inscription bears this as 'Kaswin' word. In Mahabharata also there is mention of a country named 'Kuswan' which was situated in the north of Mansarovar lake. 
Presently Kaswan Jats are living in about 300 villages of Bikaner, Churu and Ratangarh areas. They were rulers in Sindh. Raja Kharwel has mentioned in an article about their rule in 2nd century of Vikram samvat -  ‘Hathi Gumpha and three other inscriptions’ (page 24) in Sanskrit as under:
“Kusawanam Kshetriyanam cha Sahayyatavatan prapt masik nagaram”. 
This means that the city of 'Masik' was obtained with the help of 'Kuswa' Kshatriyas
According to historian Bhim Singh Dahiya the correct name for Kushans in India is Kasuan, the present Kaswan clan of Jats of Rajasthan and Haryana. This title  remains in use by  Jat clan indicates their possibility of ancestral lineage from Kushans.
James Legge : A RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC INGDOMS, 
(Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414), in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline Translated and annotated with a Corean recension of the Chinese text)
mentions in chapter XII about the rule of Kanishka in foot note-4 that “Kanishka appeared, and began to reign, early in our first century, about A.D. 10. He was the last of three brothers, whose original seat    was in Yueh-she, immediately mentioned, or Tukhara.” 
He further mentions in footnote-6 that “This king was perhaps Kanishka himself, Fa-hien mixing up, in an inartistic way, different legends about him. Eitel suggests that a relic of the old name of the country may still exist in that of the Jats or Juts of the present day. A more common name for it is Tukhara, and he observes that the people were the Indo-Scythians of the Greeks, and the Tartars of Chinese writers, who, driven on by the Huns (180B.C.), conquered Transoxiana, destroyed the Bactrian kingdom (126 B.C.), and finally conquered the Punjab, Cashmere, and great part of India, their greatest king being Kanishak (E. H., p. 152).”
 
As per above discussion it is clear that the Kushan ruler  Kanishka was a Jat. 
It is proposed accordingly to included this fact in the History of Jats in this article. burdak 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kanishka]] was a Jat King of [[Kaswan]] clan

message: :There are some accuracy questions with the claims provided so I will need a couple of days to get the books cited and check if they accurately reflect the information edited in (I suspect they do not, but I could be wrong). Till then, plz keep the tag in the section.Thx.Hkelkar 12:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opression section

message: This very basic question does not seem to be answered anywhere in the article – there seems to be no mention of what the difference is between Jats and non-Jats today. I would call this a fairly significant failing. I've also tagged this article for cleanup because it is so disorganised. mgekelly 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Jat? 

message: I am appalled to see such a jumble of conflicting theories and hypotheses masquarading as "fact." It seems to me that a number of different people with pet theories as to the origin of the term "Jat" has managed to squeeze his or her ideas onto this page and often tried to present them as factual.
I certainly don't want to hurt feelings or to present myself as a particular expert on the history and derivation of the Jats, but the present article is really below par. 
Also, the assumed connections between Jats and Kanishka and the Kushans seem to be based on very old references which were originally little more than speculations by various mostly 19th century scholars based on vague similarities between various names, and do not fit with more up-to-date research. 
There may well be some connection Jats and the Kushans - but this is far from proven and and a lot more work needs to be done before such a theory is presented as a serious item in the Wikipedia. I think this whole article needs to be rewritten with a careful examination of the competing theories rather than presenting their conclusions as facts. Verifiable data needs to be carefully presented and thoroughly referenced and appropriately qualified. I will, in the meantime, add a few qualifiers to at least take the edge off some of the wilder claims - but I just don't have the time or energy to do a proper job of rewriting it all. When this is done I would suggest that all other articles in the Wikipedia referring to Jats should be similarly checked and revised as necessary. Is there anyone out there who could try to rewrite this article in a balanced factual manner, please?
>>
John
We appreciate your translation efforts, from chinese sources.
There is plenty of evidence from the Jat historical traditions pointing out the Kaniska is a Jat and recent historical research confirms, not negate that.
It you wish to counter that, then  you must provide solid evidence to the contrary.
Ravi Chaudhary 21:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious cleanup and verification of facts needed

message: *There are historians who consider Jats to be of Indo-Aryan origin. On the basis of ethnological, physical and linguistic standards by many historians like E.B.HavellE.B.Havell: The history of Aryan rule in India, page 32, QanungoQanungo: History of the Jats, C.V.VaidyaC.V.Vaidya: History of Medieval Hindu India, Sir Herbert Risley Sir Herbert Risley: The People of India, Thakur DeshrajThakur Deshraj: Jat Itihasa, Mangal Sen JindalMangal Sen Jindal: History of Origin of Some Clans in Indiaetc., who condider Jats to be Indo-Aryan. Dr Natthan Singh writes that Jats were the pure Aryans and their original homeland was Sapta Sindhu. On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC. Dr Natthan Singh: Jat - Itihas (Hindi), Jat Samaj Kalyan Parishad Gwalior, 2004 (Page 9) CV Vaidya: Mahabharata a criticizm, Bombay 1904 (Page 55-78) They had to migrate from India on economic, social and political reasons for some period but they returned back to India. In the migration also they did not leave their language and cultural traditions. Due to this reason only Jats do not have linguistic or physical similarities with Huns and Scythians. Dr Natthan Singh: Jat - Itihas (Hindi), Jat Samaj Kalyan Parishad Gwalior, 2004 (Page 38) This view is also supported by Thakur Deshraj who writes that on the basis of ethnological, physical, cultural and linguistic standards Jats are pure Aryans who inhabited the areas on the banks of Ganga-Yamuna or Sarswati-Sindhu during Vedic civilization. Thakur Deshraj: Jat Itihasa, Page 64
*There is other group of Historians like, Sir Alexander Cunnigham Alexander Cunningham, History of Sikhs and Col James Tod  James Tod, Annals , Bhim Singh Dahiya, V. Smith etc who consider the Jats to be of Indo-Scythian stock.
*There are data available about genetics of Jats as discussed above.
*There is need to clear this position on solid historical facts. It is proposed to add a new section in this article about the migration of Jat population. The migration of Jats has not been mentioned in the article so far. The migration pattern, period and the movement will lead to  more clear history and theory about origin of Jats. burdak 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Migration of Jats

message: Dear Shri L R Burdak:
I have just noticed your recent comments. First, I have added a marker to your note which allows all the references you gave to be easily readable - I hope this is O.K. with you? 
I was very surprised to find your statement: "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC." You give Dr Natthan Singh's book: Jat - Itihas (Hindi), as a reference for this. I have been studying Indian history for more than 25 years and I have never come across any historical information which can be accurately dated earlier than about the middle of the first millenium BCE. If Dr. Natthan Singh's claims can be verified, this would indeed be a landmark in the study of Indian history. Perhaps you would be kind enough to outline the evidence for this very early and remarkably precise dating? Thank you. John Hill 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query on historical accuracy of dates for Jats

message: Hi John Hill, 
There are two references cited above with 3102 BC. One is Dr Natthan Singh who is a reputed author of 'History of Jats'. Another reference is that of CV Vaidya who is an authority on Indian history. After your note above I tried to find more references. I found in Sister Nivedita book on Myths of The Hindus and BuddhistsSister Nivedita & Ananda K.Coomaraswamy: Myths and Legends of the Hindus and Bhuddhists, Kolkata, 2001 (Page) in which she has given calculations about Hindu cosmology. She has mentioned that commencement of Kali yuga coincides with the day of the death of Krishna. This way this year coincides with death of Krishna. We have this on wikipedia as well. This year is mentioned on its link page of 3102 BC that:
*3102 BC – Astrological evidence places this date to be the death of Krishna at the age of 125
*3102 BC — Year 0 of the Kali Yuga begins
Regards, burdak 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year [[3102 BC]]

message: Dear Shri Burdak,
What you are saying, I gather, is that according to Hindu cosmology certain events took place in 3102 BC. While this may be accepted as fact by some Hindus, this sort of calculation is usually not accepted by people of other faiths as "historical fact." Many religious traditions have made calculations of this sort based on their scriptures and traditions. For example, the Anglican Archbishop James Ussher calculated on the basis of comparing information in the Christian scriptures with established historical dates that the world was created in 4004 BC. Nowadays most Christians, including most Anglicans (not to mention people of other faiths), no longer accept this date as worthy of serious consideration. It would be better in a general encyclopedia such as this, I suggest, to present such information in terms as such "calculations based on Hindu cosmology or tradition." Cheers, John Hill 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on 3102 BC

message: Dear John Hill,
Thanks for the suggestions. There is a need to find some solid historical fact. That is why I put it for discussion. I found that you have done a good work in Buddhist literature. Most of the Jats had adopted Buddhism when it was at peak. There is a need to research the Buddhist literature about origin and history of Jats. Mahavansha, provides a continuous historical record of over two millennia. At one point I find a comment about Chandragupta Maurya as under-
"Mahavamsa describes Chandragupta as coming of Kshatriya clan of Maurya: 
Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata. (Geiger Trans p 27)." 
The meaning of this shloka in sanskrit is that Mauryas are Jat of kshatriya  clan. Can you  suggest  further approach about this and links which provide material on Jats in Buddhist literature or traditions. burdak 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jat in [[Mahavamsa]]

message: Dear Shree Burdak:
Thank you very much for your last note which is, indeed, of great interest and importance as it seems to firmly establish that the Mauryas were of Jat lineage. 
Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the Mahavamsa available other than the on-line in the two internet links given in the Wikipedia article on the Mahavamsa. I haven't been able to find the passage you mention in either of these on-line versions of the Geiger translation but, perhaps, they are not complete or the English translation is faulty. I would be very grateful if you could send me the full quote and reference and any other details you can find. I will search for other references to Jats in my books and notes as soon as I can. I will search for more references to jats in my books and references as soon as I can. Many thanks, John Hill 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Jat in [[Mahavamsa]] 

message: Dear Ravi: I certainly don't want to argue for the sake of arguing but you must realise that there is a difference between "historical traditions" and "history." There are many "historical traditions" that have been proven wrong in recent years. 
To give just one example - it was almost universally thought until recent years that European Gypsies or Roma orignally came from Egypt (not least by the European Gypsies or Roma themselves). However, recent linguistic evidence suggests that they originally came from India instead. 
Another example is the collection of legends surrounding King Arthur in Britain forming quite an elaborate "historical tradition" but, unfortunately, it is still being argued as to whether there ever was a 'real' King Arthur on which the legends were based. And I doubt whether you could find any historian, even a fanatically nationalistic British one, who would dare claim that all the stories told about King Arthur and his court are accurate or could be accepted as "history." 
You are, of course, quite at liberty to accept your people's ancient historical traditions as being correct and true - many people of many traditions, cultures and religions do - but you can't expect others to accept them too without reliable and verifiable evidence. Often various traditons are contradictory or can be interpreted in different ways - which has frequently led to arguments and wars. Therefore, until such evidence can be presented clearly and authoritatively, they should not be reported in a work such as the Wikipedia as "history" or "historically factual" but, rather, as "traditions" or "beliefs." John Hill 05:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Dear Ravi:
You are misrepresenting my statements and I would ask you to please stop doing so. I have never said or even implied that history cannot include historical traditions - but I have said that historical traditions are not necessarily history.  
I am only asking you to clearly state when you are dealing with an historical tradition and not a matter of established and widely-accepted fact. So, if indeed there is a tradition that Ashoka and Kanishka (and/or other early famous monarchs) were Jats, there is nothing wrong in presenting them as being Jats according to Jat traditions and, wherever possible, giving the references for this. However, I do strongly object to them being presented as established historical facts - even if some Jats accept them as such - unless you are able to present convincing evidence. 
Often there is more than a grain of truth in historical traditions. However, historical traditions on their own are not usually considered to be "history" - as I am sure you are well aware. They need to be checked against as much reliable data as can be gathered and, even then, they are often unable to substantiated thoroughly enough to be generally considered as historical "facts." 
A case in point - many Christians literally believe that Jesus was the only son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified and died on a cross, rose again from the dead, and will be present at a Judgement Day when the righteous will be bodily elevated to heaven. Now, non-Christians (and, indeed, many Christians) do not believe this is literally true (which, by the way, is not necessarily saying there is absolutely no truth in it). 
So, in a work like the Wikipedia one would expect a balanced approach to this account and to preface it with something like: "Christian traditions state that . . . ." Or: "The new Testament says that . . . .." 
And, of course, this exactly kind of qualification you will find if you go to the Wikipedia article on Christianity, which  opens with the passage: "Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the awaited Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore they call him the Christ." 
All I am asking for is a similar regard for presenting an accurate, balanced, well-referenced account on Jats and their history.
Now, to a couple more minor points which you raised. You state: 
:"Nothing you have posted so far, shows that you have any information that would convince anyone that Kaniska and the Kushans were not Jats.
:Simply casting doubt, does not a rational argument make."
I have never tried to convince anyone that Kanishka and the Kushans were not Jats - only that I have yet to be shown any convincing evidence that this was the case. It is, indeed, quite possible they were Jats, I just don't think a convincing enough case has been made to assert this as fact. 
I might also add, as a reply to your comment that - simply because someone states that something is true does not mean others should necessarily accept that it is true.
You then say:
:"As a side note, you are using  late chinese terminology for a much earlier non chinese people."
Please remember that I was primarily discussing Kanishka and the Chinese names I was using are based on a document which is specifically stated to have been presented to the Chinese Emperor by one of his senior generals in the early 2nd century CE - precisely the period in which it is thought Kanishka was alive. 
Other names which have been commonly associated with the Kushans (such as "Tokhara") are still being hotly debated by historians and are not as well attested as the Chinese names.
Finally, you suggest we move this discussion to the "Jathistory" group. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate this group - would you please give me the directions to find it?
Sincerely, John Hill 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Ravi Chaudhary