Talk:Jats/Archive 3

READ: WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGE GUIDELINES
Users MUST follow Talk page guidelines. '''Particular attention must be focused on Wikipedia talk page unacceptable behaviour.

Jats in Shahnama
Mr John hill do not remove Jats in Shahnama section. You have not answered my questions and you are not an authority on the Jats. you do not understand Persian language. It amounts to vandalism removing content without verifying from referenced book. So the section is restored. Administrator Utcursh has given note that he will moderate this article. So why you are in hurry. Prove your worth by positive contribution to this article. Deletion needs no talent. --burdak 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Burdak - do not reverse my edits until you answer the questions I have posed above. I have given a properly referenced standard recent translation of the passage there which is obviously very different from the aberrant and incorrect translation you gave. There is no mention of Jats in the Shahnama at all - either in the Persian original or in standard English translations. Why don't you check out the references I gave before you embarrass yourself once again? John Hill 06:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. John Hill - You have not done any editing in proper sense. You have deleted well referenced content about Jats in Shahnama without verifying. I have hard copy with me from which I reproduced the content in Persian language. Time has not yet come so that you can rely fully on material available on internet especially when it is from languages you do not understand. I have shown you earlier also when you said there is no mention of jats in Satyarth Prakash. You have also deleted a line from my note that deletion needs no talent. I do not understand why you deleted my talk page note, which you are not supposed to do.  This shows your weakness. Do not delete the content till Administrator does proper editing. This is vandalism. Do you think there were no Jats in Persia ?--burdak 12:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Burdak: First, an apology to you is in order. I had highlighted your phrase deletion needs no talent to copy it, and then changed my mind, but must have deleted it by mistake. I am sorry - it was totally unintentional.


 * Now, as to the Shahnama - you accuse me of not verifying my statements about it. I think you should be very careful when you make such accusations - especially as you yourself have so frequently been found to not check your references properly. I try very hard to confirm references as carefully and as fully as I can. I first asked two colleagues of mine who are native Persian speakers to check the Persian text and both said they could find no reference to Jats and that the translation of the passage you referred to was best translated by Dick Davis. I have also myself checked two English translations - the one by Helen Zimmern and the more up-to-date one (1998) by Dick Davis, neither of whom make any mention of Jats anywhere in their translations. Finally, I have searched for the word "Jat" in two Persian variants (جات = jāt and جت = jat) through the full on-line Persian text and discovered that neither are in that text.


 * So, Mr. Burdak - I can only assume that we have here yet another example of you quoting a faulty translation. Since I asked you to quote the Persian text where "Jat" was supposed to appear and you have not done so, I assume that either you cannot find the supposed reference to Jats in the Persian text - or that you cannot read Persian yourself. So, until the Administrator Utcursh has a chance to check it all for himself and make a decision I will tag your passage on the Shahnama to warn readers that it is likely to be unreliable. Kindly do not remove the tags until the Administrator has time to check it all out. John Hill 23:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to John for the quality and coolness of his argument. The tagging of the passage does seem appropriate, and Mr.Burdak will have to better explain the foundations of his position. PHG 05:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Jats in Shahnama
Mr John Hill, I have already quoted Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery:"The Jats - Their Role and Contribution to the Socio-Economic Life and Polity of North and North West India, Vol.I, 2004. Page 36-37, Ed. by Dr Vir Singh, Publisher - M/S Originals (an imprint of low priced publications), A-6, Nimri commercial Centre, Near Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi-110052". The article published in this book by Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery of Delhi university under the title "The Jat in Shah Nama of Firdowsi" is based on the Persian text of Shah Nama by Abdul Qasim bin Ishaq bin Sharaf Shah Firdowsi Tusi, published by Mohammad Ramazani, Mossisa-e-khavar, Tehran 1310 A.H./1931 AD. He has given English Version as well as Persian versions in his article and both are produced below:

English version


 * "I would ask all
 * About the king, the rebellions and the troops


 * All the renowned ones of that region
 * Such as Tus, Kaous and Gudarz


 * The knights and the valliants of the country of Iran
 * Like, Gostahm[51] and praiseworthy Giv


 * About Bahram,[53] and the renowned Rostam


 * I ask you about every Jat, you count them for me"

Persian version in Roman


 * "Bedu goft kaz to beporsm hamah


 * ze shah o ze gardankashan o ramah


 * hamah namdaran e an marz ra


 * chu tous o chu kaous a gudarz ra


 * daliran o gordan eIran zamin


 * chou Gostahm o choun Giv ba afrin


 * ze Behram o az Rostam e namdar


 * ze har jat beorsam be man bar shomar"

First any body who says it to be wrong has to read Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery's article. If Mr John Hill does not find on internet, it is not evidence that it does not exist. I have given both versions. It appears that any reference to a Muslim writer, be it Albiruni or Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery, irritates Mr John Hill and he refuses to accept. Mr PHG, you should also read first and then comment. It is not a court that I have to explain my position. It is the responsibility of Wikipedians to expand and improve not only this article but all the articles. By the way John Hill has found a good blind supporter in PHG.--burdak 10:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for public apology from Mr. Burdak
I can hardly believe you are so silly as to quote AGAIN (as evidence that he was right) the same passages from the very author whose "translation" and "transliteration" I have questioned. Do you think I did not read them the first time? If you wish to be taken seriously, please quote the actual Persian text - not Jaffery's attempt at romanisation. As I have carefully pointed out - his translation of this passage is highly suspect.

And how can you possibly place any faith in Albiruni's references to Krishna when you yourself claim that Krishna died in 3201 BCE - some 4,000 years before Albiruni's time? Can you not see that it is probable that Albiruni was just repeating some legend that he had been told? Do you not realise that legends tend to change over the millennia?

You really seem to exist in some kind of romantic fantasy of a glorious golden age of heroic "Most Honoured" Jats, who are descended from the gods, are "Pure Aryans", speak a "pure dialect of Hindi" and were (and are) quite obviously superior to other humans! I am sorry, but truly, it seems impossible to get through to you the differences between facts and bias, hypotheses and theories, and total speculation. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article here - not another epic romance.

And please stop your personal attacks and baseless and odious inferences that I am racially or religiously prejudiced. Unlike some writers who have contributed to this page, I have NEVER assessed someone's historical work on the basis of their ethnic or religious affiliations. I have told you this before and I will not repeat it again!

It is a complete fantasy of yours that "any reference to a Muslim writer . . . irritates Mr John Hill" and to say that I refuse to accept what they write (because they are Muslim). I regularly read a very wide range of books by Muslim (as well as Hindu and Christian and Sikh and Buddhist and Jewish and Atheist and Jain and Confucian and Bon and other) writers and scholars, most of whom I enjoy and many have much to teach me. So stop making up total lies about me! You must stop projecting your horrid and divisive prejudices on to other people.

If you have any integrity at all you will make a public apology to me (and to PHG) on this page for your totally unwarranted personal insults.

However, as I seriously doubt that you have the insight or moral character to apologise or even admit you might be mistaken at times (though I would be very happy to be proved wrong here), we will probably have to wait for the Administrators to sort all this out. I can only hope it happens soon - this ugly nonsense has gone on for far too long. John Hill 02:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr John Hill, Do not mislead
Mr John Hill, You are bent upon to prove your own POV without waiting for the administrator to come and do the necessary edits. You are putting wrong references of Romila Thapar in Ancient Jat kingdoms to prove your POV. Does she specifically say that Jats were not Mauryans. If you have any knowledge of ancient Indian literature, The ancient texts time and again write that there were struggles between Kshatriyas and Brahmans, in which the Brahmans tried to prove their own supremacy by down grading the status of Kshatriyas who were not in their line of thinking or following the Brahmanical superstitious philosophy. It does not imply that Mauryas were not Jats. Writing some people as low caste does not mean they were not Kshatriyas.If you are so confidant that Mauryas were not Jats can you tell us where have they ultimately gone? --burdak 05:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A Beginner's History Lesson for Mr. Burdak
Mr. Burdak - it has become crystal clear you have a very shaky and rudimentary knowledge of historical method and research. Of course Romilar Thapar does not say that the Mauryas were NOT Jats - she says exactly what I quoted her as saying, that: "The origins and caste status of the Maurya family vary from text to text" and that "The Mauryas were an obscure family . . . ." In other words, she is saying that one cannot be sure what their origins were. And, one of the things she implies by these statements, Mr. Burdak, is that there is no foundation to claim them as Jats or any other particular group, (as you have wrongly done), because the historical record is inconclusive.

Of course I know that references to people as being of low caste (especially by some prejudiced historians) does not mean they were not considered to be Kshatriyas by other people and religious groups. But, similarly, calling them Kshatriyas does NOT imply that they were necessarily Jats. And anyway, why are you so sensitive about caste? Isn't it long past time that you gave up such primitive and destructively abhorrent notions of the superiority of one group of people over another because of the circumstances of their birth and, instead, judge people on their individual merits and character? Sometimes, when I am talking to people like you I really despair for Mother India. What an ugly tragedy the whole notion of caste has proven to be! What unnecessary suffering it brings!

Now, although you have not had the good grace or manners to apologise yet for your outrageous, totally groundless and slanderous lies about myself above (implying that I do not respect writers if they are Muslim) but have, as usual, tried to distract readers away from your distasteful behaviour, I think that, in the interests of trying to turn this into a more productive dialogue for a change, I should try once again to explain to you some the basic facts of historical research of which you seem to be totally unaware.

Please pay attention - because this is one of the main areas in which you constantly trap yourself and expose yourself to ridicule.

I think most historians would agree that modern Jats are of mixed origin, probably descended from the many waves of invaders into northwestern India (including Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Sakas, Huns, Arabs and others). These invading armies were mostly made up of men and so it is logical that they would have mixed with the local Indian women upon conquering new territory, in time giving rise to people who came to identify themselves as "Jats." This sort of process is very common after conquests in many parts of the world. (Would you agree with this scenario, Mr. Burdak, or do you still want to claim membership of some "pure" race?)

Now, this does NOT mean that the invaders (such as the Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Sakas, Huns, Arabs and others) can be called Jats. At best, they can only be considered as being among the probable ancestors of Jats. I know you have trouble understanding this very basic point as you seem to be too blinkered with your one-eyed view of Jat history - so I can perhaps illustrate it more effectively by way of another example:

England, like northwestern India, was invaded, as we know, by successive waves of conquerors. The Celts overcame the ancient Britons and mixed with them, and then this process was repeated with the Romans (who stationed troops from many ethnic backgrounds in England for some 400 years), and later came the Vikings, the Saxons, Jutes, Angles and Normans, not to mention groups of refugees such as the Huguenots, Jews, etc., etc.)

Now, many English people can trace their families back to at least the Norman invasion. However, this does NOT mean that anyone can claim that the Normans were English or that the Vikings, Saxons, Angles, Celts, etc., should be referred to as "English." They were not English - only their descendants who mixed with the locals can be referred to as "English."

Nor should we refer to the Angles or Saxons as "English" even though the name "English" is apparently derived from "Angle" and some Welsh and Scots still refer to modern English as "Saxons."

Returning to northwest India: I think it is very likely that many modern Jats are partially descended from the Mauryas and Kushans although we still have no proof of this. However, even if we could prove it, this would NOT mean that the Mauryas or Kushans were "Jats" (any more than the Celts or Romans were "English") and scholars are by no means agreed as to where the Mauryas or Kushans came from and what their "original" ethnic and linguistic connections were. So, until more credible evidence comes to light we must leave the question open, and not make silly, unprovable claims that they were Jats or Rajputs or any other modern group of people - especially as their descendants are almost certainly of very mixed ancestry by now.

Finally, I must emphasise that there never was any group that could be referred to as "pure Aryan". Do we need to have another world war to convince people such as yourself of the truth of this? Genetic evidence clearly shows that modern humans are very very closely related and there has been much mixing and cross-breeding throughout history.

Although neither you nor I may be very happy to admit it - the truth of the matter is that you and I are cousins and probably much more closely related than we might wish. As the old saying goes: "You can't choose your family." If you want to claim that you are descended from the gods (for which there is absolutely NO real evidence) you should at least have the good grace to admit to the logical extension of this fantasy and say that ALL people are descended from these same gods.

Now, I don't want to communicate with you any more (unless and until you are man enough to apologise for your outrageous lies about me) - so please leave this discussion as it stands until the Administrators can arbitrate. John Hill 07:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

John Hill, You are Advocating a perverted theory about Jats
Thanks John Hill for beginners lesson in History. After all first time you have come out with your theory of Jats in your mind. That is why all the time you are putting dispute tags.

You said -"These invading armies were mostly made up of men and so it is logical that they would have mixed with the local Indian women upon conquering new territory, in time giving rise to people who came to identify themselves as "Jats."

Can you cite evidences in support of this statement?

Where from these people came and became Jats in India?

Who were the Indian women with whom these invaders mixed with?

Why the local Indians allowed their women to mix with them ?

Who were the Indian people when invaders came?

Where did they go after invasion?

Your statement shows that you do not know ABC of Jats, their culture and traditions. This is absolutely false and derogatory statement about Indians, specifically for Jats, for which you should apologize Mr John Hill.

My final reply to Mr. Burdak
First, I am still waiting for an apology for your unsubstantiated slanderous lies that I discriminate against Muslim writers.

Secondly, you "do not know ABC of" history or how to assess historical evidence. Conquering hordes and kings don't need and usually don't seek the permission of locals to mate with their women. As you well know there have been people living in India for many thousands of years before any of the invaders I mentioned arrived - those are the Indian people I suggest the invaders mixed with.

There is nothing at all derogatory about suggesting that the invaders mixed with the locals. This has happened regularly all over the world and without a doubt happened in northern India too - can you prove it did not? Why, if it did not, do so many people in northern India and Pakistan claim to be descendants of Alexander's soldiers? Why do so many Muslim Kashmiris claim they are descendants of Jews? How come so many Indians (including Jats) mixed with the British invaders? I presume you have heard of "Anglo-Indians"? How do you explain their existence?

Just because there are strict marriage rules among various groups of Jats does not ensure they are never broken - these sorts of prohibitions are never fully effective - especially over a period of many hundreds of years. No group of people can honestly claim to have never mixed with others - that is ridiculous in the extreme. Don't you know anything about human nature? It must be just your puritanism, outrageous megalomania and fanatical racism that makes you fantasize so constantly that Jats are "pure Aryans." There is, in fact, no such thing as "pure Aryans."

You seem to have an unhealthy fixation about the racial "purity" of your people. I suggest you seek professional help to learn how to deal with your fantasies, fears and prejudices - you are sounding more and more like a seriously disturbed and deeply troubled person. One can only feel sorry for you and hope for the best. John Hill 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Crazy assertions
No one can say that Chandrgupta maurya was a jat. These are non-sensical claims. Similarly Balhara was the name given to Rashtrakutas. There was no jat king with that name. Itihaaskar 05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please just stick to the facts if you have references from books that give a opposite side to the references in the section then provide them. Don't come here with meaningless views and opinions without references. Moreover, please construct sentences which do not have spelling mistakes in it and are not illiterate because it is highly embarrassing for the person reading it and not to mention you.--Peter johnson4 08:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chandragupta Maurya was not a Jat. We cannot expect non-sensical claims about Balhara either.

Itihaaskar 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Itihaaskar

 * Hi Itihaaskar,

You have just recently appeared on Wikipedia. I have observed that you have deleted lot of content from Jat people page, specially ancient Jat Kingdoms about which serious discussions are under progress. Deletion without any basis is vandalism. Do not repeat in future. If you have something worth adding here with proper references put it here on talk page for discussion. --burdak 13:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burdak,
 * Please do not sully history by making false claims about jat kings. Chandragupta was not a jat and neither was Ashoka.  You cannot write whatever you feel like.

Itihaaskar 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Itihaaskar,

Keep it up you are doing a great job in keeping history clean. No any Vandalism is happening from your side.It is hilarious for me as well as for all here to read Ashoka and Chandragupta as JAT rulers.Do not you feel, if people are doing useless excercises for claiming any famous personality/historical figures as Jat.

Kshatrap 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Kshatrap if you have nothing constructive to add then please keep you pointless POV to your self. You are new account and have only made 5 edits just on the Jat people article obviously a vandal account--James smith2 03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Dear James smith2 or who ever you are,

Stop self styled claims of yourself being a watchdog here. You are not entitled in any manner to give instructions on my intrests. If i have only interest in Jat_people page then what is your problem man. Now go and write fictious tales, i know it took lots of brain squash to key in such rubbish'''.Kshatrap 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Kshatrap

Stop vandalism
Dear Itihaaskar,

You are regularly deleting content about Jats from Jat people and other pages. If you think that Chandra Gupta Maurya was not of Jatclan and it is a false claim then put the facts to what clan he belonged to. Also put facts about Balhara rulers which prove things otherwise. Only your opinion will not do. It is your POV. Discuss it on talk page. Do not delete the content till some final consent is arrived at. --burdak 03:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are spreading misinformation. You can see here chandragupta is not a jat.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4526

Itihaaskar 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burdak, Please stop vandalising the page by meaningless reverts. Have you had a chance to read the yahoogroups link given above? Itihaaskar 13:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about has been discussed on this talk page earlier. See archives of this page. you have no evidences to support your ideas. It is you POV, which can not be accepted. There is already dispute tag put here with the administrator not that he will edit this page very soon. Do not delete any content till dispute is settled by the Administrators. So your action of deletion is vandalism--burdak 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the yahoo groups link? It is made very clear in that link chandragupta is not gutta and hence not jatta/jat/jutta.  Calling Chandragupta a jat is just a figment of imagination of some and nothing else. Please stop vandalising this page with your bias.
 * Itihaaskar 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Oiws" a sockpuppet? Administrators - would you please investigate?
Mr. "Owis", who claims to be a member of the Wikipedia's "Counter-Vanadlism Unit" and a "recent-changes patroller" has, apparently, made only two "contributions" to the Wikipedia - both to my Talk page.

The first was on 12th July this year when he warned me against "collusion" with "anti-Jat people" and said: "collusion is seen as a serious offence on wikipedia and is reportable." I strongly object to this completely groundless and insulting insinuation.

His next and final entry, so far, was on the 21st of July when he "suggests" that I work together with Mr. Burdak. He feels the "Wikipedia is lucky to have an expert like Mr Burdak on the Jat people." He then adds: "I feel you have have work with Mr Burdak rather than against him, I had a look back many months ago when you two were working together and I thought you two made a pretty good team. It would be a shame too let it ruin it - so please make a fresh start and work with Mr Burdak - this is the best way to improve things."

What "Owis" ignores is the fact that I have tried very hard for over a year to work with Mr. Burdak to improve this page, with very little success and regular abuse for my efforts. In that time Mr. Burdak has repeatedly been shown to distort history, to insert false and even non-existent references and to stoop to spreading outrageous lies accusing me of racial and religious prejudice. He was asked to apologise for these outright and baseless lies - but he never has. These facts are clearly recorded on the Jat people Talk Page and in the archives.

Mr. Burdak may well have considerable knowledge about Jat people but this knowledge is wasted as he has regularly demonstrated an appalling ignorance of how to assess historical evidence, and many times has been exposed as distorting evidence (and even inventing it) to support his own biased, vainglorious, romantic and, basically, racist view of Jat history.

I respectfully ask the Administrators to investigate "Owis" to determine if he is really a "sockpuppet" for someone else and, furthermore, to consider banning Mr. Burdak from these pages for abusing the trust of its readers and bringing both Jats and the Wikipedia into disrepute. Sincerely, John Hill 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

One more to the list 'James smith2', Some thing in same language written to me also , above on this page.

Kshatrap 08:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Kshatrap

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a place to show Jat ignorance or to spread fabricated propaganda.
Apart from seeing Ad Hominem all over this discussion page. I have also noted some rather hilarious jokes that some users wish to promulgate and proliferate. 1. Jats are Guptas and Chandragupta Maurya was a Jat. This comment serves no other purpose other than to make Historians and well read people laugh. There is absolutely no truth in this ludicrous statement and at best its of unambiguous veracity. If someone were to show me these statements in a non POV history book written by a reputable non biased historian then i may succumb into believing it. But so far no one can do so.

Wikipedia is a place for facts not half baked truths with no historical evidence. I wonder what is next are you guys going to start propounding that OHHH BATMAN AND SUPERMAN WERE ALSO JATS AND DONT FORGET SPIDERMAN WAS ALSO A JAT. If people want to write their own whimsical fairy tales about their community i suggest they write a fictional novel, because their talents in fiction would be suited to that. Because on wikipedia THE FACTS ARE MENTIONED all the good facts and all the bad. I notice the insecure users who spread these lies, love to write about all the good. But refuse to write the bad and the facts are that yes Jats are a martial nobility they were farmers and brave warriors in ancient times all credit should be given to them for that and their prowess and physical skill as warriors should be written about in this article. But in a rather dichotomous manner, on the other end of the stratosphere the facts are Jats in modern India are considered as a backward class (OBC) by the Indian government in 3 states Gujarat, Rajasthan, U.P Jats are eligible for reservation in these states. Now i wonder why no one postulates this in this article? The facts are OBC status is only given to communities who are in a bad and dire socio-economic uneducated circumstances. Only when people admit the bad can the bad be alleviated and neutralised, if the bad is swept underneath the carpet and hidden it will only grow to relegate everyone if attention isn't paid to abolish it. It serves the Jat community no good to wallow in their achievements centuries or thousands of years ago instead of rectifying their bad present circumstance in many states. Its detrimental to a community to not look to the future and instead just dwell on the past. Procrastinating by making flummoxed and untrue claims serves no one any good.

Secondly i notice more balderdash on Jats claiming to be " Aryan ". How can Jats claim to be Aryan when in the first place Anthropologists the ones who study races have said there is no such thing as an " aryan race ". The etymology of the word aryan is derived from the sanskrit word " arya " meaning to be " noble ". The first ever usage of the word aryan is also from Sanskrit text. The vedas say " one who has noble dharma is of arya lineage " meaning a human who is noble in actions is an aryan. Why do Indians think there is a racial divide between North and South India ?

Because the British ruled India, as they did other lands, by a divide-and-conquer strategy. They promoted religious, ethnic and cultural divisions among their colonies to keep them under control. Unfortunately some of these policies also entered into the intellectual realm. The same simplistic and divisive ideas that were used for interpreting the culture and history of India. Regrettably many Hindus have come to believe these ideas, even though a deeper examination reveals they may have no real objective or scientific basis.

One of these ideas is that India is a land of two races - the lighter- skinned Aryans and the darker-skinned Dravidians - and that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India whom the invading Aryans conquered and dominated. From this came the additional idea that much of what we call Hindu culture was in fact Dravidian, and later borrowed by Aryans who, however, never gave the Dravidians proper credit for it. This idea has been used to turn the people of south India against the people of north India, as if the southerners were a different race.

Europeans Vedic interpreters used this same racial idea to explain the Vedas. The Vedas speak of a battle between light and darkness. This was turned into a war between light skinned Aryans and dark skinned Dravidians. Such so-called scholars did not bother to examine the fact that most religions and mythologies including those of the ancient American Indians, Egyptians, Greeks and Persians have the idea of such a battle between light and darkness (which is the symbolic conflict between truth and falsehood), but we do not interpret their statements racially. In short, the Europeans projected racism into the history of India, and accused the Hindus of the very racism that they themselves were using to dominate the Hindus.

A number of European scholars of the 19th century, such as Max Muller, did state that Aryan is not a racial term and there is no evidence that it ever was so used in the Vedas, but their views on this were largely ignored. We should clearly note that there is no place in Hindu literature wherein Aryan has ever been equated with a race or with a particular set of physical charac- teristics. The term Arya means "noble" or "spiritual", and has been so used by Buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians as well as Hindus. Religions that have called themselves Aryan, like all of these, have had members of many different races. Race was never a bar for anyone joining some form of the Arya Dharma or teaching of noble people.

The idea of Aryan and Dravidian races is the product of an unscientific, culturally biased form of thinking that saw race in terms of color. There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller. While we can speak of some racial differences between north and south Indian people, they are only secondary.

For example, if we take a typical person from Punjab, another from Maharashtra, and a third from Tamilnadu we will find that the Maharashtrians generally fall in between the other two in terms of build and skin color. We see a gradual shift of characteristics from north to south, but no real different race. An Aryan and Dravidian race in India is no more real than a north and a south European race. Those who use such terms are misusing language. We would just as well place the blond Swede of Europe in a different race from the darker haired and skinned person of southern Italy.

So obviously there is no historical/ scientific evidence that there is any racial difference between North and South India, let alone that Jats are Aryan. There are dark skinned jats there are also fair skinned jats. There are dark skinned South Indians there are also fair skinned South Indians. Aishwarya rai, and Shilpa Shetty are from South Indian families. The lower to the equator a group of people settle and the longer they stay there the darker they become by adaptation to the enviromental stimulus of hotter weather.

However i am sure, some users on this discussion page will not subscribe to this doctrine. So it should be said that Hitler's idea of the aryan race was that they were people who had blonde hair and blue eyes. Now how many jats have blonde hair and blue eyes? The majority of jats are a light brown colour and 99percent have black or brown hair with black or light brown eyes.

My point is these people who believe in utter lies and fabrication such as some people on this discussion page. It is they who are still the slaves of British brainwashing. It is they that divide their nation and destroy it. It is they that don't wish to enlighten themselves with the truth but rather live in ignorance and spread their disinformation to decay more minds.

To read the full article check out this http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html

Lastly i would like to say i am a Jat and i'm proud to be one. But i'm not proud to see other jats spreading complete horse manure and lies which can never be proven. If people on this discussion page claim to be " jats " they should raise awareness about the problems that our community is currently undergoing and they should fight these problems for the good of the Jat community instead of spreading fairy tales and delusions of grandiosity. May i also remind the jats that think they are superior to other humans, cognitive psychology specifically states that superiority complex is infact derived from an inferiority complex to mask ones own insecurities and shortcomings as a human. The sad truth is that certain people on this discussion board their minds lie in history 1000 years ago, instead of focusing on the future and the present they brag about things from their history (half of which aren't true) To those people i ask one thing? Does talking about your history, feed your familly? Does it give you an education? Does society automatically give you a job because 1000 years ago you were a warrior? Does it let you elevate your place in society? No it does not, because people judge others on their present circumstances not their history. The people who dwell so much on their " glorious history " are usually the ones that don't have much in the present circumstance. The present circumstance is apart from the jats in the Indian army and a small percentage of jats who are businessmen the majority of jats are 1. becoming landless farmers 2. in proletariat working class low paid jobs of the lower stratosphere. I don't say any of this in a pejorative manner to denigrate i say it to create awareness. Because only when people see the realities will they work for the upliftment of the people to fight the problems, otherwise the problems only grow.

If i have offended anyone with anything i have said above. Please accept my deepest heart felt sorry because it was never my intention to offend anyone. But rather to state the facts. If anyone wishes to insult me for this they are very welcome to since it proves their lack of eloquence and articulation and of course their bad comprehension levels, and also the fact THAT THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE TRUTH!

Thanks to everyone who read me

Regards

Dr. Kanishk Dahiya


 * Dr Dahiya,
 * Jats are already claiming that Hanumanji is a jat of "Man" clan!!!! (Hanu Man).  So don't be surprised that soon Batman/Spidey etc are claimed Jats too.


 * Itihaaskar 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Dr Dahiya's piece. i think that he has hit the nail on the head regarding the problem with this article. (Alee, A british muslim jat) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curryonme (talk • contribs) 23:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars
I had a look at the page history today -- there seems to be an edit war going on. I request the concerned editors to discuss the matter calmly instead of indulging in revert wars. If discussions don't help, please see Resolving disputes. Edit wars will only lead to a hostile environment, without resulting in any improvements to the article. utcursch | talk 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To follow up on utcursch post. Users are reminded of Three-revert_rule breaking of which will result in being blocked--James smith2 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored discussions since beginning of this month
Someone calling themselves Jat78 took it upon themsleves to put all the discussions up to the last one by Utcursch written yesterday into the Archives. While I agree the page had got too long - I don't think it is right to just wipe all the more recent exchanges especially as there are a number of issues raised which have not yet been dealt with. I have, therefore, left the earlier correspondence (up to the end of June) in the Archives - but restored the material added since the beginning of July to its rightful place here. John Hill 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete content from Jat people
Itihaskar, You have been warned on your talk page but still deleting content from Jat people and vandalizing it, which is your only contribution to Wikipedia. If you have something discuss. You are again and again writing only one line that Chandragupta is not Jat. At the same time you are deleting all content about ancient Jats. One line is not sufficient to prove any thing. So please come forward with any substantial proof. Don't delete content from Jat people without discussion !!! --burdak 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Burdak Stop vandalising
You are inventing fictitious tales of jats. No mainstream historian supports you. Wikipedia is not a a place for your fancies. Have you read the yahoo group link? Why are you afraid of disucssing the link?

Itihaaskar 11:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the references provided and then discuss. May I know your contributions to this link you are referring or to this page? --burdak 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been made clear on the link given that gupta has NOTHING to do with Jat. So why are you pushing false history? Itihaaskar 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jangladesh?
When and where does this name "Jangladesh" come from? It is, as far as I can tell, an invented term only found on Jat websites on the internet. All other authorities I have checked (including Encyclopedia Britannica, and books by James Todd, Vincent Smith, E. J. Rapson, Romaila Thapar, Nirad C. Chauduri, Sukhvirsingh Gahlot, Stanley Wolpert, Ram Vallabh Somani, and K. P. Jayaswal seem to have no mention of it at all. Unless someone can come up with a convincing history of the term (and the need for it) I strongly suggest that this "name" be replaced with Bikaner or northern Rajasthan. John Hill 02:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again showing ignorance John Hill
Jangladesh is very ancient region and can not be replaced by Bikaner which was established in 1488. Your claim is false that you did not find any where. Please read "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan". (1829-1832) James Tod and William Crooke, Reprint: Low Price Publications, Delhi (1990), Vol.II, Appendix. p. 1123. You have to read the books which describe that part of Rajasthan. Jangladesh was the name mentioned by James Todd. This name is in use since Mahabharata period. For this read Prithvi Singh Mehta's "Hamara Rajasthan" (1950), p. 27, where it has been mentioned as Jangal Desh. You can also read if you know Hindi, Thakur Deshraj, Jat Itihas, available on line at Jat History by Thakur Deshraj online. It mentions about Jangal Pradesh at pages 603, 619, 621, etc.You can also read about Jangal Desh in "Ek adhuri kranti" by Sahi Ram, p.2. If you read any book which give ancient history of north Rajasthan you will find it. --burdak 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not pick on one point. John is right 99.9% of the time and he is doing a splendid job in keeping your and other jats nonsensical claims in check. As soon as I have some time I will edit your false claims about jat republics on bikaner.  Jats there had no republic. They were subservient to there rulers of bikaner.


 * Why are you running away from discussing the chandrgupta fiction that you are inventing?


 * Itihaaskar 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Burdak's disinformation campaign continues. A call for Mr. Burdak to be banned from the Wikipedia
Mr. Burdak claims above that "Jangladesh" is mentioned by James Tod in his "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan". (1829-1832) James Tod and William Crooke, Reprint: Low Price Publications, Delhi (1990), Vol.II, Appendix. p. 1123" and accuses me of "showing ignorance". Fortunately, I own this edition of the book and so it is easy for me to expose yet another of Mr. Burdak's numerous lies and false claims.

What Tod actually says on pp. 1123-1124, is: "Bika, with his band of three hundred, fell upon the Sankalas² of Janglu, whom they massacred." And then he adds this note (it is at the bottom of p. 1123): "²[The Sānkhlas are said to be a Panwār clan, but this is not certain (Census Report, Rājputāna, 1911, i. 256). Jānglu is about 20 miles S. of Bikaner city.]"

I can find no mention of any "Jangladesh" anywhere in Tod. Only this reference to some place (a village?) called "Jangla", not too far from Bikaner.

I have also re-read recently two other books on the history of Rajasthan (History of Rajasthan by Ram Vallabh Somani (1993) Jain Pustak Mandir, Jaipur, and Rajasthan: Historical and Cultural edited by Sukhvirsingh Gahlot (1992) J. S. Gahlot Research Institute, Jodhpur) and found no mention at of "Jangladesh" anywhere in them.

Mr. Burdak not only regularly makes false and misleading claims on this page but he does not even bother (or does not know how) to reference them properly. He has now given us yet another example of his lack of research skills by claiming that this "reference" by Tod (which he has so grossly and shamelessly twisted) is in an "Appendix" and indicates that it is to be found only on p. 1123. In fact there is no Appendix there and the real quote extends from p. 1123 over onto p. 1124. One might question whether he ever reads the works he "quotes" from or refers to.

I have often wondered why someone like Mr. Burdak would so frequently and vehemently distort the truth about a subject such as the Jat people and their history. Is he just a disturbed man or is he running a deliberate misinformation campaign? The result of all these falsehoods and propaganda can only bring Jats and their history (as well as the Wikipedia itself) into disrepute. Sometimes the nonsense has been so extreme I have wondered if Mr. Burdak and his supporters might be deliberately trying to ridicule Jats. Whatever the case, it has gone too far, and it must stop!

Mr. Burdak has spread so many outright falsehoods on this page (dozens of which have been exposed), as well as frequently attacking others (including myself) with slander and lies, that I believe he should be permanently banned from the Wikipedia. Perhaps other readers and Administrators would like to comment on this suggestion? Sincerely, John Hill 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I will be travelling for some time as I have a friend who is dying of cancer and so may be out of touch for an indeterminate period. I had planned to add a note on the extremely speculative section on "Etymology" on this page but now find I just won't have time. Could someone else please look into some of the dubious claims made there?

Just for starters, it is said there that, "According to James Tod, in Rajasthan and Punjab the tribe retained their ancient name Jit", and a reference is made to p. 88 of Tod's book. Well, there is no such reference to "Jits" on p. 88, nor is there any in Tod's index, or the lists he gives of alternate names for Jats, nor on the other pages in which he mentions Jats - so, I presume this is another case of deliberate misinformation. Unfortunately, I am not sure who has entered this false "reference" - and can't spare the time to check. It may not have been Mr. Burdak. Would someone else please check this for me? Thanks, John Hill 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked it up. It's Mr. Burdak again who has added that piece of "information" . --Amit 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am no expert on Jat people, but I AM from Punjab, living in Haryana, and have some Jat friends; and reading Mr. Burdak's contributions has lead to several "Whoa!" moments for me. Also, it's prima facie evident that Mr. Burdak has no respect for Wikipedia's rules and conventions. Hence, I second John's call for banning Mr. Burdak. This matter needs to be urgently looked into by an administrator. -- Amit 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Itihaaskar is a sock puppet
User Itihhaskar who has made only few "contributions" to the Wikipedia and that is only Jat people page. He is regularly deleting content from this page. He has been warned also for his this activity. If his interest is to contribute to Wikipedia he wold have done edits to other pages also. He has created this false identity to vandalize the Jat people page.

I, therefore, request the Administrators to investigate identity of "Itihaaskar" and to determine if he is really a "sock puppet" for someone else. --burdak 04:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Itihaaskar is not a sock puppet
dear burdak ,

Please do not take such pain for other contributors. The name you mentioned above was never warned officially. It is only another 'sock puppets' James_smith2, Peter_johnson4 and likewise,who are makeing such fake warnings. But the users who are claiming himself/herself as WIKI COP are not hidden from people here. I urge administrators to ban these self claimed wiki POPES. As far as itihaaskar's contributions are concerned, let him speak gentleman. If you have any disagreement over one's stand than speak out. Now please do not say that i m also a sock puppet.You know WIKI is a democratic encyclopedia.Kshatrap 07:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Kshatrap
 * How do you know Kshatrap that Itihaaskar is not a sock puppet? We are not asking to ban him like John Hill. But let him contribute something to this article. To contribute needs study and labour which is not required in deletion. I welcome if he puts his contents on this page. Deletion can be done anytime. But he should have something to contribute. --burdak 08:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Burdak debate you POV

 * Burdak,
 * Why are you running away from debating the gutta/jat connection? It is clear you are pushing false history. Instead of ad-hominen attacks it will be better if you concentrtate on showing us the connection between chandragupta and jats. Since you are pushing a POV which is false I am deleting it. See yahoogroup link from jathistory page posted already. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4526
 * Itihaaskar 08:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Itihaaskar, Wikipedia is not place for some body's POV. We have to write here with facts verifiable. You are again and again discussing a thread from Yahoo group. There is no binding on this wikipedia what is being discussed on Yahoo Jat History group. The present content on Jat people page has come to this form after long discussions recorded on this page archives itself. So you first study those. What has been already discussed need not put here again. You are deleting a large content from this page only on the basis of one line statement that Chandragupta was not Jat. Which Chandra Gupta you are talking about. Chandragupta Maurya has been considered of More or Mor or Khoye Maurya clan which is still existing in Jats. Chandragupta II was considered Jat because he belonged to Dharan clan which is still existing in Jats at present. Each ancient ruler on this page has been given references from the books who consider them Jats. There are comments also down below which dispute this thing. So you study those first. Your intension does seem to improve this article but to delete the references and evidences so that it can not grow further. --burdak 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not reading what is written in the link.


 * The change from Old Indo-Arya Bhasha (OIA) "Chandra" and "Gupta" to
 * Middle Indo-Arya Bhasha (MIA or Prakrits, like Pali) "ChaNDa"
 * and "Gutta" follows certain fixed patterns. Loss of a cluster
 * containing an -r- in general changes the dentals into retroflexes:
 * Jarta > JaTTa, chandra > chaNDa.
 * The -r- is not inserted, but is original, as it is attested in the
 * older languag. Both "indra" and "gupta" are Vedic words: guptá
 * mfn. protected, guarded, preserved Atharvaveda, etc. See the verbal
 * root: gup (for pr. &c. gopaya & paaya, from which the root is derived
 * [cf. PâN 3-1, 28 & 31]; perf. jugopa MBh. &c.; 3. pl. jugupur RV.
 * vii, 103, 9 AV. &c.; fut. 2nd gopsyati AV. ShBr. vi &c.; fut. 1st
 * goptaa or gopitaa PâN 7-2, 44; aor. agaupsiit or agopiit PâN 3-1, 50
 * Kâsh.) to guard, defend, protect, preserve (from, abl.) RV. vii, 103,
 * 9 AV. &c.
 * Thus, the original word is gup-tá from a verbal root gup, derived
 * from an older causative form gopaya(-ti)!


 * The G does change to J only if there is an -i- or -e- involved. It
 * doesn't if G is followed by -u- or -o-. '''Thus, Gupta or Gutta cannot
 * give Jupta or Jutta.'''


 * No mainstream historian calls chandragupta a jat. WP is not a place for original research.


 * Itihaaskar 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guptas were Jats of Dharan gotra
The Arya Manjushri Mul kalpa, is a history of India covering the period 700 BCE to 770 AD. The history was a Buddhist Mahayana work, by a Tibetan scholar, and was composed sometime in the 8th century CE.

A famous Indian historian K P Jayaswal brought this material out from above book in his eminently scholarly book :An Imperial history of India C 700 BC – C 770 AD. K P Jayaswal has spotted and brought out the fact that the second Guptas, (Chandra Gupta II, Samudra Gupta etc circa 200 BCE to 600 BCE) were Jats, who came originally form the Mathura area. They were of the “ Dharan” goth/Gotra, as shown by the inscription of the Prabhadevi Plate, where she gives her father’s (and her) goth as Dharan. The Dharan Jats still can be found in the U.P Mathura region and they proudly point to their ancient glory, of how their forefathers ruled Hindustan.

According to him Gupta is said to have been a Mathura-Jata (Sanskrit- Jata-vamsa). Jata-vamsa, that is, Jata Dynasty stands for Jarta, that is, Jat. That the Guptas were Jat; we already have good reasons to hold (JBORS, XIX. p. 1U). His Vaisali mother is the Lichchhavi lady.

Here is produced point wise account from a famous historian K.P. Jayaswal's book, History of India, PP 115-16 :


 * That nowhere Guptas disclose their origin or Caste status. That their caste sub-division was Dharan. Since Prabhavati Gupta daughter of Chandra Gupta II and queen of Rudrasen II Vakataka in her copper plate grantof Pune has shown sub-caste of her family (Gupta) as Dharan (EI XV-41 P-42).
 * The Salvas were a branch of the Madras and were ruling at Sialkot. These Madras had a branch named Kuninda, who were related to Koliya Naga.
 * Karaskars were thus a Punjabi people a sub-division of the Madras. We know that the Madras were Vahikas and Jartas. This community, thus, consisted of several sub-divisions.
 * Since according to grammatical illustration of Chandra-gomin the Jarta defeated the Huns, which means Skanda Gupta defeated the Huns. Hence Guptas were Jartas or Jat.


 * The credit for this important discovery goes to Dr K P Jayaswal himself for proving that the so called Guptas were Jats.[JRAS, 1901, p. 99; 1905, p.814; ABORI XX, p. 50; JBROS, XIX, p. 113-116; vol. XXI, p. 77, and Vol. XXI, p. 275]

Bhim Singh Dahiya has proved by applying “Grimm’s Law of Variation” that in Indo-European languages the alphabet “J” changes to “G”. Due to this law the Chinese call Jats as “Getae” and Germans call them “Got”, “Gaut” or “Goth”. The Proto-Germanic name Gaut changes to Gupt as under:


 * Gapt is considered to be a corruption of Gaut (Gaut→Gavt→Gaft→Gapt, cf. eftir and eptir, "after" in Old Norse). Gapt changed to Gupt in India.

When Chandragupta II, Vikramaditya married his daughter with a Vakataka prince he called tribe as "Dharan" which is a gotra of Jats even today. Skandagupta has written in an inscription of Junagarh that Gupta is a title, which means soldier or a chief. The first notice of this word 'Gupta' was taken by Panini in fifth century BC when two words are mentioned, viz., 'Goptri' and 'Gupti'. V S Agarwal in "India as known to Panini" defines 'Gupti' as 'defence' and 'Goptri' as the art of science of Military arrangements. On this basis the person who was incharge of defence was called 'Gupta' or 'Gopta'. Skandagupta wrote in his inscription that he had "appointed military governors in all provinces" (Sanskrit:सर्वेषु देशेषु विधाय गोप्त्रीन)[J.P. Fleet, CII, Vol. III, No. 14]

Thus we find that this word 'Gupta' means a military governor and used in this sense right from the fifth century BC to the 18th century AD and the so called 'Guptas' themselves used this word in the same sense. The mere fact that the word Gupta is a part and parcel of the names of the emperors, should not, and can not, give any other meaning to this word. If we give 'Gupta' the meaning of surname of the Vaishya caste, then even Chanakya will become a Vaishya because his name was Vishnugupta. Even the Mahabharata used this word 'Gupta' in the sense of military defence. (Bhim Singh Dahiya:Jats the Ancient Rulers, p.176-177)

While illustrating the use of a tense, grammarian Chandragomin mentions that अजय जर्टो हुणान - Ajay Jarto Hunan meaning "the invincible Jats defeated the Hunas". He was a contemporary of the event and we know from history that 'Guptas' were the only people who defeated Hunas. This has been rightly taken as proof that so called 'Guptas' were Jats. (Bhim Singh Dahiya:Jats the Ancient Rulers, p.180)

Majumdar and Atlekar mention the fact that at the time of marriage of Prabhavati Gupta, daughter of Chandragupta II, the name of their gotra was given as Dharan. The Poona plate of Prabhavati Gupta herself gives the gotra as Dharan. This has been identified with the still existing Dharan clan of Jats of Bikaner and the adjoining districts of the Punjab. [Dharath Sharma, JBORS, vol. XXII, p. 227], (Bhim Singh Dahiya:Jats the Ancient Rulers, p.181)

Hence on the basis of above evidences by reputed authors we conclude that Guptas were Jats of Dharan Gotra. --burdak 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No mainstream historian buys jayswals dharan hypothesis. Read Radha Kumud Mukherji, Raychaudhri, Munshi, Sircar etc. Regarding Dahiya's non-sensical claim, it is already refuted in the message above. You can start with the book given below.
 * Radha Kumud Mukherji.  Chandragupta Maurya aur Uska Kaal (Rajkamal Prakashan, Re Print 1990) ISBN-81-7171-088-1
 * Itihaaskar 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Itihaaskar 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The mainstream history of India does not explain the origins of such great rulers. It is a pity. When our historians discuss every aspect of their rule then why not try to find their origin? There is only one line that their origin is lost in the dark. It is necessary to discuss about. The content being deleted by user:Itihaaskar is put here for discussion under the head "Ancient Jat Kingdoms":

Ancient Jat Kingdoms
Some Jat historians and other writers state that ancient Jat kingdoms include those of: However, the evidence as to the origins of almost all these ancient kings is unclear. For example, most contemporary historians would agree with Romila Thapur that: "The origins and caste status of the Maurya family vary from text to text." In a later work she states: "The Mauryas were an obscure family referred to contemptuously in Brahmanical sources as being of the lowest caste and heretics because they patronized the heterodox sects of Jainas, Ajivikas and Buddhists, all three of which accorded them the high kshatriya status of the aristocracy in their narratives." There is no mention at all in any of the inscriptions or standard histories of the period that the Mauryas were Jats. Likewise, there is still great controversy among leading scholars in the field about the ethnic origins of the Kushanas including Kanishka,  and it should be noted that none of the current leading works make any connection at all between the Kushanas and Jats. Similarly, the origin of Harshavardhana's ancestors is obscure and little is known about them. The famous Chinese Buddhist pilgrim monk, Xuanzang, states only that Harsha was of the 吙舍 feishe or Vaishya caste without mentioning his ethnic connections. Prof. Maheswari Prasad of Banaras Hindu University has written that one reason for non–occurrence of word Jat as such in ancient literature may be that they were formerly known by other names i.e. their clan names also. Change of nomenclature is a part of the historical process. With the branching of community, its several branches known by different names and when one of them is distinguished by its achievement, other groups also take its name as a general designation. It is therefore quite expected that descendants of many old communities are still present among Jats. A study of Jat gotra names reveals that Jat is a general term for number of cognate clans formerly known by different names. Ancient Jat republics Balhara rulers in Sind According to Thakur Deshraj, the Balhara Jats were the rulers in Sindh from 8th century to 10th century. In 710 AD Muhammad bin Qasim occupied Sindh. Sindhu River had made them good navigators. They had fight with Alexander the great by boats. Brahman Raja Dahir was the ruler of Sindh at that time. Other Jat states in Sindh were not powerful; they were also eliminated by the year 800 AD. This was the early period of Balhara Jat rulers in Sindh. Balharas ruled the area, which can be remembered as Bal Division. The area from Khambhat to Simari was under their rule and Manafir was their capital. Manafir was probably Mandore or Mandwagarh. It is likely that after nagas it was ruled by Balharas. The rule transferred from Balharas to Mauryas to Pawars to Chauhans to Parihars to Rathores. Sir Henry Elliot has mentioned that after defeat of Jat Raja Sahasi Rai II, Raja Matta of Shivistan attacked Alore (the capital of Chach) with brother of Raja of Kannauj and his army. The Jat Raja Ranmal was the ruler of Kannauj at that time. He was famous as Rana. After that the other Jat rulers were eliminated except the Balharas. The Balharas were strong rulers from Khambhat to Sambhar. 'Koyala Patan' which is now known as 'Kolia', was a single city from Kolia to 'Kalindi Katkeri' spread over about 36 km in length. There used to be bricks of one cubit long and half cubit thick. There are seven tanks of Balharas, Banka tank in the name of Banka Balhara and Lalani tank in name of Lalaji. There is one village named Balhara in Sikar district of Rajasthan. In 900 A D a King of this gotra was a powerful ruler in the Western Punjab. He has been greatly praised by historian Sulaiman Nadwi, who came to India as a trader. According to him this ruler was one of the four big rulers of world at that time in 857 A D. He was a friend of the Arabs and his army had a large number of elephants and camels. His country was called Kokan (Kaikan) 'near river Herat. The boundaries of this Kingdom extended from China to the Sea and his neighbors were the Takshak and Gujar kings. Their capital was Mankir. Nehra rulers in Sind Nehra clan Jats were rulers of Nehrun state in Sindh at the time of attack on Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim in 710. Present Hyderabad city was settled on the land of Nehrun. The Hyderabad city was then named Nehrun Kot and was called the heart of the Mehran.
 * Chandragupta Maurya, , , , , , , ;
 * Ashok Maurya, , , , , , , ;
 * Samudragupta, , , ;
 * Chandragupta II, , , ;
 * Kaniska, ;
 * Yasodharman, , , ;
 * Harshavardhana, , ,
 * Andhak/Vrishni/Bhoja - Union formed by Krisna consisting of 5 war like tribal group known as Gyat, or jnyat which changed to Jat., ,
 * Shivi - Ancient republic of Jats, found inhabiting area in the vicinity of Malava tribes at the time of invasion of India by Alexander the Great, in 326 BCE. There are ruins of an ancient town of Sivi people called 'Tamva-vati nagari' 11 miles north of Chittor. Ancient coins of Shivi people are found near this town bearng 'Majhamikaya Shivajanapadas', which means coins of 'Shiva janapada of Madhyamika'. The 'Tamvavati nagari' was called as 'Madhyamika nagari'. These coins are of the period first to second century BCE., ,
 * Jathrroi - In the time of Sikander Alexander the Great invasion.
 * Yaudheyas - Ancient tribal confederation who lived in the area between the Indus river and the Ganges river. They are identified with the Jat   clan Johiya of Bahawalpur and Multan Divisions (Pakistan) and Bikaner, Rajasthan (India).

--burdak 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

JAT HISTORY
To Ithikaskar

The material being provided  showing the 2nd Guptas to be 'Jat, may not suit your views.

Yet it is not possible to ignore, the primary evidence.

The 8th century manuscript, the ' Arya Manjushri Mul Kalp", called the founder of the Gutt/Gupta dynasty as Jats.

The fact is also that the "Dharan" clan name is found among the Jats and they refer to themslves as of the ' Dharan' goth/clan.( for completion it is also found among the Agarwals, who emerged from the Agreya republic,( near modern Hissar, Haryana) and have now evolved into a merchant community)

The Jats of the Dharan Clan, found near Mathura,( 120 km, SW from Delhi) still refer  with pride to their ruler ancestors If Radha K Mukerji, missed this point, do we really need to berate himor his memory?

If he had noted the connnection, he would called them Jats too,unless he a reason, not to do so, and that reason would have been  then unrelated to the Primary evidence.

When in doubt, one should remember, that primary evidence always overcomes, the secondary evidence.

It may take time, but, it will always prevail.

One notes you are quoting a mesage from the Yahoo jathistory group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4526

wikipedia- maurya Jat identity discussion

Now this is only one post as part of a larger thread.

It is a welcome post, from a active particpant, for whom all of us there have a lot of respect and have plenty of good discussions.

Now readers are invited to follow the discussion before and after

(Those who wish to do so, are welcome to join the group.The only rules are that personal attacks will not be allowed  I am one of the moderators.)

Part of the purpose of that discussion is to discuss an issue, like this, in detail,bringing in all the relevant  primary and secondary material.

Discussions like this help us in discovering new information.

As new information emerges, our views evolve.

A historian can only work with the material and knowledge available to him/her. As new material emerges, it is incumbent upon the historian to amend his views.

R K Mukerji is long dead. Let us respect his contributions to Indian history, which he made with the information he had.

It is upto his successors to write the History, with the information we have today.

The Jat version,and perspectives, cannot be ignored and swept under the rug.

This page is about the Jats.The Jats will write their history.

Attempts to prevent them from bringing their history out may drag matters out, but will ultimately fail.

Let us see how for many more years, the people who are deleting content can continue.

The Jats will still be around long after and so will their history.

Ravi Chaudhary


 * Dear Ravi, nobody here has an agenda against the Jats. The only problem is addition of content which violates Wikipedia policies. I don't grudge the pride Jats have in their history. However, your statement "This page is about the Jats.The Jats will write their history." betrays your ignorance of the purpose and principles of Wikipedia. Everyone is equally free to edit the contents of any page. You have mentioned on your user page that you are the moderator of a discussion board that encourages (original) research on Jat history. I hope you are careful not let that research seep into Wikipedia. Regards -- Amit 06:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Amit

Please do not take this as a criticism of your post or yourself personally.

I note that you have inserted the word (original) before the word research ,to what is on my user user page.

Here is what is actually what is on my user page.

quote :

" I am interested in history, ancient and modern.

I am a moderator for a discussion forum on the History of the Jats

the URL is : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

The purpose of the forum is to encourage research into the History of the Jats, to archive the material,the make it easily accessible to the reader, generalist or specialist."

End quote.

There is no word " original" between 'encourage research'.

I hope you see, when words are inserted or left out from the original work, that could be taken as 'distortion',  and  that would be unlikely  to  encourage any faith in "proclamations of a lack of bias' or the motives of the poster.

Would you agree that this could raise concerns?

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ravi Chaudhary 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ravi. Thanks for the polite reply. Given the tone of past "discussions" on this page, I was pleasantly surprised to read it. Even though I don't fully comprehend the meaning of the last two sentences of your message, I admit inserting the word "original" wasn't entirely justified. Actually the reason I was tempted into assuming that the "encouraged research" would find it's way here, was that this page HAS indeed been seeing a fair bit of OR. I hope and believe that's not your intention, and I apologise for not remembering "WP:Assume Good Faith" :) Perhaps you could look into what's really been going on here, and we can work towards building a good quality, verifiable, encyclopaedic article. Regards. -- Amit 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article makes it seem like JATTS are this seperate race
U know this is amazing to me....It really is......a Jat is a farmer.....thats what a Jat is.....sure it has become an ethnic group but anyone can be under a new ethnic group.....Jatts are ARYAN PEOPLE.....

U know some Indian people just dont make sense.....I mean.....Were suppose to call ourselves....Indian.....Then Aryan.....Then Punjabi.....and now Jatt?......how many labels to u need?.......Your ancestors might have been Aryan and it should be left at that......YOur nationality is INdia so leave it at that.......but no.....then you want to have PUnjabi pride.....and now u want to have Jatt pride.......Whats next?.......And where does it stop? 71.107.57.134 04:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is an ampitheater. Get outta here if you don't wanna get sucked into the battle! Out!! It's for your own good. Amit 07:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey ...
Where'd everybody go? Amit 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for Administrator to rewrite article
Dear Amit: A month or more ago Administrator Utcursch said he would try to find time to rewrite this article "next month". So I, and presumably others, have been waiting for this to happen. It seems rather pointless to make numerous small changes if the whole article is to be rewritten (which I believe badly needs to be done - and the sooner the better). However, I will take the section on the so-called "Jangladesh" out (see the discussions above for my reasons). Sincerely, John Hill 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jangala Desh in Mahabharata
SECTION IX of Bhisma Parva in Mahabharata mentions (See http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06009.htm)


 * "After this, listen to the names of the provinces as I mention them. They are the Kuru-Panchalas, the Salwas, the Madreyas, the Jangalas, the Surasena, the Kalingas, the Bodhas, the Malas, the Matsyas, the Sauvalyas, the Kuntalas, the Kasi-kosalas, the Chedis, the Karushas, the Bhojas, the Sindhus, the Pulindakas, the Uttamas, the Dasarnas, the Mekalas, the Utkalas; the Panchalas, the Kausijas, the Nikarprishtha]s, Dhurandharas; the Sodhas, the Madrabhujingas, the Kasis, and the further-Kasis; the Jatharas, the Kukuras, O Bharata; the Kuntis, the Avantis, and the further-Kuntis; the Gomantas, the MandaMandakas, the Shandas, the Vidarbhas, the Rupavahikas; the Aswakas, the Pansurashtras, the Goparashtras, and the Karityas; the Adhirjayas, the Kuladyas, the Mallarashtras, the Keralas, the Varatrasyas, the Apavahas, the Chakras, the Vakratapas, the Sakas; the Videhas, the Magadhas, the Swakshas, the Malayas, the Vijayas, the Angas, the Vangas, the Kalingas, the Yakrillomans; the Mallas, the Suddellas, the Pranradas, the Mahikas, the Sasikas; the Valhikas, the Vatadhanas, the Abhiras, the Kalajoshakas; the Aparantas, the Parantas, the Pahnabhas, the Charmamandalas; the Atavisikharas, the Mahabhutas, O sire; the Upavrittas, the Anupavrittas, the Surashatras, Kekayas; the Kutas, the Maheyas, the Kakshas, the Samudranishkutas; the Andhras, and, O king, many hilly tribes, and many tribes residing on lands laying at the foot of the hills, and the Angamalajas, and the Manavanjakas; the Pravisheyas, and the Bhargavas, O king; the Pundras, the Bhargas, the Kiratas, the Sudeshnas, and the Yamunas, the Sakas, the Nishadhas, the Anartas, the Nairitas, the Durgalas, the Pratimasyas, the Kuntalas, and the Kusalas; the Tiragrahas, the Ijakas, the Kanyakagunas, the Tilabharas, the Samiras, the Madhumattas, the Sukandakas; the Kasmiras, the Sindhusauviras, the Gandharvas, and the Darsakas; the Abhisaras, the Utulas, the Saivalas, and the Valhikas; the Darvis, the Vanavadarvas, the Vatagas, the Amarathas, and the Uragas; the Vahuvadhas, the Kauravyas, the Sudamanas, the Sumalikas; the Vadhras, the Karishakas, the Kalindas, and the Upatyakas; the Vatayanas, the Romanas, and the Kusavindas; the Kacchas, the Gopalkacchas, the Kuruvarnakas; the Kiratas, the Varvasas, the Siddhas, the Vaidehas, and the Tamraliptas; the Aundras, the Paundras, the [[Saisikata[[s, and the Parvatiyas, O sire.


 * "'There are other kingdoms, O bull of Bharata's race, in the south. They are the Dravidas, the Keralas, the Prachyas, the Mushikas, and the Vanavashikas; the Karanatakas, the Mahishakas, the Vikalpas, and also the Mushakas; the Jhillikas, the Kuntalas, the Saunridas, and the Nalakananas; the Kankutakas, the Cholas, and the Malavayakas; the Samangas, the Kanakas, the Kukkuras, and the Angara-marishas; the Samangas, the Karakas, the Kukuras, the Angaras, the Marishas: the Dhwajinis, the Utsavas, the Sanketas, the Trigartas, and the Salwasena; the Vakas, the Kokarakas, the Pashtris, and the Lamavegavasas; the Vindhyachulakas, the Pulindas, and the Valkalas; the Malavas, the Vallavas, the further-Vallavas, the Kulindas, the Kalavas, the Kuntaukas, and the Karatas; the Mrishakas, the Tanavalas, the Saniyas; the Alidas, the Pasivatas, the Tanayas, and the Sulanyas; the Rishikas, the Vidarbhas, the Kakas, the Tanganas, and the further-Tanganas. Among the tribes of the north are the Mlecchas, and the Kruras, O best of the Bharatas; the Yavanas, the Chinas, the Kamvojas, the Darunas, and many Mleccha tribes; the Sukritvahas, the Kulatthas, the Hunas, and the Parasikas; the Ramanas, and the Dasamalikas. These countries are, besides, the abodes of many Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra tribes. Then again there are the Sudra-abhiras, the Dardas, the Kasmiras, and the Pattis; the Khasiras; the Atreyas, the Bharadwajas, the Stanaposhikas, the Poshakas, the Kalingas, and diverse tribes of Kiratas; the Tomaras, the Hansamargas, and the Karamanjakas. These and other kingdoms are on the east and on the north."

Don't be in Hurry to delete content without verifying. --burdak 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested before, and it will bear repetition, that it is always a good idea to get a knowledge of the Indian languages,and cultural heritage, and Indian history from an Indian perspective,  before rushing in to edit or delete material on a page that is related to Indian History.

If one does not know what something means,or what the relevance is, there is no shame in saying- Hey I do not know, could someone help.

Indian and Jat History is not going to be held hostage to interpretations by people whose views are shaped by a single perspective.

For those interested:

Jangaldesh:

Jangal is the name of a clan/tribe.

Desh means country.

Jangaldesh thus means the country of the Jangals

The phoentic sound would be:

Jun( as in Hung)gaal( a long a)sound

Desh is pronounced as 'dheysh'

It is interesting to note the number of Jat clans mentioned.To name some:

Tomar(a), Kuntal,Dasarn(a),KaK Kukkur, Mall(a), Madr(a),Sindhu,Utkal,Jathar(a),

The existence of the same clan names in both North and South India, is also an interesting line of research.

Ravi Chaudhary 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Invented Placenames
It is always a good idea not to invent new placenames for regions mentioned in a general encyclopedia article. This can only cause confusion and misunderstanding.

Just because Jangla or Jangala was the name of a people or tribe mentioned in the Mahabharata does not mean that we should immediately have a country named after them - especially as we have no evidence that it was ever in common use.

After all, tribes tend to move around quite a bit (and the Mahabharata is quite ancient) - so how are we to know what the Janglas' territory was at any given point in history? And why it should be used to refer to districts in modern India which already carry other names?

As far as I know there has been no place named "Jangaldesh" (or anything similar) used in recent recent Indian history. It may well be true that 'Jangal' + 'desh' could have been used to refer in a general way to the territory of the Jangals - but where is the evidence it was ever used as a placename?

I have already exposed (above) Mr. Burdak's phoney reference to "Jangladesh" in Tod's book (which misuse of these pages he is yet to explain or apologise for), and now he gives us a pointless reference to the Mahabharata.

It will be noted that in Mr. Burdak's very long quote from the Mahabharata there is no mention at all of the name of a country called "Jangladesh" or "Jangaldesh". And, if we were to follow Mr. Chaudhary's suggestion, we would have a very long list of "provinces" or regions indeed, which should (according to his "reasoning") be referred to as: Kuru-Panchaladesh, Salwadesh, Madreyadesh, Jangaladesh, Surasenadesh, Kalingadesh, Bodhadesh, Maladesh, Matsyadesh, Sauvalyadesh, Kuntaladesh, Kasi-kosaladesh, Chedidesh, Karushadesh, Bhojadesh, Sindhudesh, Pulindakadesh, Uttamadesh, Dasarnadesh, Mekaladesh, Utkaladesh; Panchaladesh, Kausijadesh, Nikarprishthadesh, Dhurandharadesh; Sodhadesh, etc., etc., etc., etc. This is patently nonsense and, besides, how could one possibly decide where the borders of all these regions were at the time of the Mahabharata, and then in more modern times?

I can see no reason at all for the use of this invented placename - especially in a general article on Jats. There is absolutely no need or justification for Mr. Burdak or Mr. Chaudhary to rush out and invent placenames just to suit their fantasies or political agendas.

I notice Mr. Burdak has restored this section on "Jangladesh". I believe it should be deleted as it is misleading to say the least. I would appreciate any comments from other readers. Sincerely, John Hill 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. And more importantly jats were minor peasants in marwar and nothing else. Itihaaskar 05:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And We're back!
-- Amit 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

More on Jangaldesh
Reference - http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2006/08/sultanate-of-nagaur.html

Jangaldesh - The English word jungle is derived from the Hindi jangal, both of which indicate a thick forest. However the original Sanskrit word jangala had a very different meaning—it was actually used to describe land where water was scarce, where khejri trees and ber hedges were abundant, and where roamed deer, black buck, and wild ass.

The ancient Ayurveda states, “The land that has less water, trees, and hills is healthy jangala country.”[2] Over the centuries the word jangal was used for any wild or desolate piece of land and eventually became synonymous with forests.

From the descriptions above, the country around Nagaur, north to Bikaner, and up to the border of Punjab, was called Jangaldesh in ancient times. The remains of some of the earliest settlements along the banks of the long dried-up Saraswati River can be seen to this day—in a later age it came under the Naga rulers after whom the town of Nagaur (Naga-pura) is named.

The name of Jangaldesh was known till a very late period. The Rajput rulers of Bikaner, whose territory eventually embraced the bulk of Jangal country, sported the title Jai Jangaldhar Badshah, which was emblazoned on the state coat of arms during the British Raj.

[2] - The Shabad Kalpadrum also describes the jangala desh as; “a country in which there is less water and grass, where there is ample wind and sun, and where grains are abundant.”

Mr John Hill do you still believe Jangaldesh is invented by Mr Burdak ? Please don't impose your ignorance to Wikipedia readers. For god shake do not delete content as per your ignorance. Try to gain first the knowledge about the people and land you are talking about. --burdak 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

More on Jangaldesh in Hindi

 * बीकानेर राज्य का पुराना नाम "जंगल' देश था। इसके उत्तर में कुरु और मद्र देश थे, इसलिए महाभारत में जांगल नाम कहीं अकेला और कहीं कुरु और मद्र देशों के साथ जुड़ा हुआ मिलता है। बीकानेर के राजा जंगल देश के स्वामी होने के कारण अब तक "जंगल धर बादशाह' कहलाते हैं। (See - http://tdil.mit.gov.in/coilnet/ignca/rj019.htm)

--burdak 05:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * राजस्थान भारत वर्ष के पश्चिम भाग में अवस्थित है जो प्राचीन काल से विख्यात रहा है। तब इस प्रदेश में कई इकाईयाँ सम्मिलित थी जो अलग-अलग नाम से सम्बोधित की जाती थी। उदाहरण के लिए जयपुर राज्य का उत्तरी भाग मध्यदेश का हिस्सा था तो दक्षिणी भाग सपालदक्ष कहलाता था। अलवर राज्य का उत्तरी भाग कुरुदेश का हिस्सा था तो भरतपुर, धोलपुर, करौली राज्य शूरसेन देश में सम्मिलित थे। मेवाड़ जहाँ शिवि जनपद का हिस्सा था वहाँ डूंगरपुर-बांसवाड़ा वार्गट (वागड़) के नाम से जाने जाते थे। इसी प्रकार जैसलमेर राज्य के अधिकांश भाग वल्लदेश में सम्मिलित थे तो जोधपुर मरुदेश के नाम से जाना जाता था। बीकानेर राज्य तथा जोधपुर का उत्तरी भाग जांगल देश कहलाता था तो दक्षिणी बाग गुर्जरत्रा (गुजरात) के नाम से पुकारा जाता था। इसी प्रकार प्रतापगढ़, झालावाड़ तथा टोंक का अधिकांस भाग मालवादेश के अधीन था। बाद में जब राजपूत जाति के वीरों ने इस राज्य के विविध भागों पर अपना आधिपत्य जमा लिया तो उन भागों का नामकरण अपने-अपने वंश अथवा स्थान के अनुरुप कर दिया। ये राज्य उदयपु, डूंगरपुर, बांसवाड़, प्रतापगढ़, जोधपुर, बीकानेर, किशनगढ़, सिरोही, कोटा, बूंदी, जयपुर, अलवर, भरतपुर, करौली, झालावाड़, और टोंक थे। (इम्पीरियल गजैटियर) इन राज्यों के नामों के साथ-साथ इनके कुछ भू-भागों को स्थानीय एवं भौगोलिक विशेषताओं के परिचायक नामों से भी पुकारा जाता है। ढ़ूंढ़ नदी के निकटवर्ती भू-भाग को ढ़ूंढ़ाड़ (जयपुर) कहते हैं। मेव तथा मेद जातियों के नाम से अलवर को मेवात तथा उदयपुर को मेवाड़ कहा जाता है। मरु भाग के अन्तर्गत रेगिस्तानी भाग को मारवाड़ भी कहते हैं। डूंगरपुर तथा उदयपुर के दक्षिणी भाग में प्राचीन ५६ गांवों के समूह को ""छप्पन'' नाम से जानते हैं। माही नदी के तटीय भू-भाग को कोयल तथा अजमेर के पास वाले कुछ पठारी भाग को ऊपरमाल की संज्ञा दी गई है। (गोपीनाम शर्मा / सोशियल लाइफ इन मेडिवियल राजस्थान / पृष्ठ ३) (see - http://tdil.mit.gov.in/CoilNet/IGNCA/rj185.htm)

More on "Jangaladesh" or "Jangladesh" in English
I am still waiting for Mr. Burdak and Mr. Chaudhary to apologise to the readers of this page for the many times they have misled them, and to me for the baseless, libelous lies and accusations they have both spread about me (see above and in the Archives). Until then I do not wish to engage directly in dialogue with them.

However, it seems that, as this unfortunate debate has started up again, I am forced to reply to their ongoing campaign of deception and nonsense which seems to me to spring from a fantastical elitist, racist view of Jat history, which is not supported by the historical evidence.

Just one day ago Mr. Burdak and Mr. Chaudhary were claiming that name "Jangladesh" derived from the "Jangal" people mentioned in the Mahabharata (meaning something like "land of the Jangals") and were scathing of my presumed lack of knowledge of Indian history and languages.

Now, today, Mr. Burdak has already changed his tune - apparently because he has found a different explanation on some website: http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2006/08/sultanate-of-nagaur.html - from which he has quoted a long passage without even having the courtesy of enclosing it in quotation marks - and now apparently agrees with whoever wrote the passage on the website that:


 * "The ancient Ayurveda states, “The land that has less water, trees, and hills is healthy jangala country.”[2] Over the centuries the word jangal was used for any wild or desolate piece of land and eventually became synonymous with forests.


 * From the descriptions above, the country around Nagaur, north to Bikaner, and up to the border of Punjab, was called Jangaldesh in ancient times. The remains of some of the earliest settlements along the banks of the long dried-up Saraswati River can be seen to this day—in a later age it came under the Naga rulers after whom the town of Nagaur (Naga-pura) is named.


 * The name of Jangaldesh was known till a very late period. The Rajput rulers of Bikaner, whose territory eventually embraced the bulk of Jangal country, sported the title Jai Jangaldhar Badshah, which was emblazoned on the state coat of arms during the British Raj."

It is clear that, if this account is correct, both Mr. Burdak and Mr. Chaudhary were wrong yesterday to attribute the name of this "country" to the "Jangal" people. It seems that, once again, they really don't know what they are talking about at all.

Now, if "Jangaldesh" meant: "any wild or desolate piece of land and eventually became synonymous with forests", and, if we can accept that the writer of the website's article is correct when he says that "the country around Nagaur, north to Bikaner, and up to the border of Punjab" was known as "Jangladesh" "in ancient times" and even up to the time of the British Raj, it would seem probable that this was just a descriptive name for a rather poor and infertile area. It is very reminiscent of such terms as the "Badlands of Alberta" or the "outback country of Queensland". These are used as vaguely defined areas of low fertility - not as the names of political districts or provinces.

I challenge them to find "Jangladesh" (or any close variant of that name) used to name a specific political entity or territory in any standard and respected atlas, encyclopedia, gazetteer, or official map. I have "Googled" the internet, checked the latest version of the Comprehensive Times Atlas of the World, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and numerous books on Indian and Rajasthani history without finding any mention of such a place other than the brief mention of some place called "Jānglu" "about 20 miles S. of Bikaner city" in Tod's venerable book (p. 1123).

Even if they do manage to find some reference to such a name it is likely to just refer to some semi-barren country and not really be a placename as such, and almost certainly was not a place of note (and, therefore, not worthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia article on Jats).

Unless Mr. Burdak, Mr. Chaudhary (or someone else) can come up with some very good, well-referenced reasons for retaining it, I will, therefore, remove the section on "Jangaldesh" once again in a couple of days so that readers are not confused and misled on the subject any longer. John Hill 09:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well referenced content on Jangala Desh
The website http://tdil.mit.gov.in/CoilNet/IGNCA/rj185.htm mentions in Hindi - बीकानेर राज्य तथा जोधपुर का उत्तरी भाग जांगल देश कहलाता था, Which means the state of Bikaner and northern part of Jodhpur was known as Jangala Desh. It is authentic and is a government site if John Hill has some knowledge of URL addresses.

The Mahabharata also mentions in SECTION IX of Bhisma Parva as mentioned earlier in (See http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06009.htm) that it was a country or province of Jangalas. In ancient times most of the countries were after the people living there or vice versa that is people of that region were also known so after the egion.

I have found that you have deleted reference of Jats as Jit by Tod. See the site http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html
 * "Col. Tod notes that " The Gets or Jits and Huns, hold place amongst the 36 royal races of ancient India." [ Tod.II.256 ]"

James Tod has given place to Jat as one of 36 royal clans. James Tod has written about Jangladesh very clearly and also about Jats. He has frequently mentioned Jat as Jit. Like 'Sir' is spoken as 'sar' or 'Sur'. Same is the situation with the word Jat or Jutt. James Tod has given names of places and clans with different spellings which have been corrected by later Historians as per actual names.

Mr John Hill if you want to discuss this matter seriously better come prepared. Otherwise it is only a wastage of time. No body can help a person who has made up his mind to oppose every thing without understanding. I again advise such people to go and study the ancient literature. the Hindi version as given above is very clear and one can laugh only on such persons. --burdak 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Burdak shows his true colours once again!
When are we going to be spared the speculations of this poor man who is clearly out of his depth and has no idea how to research historical matters?

Instead of refering to original sources he refers us to a couple of websites including this one: http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html which contains a rambling, poorly researched article called "Scythic Origin of the Rajput Race" by one Mulchand Chauhan, which is full of Aryan racist nonsense "supported" by specious connections between the " Modern Rajput Race" and the "Ancestral Scythic Race" based on rough phonetic similarities. It also contains a number very historically suspect statements such as:


 * "In addition, many of the coins of the Sakas include Greek legends. This indicates that the Greeks were absorbed into the Rajput stock, and that the Rajputs of today possess a considerable Greek ancestry."


 * " The most damning evidence proving that the Rajputs are Saka comes from the genealogy of the Rajputs themselves. However, first a few notes about the Rajput Race. The Jats are in fact, Rajputs, as are Thakurs and Gujjars. There are no racial differences between these stocks, all are descendants of Saka immigrants; the differences are purely social and customary, reflecting partly the degree of pollution by Indo-Aryan customs." [Do please note the use of the heavily-charged and revealing word "pollution" Chauhan uses here!]

Such vague statements clearly contain no historical value whatsoever - they prove nothing at all (although they may help bolster some credulous people's racist fantasies).

Chauhan also wrongly "quotes" from Tod: "Col. Tod notes that " The Gets or Jits and Huns, hold place amongst the 36 royal races of ancient India." [ Tod.II.256 ]"

What Tod actually said was: "The Getae, Jut, or Jat, and Takshak races, which occupy places amongst the thirty-six royal races of India, are all from the region of Sakatai." (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan or the Central and Western Rajput States of India. James Tod. Reprint; Low Cost Publications, Delhi (1990), I, p. 75).

It should also be noted in passing that Col. Tod wrote his book between 1832 and 1835, so he can hardly be considered an up-to-date authority - having missed out on over 170 years of research on the hostory of these peoples and, therefore, may be excused his many mistaken notions (unlike Mr. Burdak - who has no such excuse).

Chauhan also finds support in the discredited "anthropological" musings of Risley (1915) - the same man who, as I pointed out in an earlier note, calls the Jats "the most honoured ones" based on his measurements of their nasal indexes.

I could go on giving further instances of the unreliability and bias of Chauhan's article, but to spare the reader further boredom, and Mr. Burdak further embarrassment, I will leave it at that for now.

So, once again, Mr. Burdak is caught referring to misquotes from unreliable secondary sources which promote unfounded and repugnant racist claims. It is, I believe, long past time to put a stop to this blatant misuse of the Wikipedia. Sincerely, John Hill 14:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Hill

Do you understand any language except English?

If you do not, then please stop attacking those who do, and who bring their linguistic skills, to enhance everyone's knowledge.

One does fail to understand, and I am sure that I am not alone on this, what your objective is here?

You have no knowledge of any language other than English, you have no knowledge of Jat history and its traditions.

That being the case, one does wonder, why are you obsessed with the Jat history page?

Sooner or later you will have to stop these continual personal attacks and move on to subjects where you may have some knowledge!

Are we see you to continue your personal attacks, in response?

One hopes not!

This is a public forum, very very public and anything you write here is embedded for ever.

Do please take a moment to reflect

Ravi Chaudhary 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, a reason is keep you guys honest and John should be appreciated for his work. Seriously did any jat rule marwar? They were minor peasants living in there villages. Itihaaskar 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I am a jat sikh, and first came across the Jat page a few years ago. I have been following this discussion for some time, and would like to offer my two cents. Firstly, I am disappointed about some comments about jat sikhs - not nice at all, but enough on that. I am as proud a jat as any other, but the assertion about nasal index made some of my jat brothers is genuinely concerning. Also, on a table on jat populations they describe Sikh as a Jat group. This is incorrect. It is true that the a lot of Sikhs (70%, I think) are Jat but not all Sikhs are Jat. Also, my colleagues reference various studies made by western explorers of India.. These studies aren't always the best sources of information since they are subject to the opinions (good and bad) of the time; hence their reference to nasal indexes. People of the same era were also making inferences based on physical measurements of other "races"; not a good thing for obvious reasons. Being Jat Sikh, I know many people who are also Jat. Some are fair, some are dark, some have small noses, some have large noses, some are tall and some are short, most have brown eyes, but some have green or grey eyes. What I am trying to say is that it is hard to define exactly the physical characterisation of a Jat. What is definite, is that there is a Jat culture, which is very definitely Indian.

I read with much interest the references of Jat in acient Hindu texts. However, we must never lose the objectivity requried in all academic pursuits. If the acient texts do reference us, then we have nothing to fear. However, we do need to find someone who can prove irrefutably, rather than make unsubstantiated attacks.

However, John Hill, your comments on the origins on the acient Hindu texts are concerning. To question this is question the whole basis of history. The language of these texts is sanscrit, which is most definitely indian. Where else do you propose that these texts originated from?

To draw a parallel, does John Hill maintain that there is no such thing as English? What is English? When we refer to an English man are we referring to a Celt, Norman, or Viking? Does the historical makeup of England mean there is no such thing as an Englishman? Is English culture non-existant and just a subset of European culture? In fact, in a recent documentary I learnt that Celts are more of a myth, and that no such cultural group exsisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatsikh (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Chaudhary writes again
As expected, Mr. Chaudhari has still not replied to my request of 3rd March for an apology from him for his unwarranted public attacks on my integrity on his website.

As usual, Mr. Chaudhary tries to deflect criticism of himself and his supporters (such as Mr. Burdak and the so-called "DrBrij"), by making unfounded personal accusations and lies about me, and then accusing me of doing likewise.

He might reflect that the reason I was atacking Mr. Burdak was because Mr. Burdak was once again misleading readers of this page with deceitful and biased "information" - something he has been guilty of many times previously. This is vandalism at its worst!

The reason I am "obsessed" with the Jat people page is that it appears to have been hijacked by a small group who are pushing a very twisted and racist view of history - as I have pointed out frequently on these pages. There has been a stream of unsupported statements of so-called "facts" and numerous totally phoney and false "quotes" added to these pages.

I have not seen any other page on the Wikipedia so filled with false "quotes", bias, and supremacist fantasies.

Fortunately, through a prolonged and painful process of constantly arguing with the likes of Mr. Chaudhary, Mr. Burdak and "DrBrij", and proving that many of their claims were clearly wrong, some of the grossest nonsense and falsehoods have been removed from the page. However, there is still a long way to go to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.

If we are ever going to have an article on the Jats worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia, these pages must no longer be misused in this way. We need truthful, unbiased contributors who will do their best to write fairly and back up their claims with accurate references to reputed sources.

For bringing these issues to the attention of readers I have been regularly abused and many baseless lies and accusations have been made about me.

My "objective" here is very simple - to help get this page up to Wikipedian standards - especially those of truthfulness, accuracy and lack of bias.

Some time ago one of the Administrators said he would try to rewrite the article when he had time. One can only hope that he will do so soon.

Now, Mr. Chaudhary continues his baseless and false accusations of me in order to distract attention from these pressing issues. In his latest note he says:


 * "You have no knowledge of any language other than English, you have no knowledge of Jat history and its traditions."

I object very strongly to such lies being told about me. Mr. Chaudhary has no way of telling how many languages I "know" or what I know about Jats, their history and traditions. He just makes these accusations up as he wishes.

It is really none of his business (and is not really pertinent here) but, in fact, I can (and regularly do) read several languages other than English - two fluently, and several others if I have a dictionary to hand. However, I must admit my verbal skills in most of them are generally now poor due to lack of the opportunity to practice them in Australia.

And how can Mr. Chaudhary possibly make the silly statement that I have: "no knowledge of Jat history and its traditions"? I have never claimed to be a great expert on them - but, I have lived for many years amongst Jats, and read a great deal and very widely over several decades on Indian history - including that of Jats.

So, enough of these lies and personal attacks. I can only repeat Mr. Chaudhary's "advice" to me:


 * "This is a public forum, very very public and anything you write here is embedded for ever.


 * Do please take a moment to reflect." John Hill 23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Jangala Desh no Personal attack Mr John Hill
Mr John Hill, We were discussing Jangala Desh, about which you said that there is no mention on sites other than Jat sites. Please come to the point and discuss only this one. Mr John Hill you come immediately to Personal attacks to hide your mistakes. When you do not understand the people of ancient Jangala Desh, their language and culture then how can you claim that you will delete this section after few days. This is unwanted. You make a mockery of epic like Mahabharata. You are behaving as if Administrator. Mr Chaudhary is right that you have to understand the people and their language first to write about them. Give your opinion about Jangala Desh and not about Mr Burdak, Mr Chaudhary or Mr Brij. Who are you to comment about them. It is not a site for original research. If there is some thing wrong it gets corrected by the other users. But the contributors are not to be blamed. Your contribution to this article is nil regarding content and it is negative. What do you want to prove here? --burdak 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Burdak again
Mr. Burdak - I really didn't want to have to write to you ever again as you have been so terribly rude and dishonest with me in the past. However, I find I have to address you once again - even though you have never apologised for your unforgivable behaviour towards me.

When I asked you recently for information about "Jangladesh" you gave me (once again) a phony second-hand "quote" and false information and then later (presumably when you couldn't answer my questions) changed your story about what the term meant meant, and its derivation.

Please answer my questions about your reply above before throwing the questions back on me. Have you found a reliable reference to "Jangladesh" as anything other than a descriptive name of relatively inferile country? Or, are you now reverting once again to your original claim that it derives from the name of one of the scores of tribes mentioned in the Mahabharata? Which one do you wish to promote?

I am not making a mockery of the Mahabharata - it is you who keeps contradicting yourself and calling on the Mahabharata to justify your speculations about history. As you say - this is not a site for original research and, I might add, it is not an appropriate place to start introducing new or practically unknown geographical terms - it is meant to be a general encyclopedia article, after all - for the use of the general public.

Also, please don't pretend to be innocent of making personal attacks. I have never told lies about you whereas you have attacked me and my integrity quite viciously many times and also made up slanderous lies about me - for which you have never apologised.

Finally, my contributions to this article have by necessity been largely to expose the many falsehoods, fantasies and prejudices that have been promoted in it and to attempt to make it a worthy article for inclusion in the Wikipedia. I believe this is far more important than continuing to add distorted and false information to an already over-long and inaccurate article.

When these matters are cleared up I will be happy to help others in developing a factual, fair and balanced article.

I am sorry things have come to such a pass - I would have much rather have worked WITH you to produce an exemplary article, but your deceitfulness and distortion of history must come to a stop on this page before it can be written properly. John Hill 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:John Hill

 * I am sorry John Hill, you do not understand Hindi or sanskrit. My Hindi content given  earlier clearly mentions about Jangala Desh. If you can get it translated you will unerstand it. Problem is that you treat this region as ficticious one. It is the geographical region known so in the history since Mahabharata times and that is why it is mentioned in Mahabharata. Geographical features mentioned in Mahabharata still exist in present times also. The name Jangala Desh continued till the biginning of the rule of Bika Rathore in end of fiteenth century. For this you have to study the history of Bikaner princely state. If you have knowledge of sanskrit language you can understand that basically Jangala Desh means 'Jungle country' in English. 'Jungle' in English is 'Jangala' in Sanskrit. The people who dwelt here were known 'Jāngalas' during Mahabharata times. Like Kuntal is also  a tribe, province where Kuntalas lived. I can not make clear more than this without knowledge of Sanskrit or Hindi. --burdak 10:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply on "Jangladesh"
It would be helpful if Mr. Burdak or someone else who can read Hindi would let those of us who don't read Hindi know what is said about Jangladesh in the two Hindi quotes and the references Mr. Burdak gives above - as there appears to be next to nothing about it in any European language. To sum up what we have already been told about "Jangaladesh" by Mr. Burdak:

1. There is a mention of the 'Jāngalas' in the Mahabharata in a very long list of tribes- but there is almost no information about where they might have lived at that time - except that they presumably lived in some "jungle" country.

2. It was falsely claimed by Mr. Burdak that James Tod referred to it in his book from the early 19th century.

3. According to Mr. Burdak: "The Rajput rulers of Bikaner, whose territory eventually embraced the bulk of Jangal country, sported the title Jai Jangaldhar Badshah, which was emblazoned on the state coat of arms during the British Raj."

4. An Indian government website states that "the state of Bikaner and northern part of Jodhpur was known as Jangala Desh." Unfortunately, we don't know when, nor by whom, or on what basis this claim is made on the website - as no authority is given for this statement by Mr. Burdak. This on its own, just means that Bikaner and the northern part of Jodhpur were known as the "jungle country" and therefore, is of little value.

Unless there is some important new information forthcoming, it would seem to me that Jangladesh or "Jungle country" is hardly specific enough, or a geographic term widely-used enough, to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia article in English on Jats - especially as major heading within that article.

Why not just refer to Bikaner and northern Jodhpur? Then everyone will be clear as to what region is meant.

As Jangaladesh, apparently, has never been previously used in English, it will only confuse English-readers who will likely compare it in their minds to the similar-sounding Bangladesh and think it must refer to some real nation or state. I welcome others' thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, John Hill 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The crux of it
Mr Hill writes:

" It would be helpful if Mr. Burdak or someone else who can read Hindi would let those of us who don't read Hindi know what is said about Jangladesh in the two Hindi quotes and the references Mr. Burdak gives above - as there appears to be next to nothing about it in any European language."

Mr Hill,

Mr Burdak has told you what is written In Hindi.Your difficulty is you will not accept it.

Are you now admitting you do not know Hindi?

As to your knowledge of languages, you have been dodging for many month s, and refuse to tell us what your educational background is and /or tell us if you know any language other than English.

Why are you not admitting you know no language other than English? There is nothing to be ashamed of there is there? Many people know only one language? That does not lessen their capability.

If you know other languages why are reluctant  to tell us?

At one of our previous interactions, you stated you would disclose your qualifications if I gave mine out.

I had done that.

The question now is why are so reluctant to come forth?

You comment:

" is there appears to be next to nothing about it in any European language"

What exactly do you mean?.

If something is not in a European language, it is not valid?Is that what you are saying?

Ravi Chaudhary 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaudhary's smokescreens
As usual, when there are difficult questions relevant to this article which Mr. Chaudhary can't answer, or he doesn't like, he goes on the attack making wild, and often vicious, personal accusations without even bothering to read what others have written - or, if he has read them, he doesn't seem capable of understanding them.

As if that wasn't enough, he regularly makes up lies and fantasies to attack other people. It is difficult to tell whether he suffers from some unfortunate personality disorder or he is a misguided fanatic, or is just dense, or whether it is a combination of factors. Whatever the reason(s) - it is clear he cannot (or does not wish to) understand plain English.

Firstly, Mr. Chaudhary has never replied to my request for an apology for spreading slanderous lies about myself.

Secondly, he keeps trying to focus attention on my educational background and knowledge of languages and other irrelevant subjects to distract readers from the real problems apparent in this article.

He claims in his last note that he has shared with us his educational background and what languages he knows. Where and when did he do that? Can anyone find such a statement from him in the archives - I can't. Then, instead of focusing on improving this article he attacks me once again. To paraphrase Mr. Chaudhary (while correcting his grammar): "The question now is why is he so reluctant to come forth?"

He keeps saying that I don't know any language other than English (how he "knows" this is a bit worrying - maybe he suffers from delusions?) On the 21st August I said quite clearly that: "I can (and regularly do) read several languages other than English - two fluently, and several others if I have a dictionary to hand. However, I must admit my verbal skills in most of them are generally now poor due to lack of the opportunity to practice them in Australia." I will add now that I studied three "foreign" languages in school and university and have taught myself how to read (with a dictionary to hand) three others, plus I know a smattering of several other languages.

I have taught myself enough Chinese to be able to translate three ancient books into English - drafts of two of which have been featured on the University of Washington's "Silk Road Seattle" website for several years and have drawn international acclaim (including from Chinese scholars). They are referred to and quoted in a number of scholarly books. My first book - in its final form - has been accepted for publication by another American university and is presently with the publishers. Can Mr. Chaudhary make any equivalent claim?

Further, it should have been crystal clear that I don't know how to read Hindi from the statement I made yesterday that: "It would be helpful if Mr. Burdak or someone else who can read Hindi would let those of us who don't read Hindi know . . . ." Moreover, in a previous communication (now in the archives) I also said I could not read Hindi. It seems that Mr. Chaudhary cannot read or understand English very well.

In reply to my comment that there does not seem to be anything about "Jangladesh" in any European language, Mr. Chaudhary asks: "What exactly do you mean?. If something is not in a European language, it is not valid?Is that what you are saying?"

Well, if he had only read what I said he would not ask such a stupid question. I suggest he take a few minutes and go back and read the few short paragraphs in point 4 at the end of my last note and try his best to work out what I was suggesting. If he can't understand my English maybe some kind reader will help him by translating my words into some language he does understand better?

But all of this is totally irrelevant to improving this page on Jats and so this will be the last I have to say on these subjects.

What is important are the regular attempts to distort history and mislead readers that have been, most unfortunately, so much a part of the "contributions" of Mr. Chaudhary, Mr. Burdak and the so-called "DrBrij". This vandalism and abuse has been exposed numerous times on these pages by myself and quite a large a number of other readers. This is what needs to be brought to an end so that a proper, balanced and informative encyclopedia article about Jats can be written for the Wikipedia. Sincerely, John Hill 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

response:

Mr Hill should really read his own talk page

Here is my note of June 20, giving my qualifications and questioning his competency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Hill&diff=139511609&oldid=139491040

Revision as of 21:05, 20 June 2007 (edit) (undo) Ravi Chaudhary (Talk | contribs) (John Hill's expert qualifiactions) Newer edit → Line 640: Line 640: Ravi Chaudhary 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Ravi Chaudhary 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC) +  +   + Mr Hill continues to reply on places other than where the original thread is and makes accusatiosn that he is being threatened in the note above.His response is on the jat talk page +  + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people +  +   + titled: " More questions and threats from Mr Chaudhary" +  + Response: +  + The issue is about a person in this case John Hill, making and reverting edits on the Jat page, and claiming to be an expert in their History. +  + His expertise is being questioned. +  + Why is that wrong? +  + He claims to be an expert, among other things, on Indian History. He claims to have acquired that expertise, in a three year stay in India as per his user page. +  + Is it unreasonable to ask: +  +   + Where specifically he acquired that expertise? Under whose scholarly guidance? In which Research Institution/University? +  + What languages he knows- reads, writes, or speaks, and where and when he acquired that skill? +  + If indeed he knows the languages, then he can be a valuable resource in reading, translating, and interpreting the mass of primary data that is now available. +  + Why does Mr. Hill consider these requests unreasonable? +  + Mr. Hill asks as to my academic qualifications, and then he will disclose his? +  + Fine: +  + I am a graduate of Delhi University, and have a B.Sc. (Hons) in Physics, 1968; I have an MBA from Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, (1970). I qualified as Chartered Accountant in England ( 1978) and am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and in Ontario in Canada. +  + I know Hindi, English, some Punjabi... +  + More importantly I do NOT know any of the ancient languages - Sanskrit, Pali, Khraosti, or Brahmi or Chinese modern or ancient.. +  + I am a member of Jat community, being myself Jat. +  + I have an amateur passion for history since my school days. I make no professional claims to expertise. +  + I founded a history discussion group on Jat history, and am one of the moderators. The group is dedicated to the study of Jat history, and the archiving of Jat history related material. Founded in 2002, it now has about 450 members. +  +   + The URL is   +   + http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/ +  + Membership in the group is open to all. +  + The archives are public. The files section required membership to access. Posting is restricted to members, to avoid posts which would up the list with personal attacks etc. +   + There are a number of online books and article in the files section. +  + Membership is open to all. Normal rules of courtesy apply. +  + The Wiki format, as others may have noted, does not support lengthy discussions, which can be followed with ease.One would have thought an off wiki group was a better place for detailed indepth discussions. +  + For the sake of completion, Mr. Hill was asked to join and discuss the issues about Jat history in the yahoo jathistory group, URL above, or it was suggested that he could create a discussion group, where the threads could have some continuity. Yahoo groups are free. He has refused. +  +   + One cannot help but wonder,as to his his reasons for not doing so. Could it be that other groups would not allow the accusatory and inflamatory 'language' that he uses? +  + We look forward to Mr. Hill sharing with us information about his academic qualifications and knowledge skill sets including languages known. +  +   + Ravi Chaudhary 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He now claims to have taught himself Chinese, and 'knows' other languages fluently.

If he has the skills, it is appreciated.

However as is clear from his discussions, his only claim to know anything about the Jats and their history, is based on his claim to have dated a Jat girl, and   his other claim to have lived among the Jats.

Query for Mr Hill? where are these Jats that you lived among? Trinidad?

I will suggest, that is another tall claim.

Ravi Chaudhary 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Content from English books about Jangala Desh
Prof. Dilbagh Singh, a known historian from Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Delhi,  writes in [“Migration and Movement: The Role of Jats in Rural Settlements in Rajasthan during Medieval Period”, The Jats, Vol. 2, Ed Dr Vir Singh, Originals, Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-88629-52-9, pp. 215-217 ] as under:


 * “Even Puratanaprabhandasamgraha and Nainsi’s Khyat attest to the formation of nodal kingdom at the expense of medas and meenas. Their movement was from Ahichhatrapura to Sakambari or Jangaldesh, which one could assume from the name and topography of  Jangaldesh led to the colonization of generally unchartered area. [BD Chattopadhyaya, ‘The Emergence of Rajputs As Historical Process in Early Medieval Rajasthan’, K. Schomer (ed) The Idea of Rajasthan, Vol. II, Delhi, pp. 163-166]

….Nainsi offers some valuable information in respect of the Jats whose migration along with the ahirs and malis in Marwar was induced by successive Rathor rulers during the 14th and 15th centuries. [Nainsi Khyat, Vol. II p. 6] The other Jat clan were Godara who helped Bika in establishing Rathore principalities in Bikaner.

….As for the Jats prior to coming of Rathors in Rajasthan Nainsi referes to Jat settlements at Bhadana which is identified as the Saharan Jatan Ra Des or des belonging to the Saharan sept of Jats. [Nainsi Khyat, Vol. I p. 12]

….He (Nainsi) mentions two types of des. The first type is perceived as inhabited space identified with a region, sub-region a settlement of a particular caste, clan or tribe who may or may not have exercised political dominance. [Vigat, Vol. 2, p. 9] In contradistinction to first type of des, the term ‘khali des’ is also widely used by Nainsi. It pointed out to unoccupied and uncolonized space. There are references to the occupation and colonization of Phalodi, a Khali des by Nara, the son of Rao Suja of Jodhpur.”

For the general readers it would be important to know about Nainsi. He was the Diwan of Jodhpur Raja Ajit Singh (1645-1666 AD.). He has recorded History of desert region of Rajasthan in the form of various volumes known as ‘Khyat’ and ‘Vigat’ in Rajasthani language, which is the primary source of information about the history of Marwar and Jangala Desh.

Dr Karni Singh, a well known political personality and author, records that Jats had established powerful governments in north India. Prior to 1488 Jats had seven Janapadas of Godara, Saran, Sihag, Beniwal, Puniya, Sahu, Johiya in desert region of Bikaner, [Dr Karni Singh (1947): The Relations of House of Bikaner with Central Power, Munsi Ram Manohar Lal Pub. Pvt, 54 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi.], [Dr Brahmaram Chaudhary, The Jats, Vol. 2, Ed Dr Vir Singh, Originals, Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-88629-52-9, p. 250], with details as under:

Table of Jat republics in Jangladesh:

Jibraeil writes about Jangala Desh in [“Position of Jats in Churu Region” in “The Jats, Vol. 2”, Ed Dr Vir Singh, Originals, Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-88629-52-9, pp. 223 ] as under:


 * “When Rathores led an expedition into the region of dry land also known as Jangal Pradesh, which was occupied by the Jats and various tribes, the Bhatis and Jats of the region wanted to secure their position, they measured sword with him (Bika) and fought bravely against them, but finally defeated and accepted Rathor suzerainty. [G N Sharma, Rajasthan Studies, Agra, 1970, p. 197]”

I have done so much to search content from Hindi, Sanskrit and Indian English languages. Mr John Hill should also go to library and find the content about Jangaja Desh. Mr John Hill, what you are telling that Mr James Todd has not mentioned about Jangla Desh is incorrect. It is your interpretation that Janglu mentioned by Todd is not Jangala Desh. Mr James Todd writes Jangu in its place due to phonetic problems. You can mompare the names other places mentioned by Jamew Todd of the above table. He had spelled all the places mention in above table incorrectly, which were corrected by later authors. You can compare the names of these actual places mentioned in above table to those given by Todd in annals. There is no village named Janglu in Rajasthan.

I am unable to understand behavior of John Hill about Indian authors. All the authors I have mentioned as references are well known authors in Indian Universities. The content of their publications are result of serious discussions in conferences. Most of them are Proffesors of History. If new facts are coming in History and published then they are to be accepted. These are reputed references. Encyclopedia Britanica can not help in such matters. --burdak 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jangladesh references apparently finally found in one recently published book in English
Well, Mr. Burdak has finally found one book which apparently mentions "Jangladesh" in English! All the references he gives are to aricles to be found in the one book: The Jats Vol. 2, edited by Vir. Singh; published by Low Cost Publications in 2006.

This book is not available from Google, nor is it yet listed in any library in Australia - so I think I may be forgiven for not knowing about it.

In any case, it is clear that the name just refers to "a region of dry land" and has no real political importance as such. It is not a recognised district, state or province and, therefore, I still maintain it has no place as a major heading in what should be a concise general encyclopedia article on Jats. It would be, O.K. I guess to mention it in passing - as long as one described what it refers to so that readers are not left in the dark.

Now, I am waiting for Mr. Burdak to tell me where to find "Jangladesh" in Tod as he reckons that when I say Tod does not mention it I am wrong. Maybe he can find such a reference? I have been right through my copy of the book and cannot find any at all.

Mr. Burdak also says that there is no village named Janglu in Rajasthan. I agree, I never said there was, Mr. Burdak. I also never said Janglu was the same as Jangladesh. Please do read what I say before you start criticising! I have asked you to do this several times - but you keep on making accusations that I have said certain things when I haven't. I am getting really sick of these false accusations! It is really too much!

Mr. Burdak suggested (see above) that Jangladesh was mentioned on p. 1123 of Tod's book (in the Low Price Publications' version). This is certainly NOT true (and one wonders why he made such a silly claim - so easy to disprove).

To clarify the situation, what I did then was quote Tod from that page and the next: "What Tod actually says on pp. 1123-1124, is: "Bika, with his band of three hundred, fell upon the Sankalas² of Janglu, whom they massacred." And then he adds this note (it is at the bottom of p. 1123): "²[The Sānkhlas are said to be a Panwār clan, but this is not certain (Census Report, Rājputāna, 1911, i. 256). Jānglu is about 20 miles S. of Bikaner city.]" John Hill 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a followup, I can read the Hindi quote from ; I do not think, however, that an 'orientation' website from the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, which focuses on the preservation of handicraft and traditional arts, is necessarily RS for historical matters, especially if it is unconfirmed in an RS in either English, Hindi or Urdu. The author of the piece, Kailash Mishra, is an authority on folk arts employed by IGNCA, not on history.Hornplease 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that Jangal-desh - literally, "wild place" I think- was merely a word used to refer to the deserted tracts of northern Rajasthan, basically parts of Shekhawati. Not really notable independently. Hornplease 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To make myself clearer, the implication that it was a Jat dominion of some kind is inaccurate. (Certainly, the authors of the Shekhawat article, another exercise in fluffery, would strongly combat that assertion.) It would be like claiming Doab was also a "Jat nation". Hornplease 22:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

K R Qanungo on Jangal Desh
Here is a reputed historian K R Qanungo [History of the Jats, Ed Dr Vir Singh, 2003, p.] who mentions incidence from Mahabharata that there is a town named Sakala and river named Apaga where section of the Bahikas, known as the Jartikas, dwell. Their character is very repressible. He mentions about a Bahika who had to sojourn for a time in Kuru-jungal country sang the following song about the women of his country:
 * "Though a Bahika, I am at present an exile in Kuru-jangal country; that tall and fair-complexioned wife of mine, dressed in her fine blanket certainly remenbers me when she retires to rest. Oh! when shall I go back to my country crossing again the Satadru (the Sutlej) and Iravati and see beautiful females of fair complexion, wearing stout bangles, dressed in blanket and skins, eye-sides coloured with dye of Manshila, forehead, cheek and chin painted wit collyrium (tatooing ?). When shall we eat under the pleasant shade of Shami, Peelu and Karir, loaves and balls of fried barley powder with waterless churned curd (kunjik), and gathering strength, take away the clothes of the wayfarers and beat them?"

--burdak 13:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not relevant to the claim that Jangal-desh constituted a particular realm.Hornplease 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We are discussing Jangala Desh as ancient region of Rajasthan, by the name with which this region was identified. Wikipedia has articles about many regions in ancient India. History of any region has to be written as it was known. So it is relevant as regards to past history. This region was associated with Madra or the Kuru regions and was frequently mentioned in ancient literature as Madra-Jangala Desh or the Kuru-Jangala Desh. It has to do nothing with today's history. --burdak 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We have no sources to indicate that it is anything more than a term equivalent to "desert area".Hornplease 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE to hornplease - You are incorrect. Desh means 'land of' or' 'country of.In this case land of the Jangala people. The Mahabharat references clearly point out  that the 'Jangal(a)s were a people, along with the kuru Panchals, malas, etc as per the references alreday provided. above under the hedaing:  Jangala Desh in Mahabharata -SECTION IX of Bhisma Parva in Mahabharata mentions (See http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06009.htm) "After this, listen to the names of the provinces as I mention them. They are the Kuru-Panchalas, the Salwas, the Madreyas, the Jangalas, the Surasena, the Kalingas, the Bodhas, the Malas, the Matsyas, the Sauvalyas, the Kuntalas, the Kasi-kosalas, the Chedis, the Karushas, the Bhojas, etc" Even India is called a Desh, a country. Desh is also used to denote a region.  It is a different matter that the term Jangal( people) and Jungle( forest) are similiar sounding words. The local area is often referred to as " Bagri" which denotes  a barren, desert tract. A desert in Hindi is usually called a 'Registhan', not a 'Jungle' or 'Jangal' Ravi Chaudhary 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What Mahabharata says that it is the province of Jangalas that meance Jangala Desh in Hindi. All the sources quoted by me are sufficient to show that it is for Jangala Desh. If somebody does not try to understand there is no solution of it. Here is Govt of India site on tourism which mentions about Jangladesh  http://www.rajasthantourism.gov.in/destinations/bikaner/bikaneroverview.htmI quote from it "...Durbar provoked Bikaji to set up his own kingdom towards the north of Jodhpur. The barren wilderness called Jangladesh became his focus point and he transformed it to an impressive city." --burdak 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jangladesh listed for deletion - please add your comments
Dear All: Yesterday I listed the Jangladesh article for possible deletion. I notice this morning that Mr. Burdak has repeated (on the page for listing possible deletions) most of the arguments he has already put forward in its favour on these pages to try to keep the article in the Wikipedia.

The more I have looked into it the more I have become convinced that "Jangladesh" was just a vague term referring to a rather barren bit of country in Bikaner and adjoining areas rather than a valid political region - and, therefore, has no place in a general encyclopedia beyond, perhaps, a passing mention. Mr. Burdak makes it sound as if it referred to a real "country" - and I can't see this as justified.

I also notice that Mr. Burdak has contacted at least one individual asking them personally to support him in retaining this article. I don't believe this sort of selection of individuals is really the best way to handle such a matter - which is why I am making this public appeal - so that people from both sides of this dispute have the chance to reply. It seems to me that this is the only fair way to proceed.

Anyway, whatever you think about it all - whether you are for or against deletion - it would be to everyone's benefit if you would make you views known on this subject known by going to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_30 and adding your comments (and signing them please).

I also note that the discussions so far have been added to the "list of India-related decisions page" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India - so it would be probably be useful to add your comments there too.

Many thanks, John Hill 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

JANGAL DESH Land of the Jangal(a)s( a tribe /people) is well documented in the written and oral traditions of the Indian people since ancient times.

Mr Burdak has provided many references in English and Hindi to this.

Mr Hill is obsesses by his failure to find this reference in any European language, and refuses to accept the translation of the Hindi texts.

Mr Hill should be banned from editing on any jat history related page.

Ravi Chaudhary 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jangladesh" again
First of all - it would help readers follow the discussions if entries are kept in chronological order - so let us all please try.

Now, Mr. Burdak has made another comment under an item above dated 2 September, 2007. In it he claims that Bikaji set up a kingdom in "the barren wilderness called Jangladesh". Everyone who has followed this discussion so far must realise that this was the kingdom later known as Bikaner. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the same tract of land that the Mahabharata very briefly refers to the "Jangala" people inhabiting. The landscape may well have changed drastically from the time of the Mahabharata to the time of Bika. Or, the Mahabharata may just as easily have been referring to a completely different tract of land that was arid, sterile or desert - we have no way of telling. The land around Bikaner is not the only land in ancient India that might have been referred to as "jangla" or jaṅgala.

As Monier-Williams says in his famous Sanskrit-English Dictionary (1899 - reprint 1974 by Oxford), p. 408, jaṅgala means: "arid, sterile, desert". Areas which may have been arid, sterile or desert in the time of the Mahabharata may have been well have been different by the time of Bika.

So, all I am suggesting is that this is a vague term, rarely used, that really has no place in a general Wikipedia article on Jats (and even less to have an article completely devoted to it) - that is all. I don't understand why Mr. Burdak and Mr. Chaudhary seem so "obsessed" (to use Mr. Chaudhary's term) to establish this vague term as some kind of recognised place name - all their arguments make it clear to any reasonable person that that is not the case. It is a descriptive term which might have been applied to any barren piece of land and quite possibly was used for different places at different times. John Hill 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which place in India do you anticipate to be the Jangladesh? --burdak 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Street Scholar willing to offer help...
HI guys, I see this article is a serious mess my suggestions are an expert on the subject should edit the article, we also need people who are good at formatting the article. Furthermore, I see issues like excessive tagging of citation requests, half of these were added by a Hindu sock puppet who is now banned indefinitely. What do you guy's think? --Street Scholar 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thakur Deshraj on rule of Punias in Jangala Desh

 * Following is the English translation of History of Punias mentioned by Thakur Deshraj pages 617 and 618 from the Book ‘Jat Itihas’ (History of the Jats), 1992 edition: Publisher: Maharaja Surajmal Smarak Shiksah Sanstha, C-4 Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058.

"The Puniyas are Naga clans, and Punia is derived from Naga. The Hissar Gazetteer says that they consider themselves to be of the Shiva Gotr (clan) and there is reference to them being descended from Mahadev (Shiva)’s locks. Shivi and Takshak people lived contagiously- side by side. These two evolved into being followers of Shaivism.

Following the invasion by Sikandar(Alexander) some of the Shivi and Takshak clans came down below Punjab. Some out of these established their hold on Jangal Pradesh. The Puniyas too arose of such Jat groups who established their hold on a country and utilized for a very long time. They reached Jangal Pradesh by the time of commencement of the Christian era, current era. They governed this land upto the 15th century CE.

At the time of the arrival of the group of the Rahtors under Bika and Kaandal, the Punia Sardars or chieftains had 300 villages under their sway. They had been independent from many generations. In addition they had six other republics of the Jats in Jangal Pradesh.

Ram Ratan Charan in his “History of Rajputana” in Hindi, refers to these six realms as ‘Bhumiyachare” i.e. republics. Reference to these republics is also found in 'Bharat ke Desi Rajya’, 'Tarikh Raajgahn Hind’, ‘Vakaye Rajputana’, and many other history books. We(Thakur Deshraj) have written our account on the basis of these historical Texts.

At that time, the capital was Jhansal, which is on the boundary of modern Hissar. Ram Ratan Charan calls this capital as Luddhi in his book.

Theeir Raja was Kanhadev at that time. Kanhadev was a great leader and a fearless warrior who could never be defeated. His Punia clan brethren followed his wishes. Republics are defeated by internal dissent. His Puniya society had unity. He did not have a large standing military force, but he had no shortage of young warriors, who lived at home, and who rose to arms as soon as the call came from their leader. Every Puniya citizen considered the whole republic as of his own. They were ready to bear all hardships. They however would not tolerate a person from another community to rule over them. Their mental makeup made them refuse to accept rule by Bika. They kept fighting for their independence as long as they had young men who could come to the force. The Rahtors managed to take control of their homesteads one at a time. In the end the Rahtors constructed forts in the middle of their lands. The Rahtors would make these forts in the day, and in the night the Puniyas would break them down. The folk traditions state that some Puniyas were buried alive in the walls of some of these forts.

After much struggle the Puniyas were defeated. Some of them then migrated towards the United Provinces (modern Uttar Pradesh). The Rahtors had a big army, the Godara Jats also gave them their assistance. That is why the Puniyas lost.

It was, however, a matter of pride, that seeking to protect their Independence, they never showed cowardice. Rivers of blood were flowed by them. In revenge for the ill treatment of the leaders by the enemy, they defeated and took prisoner and killed the Rathor King Rai Singh. Reference to this act of revenge by the Puniyas is found in the book – ‘Bharat ke Desi Rajya’ (Eng- Indigenous Kingdoms of India).

The republic of the Puniyas spread from Jhansal (on the boundary of Modern Hissar, to Marod. Marod is 12 kos south of Rajgarh. The folk legends tell us, that one Sadhu told a Puniya leader, that whatever land he could cover on a mare, that will be governed by the Puniyas. The Mare was let loose and at Sunset, she reached Marod and died. At that time the Puniyas Sardar (chieftain) said:


 * “The journey from Jhansal ended at Marodh. The mare died but no regret.”

Traces of the old capital of the Puniyas, Jhansal where there was their fort, can still be found. Such traces are also still found in Balsamand.

The Rathor Raja would pay an annual fee to some of the Puniya chieftains to keep them peaceful and quiet. Even until recent times, there was a tradition of receiving clothing and some money from Raja annually by these Puniya leaders as a tribute." --burdak 04:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More on "Jangladesh" or "Bagar"
I see Mr. Burdak has given some more material in support of his claims. In reply, I would like to make a quote from: Forming an Identity: A Social History of the Jats (1999. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. ISBN 019-564719-X), pp. 11-12, by Nonica Datta from Delhi University. This gives a rather different view (and dating) of some of the events and places discussed above. It also apparently provides another name for the region Mr. Burdak is calling "Jangladesh", that is, "Bagar". I would be interested to hear others comments on this passage in particular:


 * "Hissar, Rohtak, Gurgaon and Panipat, with their bhaiachara (cosharing) tenures and the khudkasht (peasant-proprietor), were part of the Jatiyar or Jatiyat, the country of the Jats. Here lived the Deswali or Hele and the Dhe or Pachchade Jats. The Deswali claimed to be the descendants of the 'original' Jats settled in India about a thousand years ago, while the Dhe were late arrivals who extended their sphere of influence following the disintegration of the Mughal Empire. In Rohtak, situated on the right bank of the Yamuna river, the Deswali Jats appear to have settled some seven hundred or eight hundred years ago while the Dhi Jats, probably the descendants of immigrants from Bagar, a tract just beyond the border of Bikaner, moved into the western parts of the Hissar district around 1783 and took up the lands abandoned after the terrible Chalisa famine of that year. Some of them came from Bikaner and Nabha in the early nineteenth century. The areas adjoining Bikaner and to the west of Bhiwani, such as Hissar and Fatehabad, were called Bagar, a term meaning 'dry country' in common parlance. Those living in the region were descendants of the itinerant Bagri Jats and the Bishnois."

It is also, I believe, worth noting that the "Bhumiyachare" (=bhaiachara) which are called "republics" by Thakur Deshraj are referred to as "(cosharing) tenures" here which, to me at least, would seem to be a better translation of the term. A "republic" conjures up the notion of an established "state" of some considerable size and importance in everyday English (think of the "Republic of India", for example).

There is, of course much more of relevance in this book. I leave it to the readers to consider all the evidence carefully and decide which sources are the most accurate and plausible. Whoever rewrites the article should, I believe, take into account Nonica Datta's very interesting and, it seems to me, more sober and reliable history. John Hill 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 RESPONSE:

On the contrary.

For starters one wishes you would leave it to readers, as you now claim do, than add your superfical, biased comments, which is what you actually do do!!

It seems you are determined that the area should be known as anything other the Jangal Desh.

As for Nonica Datta, her work could stand some some academic rigourousness, which is lacking in the most part.

What some readers may find interesting is that a 'John Hill', ( not unexpectedly and unsurprisingly), does not enough about the subject to question anything about what she writes.

The border is also known as Bagri or dry. And people from that region are also referred to as Bagri and Jats from that area are also called Bagri Jats on occasion, so what point are you really trying to prove?

This is one of many reasons why we are asking you to study Indian History, not just just look   for " a nail to hang your hat on".

This area, as has been pointed out, was under Jat sway for over 1,500 years. That is a fair amount of time and during that period  it  was known as Jangal Desh.

The term Bikaner got prominence only after that( 16th century with Muslim and British rule). Bikaner too was simply a name set up jointly by Bika and a Jat leader of the Nehr(a) clan, who jointly gave the name to the town, later capital of the Rahtor princedom, aftre the teaties were broken.

That being the case, it does not stand to reason why a name that lasted so long and still lives in the Indian languages and in Indic literature, ,and is referred to in current Indian government documents, should be obliterated under your sort of revisionist writing, which reminds one of revisionist histories which gained flavor at the time of the Stalinists, who sought to rewrite history by elimination of  what did not suit them.

If your flawed logic is a followed then  even the term Bagri should not be used, for  that is another name for part of what is now North Western Rajasthan.

As for the area not being republican.

Again you need to do some basic reading.

Your lack of knowledge of Indian History comes to fore unnecessarily, and which a little reading would have avoided.

Indian history shows that society down the ages was made up both Republican and Feudal states, which existed side by side at time, and in succession at various times.A brief glance at any basic Indian History text books will show that.

Your problem becomes, as you put it,

“ It is also, I believe, worth noting that the "Bhumiyachare" (=bhaiachara) which are called "republics" by Thakur Deshraj are referred to as "(cosharing) tenures" here which, to me at least, would seem to be a better translation of the term. A "republic" conjures up the notion of an established "state" of some considerable size and importance in everyday English (think of the "Republic of India", for example).”

Bhaichara- is not co tenure, but sharing of the resources- that is what would happen in a republic.

The other problem you have, and this has been pointed out to you before, is that you consider unless something is in The English Language, it does not deserve the same place in an Encyclopedia as something that is not in English.

If you wish to learn about Republics in Ancient India, since all Indian sources, except those who agree with your narrow view, see  paper by a Canadian Historian,( since Indian historias are not valid authorities in your mind.)

Democracy in Ancient India by Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University.

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/indiadem.htm

Some Extracts:

“this article will examine one important case of government by discussion -- the republics of Ancient India. Although they are familiar to Indologists, these republics are hardly known to other historians. They deserve, however, a substantial place in world historiography. The experience of Ancient India with republicanism, if better known, would by itself make democracy seem less of a freakish development, and help dispel the common idea that the very concept of democracy is specifically "Western."

“evidence for non-monarchical government goes back to the Vedas, 12 republican polities were most common and vigorous in the Buddhist period, 600 B.C.-A.D. 200. “ Such an organization, of whatever type, could be designated, almost indifferently, as a gana or a sangha; and similar though less important bodies were labeled with the terms sreni, puga, or vrata. Gana and sangha,

Perhaps the most useful Greek account of India is Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander, which describes the Macedonian conqueror's campaigns in great detail. The Anabasis, which is derived from the eyewitness accounts of Alexander's companions, 18 portrays him as meeting "free and independent" Indian communities at every turn. What "free and independent" meant is illustrated from the case of Nysa, a city on the border of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan that was ruled by a president named Aculphis and a council of 300. After surrendering to Alexander, Aculphis used the city's supposed connection with the god Dionysus to seek lenient terms from the king:

"The Nysaeans beseech thee, O king out of respect for Dionysus, to allow them to remain free and independent; for when Dionysus had subjugated the nation of the Indians...he founded this city from the soldiers who had become unfit for military service ...From that time we inhabit Nysa, a free city, and we ourselves are independent, conducting our government with constitutional order." 19 Nysa was in Greek terms an oligarchy, as further discussion between Alexander and Aculphis reveals, and a single-city state. There were other Indian states that were both larger in area and wider in franchise. It is clear from Arrian that the Mallian republic consisted of a number of cities.20 Q. Curtius Rufus and Diodorus Siculus in their histories of Alexander mention a people called the Sabarcae or Sambastai among whom "the form of government was democratic and not regal." 21 The Sabarcae/Sambastai, like the Mallians, had a large state. Their army consisted of 60,000 foot, 6000 cavalry, and 500 chariots.22 Thus Indian republics of the late fourth century could be much larger than the contemporaneous Greek polis. And it seems that in the northwestern part of India, republicanism was the norm. Alexander's historians mention a large number of republics, some named, some not, but only a handful of kings.23 The prevalence of republicanism and its democratic form is explicitly stated by Diodorus Siculus. After describing the mythical monarchs who succeeded the god Dionysus as rulers of India, he says:

At last, however, after many years had gone, most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly until the invasion of the country by Alexander.24

What makes this statement particularly interesting is that it seems to derive from a first-hand description of India by a Greek traveler named Megasthenes. Around 300 B.C., about two decades after Alexander's invasion, Megasthenes served as ambassador of the Greek king Seleucus Nicator to the Indian emperor Chandragupta Maurya, and in the course of his duties crossed northern India to the eastern city of Patna, where he lived for a while.25 If this statement is drawn from Megasthenes, then the picture of a northwestern India dominated by republics must be extended to the entire northern half of the subcontinent.26

'''It is clear from Panini that egalitarianism was an important element in the fifth century B.C.: he preserves a special term for the gana where "there was no distinction between high and low." 62'''

Republicanism now has a place in every worthwhile book about ancient India, but it tends to be brushed aside so that one can get back to the main story, which is the development of the surviving Hindu tradition.74 Historians, in India as elsewhere, seem to feel that anything which could be so thoroughly forgotten must have had grievous flaws to begin with.75 Most historians still cannot discuss these republics without qualifying using the qualifiers "tribal" or "clan."76 '''Long ago Jayaswal rightly protested against the use of these terms: "The evidence does not warrant our calling [republics] 'clans.' Indian republics of the seventh [sic] and sixth centuries B.C...had long passed the tribal stage of society. They were states, Ganas and Samghas, though many of them likely had a national or tribal basis, as every state, ancient or modern, must necessarily have." 77 He was equally correct when he pointed out that "Every state in ancient Rome and Greece was 'tribal' in the last analysis, but no constitutional historian would think of calling the republics of Rome and Greece mere tribal organizations." 78 '''

The terminology of even Indian historians demonstrates the survival of an ancient but inappropriate prejudice in the general evaluation of Indian republicanism.

== ''' Once that prejudice is overcome, Indian republicanism gains a strong claim on the attention of historians, especially those with an interest in comparative or world history. ''' ==

END Quote”

One his references used is :

Bibliography on the Evidence for Very Early Democracy in India Provided by Joelle Brink Dahiya, B. S. Jats, the ancient rulers : a clan study (New Delhi : Sterling, 1980).

The Late B S Dahiya was a Jat.

Now that Mr Hill knows that Dahiya quoted by Mulberger was a jat, would one be amiss in gathering that Mulberger's ( a mere assistant Professor of History in Nipissing University, Canada) article will now suddenly diminish in value, in his eyes.

Of course he will consider himself more competent, than Steven Mulberger who is currently a lowly Professor of History.

Mr Hill's prejudice against the Jats, and  evidence based on that provided by  Jat writers, Jat Sources, and Indian Sources which do not agree with him are  quite apparent. –His looking for support in a blatantly anti Jat writer is one of them.

To move on.

An excellent book on Indian Republics in Ancient India is “ Republics in Ancient India – 100 BC to 600 BC” by. J P Sharma., Leiden 1968.

To someone prepared to read with an unprejudiced mind, it contains much knowledge- for one it shows that the  republican  form of society  existed in  since Vedic times. Vedic times are now thought be from 3300 BCE down to 1800 BCE. Republics have continued to be in India down to modern Times. The last Republic in India, pre 1947 was that of the Jats which held sway in Northern India, and fought the Islamic invaders and the British invaders to 1857.

For further reading see:

“ The Political and Social History of the Jats- Dr Bal Kishan Dabas, 2001, Sanjay Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 81-8453-045-2

This book, based on the  PH.D. thesis of Dr Dabas, and is based on his extensive research of, among other sources, the records of the Haryana Sarv Khap, who crowned the Jat Emperor Harsha  a Raja or leader, in the year 664 of the Vikram Samvat  era, ( 606 AD).

He confirms that Harsha united  the small republics in North Indian from The Punjab to modern Western UP to Central India. They were source of his power.

It has been suggested to Mr Hill earlier, and it is repeated,  that he  should  study Indian History, before passing (prejudiced) comments, and seeking to have his shallow comments and  biased POV enshrined in an Encyclopedia.

If Mr Hill had lived among the Jats, and studied India History as he  claims, all this would have been quite obvious to him. It is quite apparent that you have not done either.

Mr Hil, you need to go beyond some superficial knowledge, before  passing comments  on the History of the Jats.

In summary: Jangal Desh is an ancient name for a territory which was occupied and where there were  a number republics of the Jats  for over 1500 years.It is still used today in the local languages and in Indian  Publications, Government and non Government publications.

The name is important to Indian History and to Jat history and we Jats have no plans to allow the likes of a John Hill obliterate our history.

Ravi Chaudhary 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Chaudhary's "Response"
I will do my best to ignore the usual barrage of outrageous rudeness and unsubstantiated lies and accusations made above by Mr. Chaudhary, and stick to the issues he raises.

First, I will repeat again what I stated clearly in my last post (as Mr. Chaudhary seems to be promoting a distorted view of what I am proposing):


 * "I leave it to the readers to consider all the evidence carefully and decide which sources are the most accurate and plausible. Whoever rewrites the article should, I believe, take into account Nonica Datta's very interesting and, it seems to me, more sober and reliable history."

Is this not a reasonable suggestion?

Further, he seems to be under the false impression that I know nothing about the fascinating early history of Indian republics and republicanism. I am, indeed, well aware of the very ancient and very impressive history of such republics in India.

What I am saying is that the term “republic” is usually employed for a well-defined political entity of some size and standing – not for small villages or “itinerant” (or “mobile pastoral and peasant”) groups who travel from place to place, as was the case in this barren region according to Dr. Datta (see pp. 12 and 14 of her book).

Then there is the matter of how long the Jats were settled in this region – Dr. Datta says “about a thousand years ago” (ibid, p. 11), while Mr. Chaudhary (above) claims 1500. Who should we believe?

I could go on and on, but what is the point?

The main problem with Mr. Chaudhary’s claims is that he is very selective in whom he chooses to believe, while viciously attacking, and frequently making completely unsubstantiated lies, about anyone who disagrees with him – as I have had the sad misfortune of learning first hand.

Here are just a few of his comments on Dr. Datta and her work taken from the “Jatland” website (see: http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?p=34233&mode=threaded :


 * ". . . (Feb 11, 2003 09:38 a.m.):
 * even if you take her (Dutta's ) words on this. Still I do not find anything wrong doing in Smt Subhashini Devis work. Is there anything wrong in
 * --- Traning womens for self defence
 * --- what is wrong in hating muslims, after knowing their past 100 year of history in India and world. If somebody still takes seculiar view on this, I feel he is not doing justice to his/her next generations.
 * --- Sudhi sangthan
 * --- In heling/uniting jat community against the muslim agressors


 * I personally feel that in Haryana and Delhi our ancestors have done good job during partition. Otherwise in rest of the country you riots every now and then."


 * ". . . (Feb 11, 2003 01:17 a.m.):
 * Why give such importance to ignorant people like her? [i.e. Dr. Datta] She obviously has some axe to grind wrt to Jats.


 * Ignore her totally - no need to read her writings or borrow her books from the library. It is about time some Jat historian wrote a book in a scholarly and balanced manner. Don't expect much sympathy from people who are ignorant and have been brought up fearing and hating us.


 * Rajiv"


 * ". . . (Feb 11, 2003 02:56 p.m.):


 * I think as of portrayal of jats as a community is concerned it has always been biased, But the fact remains does anyone care, I mean I wrote to editor of Indian Express after that article and he didnt even care to publish let alone any apology or clarification.
 * There was another article in Times of India in which author resorted to jat bashing, I again wrote to editor and and again nothing happened.
 * I dont want to sound pessismistic or like the one who has given up( a very unJat type attitude) but I am sorry I dont know how to go about this. This is indeed a SERIOUS issue I mean this woman cant be left to blabber on.
 * SHE MUST BE STOPPED!"

I contend that a person so filled with anger and hatred (someone who could say: "what is wrong in hating muslims, after knowing their past 100 year of history in India and world. If somebody still takes seculiar view on this, I feel he is not doing justice to his/her next generations"), is not worthy of serious consideration and should not be allowed to peddle his hateful and divisive prejudices on the Wikipedia. Yours sincerely, John Hill 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

'''

Bad links
There are two bad links that need fixing. One is the Meds which links to the Mediterranean sea, and the other one is for Mansura which links to El Mansura but should be linked to Mansura (Brahmanabad).--Tigeroo 05:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

John Hill's and Nonica Datta's works
'''

Mr .Hill writes, quoting Datta;

"Hissar, Rohtak, Gurgaon and Panipat, with their bhaiachara (cosharing) tenures and the khudkasht (peasant-proprietor), were part of the Jatiyar or Jatiyat, the country of the Jats. Here lived the Deswali or Hele and the Dhe or Pachchade Jats. The Deswali claimed to be the descendants of the 'original' Jats settled in India about a thousand years ago, while the Dhe were late arrivals who extended their sphere of influence following the disintegration of the Mughal Empire. In Rohtak, situated on the right bank of the Yamuna river, the Deswali Jats appear to have settled some seven hundred or eight hundred years ago while the Dhi Jats, probably the descendants of immigrants from Bagar, a tract just beyond the border of Bikaner, moved into the western parts of the Hissar district around 1783 and took up the lands abandoned after the terrible Chalisa famine of that year. Some of them came from Bikaner and Nabha in the early nineteenth century. The areas adjoining Bikaner and to the west of Bhiwani, such as Hissar and Fatehabad, were called Bagar, a term meaning 'dry country' in common parlance. Those living in the region were descendants of the itinerant Bagri Jats and the Bishnois."

BhaiChara is not co tenure.

It is joint ownership of the resource, which is held for the benefit o the community, the republic.

The khudakhast is not a peasant proprietor, but a freeholder, to be distinguished from the Tenure farmer, the peasant who in Indian terms was known as a Ryot.

The first was free and a republican, and the second was held in feudal thralldom.

This is not to say in that in parts like in  medieval Rajastan, with Muslim and later British help, the feudalists overcame the republican  for some  500 years, from 1500 to 2000 AD, yet the Jat never succumbed to this form of feudal society and fought it tooth and nail, to overcome it at the end , with th Independence  of India in 1947, and the removal  of feudalism in the early 1950’s, with the elimination of the zamindari system.

The Dswali Jats are not part of the descendants of the ‘original’ Jats who’ settled in India 1,000 years ago’ circa 1,000 AD.

Datta claims that the Jats then came to India 1,000 years prior, ie in circa 1,000 CE. Yet how would she then explain that a Jat was ruling in Punjab in the 4th century AD, or that the Jats had a republican form of Society then

Let us see what a British writer, Lieut Col James Tod writes. Tod BTW was a British political Officer tasked with winning the then feudal Rajput princely states over to the British Cause in 1750or so, and he did an admirable of that, and his book reflects his attitude.

Yet let see what he writes;


 * pp 138, Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol ii, Bikaner chapter 1, 1983 edition, Munshiram Manhoarlal, New Delhi. ( this version is quite close to the earlier version, published in 1902, also available online.)

“ Beeka now approximated to the settlements of the Jits or Getes, who had for ages been established in these arid abodes ; and as the lands they held form a considerable portion of the state of Bikaner, it may not be uninteresting to give a sketch of the condition of this singular people prior to the son of Joda establishing the feudal system of Rajwarra amongst their pastoral commonwealths.

Of this celebrated and widely-spread race, we have already given a succinct account.1 It appears to have been the most numerous as well as the most conspicuous of the tribes of ancient Asia, from the days of Tomyris and Cyrus to those of the present Jit prince of Lahore, whose successor, if he be endued with similar energy, may, on the reflux of popula¬tion, find himself seated in their original haunts of Central Asia, to which they have already considerably advanced.2 In the fourth century, we find a Yuti or Jit kingdom established in the Punjab ; a but how much earlier this people colonised those regions we are ignorant. At every step made by Mahomcdan power in India, it encountered the Jits.

On their memorable defence of the passage of the Indus against Mahmood, and on the war of extirpation waged against them by Timoor, both in their primeval seats in Maver-ool-nehr, as well as east of the Sutlej, we have already enlarged ; while Baber, in his Commentaries, informs us that, in all his irruptions into India, he was assailed by multitudes of Jits * during his progress through the Punjab, the peasantry of which region, now proselytes to Islam, are chiefly of this tribe ; as well as the military retainers, who, as sectarian followers of Nanuk, merge the name of Jit. or Jat, into that of Sikh or ' disciple.' 6

In short, whether as Yuti, Getes, Jits, Juts, or Jats, this race far surpassed in numbers, three centuries ago, any other tribe or race in India ; and it is a fact that they now constitute a vast majority of the peasantry of western Rajwarra, and perhaps of northern India.”

Datta is not ignorant of Desraj and Tod, she refers to Desraj in her book, yet her writing displays a profound ignorance, for how could she not  know that the Jats had been attested as being in India for well over 2000 years,( per these authors) yet she can claim in her book that they were there only since the previous 1,000 years circa  1,000 CE.

I discused her work with a prominent Jat historian, about  two years ago, as to why they did not do more about Ms Datta's  and her views.

His view was, and I agree with him, 'that it is a free world, let her and other 's write what they will.Ms Datta 's work will find its own level. We should allow it to do so.'

Mr. Hill of course sees no problem in passing off Datta’s work as “ sober history”

Notwithstanding the efforts of the likes of  the John Hills to distort it, Our work in Jat History studies will continue, and we will continue to do more research and  bring out more an more material on the History of our people - The Jats.,

Ravi Chaudhary 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrections and apologies
I must apologise to Mr. Chaudhary and all the readers of this list. I have just become aware that in my note above: "Mr. Chaudhary's Response" I wrongly read the notices on the Jatland site so that I have quoted people who had written in and labelled them as the comments of Ravi Chaudhary when, in fact, he replied underneath each of the quotes. For this I unreservedly apologise.

To correct the record I will list below Ravi Chaundary's replies to each of these three points:

1. Reply to the note of Feb, 11 2003 by Mr. Chaudhary:


 * "Ranvir


 * I do not wish to belabor the point.


 * Nonica Datta is spewing hate, under the guise of Academic scholarship.


 * Whta she and people like her write becomes the accepted academic truth, and that is what must be stopped.


 * The Brahmical Jats shudras etc. The people who stufy them then also accept that the Jats are low class, robbers, servile, sleazy thiefs.


 * This is the kind of stuff the Nonica Datta writes.


 * Thus when your kids grow up and go the school and college, they will be taught by a generation of historians who learnt their history and view of Jats form the academic text books of Nonica Datta


 * Her books are now becoming part of the curriculum in the Universities in the West.


 * That is what Students in the world will learn about Jats.


 * So you cannot simply accept what she writes and say, "Oh it does not affect me,, It affects you and your family directly"


 * When you child comes home and says, Daddy, Mummy, are we sudras, are we robeers and thieves, and you asky why?


 * The child will say this is what I was told in School.


 * You canot simply ignore them, for then their hate filled views get accepted.


 * You have to counter this at every turn at every corner.


 * She does not dare to write such stuff about the Jat Sikhs !


 * We must organise and stop her.


 * Ravi

..........................

2. to the note written on Feb 11, 2003 01:17 a.m. Mr. Chaudhary replied:


 * "Her work is becoming part of the academic curriculum.


 * So if we ignore her we do so at our own peril.


 * She is getting her message out through every history and social department in every university in the West.


 * This next generation of undergratuate students, who will then become professors, lawyers, diplomats in their turn, will teach what they have learnt- that Jats a low class sudhra, servile thieves.


 * So whern you child goes for admission to Harvard, they will know that they are dealing with a low class chamar/ shudra.


 * It is in tis manner that thye call the Jat emperor Chadragupta Muarya- Sudras, and have wiped out your history, so we Jats do pot know our past, and some Jats even think that they are descendents of a Raput, who married a jatni concubine.


 * This sort of thing is accepted OFFICIAL history today, and that is how the world thinks of us.


 * To change this, takes effort.


 * Please take this seriously, for ourselves and our children to come.


 * Ravi

.............................

3. Reply to the note of Feb 11, 2003 02:56 p.m. by Mr. Chaudhary:


 * REPLY


 * Perception is realty


 * Abhishek writes we used to be rulers. That is true, and your roots go back to the composers of the Rig Veda.


 * Today however thanks to a casteist society and a more complacent Jat society, we are being marginalized into low caste and shudraism., where we Jats are ashamed of our identity.


 * In south India, there are only two categories Brahmins and Shudras. The great rulers of old, and their descendants, the cholas, Solankis, the Pandyas, are all called Shudras.


 * How does this happen and take hold.


 * In the last few centuries, the economic power shifted to Industry and beuracracy, those who took up education, and served their British Masters became the rulers of India and propagated their hold on society.


 * In was only in Haryana, Punjab, and UP that the Jats managed to retain their identity, which is now fast being lost due to a number of factors.


 * Landholdings declining, education not being available, and the Kisan being squeezed.


 * The environment has changed, and simply owning land is not enough.


 * The castist society has successfully marginalized us, and unless we do something about it, our society will decline to the status of landless shudras in a few generations.


 * 1. The first step to marginalizing a people is to deny them education. -


 * "Look at rural India, no schools, While the Baniya. Brahmin combine sent their children to English medium schools; they passed laws and denied the study of English in Rural India, along with resources- teachers, schools, and equipment.


 * "This had made your rural Jats, unfit for modern society, for which knowledge g English is a must, as all you well know.


 * "2. The second is to deny them their History.


 * "Our history is depicted as the History of the Rajputs and Brahmins. This is not true but show me a History book, which says otherwise.


 * "There is no mention of Jats in our history books. They are supposed to miraculously appear in the 7th century AD, noticed first only by the Muslim invaders !!!


 * "Once you have done this, target group will fall further and further behind , first economically, then socially.


 * "That is why People like Nonica Datta, must be stopped.


 * "How should that be done?
 * "BY ORGANIZING OURSELVES


 * "Not by verbal abuse, but by activism.


 * "Use the Internet; it is a powerful medium and a great equalizer.


 * "Start an Online petition. See how successful India cause is.


 * "Send E mails to Delhi University, Miranda House, the newspapers who print such hate mail, and watch things change.


 * There is need for the Great Jat Talent for war. This war does not bows and arrows, it requires Brainpower.


 * We have that, and we have the Internet. There a thousand members on this list. Let us organize this thousand first.


 * As Delhi University, Miranda House, Nonica Dutta, and the Indian Express get one thousand E Mails in protest, watch the change happen.


 * But first we have to clean up our act.


 * We must correct what our OWN website says about us.


 * If we present a negative image about us that is what we will be.


 * For starters:


 * I wrote to Nithin Dahiya that the Ghazni Naval victory story is wrong, and I have posted on the History section, and in the Jat History Group, URL below, discussion, my analysis from original Muslim sources, does not support the official Jatland version.


 * My question then is what Jat would write negative things about his people – out of ignorance, well OK, but when he knows that it is an untruth, then why would he write such negative portrayal of his people.


 * This is not something I can do single handedly. I need help.


 * Feed back


 * Ravi Chaudhary

So, I apologise unreservedly - Mr. Chaudhary did NOT say he hated Muslims, as I reported - he was replying to someone who said they did.

However, I am still awaiting his apology to me - requested many months ago - for some of the ugly, unnecessary and baseless lies he spread about me personally on these pages and some of the patronising insults he has added since. John Hill 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm just a objective observer here, and the only reason I'm here is that this article has a typo, which currently cannot be fixed because of the page being protected ("Futher Reading" should be "Further Reading"). In any case, I read this discussion, and it seems that you, John Hill, are much more keen on ad hominem attacks and victimizing yourself, than all the other people involved. So please, let's just keep to the facts and not attack others, we all just want to write an encyclopedia here. If someone states something which is false, don't accuse them or call them liars, just provide a realiable source that disproves the statement. There should be no unnecessary emotions, not in the articles, and not in the discussions. This applies to everyone involved. Keep up the good work and keep your sources referenced.  •  Maurog   •  12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not equate Bagar with Jangladesh
Mr John Hill has equated Jangladesh with Bagar. I quote from his earlier comment:
 * "It also apparently provides another name for the region Mr. Burdak is calling "Jangladesh", that is, "Bagar"."

It is false statement and misguiding. James Tod and Thakur Deshraj and many other authors have clearly mentioned the places which were in Jangladesh. These places are still existing. These cover the districts of Bikaner, Churu, Ganganagar,and Hanumangarh in Rajasthan state of India. The people of these places speak Rajasthani language. Where as Bagar is separate region of Haryana which includes Hissar, Rohtak, Gurgaon and Panipat as has been quoted by Mr John Hill with reference to Nonica Datta. People of these districts speak Haryanvi language also known as Bagri or the Jatu language. --burdak 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseless Arguments
This article is more like a fantasy rather than giving any concrete facts. I am a Jat and proud of being one but this article is flawed to the point of being ridiculous. Mr Budrak I don't question your intentions but please concentrate on today rather than claiming historical godliness to Jats. It is actually funny how you managed to attribute every great warrior to Jat sect.

Neeraj Shokeen 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide concrete facts
Dear Neeraj Shokeen, It is nice that you are planning to provide concrete facts about Jats and Jat history. It is not my site it is site of all people. Better contribute than advising. Wikipedians will be highly obliged to you. --burdak 07:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed references and removed one
I removed the reference to The Ancient Geography of India: The Buddhist Period, Including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang, pp. 291-292 (the author was not mentioned - but it was written by Alexander Cunningham). The reason I deleted it is that the only thing Cunningham has to say about the Jats in the whole book is that he thought (but with no proof) that the mutual rivalry between the Parthians and Scythians at the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (circa mid 1st century CE), "points to their identity with the rival Meds and Jats of the Muhammadan authors." As there is no evidence here - merely casual speculation by Cunningham, the reference (from p. 292 of his book) has of no value at all in establishing who the Jats were. John Hill 06:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove references

 * Wikipedia requires written verifiable evidence in support of reference. Is Alexander Cunningham is not reputed enough to be sufficient to give as a reference? What do you mean by speculation by Cunningham? What do you mean by proof? It is your POV. Please do not remove references. --burdak 04:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
Mr. Chaudhary does not seem to understand that when a reference is given in an article to back up a claim, it should, really, back up that claim in some way - not just speculate about possibilities. It seems that he and Mr. Burdak feel that any speculation which supports their point of view is valid as a reference in the Wikipedia. This sort of woolly and misleading use of "references" is what I object to. John Hill 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)'''

Response

Mr. Hill

Could I  point out, one more time, that the issue is not whether Cunningham is right or not, nor whether he has proof or not, or whether he is speculating or not.

The issue is your deletion of content, based solely on your POV. Now if you had put the topic up for discussion, and argued your position out, and succeeded in convincing the rest of us, you would be approaching the subject, on a rational basis.

However you are still DELETING content, without discussion, while claiming, at the same time, that you would like to see consensus.

Both actions are contradictory, and cannot stand!

Ravi Chaudhary 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to Mr. Chaudhary accusing me of deleting material "based solely" on my POV and deleting content without discussion. I have discussed the reasons for the deletion in detail (see my notes of the 20th and 26th September above). He really should read what people say before making unfounded accusations. The issue truly is, in this case, "whether Cunningham is right or not, nor whether he has proof or not, or whether he is speculating or not." I have shown that Cunningham's suppositions have no evidence to back them and no relevance to this article. That is why I deleted the reference to his work. Why does Mr. Chaudhary want to retain irrelevant references in this article? Why does he keep up these personal attacks instead of trying to create a better article? John Hill 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

John Hill is wrong
Mr John Hill you deleted the Cunningham reference silently without discussion. It was only I observed and put a note on 23/9/07 not to delete then you gave your opinion. It is surprising move of John Hill to delete references, which is unwanted on Wikipedia. If he really wanted to improve the content he would have added the qualifying word instead of deletion. His intention does not seem to be that of a good faith. He has become so sensitive on any other user's opinion that he starts teaching lessons rather than improving. --burdak 04:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Burdak needs to read what I have written
Mr. Burdak accuses me above of not discussing a deletion I made of a reference to Alexander Cuningham until after he wrote a note about it on 23/9/07.

Once again, Mr. Burdak is caught making unfounded accusations - I wish he would stop this nonsense.

As anyone can see if they care to look above in this page, I gave my quite detailed reasons for making the deletion on the same day that I made the deletion - the 20th of September - some 3 days BEFORE Mr. Burdak wrote.

I don't understand why he persists in making such unjust and unfounded accusations about me - this is really harassment.

Now, just in case he doesn't know how to scroll up this page - and to make it easy for other readers to find - I will repeat the reasons I gave on the 20th September for deleting a reference to Alexander Cunningham's book - which was supposed to back up the following statement: "Jat people (IAST: Jāṭ, جاٹ) जाट, ਜੱਟ جاٹ Jatt, are a community of Northern India and Pakistan that exhibits characteristics of an ethnic group, a caste, and a tribe."

Here is what I said on 20th September to explain why I deleted the "reference":


 * ==Fixed references and removed one==
 * I removed the reference to The Ancient Geography of India: The Buddhist Period, Including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang, pp. 291-292 (the author was not mentioned - but it was written by Alexander Cunningham). The reason I deleted it is that the only thing Cunningham has to say about the Jats in the whole book is that he thought (but with no proof) that the mutual rivalry between the Parthians and Scythians at the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (circa mid 1st century CE), "points to their identity with the rival Meds and Jats of the Muhammadan authors." As there is no evidence here - merely casual speculation by Cunningham, the reference (from p. 292 of his book) has of no value at all in establishing who the Jats were. John Hill 06:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I call upon Mr. Burdak, to apologise for making unfounded accusations against me once again.

Sincerely, John Hill 08:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous ip User talk:211.30.222.155 mischievous post
Your post of 6th October  in this   article where you have posted  : "There appears to be a typo in the % numbers, which can be explained by the common view that jats are known for their lack of brains, especially Sikh Jats, it seems that previously the number of hindu jats was much higher which would be more closer to the truth, so it is more likely a deliberate miscalculation then a typo."

This explicitly Mischievous post made from a anonymous ip  is made with the explicit   intent to instigate conflict ...its an oft used - typical ploy used on wikipedia by vested interests, abuse one community ...and put in another related community in the construction of the sentence or content then watch others bite the bait ...unfortunately its over recurrence is proving its undoing as the game is unmasked now. The same kind of dim witted thing goes on on the Khatri page as well.

In any case your post is unadulterated  trash. Cheers Intothefire 13:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from a Jat Sikh.
(Repeated from above.)

Hello all.

I am a jat sikh, and first came across the Jat page a few years ago. I have been following this discussion for some time, and would like to offer my two cents. Firstly, I am disappointed about some comments about jat sikhs - not nice at all, but enough on that. I am as proud a jat as any other, but the assertion about nasal index made some of my jat brothers is genuinely concerning. Also, on a table on jat populations they describe Sikh as a Jat group. This is incorrect. It is true that the a lot of Sikhs (70%, I think) are Jat but not all Sikhs are Jat. Also, my colleagues reference various studies made by western explorers of India.. These studies aren't always the best sources of information since they are subject to the opinions (good and bad) of the time; hence their reference to nasal indexes. People of the same era were also making inferences based on physical measurements of other "races"; not a good thing for obvious reasons. Being Jat Sikh, I know many people who are also Jat. Some are fair, some are dark, some have small noses, some have large noses, some are tall and some are short, most have brown eyes, but some have green or grey eyes. What I am trying to say is that it is hard to define exactly the physical characterisation of a Jat. What is definite, is that there is a Jat culture, which is very definitely Indian.

I read with much interest the references of Jat in acient Hindu texts. However, we must never lose the objectivity requried in all academic pursuits. If the acient texts do reference us, then we have nothing to fear. However, we do need to find someone who can prove irrefutably, rather than make unsubstantiated attacks.

However, John Hill, your comments on the origins on the acient Hindu texts are concerning. To question this is question the whole basis of history. The language of these texts is sanscrit, which is most definitely indian. Where else do you propose that these texts originated from?

To draw a parallel, does John Hill maintain that there is no such thing as English? What is English? When we refer to an English man are we referring to a Celt, Norman, or Viking? Does the historical makeup of England mean there is no such thing as an Englishman? Is English culture non-existant and just a subset of European culture? In fact, in a recent documentary I learnt that Celts are more of a myth, and that no such cultural group exsisted. --Jatsikh 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir or Madam: Please do not misunderstand me - I entirely agree with you that there is a very distinctive (and interesting) Jat culture, and that it is basically Indian.


 * Similarly, of course, there is such a thing we can call English culture and it is valid to refer to English people. But this does not mean that all the various ancestors of the people who now call themselves English should also be referred to as "English". This would lead to calling Romans, French, Norse, Germans, etc., "English." But this is the sort of claim that has regularly been made about Jat people on these pages. This has led to many ridiculous claims such as that Ashoka, Kanishka, Krishna, the Goths, the kingdom of Kent, the Norse, the Scythians, etc., etc., etc., were all "Jat". Now, it is true that modern Jats may be partially descended for some of these groups - that does not mean, however, that we should state as a "fact" that (for example), Ashoka was a Jat.


 * Also, there have been many claims made here that Jats are "pure Aryans" and even that they are purer Aryans than other groups living in the Punjab. I find these sort of claims not only silly and unprovable, but abhorrent and quite possibly dangerous. I believe they should have no place in the Wikipedia.


 * I also am not objecting to references made to Jats in ancient documents - if they are really there. But we have had many examples of false quotations and references made on these pages (as you can easily see if you go back through the Archives) and, therefore, I keep asking that such claims are carefully checked before they are accepted. Also, of course, many of the documents referred to contain much that is of a mythological or legendary nature and one must be very careful accepting what they say literally. If there is any doubt - statements referred to in them should be carefully qualified.


 * Finally, I never suggested that texts in Sanskrit didn't come from India - they obviously do. What have I said which made you think this was what I meant?


 * I look forward to your contributions to making this a more accurate article on the development of Jat people and their culture. Yours sincerely, John Hill 00:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)