Talk:Jats

Archives
July 2005 – December 2006 Jan 2007 – June 2007

READ: WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGE GUIDELINES

Users MUST follow Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Further_dispute_resolution. 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 Wikipedia: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" [1]. --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)

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:

• Chandragupta Maurya , , , , , , , ;

• Ashok Maurya , , , , , , , ;

• Samudragupta , , , ;

• Chandragupta II , ,, ;

• Kaniska, ;

• Yasodharman , , , ;

• Harshavardhana , , ,

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

• 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).

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.

---

--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)

• 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)

--burdak 05:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 falsehood 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) two 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 this subject.

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)