Jump to content

Historical Sikh Population Records From 1800S (Tangent Topic: When Did Your Family Become Sikhs)


Recommended Posts

Very interesting topic. The original question "When did your family become Sikhs?" seems to make logical sense to all.

Do you mean no sense?

Well, all I meant was that most of us were born into a Sikh family. I just wanted to find out about other people's stories etc.

Like today people who convert to Sikhi have a story to tell of how they came into contact with it. It would've been the same back then when our ancestors were around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting topic. The original question "When did your family become Sikhs?" seems to make logical sense to all.

It begs the question: "What did your family do to become Sikhs?" which then raises the question "Is your family/are you Sikh today?"

Do we suddenly apply different criteria to becoming/being Sikh today?

Wahegurujikakhalsawahegurujikifateh,

Excellent point Budda Singh Ji.

Guru Sahib Kirpa Karo

Wahegurujikakhalsawahegurujikifateh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my tribe/clan are nijjars, I have read that they come from Syria Palestine originally? :s I've also read that we are Caucasian avars, which are now also settled in Dagestan; can anyone confirm this? my clan are jatts but obviously it means nothing in Sikhism. But its interesting, as perhaps my ancestors may have been Christian, then Muslim, then Hindu and then in the end Sikh. I guess I'll never know properly until I do some solid research hmm.

Probably not, sakas aka scythians (incl. jatts) came to India long time ago. Maurya was a jatt, it's ok to know your history but the more you poke and understand this stuff a 'sikh' jatt is a very different thing from a haryana one or other.

To us, it's a funny thing to just counter gandhian weakness philosophy and have people say we were warriors, are warriors and our children will be too.

Scythians went all the way to britian jutes = jatts saxons = sakas. Mann and Hans clan are in germany, Timur hated jatts as they conquered khorasan.

Truth is truth you will find it everywhere, however all panths but sikhi are not true that is what daas will say.

---

If I was alive 3-400 years, the gurus would have been cousins doesn't mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jatts did convert to Sikhi very early on during the Guru period and later the 1700s. But that does not mean all Punjabi Jatts were Sikhs. There was a large Hindu Jatt population all over malwa and in Doaba area. Ludhiana, Hushiarpur districts for example had a sizable Hindu Jatt population. Over all, the Sikh population more than doubled due to the Singh Sabha parchar and it was nearly all at the expence of the Hindu population. By the end of the Singh Sabha movement, the Punjabi Jatt was either a Sikh or a Muslim, The Punjabi Hindu Jatt was no more. The only place you could find Hindu Jatts were in the non Punjabi speaking areas i.e. Haryana. Besides the Punjabi speaking Hindu Jatts of Punjab, Lubanas in Doaba and Pathankot, Aroras in Central Punjab and many Khatris in pothohar had also embraced Sikhi.

For Ludhiana district in 1881, the first time a reliable census was done in Punjab, the HIndu Jats were only slightly less than the Sikh Jats, 95,000 compared to 102,000. But this does not give a true picture. In the western part of Ludhiana like the Jagraon tehsil, the Jats were mainly Sikhs but in the eastern part (Samrala tehsil) the Jats were mainly Hindus. The reason given is that Jagraon was a part of the old Jangal desh where the Sikhs would seek shelter from the Muslim persecution. Samrala was close to Sirhind which was the seat of Mughal power between Lahore and Delhi. Also although the British classed all the non-Muslim and non-Sikhs Jats as Hindus, they were in fact Sultanis worshipping Sakhi Sarwar. As education spread through the Singh Sabha movement in the eastern part of Ludhiana district, The Sultanis started to become Sikhs. By 1931 when the last census which enumerated caste was taken, the Sikh Jats were 211,000 and he Hindu (Sultanis) Jats were 3,500.

Hoshiarpur district might have had the same situation but the Hindu Jats there would be more influenced by the Devi worship culture of the hills rather than Sakhi Sarwar worship. The Sikh Jats were mainly in the low lying areas whereas the Hindu Jats were in the hilly areas. In comparison in 1881 the Sikhs Jats were 29,000 compared to 86,000 Hindu Jats. By 1931 the Sikh Jats had gone up to 86,000 and the Hindu Jats had gone down to 41,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not, sakas aka scythians (incl. jatts) came to India long time ago. Maurya was a jatt, it's ok to know your history but the more you poke and understand this stuff a 'sikh' jatt is a very different thing from a haryana one or other.

712 AD. That was the actual year the jatt clans first came down to Punjab.

Before that, they were settled in Sindh for many generations. It was the Arab conquest of Sindh that led them to settle in Punjab.

For Ludhiana district in 1881, the first time a reliable census was done in Punjab, the HIndu Jats were only slightly less than the Sikh Jats, 95,000 compared to 102,000.

We tend to forget this basic fact these days but its worth remembering that Ludhina district wasn't even part of the Sikh Kingdom of Punjab. Areas such as Kashmir, the deserts around Multan and parts of Afghanistan were but Ludhiana was not. Thus the independent military might of being a Sikh was present in doaba and majha but not in much of malwa. Psychologicaly, there is a world of difference in living as an actual power than living as a suzerainty dependent on the protection and kindness of other neighbouring powers. From those old census reports I conclude that the jatts that lived in the Sikh Kingdom felt empowered and emancipated....so were Sikh. In contrast, the jatts that lived in the principalities or suzerainties were not as empowered under the Khalsa flag. Hence the large number of jatts in those districts that were still Hindu in those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

But the Sikh percentage in Malwa was higher than Doaba in 1947, so clearly the majority were not all Sikh until 1900's

Excluding Hoshiarpur, which as I explained earlier has always been a bit of an anomily in terms of demographics and geography, the jatts of Jalandhar district have been Sikhs since the 6th Guru's time but doaba as a whole has always been minority jatt. It is the heartland of the ravidassias and they, and other groups, have always been larger in numbers compared to malwa and majha where the jatts are easily the majority. Thus, given doaba's non-sikh face, it is not surprising that the sikh population has always been lower in doaba. However in the case of the just the jatts, the opposite is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use