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

[LegalSingh]

Many people think that Jatt Sikhs have been Sikhs since either the Guru period or 1700s. This is a huge misconception. Some Jatts became Sikhs, but there were still significant numbers of Hindu Jatts still remaining in Punjab

Actually I think its the other way 'round. The misconception comes about from the census of '81 itself. There are things about it that just simply do not add up under closer scrutinization. The next census even acknowledeged the flaws of the earlietr census by changing the way it recorded the word 'jatt' for in the 1881 census various other 'castes' , for example the rais and other mahaton 'castes' were included under the bracket jatt. Secondly, the 1881 tries to tell us 2 things : Firstly, the fact that 66% of al Sikhs were jatt and secondly the fact that half if not more of all jatts in Punjab were Hindu. If we are to believe this is true and that the other half of the Punjabi jatts only became Sikhs during the 1920's then surely the 1931 census should show the proportion of Sikhs being jatt jumping to 90-95% ? It doesn't. Instead it stays at near enough the 66% mark. Something somehwhere just simply doesn't add up.

The other clue is in the historical records of jatt immigrants to California, Canada and the far east in the late 1800's (the same period as the census). The public records and archives in California for example show a fair number of muslim jatts among the vast majority Sikh jatts. What the early records of early immigrants show is that although the vast majority o them were Sikh, the jatt character of them also encompassed a fair number of muslim jatts. And yet not a single Hindu jatt among them. Not one. How was it that Punjab's jatts from all religion's were settling in places and yet not a single Hindu jatt was among them even though they supposedly made up half the jatt population in Punjab ?

I suspect the answer lies in the rather nonchalent way that the uneducated country bumpkin types have reacted to written words, reports, census' etc. Having spoken about this with my father, he informed me that even relatively recently when he was a child he and other sikhs regularly called themselves 'hindu' sometimes. They were not enlightended, educated or on terms with worldly affairs to know better. The term was almost universally used in Punjab as meaning 'Indian' and 'not-muslim'.

As you can see then, there are many misconceptions. One is how, contrary to the census, practically every jatt from Punjab narrates his family history as being Sikh since the 1700's. If the census is correct then half of all jatt Sikhs should have a Hindu grandfather for the singh sabha movement is recent. The census is flawed.

[chatanga]

Veerji, please listen to Maskeen jee's katha about Guru Sahib where he also mentions briefly the history of Rajputs.

Mehtab Singh Ji, you post a video 1 hour and 10 minutes long and say listen where it is explained briefly. Kindly poinbt out the time so i can go straight to it.

Brother before saying it is a shame you should research a bit. The mistake of linking Khatri to Kshatriya is very common. Khatri Gotras are different to Rajput Gotras and they did not intermarry either as reported by British authors.

You said only Brahmins and Khatris got those Vahis which is wrong, Rajput got them too. Rajputs are not part of Khatris. As simple as that.

I dont know about the british, but Gurbani says, "Khatri Bahman Sood Vaish, chauhu varna ko updesh sanjha".

Khatri is a panjabi word for kashitri, like how call Brahmans "Baman".

[SikhKosh]

Rajputs are not parts of the Khatris. They got different Gots. Rajput Vahis exist too.

[proactive]

Actually I think its the other way 'round. The misconception comes about from the census of '81 itself. There are things about it that just simply do not add up under closer scrutinization. The next census even acknowledeged the flaws of the earlietr census by changing the way it recorded the word 'jatt' for in the 1881 census various other 'castes' , for example the rais and other mahaton 'castes' were included under the bracket jatt. Secondly, the 1881 tries to tell us 2 things : Firstly, the fact that 66% of al Sikhs were jatt and secondly the fact that half if not more of all jatts in Punjab were Hindu. If we are to believe this is true and that the other half of the Punjabi jatts only became Sikhs during the 1920's then surely the 1931 census should show the proportion of Sikhs being jatt jumping to 90-95% ? It doesn't. Instead it stays at near enough the 66% mark. Something somehwhere just simply doesn't add up.

The other clue is in the historical records of jatt immigrants to California, Canada and the far east in the late 1800's (the same period as the census). The public records and archives in California for example show a fair number of muslim jatts among the vast majority Sikh jatts. What the early records of early immigrants show is that although the vast majority o them were Sikh, the jatt character of them also encompassed a fair number of muslim jatts. And yet not a single Hindu jatt among them. Not one. How was it that Punjab's jatts from all religion's were settling in places and yet not a single Hindu jatt was among them even though they supposedly made up half the jatt population in Punjab ?

I suspect the answer lies in the rather nonchalent way that the uneducated country bumpkin types have reacted to written words, reports, census' etc. Having spoken about this with my father, he informed me that even relatively recently when he was a child he and other sikhs regularly called themselves 'hindu' sometimes. They were not enlightended, educated or on terms with worldly affairs to know better. The term was almost universally used in Punjab as meaning 'Indian' and 'not-muslim'.

As you can see then, there are many misconceptions. One is how, contrary to the census, practically every jatt from Punjab narrates his family history as being Sikh since the 1700's. If the census is correct then half of all jatt Sikhs should have a Hindu grandfather for the singh sabha movement is recent. The census is flawed.

The Sikh Jats actually went from 66% of the Sikh population to 53% between 1881 and 1931. This was because they increased by 90% over this period whereas the non-Jat Sikhs increased by 310% over the same period.

The migrants to Canada and California were mainly former soldiers of the British Indian army. For Hindu Jats there was not specific regiment to join which was not the same in the case of Sikh Jats. The Jat regiments were for Hindu Jats from the Haryana region. A Hindu Jat from Punjab would need to become a Sikh to join the army.

[isingh1699]

Actually I think its the other way 'round. The misconception comes about from the census of '81 itself. There are things about it that just simply do not add up under closer scrutinization. The next census even acknowledeged the flaws of the earlietr census by changing the way it recorded the word 'jatt' for in the 1881 census various other 'castes' , for example the rais and other mahaton 'castes' were included under the bracket jatt.

True that a certain numbers of other agricultural tribes such as Mahtons (Bhai Bhala Singh), Arain/Kambohs (Bhai Sukha Singh), Saini's (Bhai Jamala Singh) and even some agriculturalists who were Rajput's (Shaheed Bachiter Singh), Khatri's (Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa), Ahluwalia's (Sardar Jassa Singh) and Labana's (Bhai Makhan Shah) were wrongly included within the population figures for the Jatt tribe which artificially skewed the figures in 1881. (Brackets are examples of Guru ke Sikh and Khalsa's who rejected their old tribal identities and gave the whole Panth immense collective pride in their bravery)

Secondly, the 1881 tries to tell us 2 things : Firstly, the fact that 66% of al Sikhs were jatt

This was a wrongly inflated percentage figure, we all agree.

and secondly the fact that half if not more of all jatts in Punjab were Hindu.

There were way more Muslim Jatts than Sikh ones + yes there were more Hindu Jatts than Sikh ones in 1881

If we are to believe this is true and that the other half of the Punjabi jatts only became Sikhs during the 1920's then surely the 1931 census should show the proportion of Sikhs being jatt jumping to 90-95% ?

Your assumption is totally wrong bro. Like Proactive Veerji explained, if non-Jatt tribes increased by 310% whilst Hindu Jatts leaned ever more towards Sikhi (but at a slower rate of increase in Jatt numbers compared to non-Jatt tribes) then quite clearly Jatt numbers will fall to the 50% or so they were in 1931.

I suspect the answer lies in the rather nonchalent way that the uneducated country bumpkin types have reacted to written words, reports, census' etc. Having spoken about this with my father, he informed me that even relatively recently when he was a child he and other sikhs regularly called themselves 'hindu' sometimes.

I think that may be specific to your family bro. Since the Singh Sabha movement of Jonny Veerji's ancestors time most in our Panth have totally rejected the Arabic term Hindu most strongly.

They were not enlightended, educated or on terms with worldly affairs to know better. The term was almost universally used in Punjab as meaning 'Indian' and 'not-muslim'.

True that definition has historically been the case but since Maharaja Ranjit Singh every man in Punjab knew whether he was a Sikh or a Hindu. Sikhs believe in one God only. Hindu's did not.

As you can see then, there are many misconceptions. One is how, contrary to the census, practically every jatt from Punjab narrates his family history as being Sikh since the 1700's.

If all (or most) Jatts were already Sikhs in the 1700's and all Sikhs were collectively no more than 5% of Punjabi's in 1800 ... but all Sikhs were 13% of Punjabi's overall in 1947 ... then assuming 50% of Sikhs were Jatt in 1800 ... then the Jatt percentage would, if not boosted significantly by new converts, all things being equal, fall to around 20% of Sikhs. Instead about half of Sikhs in 1931 were still from Jatt tribal ancestry.

And nowadays Jatt tribal ancestry is still just below half of the Sikh population so it is impossible that the overall 8% numeric increase in Sikh numbers between 1800-1947 (from 5% in 1800 to 13% of the Punjabi population in 1947 = 160% percentage growth in Sikh numbers in the approximately 150 year period) was exclusively non-Jatt. It was about 7 of the 8% numeric figure increase from Hindu's and 1 of the 8% numeric figure increase from Muslims with roughly around 3% of the 8% numeric figure increase (roughly 37.5% of 1800-1947 converts) being Jatts. Capisce?

If the census is correct then half of all jatt Sikhs should have a Hindu grandfather for the singh sabha movement is recent.

Again you're assuming all conversion occurred in 1931.

50years between 1881 to 1931 was itself enough for 3 generations in cases.

The census is flawed.

True but the logic that all (or most) Jatts were Sikh in the 1700's is absurd. A majority of non-Muslim Jatts were Hindu in 1881. Hindu Jatts outnumbered Sikh Jatts back then. And even today Jatt Sikhs represent only 16% of the tribe, Hindu Jatts around 29% and Muslim Jatts are the clear majority of Jatts with around 55% of the Jatt population. If only non-Hindu population figures for the Jatt tribe are examined then there at least three times more Muslim Jatts than Sikhs from the same tribe. In fact the Muslim percentage of Jatts is significantly lowered by many clans which overlap with Jatts/Rajputs reporting as Rajputs in Pakistan. Essentially Jatts+Rajputs are a majority among Punjabi Muslims.

What's sad about the figures overall, is that despite the message of 1699, Sikhs were reluctant under British divide and rule policies to surrender their old tribal identities as specifically ordered by Guru Gobind Singh Ji with the birth of the Khalsa Panth.

Can we even call ourselves Sikhs if some still hold on to old tribal identities in 2013?

[Jonny101]

Rajputs are not parts of the Khatris. They got different Gots. Rajput Vahis exist too.

Khatris are believed to be the original Kshatriyas of ancient India. But generation after generation they began to lose their martial qualities and took up other professions such as becoming shop keepers and traders. Rajputs it is believed are descendants of the Huns who invaded India and were then turned into Kshatriyas by the Brahmins, some say this happened on Mouth Abu. Both Khatris and Rajputs are kshatriyas by caste, but they are quite distinct. The Pakistani army although is Muslim, but is dominated by Rajput Muslims from Pothohar region.

[Mehtab Singh]

Please listen to Maskeen jee discussing origin of Rajputs, start from 22 minutes.

[LegalSingh]

The migrants to Canada and California were mainly former soldiers of the British Indian army. For Hindu Jats there was not specific regiment to join which was not the same in the case of Sikh Jats. The Jat regiments were for Hindu Jats from the Haryana region. A Hindu Jat from Punjab would need to become a Sikh to join the army.

I know who and what they mostly were bruvs. My own family were among the pioneers in the Imerial Valley in the late 1800's. But if you look back at what I actually said you'll notice how I mentioned how the Californian historical records show a fair number of Muslim Jatts among those early sikh jatts. Those muslim jatts were not soldiers. Those Muslim jatts were not from active service in China, Hong Kong and Singapore. They were just normal Punjabi jatts, just like my extended family that settled there at the time. So, please explain why there were no Punjabi Hindu Jatts present (not a single one) if they supposedly made up the majority or at least half of Punjab's jatts at the time ? You see the early settlers contained numbers of ALL Punjabi jatts and the muslim ones were not part of the British Army. So why were there no Hindus among them ?

The Sikh Jats actually went from 66% of the Sikh population to 53% between 1881 and 1931. This was because they increased by 90% over this period whereas the non-Jat Sikhs increased by 310% over the same period

.

Then why are we even having this conversation centered on someone's assertion that most jatts only became Sikh relatively recently during the singh sabha movement ?

Surely then the conversation would be centered around the assertion that the jatts became Sikhs much earlier but it was the 'others' that are new to it ?

But I'm actually at a loss to explain who these 'others' were. We know the originals from Guru Nanak's time were the Khatris, their sub-group the Aroras and the Bhatras as missionaries. So who were these 'others' because not many other groups exist in such significant numbers if not the scheduled chureh mazabhis.

True that a certain numbers of other agricultural tribes such as Mahtons (Bhai Bhala Singh), Arain/Kambohs (Bhai Sukha Singh), Saini's (Bhai Jamala Singh) and even some agriculturalists who were Rajput's (Shaheed Bachiter Singh), Khatri's (Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa), Ahluwalia's (Sardar Jassa Singh) and Labana's (Bhai Makhan Shah) were wrongly included within the population figures for the Jatt tribe which artificially skewed the figures in 1881

Exactly ! Thats why nobody should be drawing foolish conclusions such as 50% of Punjab's jatts in 1881 being Hindu. Those census's included as 'jatts' a large number of groups that are clearly not jatt and far more likely to be Hindu rather than Sikh. I could today publish a census that includes khatris as jatts and then draw the conclusion that most of the urban shopkeepers in the city are jatt. On paper, according to my flawed census it would be true but that doesn't make it factually correct.

[californiasardar1]

A very interesting discussion about the Sikh and Hindu jatt/jat population distribution and change

Here is another theory: perhaps in the 1881 census, the British counted monay jatt Sikhs as Hindu jatts?

Then, by 1931, it is possible that either the British conducted the census with more care (counting monay jatt Sikhs as Sikhs), or, thanks to the efforts of the Singh Sabha movement, most of the monay jatt Sikhs had been converted to keshdharis

Historically in many parts of Punjab, people had respect for both Sikh and Hindu practices (and sometimes this went beyond "respect" and consisted of actually partaking in different practices prescribed by each faith). So, with Sikhi still a very young faith and large population of people who probably tread the line between being Sikh and Hindu, it is possible that anyone who "tread the line" and didn't have the outward appearance of a Sikh was considered Hindu.

There must be something to the old saying that a Sikh who cut his kesh had reverted back to Hinduism

[californiasardar1]

I suspect the answer lies in the rather nonchalent way that the uneducated country bumpkin types have reacted to written words, reports, census' etc. Having spoken about this with my father, he informed me that even relatively recently when he was a child he and other sikhs regularly called themselves 'hindu' sometimes. They were not enlightended, educated or on terms with worldly affairs to know better. The term was almost universally used in Punjab as meaning 'Indian' and 'not-muslim'.

As you can see then, there are many misconceptions. One is how, contrary to the census, practically every jatt from Punjab narrates his family history as being Sikh since the 1700's. If the census is correct then half of all jatt Sikhs should have a Hindu grandfather for the singh sabha movement is recent. The census is flawed.

Legal Singh / West London Singh:

That's a good point. The discrepancy may come down to a combination of how "country bumpkin" types misidentified themselves and how the British misidentified monay Sikhs as being Hindu.

Of course, this is all speculation. Maybe it is true that there were lots of Hindu jatts in Punjab who actually converted to Sikhi in the late 1800s. I don't doubt that there were a substantial number of such people. I am a bit surprised and skeptical, however, that Hindu jatts outnumbered Sikh jatts in many areas of the modern state of Punjab. I've never met any jatt Sikhs who have described their ancestors as being Hindu as recently as the late 1800s. That should not have been the case if the census didn't have any issues.