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

[acsap]

Most of the punjabi jatts became Sikh during Guru shaibians time. Most jatts in those times considered khataris as their teachers (see Robber Nobelman by Joyce pettigrew), so it was normal for them to be followers of Sikh Gurus. Baba Budha ji was one of the first Sikh, and he was a jatt. I don't disagree that some Jatts might have converted during Singh Sabha Movement, but that was probably due to the reason that many people in some villages were following some Hindu stuff as well as Sikhism, and it was much more advantageous to be Sikh during British times.

[Jonny101]

Actually I think its the other way 'round. The misconception comes about from the census of '81 itself.

Not at all. If you talk to any Jatt about there being such a thing called a Punjabi Hindu Jatt before the Singh Sabha movement he will cry out "BLASPHEMY!!" nearly all of us have grown up to think that we were converted to Sikhi since either the Guru period or 1700s. It makes us feel good about ourselves knowing that almost like we have divine roots. But when we find out the truth we react in disbelief like a kid when he finds out Santa Clause is not real. There is no shame if your ancestor became a Sikh post 1700s period. My own family: my Dadke became Sikhs during Singh Sabha movement, my ancestor from my Naanke became a Sikh during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule and they are from Patti(tarn taran) and subsequently joined the army of Lahore Durbar. So both sides of my family became Sikhs after the 1700s period. But today, except for my own family, everyone from both my naanke and daadke are now monay/patit. For me that is more shameful than anything else.

The British were very meticulous when it came to their census reports. They had good reasons too. Most of their army was recruited from so called martial castes belonging to Punjab and Rajputana. Their census not only recorded how numerous the members of each caste were, but even down to every single Gote/gotra, it's population and which religion it's members subscribe to. Even the modern Indian census is not this detailed nor this accurate. The Brits used this information and created manuals on to which Gote they thought seemed fit enough for their army. For example amongst the Hindu Rajputs, some Rajputs were not recruited because members of their Gote might have participated in the 1857 mutiny, while those people belonging to the Gote which were loyal to them were given preference. Amongst the Punjabi Muslims, the Brits gave preference in recruitment to the Rajput Muslims of Pothohar region over all other Punjabi Rajput Muslims.

Sikhs whose ancestor converted before the 1700s is not high nor mighty. I personally know of descendants of such respected puraatan Singhs like Mehtab Singh(killer of Massa Ranghar), Teja Singh Samundary(Akali movement leader) even a descendant of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee who are now Monay! does that make them a better Sikh than a rehitvaan Sikh whose ancestor became a Sikh post 1700s? or even a newly converted Sikh who is rehitvaan? Lets not act like how Arab Muslims act who treat non Arab Muslims as inferior to them.

[LegalSingh]

The British were very meticulous when it came to their census reports. They had good reasons too. Most of their army was recruited from so called martial castes belonging to Punjab and Rajputana. Their census not only recorded how numerous the members of each caste were, but even down to every single Gote/gotra, it's population and which religion it's members subscribe to. Even the modern Indian census is not this detailed nor this accurate.

Sorry Johnny but you're just over 100 years too late with the news. The British census makers already admitted at the end of the 1800's that they'd made mistakes with the '81 and '91 census by including lots of non-jatts groups in the heading of 'jatts'. By continuing to quote the findings of a seriously flawed census you're now flogging a dead horse. Give it up bruvs. It's over.

Do some detailed research into what kind of groups made up that figure of '50% of punjab's jatts were Hindu' in the 1881 census. You're in for a nasty shock. There are groups in there that you would never in a lifetime think of as having anything in common with jatts.....groups that are even to this day very hindu in character. Groups that as far removed from jatts as you can possibly get.

But like I said, it's over now. Even the British admitted the mistakes. It'd be silly for you to cling on to the findings even after the authors admitted their own flaws.

[californiasardar1]

Not at all. If you talk to any Jatt about there being such a thing called a Punjabi Hindu Jatt before the Singh Sabha movement he will cry out "BLASPHEMY!!" nearly all of us have grown up to think that we were converted to Sikhi since either the Guru period or 1700s. It makes us feel good about ourselves knowing that almost like we have divine roots. But when we find out the truth we react in disbelief like a kid when he finds out Santa Clause is not real. There is no shame if your ancestor became a Sikh post 1700s period. My own family: my Dadke became Sikhs during Singh Sabha movement, my ancestor from my Naanke became a Sikh during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule and they are from Patti(tarn taran) and subsequently joined the army of Lahore Durbar. So both sides of my family became Sikhs after the 1700s period. But today, except for my own family, everyone from both my naanke and daadke are now monay/patit. For me that is more shameful than anything else.

The British were very meticulous when it came to their census reports. They had good reasons too. Most of their army was recruited from so called martial castes belonging to Punjab and Rajputana. Their census not only recorded how numerous the members of each caste were, but even down to every single Gote/gotra, it's population and which religion it's members subscribe to. Even the modern Indian census is not this detailed nor this accurate. The Brits used this information and created manuals on to which Gote they thought seemed fit enough for their army. For example amongst the Hindu Rajputs, some Rajputs were not recruited because members of their Gote might have participated in the 1857 mutiny, while those people belonging to the Gote which were loyal to them were given preference. Amongst the Punjabi Muslims, the Brits gave preference in recruitment to the Rajput Muslims of Pothohar region over all other Punjabi Rajput Muslims.

Sikhs whose ancestor converted before the 1700s is not high nor mighty. I personally know of descendants of such respected puraatan Singhs like Mehtab Singh(killer of Massa Ranghar), Teja Singh Samundary(Akali movement leader) even a descendant of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee who are now Monay! does that make them a better Sikh than a rehitvaan Sikh whose ancestor became a Sikh post 1700s? or even a newly converted Sikh who is rehitvaan? Lets not act like how Arab Muslims act who treat non Arab Muslims as inferior to them.

I totally agree with you, Jonny, that having a longer line of ancestors who were Sikh means nothing. It is foolish to feel pride in such a thing if you yourself are falling short. And yes, I too have seen examples of Sikhs who come from well known families (from the Lahore Darbar or families that were prominent during the misl period) who are now monay.

I can only speak for myself, but the main reasons I am interested in this discussion have nothing to do with trying to establish which group of Sikhs are more "pakkay" or true. Rather, I want to know:

1. Considering how we are one of the only major faiths which did not grow by forced conversion, it is interesting to learn about when and why our ranks grew

2. I find it rather surprising that basically all punjabi-speaking jatts in India are Sikh while basically all hindi-speaking jats in India are Hindu. Why is this split so perfect?

3. It's always interesting to hear perspectives that challenge what we conventionally hold to be true, and that's why I wanted to know more about the example of your family

4. Identity is such an integral part of Sikhi, and it is interesting to explore what has defined us over the years and what that might say about our future

Anyway, what would you say about my theory that the shift in numbers largely had to do with how people were being identified (by themselves and the British)?

From what I've read about Punjab prior to the Singh Sabha movement, there was a large population of Punjabis who observed some Hindu practices along with some Sikh practices. Perhaps it is most accurate to say that what the Singh Sabha movement did was not so much convert people, but rather define more clearly for the masses how Sikhi was supposed to be practiced, and in turn influence people who had already been exposed to Sikhi to start practicing it properly.

In 1881, for instance, a sardar who practiced some Hindu rituals might have been counted as a Sikh. On the other hand, monay jatts who partook in Sikh practices as well as Hindu practices might have been counted as Hindus. After the Singh Sabha movement, many Sikhs had stopped practicing Hindu rituals so it may have been easier to distinguish between Hindus and Sikhs. Moreover, I'm wondering if many of the monay jatts of 1881 who tread the line between Sikhi and Hinduism (and were probably counted as HIndus) had by 1931 become keshdhari sikhs (or their descendants had become keshdhari sikhs).

That could explain both the discrepancy in the Sikh/Hindu division among jatts, while at the same time not directly conflicting with the widely held view that the vast majority of jatt Sikhs have had Sikhi in their family (whether in the strict khalsa tradition, or as monay who observed some Sikh practices) since the early 1700s.

[isingh1699]

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 ?

I don't know if you perhaps know of the Hindu's of those times having a fear of "kaalah paani" or crossing the ocean to leave India due to some myth. This is the reason why we Sikhs as a tiny 2% minority of the Indian population were originally the majority of the Indian Diaspora in the UK, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. It is only as faith in these Hindu myths have died out (that a person will die if you cross the ocean away from India LOL) that we have been overtaken by Hindu's in those five English speaking countries.

.

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 ?

Because it's a historical fact. If Sikhs were less than 5% of Punjabi's in 1797 but our Panth's number had risen to 13% of all Punjabi's in 1947 some 150 years later ... then if Jatts were already mostly all Sikhs back in the 1700's ... then the Jatt tribe's proportion of our Panth's population would have fallen to close to 20%.

In actual fact Jatts are a bit below half of our Panth's population.

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 ?

That's exactly what has been disproved. It's a fact that even Jatts, Khatri's and Arora's were overwhelming non-Sikh even up until the times of the Singh Sabha movement. Of course 90% of non-Muslim members of Khatri and Arora clans are still Hindu to this day. If the Khatri Muslims and Arora Muslims of Pakistan are included then Sikhs become an even smaller minority. As you know Jatt Sikhs accounted for only 15-20% of present day Majha, Malwa and Doaba as recently as 1947 before all the Muslim Jatts, Muslim Rajputs, Muslim Gujjars, Muslim Arain/Kambohs etc all left for the Pakistan they demanded and voted for. It is only via the genocide of Sikhs in Pakistan and relocation of survivors that Jatt Sikhs numbers in East Punjab reached a peak of 33% of the total East Punjab population. Today Jatt Sikhs are less than 30% of the East Punjab population but outsiders wrongly perceive that all Sikhs are from the Jatt tribe. It is almost as if non-Muslims were to perceive that all Muslims are Arab only or majority Arab which is clearly a ludicrous belief.

There are plenty of tribes with immense faith in Sikhi. Sikhs with Jatt tribal ancestry only comprise around 1 in 6 of all Jatts. Sikhs with Khatri or Arora origins comprise in 1 in 10 of those communities at the very most. Punjabi Rajputs are overwhelmingly Muslims. Arains/Kambohs/Saini background (as septs of one people) are also only 1 Sikh in every 6 Punjabi's of that background. But overall most Punjabi tribes are with majority Muslim populations.

Exactly ! Thats why nobody should be drawing foolish conclusions

It's well known that Muslim Jatts have always been the biggest percentage of the Jatt tribe's population. But yes out of non-Muslim Jatts clearly there was a majority of Hindu's among non-Muslim Jatts as recently as 1881. Even now if the horizons are expanded beyond East Punjab it is seen that Hindu Jatts from Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh are almost twice as numerous as their Sikh counterparts. Obviously Muslims Jatts are at least three times more numerous than their Sikh tribesmen.

Those census's included as 'jatts' a large number of groups that are clearly not jatt

Agreed that the 66% figure was exaggerated and wrong but that does not statistically make an impact to the fact that Sikh Jatts were less than Hindu Jatts in East Punjab in 1881.

Going back to your belief that most Jatts were already Sikhs as early as the 1700's. It is clearly and indisputably clear that what Proactive Veerji and Jonny101 Veerji have said is 100% correct, given that despite the massive conversion of Punjabi's into Sikhi during the Singh Sabha movement's heyday that Sikhs from a Jatt tribal still comprised half of the Panth's numbers in 1931 ... when if most Jatts were supposedly already Sikh in the 1700's they would have clearly fallen to around 20% of the Panth's population given the increase in Punjab's Sikh percentage from 5% to 13% in 1947 in the preceding 150years.

To make it clear for you: Let's say Irish Americans were 5.2% of New Yorkers in 1797 and had increased to 13% of New York's population in 1947. Let's say half of the original Irish Americans were Catholic in 1797 which is 2.6% of New Yorkers in 1797 (=50% of 5.2%). Assuming no further Catholic migration from Ireland (read as conversion of Jatt Punjabi's to Sikhi in Punjab as clearly no significant immigration of Jatt Sikhs into Punjab between 1797-1947) and equal birth rates for Catholic and Protestants ... then the original Irish Catholic population of 1797 (read as Jatts for the purpose of the example) and their descendants percentage would fall to 20% of the 1947 figure (2.6% divided by 13%). I hope that makes it clearer rather than more confusing!

And I'm sure most would agree the more recent the Sikh, the more sincere + devout is their devotion to Sikhi more often than not! I would guess that Mehtab Singh is Amritdhari while others are overwhelmingly sehajdhari in 2013.

[isingh1699]

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

Possibly in some cases. But this would have equally skewed non-Jatt tribes numbers so it's statistically insignificant in the overall picture. A valid point to make though.

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.

This treading the line thing can be seen today with various Indic cultural practices maintained by some. But the fundamental belief of Sikhs in one God and Hindu's having faith in many gods+godesses is what means that the British misconception that a Sikh without kes had reverted to Hinduism was false. One cannot have faith in one God one day and start believe in monkey+elephant gods the next. So particularly after 1800, those who believed in one God and knew they Sikh deep down were not likely to declare themselves to a census enumerator as Hindu, unless they actually were Hindu (in most cases).

Legal Singh / West London Singh:

I am a bit surprised and skeptical, however, that Hindu jatts outnumbered Sikh jatts in many areas of the modern state of Punjab.

The thing is bro if you try telling folks in the Diaspora that we Sikhs were a minority in Doaba and Majha and Malwa as recently as 1947 they will have difficulty believing you!

Perhaps we will only wake up if the next census shows us Sikhs to be a minority in East Punjab. Many young Diaspora Sikhs assume that Sikhs are 90% of Punjabi's and are rather shocked when they realise we are only 1 in 6 of all Punjabi's with Muslims heavily outnumbering us and even historic Punjabi populations from Haryana and Himachal with more population than us. Of course after 1966 we did become a majority within East Punjab.

I've never met any jatt Sikhs who have described their ancestors as being Hindu as recently as the late 1800s.

That's due to myths that have built up over time because it is somehow seen that a longer Sikh history is something to be proud of. When, actually Sikhi is only concerned about OUR actions right here and right now. We cannot be born Sikh. It's not an ethnic faith. We have to believe in one God and obey it's principles of justice, mercy, equality etc in order to call ourselves Sikh.

Most of the punjabi jatts became Sikh during Guru shaibians time.

That's a historic myth.

Most jatts in those times considered khataris as their teachers

Sehajdhari Jatts are well known for their thoughts on Khatri's and those thoughts are often contrary to what you believe.

Baba Budha ji was one of the first Sikh, and he was a jatt.

True that Baba Budha Ji was born to Jatt parents but as a Sikh he rejected his tribal affiliation like all other true Sikhs did.

Upon taking Amrit, a Khalsa with Jatt parents no longer remains Jatt, for example.

and it was much more advantageous to be Sikh during British times.

This is another myth. It was the Muslims and Hindu's who were rewarded most by the British as they were the ones most likely not to side with Khalsa Raj being re-established after 1849.

I totally agree with you, Jonny, that having a longer line of ancestors who were Sikh means nothing.

I totally agree with you and Jonny Veerji.

I find it rather surprising that basically all punjabi-speaking jatts in India are Sikh while basically all hindi-speaking jats in India are Hindu. Why is this split so perfect?

The split was perfected by the Arya Samaj, Jan Sangh and RSS. Those Punjabi-speaking Jatts in Haryana back in 1966 adopted Hindi much like our Punjabi Muslim brothers are now adopting Urdu.

[proactive]

isingh1699 has hit the nail on the head. Voluntary migration out of India was something peculiar to Punjabi Sikhs and to a lesser extent Punjabi Muslims. Of course the vast majority of indentured labourers to places like Fiji and Guyana were Hindus but these were lower caste impoverished Hindus from UP and Bihar. The only voluntary migration from higher caste Hindus was for educational purposes and this was to the UK and not to California or Canada.

Legal Singh,

So let's take the 1881 census to be deeply flawed and reject it outright. So is the 1891 census more accurate? It actually shows a DECREASE in Sikh Jats and an INCREASE in the number of Hindu Jats!!

Even the 1901 census shows 1,539,574 Hindu Jats against 1,388,877 Sikh Jats. It is actually only in 1911 that the Sikh Jats go to 1,617,532 and the Hindu Jats decrease to 1,000,085. So were 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses flawed and 1911 the first 'correct' census?

With regard to Muslim Jats, beyond the Chenab river anyone who was not a Pathan or a Rajput and who farmed land was considered a Jat. The term Jat did not have the same meaning as it did in the rest of the Punjab. That is why there are so many smaller gots which are not found in the core Jat areas of Central and East Punjab. So in these areas castes which were not Jat were enumerated as such and continued to be enumerated as such throughout the census period. In the Central and East Punjab it would be impossible for a non-Jat to claim to be Jat.

The increased in the number of Sikh between 1881 and 1931 was not solely among the lower castes.

Rajputs increased by 289%

Sainis by 573%

Aroras by 300%

Khatris by 49%

Kambohs by 215%

Gujjars by 203%

[LegalSingh]

Isingh1699, putting your thoughts in giant red writing doesn't add any weight to your argument. The exuses seem to be going in all sorts of directions now. I don't know why but we've got people talking about muslim jatts alot even though there's no dispute or issue with them in this conversation. We've got people talking about the jatts of haryana and u.p even though there's no dispute or issue with them in this conversation. Its all getting a bit silly as well as confusing because of the different irrelevent viewpoints being expressed now.

The fact is we've got most people here drawing conclusions from clearly flawed cenus' from the end of the 1800's. Even the cenus takers themselves admit the flaws in them. These people are also totally ignoring the other factors I mentioned earlier.

On the other hand, we've got people from those areas and background who cannot find any trace whatsoever of anybody in their family being hindu as recently at the early 20th century. In fact, the only one that can is the one still desperately clinging on to the findings of the flawed cenus. But, if its true for him then it is true for him. Nobody can dispute that. But it is clearly very very unusual and rare. Talk to a hundred other jatt sikhs and I doubt you'll find more than two others with the same tale to tell about not being sikhs in the 1700's or earlier.

So, to answer the original posters question. As a dhaiwal jatt from doaba, the manjki tract to be exact, my own family history is crystal clear. That tract encompasses alot of viillages and it is those villages that a very large number of Sikhs in England, Canada, Italy, Australia and California are originally from. That tract was given as a jagir specifically to jatt sikh clans by the mughal emporer in the late 1700's to keep the piece with them as they were constantly at war with his forces. They were attacking the mughals in the name of Sikhism. The historical context then for alot of doaba villages in Jalandhar district to even exist lies totally in Sikhism as all of the jatt clans settled there oroginally came from both majha and malwa and actually came with the adavancement of Sikh misls.

[isingh1699]

So, to answer the original posters question. As a dhaiwal jatt from doaba, the manjki tract to be exact, my own family history is crystal clear.

Legal Veerji again u are missing a glaringly obvious point. Let's say African Americans (or Sikhs for the purpose of the analogy) comprise 5% of the American population in 1797. Let say half of the African Americans are Baptists (or from the Jatt tribe in this analogy). Let's say some argue that all African Americans that are Baptists today in 2013 were already Baptists in the 1700's.

Then if the African American percentage of the American population jumps to 13% by 1947 (and in the analogy Sikhs, Hindu's and Muslims have equal birth rates in the period 1797-1947) ... then the Baptist percentage of African Americans should be closer to 20% in 1947.

Do you agree with that or do you even disagree with that in terms of how the analogy relates to Punjabi's?

Muslims and Hindu's are absolutely relavant as they are who overwhelmingly comprised the non-Sikh majority in 1947

If there are five red apples and eight green apples in a basket of thirteen would that make the red apples a minority?

If there are five Dhariwals and eight Dhaliwals at a gathering do the Dhariwals consitute a minority of those present?

As u know in 1797 Sikh were barely 5% of all Punjabi's and in 1947 Sikhs were 13% of all Punjabi's.

Therefore in absolute numbers the "pre-1800 Sikh ancestry" Sikhs are a 5 in 13 minority within the Panth in this context.

If the percentage of Sikhs with Jatt ancestry was 50% in 1797 then the Jatt percentage should fall to 20% of the Panth with a 160% influx of new non-Jatt converts to Sikhi. It didn't fall as low as that and without the Singh Sabha movement doing the massive parchaar they did to folks of all ancestries Haryana state would have been much bigger than the 1966 boundary and the Sikh Panth's current population far far smaller.

By the way are u Dhaliwal or Dhariwal? :lol2:

But seriously why not just throw your tribal identity in the trash as Guru Sahib ordered? When the Pakistani Muslims and Hindu Jatts in Delhi Police unleashed genocide on the Sikh Panth they didn't really care too much if one was of pre-1800 convert ancestry or if a Sikh was from one tribe or another. All the Muslims + Hindu's who despise us were interested in was that we Sikhs die a painful death as they fear+hate the Sikh ideology of equality + Manas ki jaath sabhe ek hi pechaanbo

[Mehtab Singh]

isingh1699, can you please NOT use red color and use the regular unbold black? All you need to do is quote a portion of another poster's message and then post your own. You don't have to include your own post within the quotes.

Let me know if you don't know how to do it.