Jump to content

Sikhs v Mughals


Big_Tera
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Nah, they choose not to see what is under their nose to give themselves an ego boost. They're usually brainwashed to think this way too. 

I suppose the European historians of as far back as the late 17th & early 18th century must have been wrong.... probably brainwashed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

A British Officer, Captain Falcon, in his Handbook on Sikhs [1] wrote, in 1896, "The back-bone of the Sikh people is the great Jat Race, divided and sub-divided into numerous clans. The Jats are thoroughly independent in character, and assert personal and individual freedom, as against communal or tribal control, more strongly than any other people". As far the origin of the Jat Sikhs or in that matter other Jats, Major Barstow [2] remarked in 1928, "It is from these Scythian immigrants that most of the Jat tribes are at any rate partly descended. They thus colonized the Punjab, Northern Rajputana (modern Indian state of Rajasthan), and the western half of the Gangetic Doab (western part of the modern Indian state of Uttar Pardesh in northern India), and a considerable proportion of the inhabitants of these countries are undoubtly of Scythian origin". 

In regard to the characteristics of the Jat Sikhs Captain Bingley [3] quoted Thomason in 1899, "they are manly without false pride; undemonstrative; independent without insolence; reserved in manner, but good-natured, light-hearted, and industrious. No one could be associated with them for any time without conceiving both respect and liking for them". 

Approximately one third of Jats in South Asia follow Sikhism. They make up the majority of Sikhs. Even though there are no up to date accurate available statistics, some people say their number is as high as 85%. As per the A.D. 1888 census returns [4,5] figure for the total number of baptised Sikhs in India was 1,706,909 and the Jats accounted for 66%. Their association with Sikhism is deeply rooted. For example, two of the well known followers of Guru Nanak (born in 1469), the founder of Sikhism, were Jats: Bala (a Sandhu Jat [6]) and Bhai Buddha (a Randhawa Jat). 

Furthermore, Latif [7] said, "This vast delta (area surrounding the birthplace of Guru Nanak in Punjab called "Richna Doab"), during the period immediately preceding the establishment of the Sikh religion, was inhabited by the Jats and Bhattis (to the best of my knowledge Bhatti is also the clan name of some Jats). In addition, the world reknown Professor Ellsworth Huntington [8] of Yale University remarked, "…the Sikhs are the only one of these… …that has experienced any appreciable selection…. That as important religious selection took place among them in early days seem clear. People do not accept a new faith unless there is something in their temperament which responds to that faith…. Most of the original Sikhs were Jats…". Professor Huntington's assertion of the original Sikhs belonging to the Jat background is supported by several European eyewitness account writers of the eighteenth century: 

Colonel A.L.H. Polier (died in A.D. 1795) [9] wrote, "Originally and in general the Siques (Sikhs) are zemindars (landowners) or cultivators of land, and of that tribe called Jatts (Jats) which, in this part of India, are reckoned the best and most laborious tillers, though at the same time they are also noted for being of an unquiet and turbulent disposition. This tribe of Jatts (Jats) is very numerous and dispersed in all the country from the Sind (presently, a province of Pakistan or river Indus) to the southward far beyond Agra (a city in northern India). 

In another document Polier [9] said, "But what is more to be admitted is that those Seik (Sikh) Sirdars (Chiefs), whose territories border on the King's were but very lately of the Jauts (Jats) and of their race and tribe ---- they have put on their iron bracelet, fifty of them are enough to keep at bay a whole battalion of the king's forces, such as they are". 

Griffiths, J. (his document dated February 17, 1794 A.D.) [10] said, "The Jaats (Jats) are said to observe some institutions similar to the Seiks (Sikhs), wear their hair and beards in the same manner, and are part of the same people, who under Swrudge Mul (Suraj Mal----consult Chapter 5 for more information on this powerful king of the Jats), etc., formerly possessed many of the countries in the North India---". 
Francklin, W. (Documented during A.D. 1798-1803) [11] wrote, "Considerable similarity in their (Sikhs) general customs may be traced with those of the Jauts (Jats); though these, in some districts, apparently vary, the difference is not material, and their (Sikhs) permitting an interchange of marriages with the Jauts (Jats) of the Doab and Harrianah (probably same as the modern Haryana state of India) amounts almost to a conclusive proof of their affinity of origin. 
The Seiks (Sikhs) allow foreigners of every description to join their standard, to sit in their company, and to shave their beards, but excepting in the instances of the Jauts (Jats), they will not consent to intermarriages----. If indeed some regulations which are in their (Sikhs) nature purely military ----be excepted, it will be found, that the Seiks (Sikhs) are neither more or less than Jauts (Jats) in their primitive state". 
Browne, J. (Major and who written the first book in English on Sikhs "History of the Origin and Progress of the Sikhs" in A.D. 1788) [12] said, "The people known by the name of Sicks (Sikhs), were originally the common inhabitants of the provinces of Lahore and Multan (now both in Pakistan), and mostly of the Jaut (Jat) tribe ----". 
Francklin, W. (documented during A.D. 1798-1803) [11] wrote, "The Seiks (Sikhs), in their person, are tall, and of a manly erect deportment; their aspect is ferocious, their eyes piercing and animated; and in tracing their features a striking resemblance is observable to the Arabs who inhabit the banks of the Euphrates (river in modern Iraq)". This is an interesting observation on and appears to have some historical connection because General Sir Sykes [13] says in his book that a large number of Jats from the Indus Valley were taken to the marches of the Tigris (river in modern Iraq) in eighth century A.D. For more information on this topic the reader is directed to Chapter 3. 

Regarding the founding of Khalsa (baptised Sikhs or saint soldiers in A.D. 1699) by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth and the last Guru of the Sikhs, 

Lt. General Sir MacMunn [14] wrote, "The Jats of the Punjab, sturdy and quarrelsome, flocked to the new brotherhood (Khalsa), and he (Guru Gobind Singh) soon had a force which enabled him to try conclusions… …with the forces at Delhi (Emperor of India's). A strong religious sense did animate these warlike, muscular Jats…. The Jat tribes about the Sutlej and the Ravi rivers hastened to join the faith…. No longer would they turn the cheek to their persecutor, and they began to group themselves by tribes and confederacies known as Misals…".
 
 

This is the typical orientalist bull5hit that was used to manipulate jut minds into becoming  docile, loyal foot soldiers for goray. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

This is the typical orientalist bull5hit that was used to manipulate jut minds into becoming  docile, loyal foot soldiers for goray. 

I take it most jatts in the 16th, 17th & 18th centuries could read English so would have been brainwashed by these accounts into becoming docile loyal foot soldiers as you say..... funny then that 2 of the most famous Indian freedom fighters against the British, Shaheed Bhagat Singh & Shaheed Udam Singh were both jatts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

 

Dont know what Mahakaal is going on about because he and others like him fail to explain where was bravery of juts before they embraced Sikhi.

In sooraj prakash there is a saakhi of a Sikh asking Guru Gobing Singh jee of making the Pahari Rajputs as Sikhs. Guru ji replied to him that in future Sikhs will be gaining their own raaj. If these Rajputs are made Sikhs then they will get so hunkaari that they will attribute their victory to their Rajput warrior caste.

 

Guru ji said, that is why He is giving amrit to the lowly Juts, Tarkhans, Mazhabis, Nais because in future when they attain their Raaj they will give credit to the real reason for their victory which is Amrit of the Khalsa and not to their caste. 

 

Sadly today we can see some Sikhs have become so delusional that they attritube bravery and historic victory of Sikhs to their castes instead of the real reason for all victories of the Khalsa.

 

We have taken on Hindu characteristics of jaat abhimaan(pride in caste). 

Not at all brother, just adding some perspective to a topic that seems to attract negative & insulting comments from certain members.

 

6ve patshahs akal sena formed before Khalsa.... most recruits were from jatt background.

Adopting sikhi no doubt gives increase in self belief etc but it's hard to find similar observations from outsiders about tharkans, chumars etc who also adopted sikhi 

Some of the account by the historians attest to the fact that the Guru provided a structure & outlet for certain characteristics the jatts already had. The rest is mahraj lila I suppose 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Adopting sikhi no doubt gives increase in self belief etc but it's hard to find similar observations from outsiders about tharkans, chumars etc who also adopted sikhi 

Try reading Panth prakash by Rattan Bhangu and you'd find plenty. It just shows you how people like yourself only want to see what they want to see and make no serious effort to really study history and get the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Let's be frank, juts are essentially a majority musalmaan tribe where some of you somehow had enough grace to end up under a Sikh banner.

If you want to see yourselves tribally/racially look at jaats in Haryana and the hordes of sullay across the border in Pakistan where the most of your people are. Some of you should be praying and thankful everyday for being born Sikh or you'd probably be in some Pak paedo gang as we speak. 

Collecting a bunch of ego-boosting quotes from people who subjugated us, used us and thanked us by leaving us in a slaughter house whilst they walked off like it is some sort of evidence of your race being 'special' is exactly what I'd expect from a non-reflective typical jut.  Why don't you apply critical political, socio-cultural contextual analysis on it? 

Also, if you look at what Falcon says about how much they were paying jut sepoys you'd figure out that they were employing some seriously poverty stricken, desperate people - not some big shot zamindar, sardars as some of you would like to imagine.  

It's your Guru that lifted you up. If they hadn't you'd probably still be running around sharing wives between brothers, raping girls in fields and getting drunk everyday. If you look back at Sikh history there is no end of examples of uncommon bravery shown by every last group (high and low castewise) that entered the Khalsa. That's the simple truth. This jut obsession with using Sikh history to try and inflate your own egos has been going on enough. It's tired and played out. 

Say what you want, historical facts about the percentage of sikhs/Khalsa who were from jatt backgrounds, the number of prominent sikhs figures such as baba Buddha Ji, baba deep singh etc who were jatt & independent historical accounts far outweigh your biased, uneducated & hate fuelled views.

Hopefully you can one day resolve whatever traumatic experience it is you or your ancestors have with jatts.

if European travellers & historians decided to praise the character of jatts then they must have had a reason to do so.... just a shame for you that their accounts don't match up to your views. They were educated people travelling the world hundreds of years ago... your sat on a keyboard in your bedroom 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Try reading Panth prakash by Rattan Bhangu and you'd find plenty. It just shows you how people like yourself only want to see what they want to see and make no serious effort to really study history and get the truth. 

I've read it. Rattan singh bhangu was the Grandson of Mehtab Singh who along side Sukha Singh beheaded Massar ranger. Guess what..... Mehtab Singh & his grandson Rattan Singh Bhangu were jatts!

if I remember correctly the Singh's from Maja are not painted in a good light in Panth Prakash where as the jatts from Malva are highly praised

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Say what you want, historical facts about the percentage of sikhs/Khalsa who were from jatt backgrounds, the number of prominent sikhs figures such as baba Buddha Ji, baba deep singh etc who were jatt & independent historical accounts far outweigh your biased, uneducated & hate fuelled views.

Hopefully you can one day resolve whatever traumatic experience it is you or your ancestors have with jatts.

if European travellers & historians decided to praise the character of jatts then they must have had a reason to do so.... just a shame for you that their accounts don't match up to your views. They were educated people travelling the world hundreds of years ago... your sat on a keyboard in your bedroom 

Your people have created  SO MANY problems in our community with your hor5eshit beliefs, casteism,  barn dance loving  and sycophancy to outsiders, that I'm shocked that some of you still have the stomach to try and big yourselves up like you are doing. 

Don't worry, you people are getting and will continue to get your karma from it all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 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