Post by humgujjar on Mar 11, 2015 13:36:25 GMT 5.5
Thank you for your brotherly affection and I reciprocate the same. All your queries related to my posts shall be answered all with heartiest warmth, either on this forum or any other public forum of your choice. Please keep propagating the right information about our great ancestors, in Urdu, which is most read language among Gujjars in Pakistan.
Let me just say that it comforts my heart to see you around, as you are like the lottery ticket of information, the more you scratch, the more your odds of winning! :-). I am humbled in front of the time and value you have given to your community. I know it takes huge sacrifices on behalf of your personal time to research all that information, and then to put it in front of the community, and I salute you for that! In this age of selfishness and materialism, only a great man has the heart to do what you are doing, you are not only giving respect to your parents, but my parents, as well as, the parents and the elders of all Gujjars. To me the more I thank you, the less it feels :-D. I wish you happiness and success on each and every step of your life. I want to see your work available to all Gujjars, whether it be a book, a journal, or a blog, and for that I am willing to be an assistant to you. Feel free to message me on this forum, or at my email address email@example.com .
Dear AP Bhaisahab,
I concur with your opinion. Constants can never be challenged. BUT (Big but for the following genuine queries
1. Why the historians did this to our history?
2. What made all other historians repeat the same story and assign the same period to Dadda-2?
3. What about their contemporary rulers (specifically Chalukyas)?
The above problems are so evident that they come to everyone's mind every time they try to make up their mind and start thinking on your lines. However, IF this establishes itself as a fact in history then this can be awarded as the biggest Fraud in the ancient history of India.
I hope we will soon come up with something solid which enables us to prove our point and bring it to the notice of all the renowned historians.
I followed the reference regarding the Indian Antiquary
posted by A.P. Singh Saab, which lead me to this brilliant article written by Georg Buhler
in Indian Antiquary
(Vol. 17, page 183. Link to Google Books
). It is an amazingly detailed article that "proves" that the copper plates of Dadda II which were found at various places named Bagumra, Umeta, Ilao, and Kavi are genuine and not "spurious" or "fake". In this lengthy article you will find detailed answers regarding "why" the historians "assume" Dadda II reigned in the seventh century instead of the fifth century. After reading the article, I am satisfied that the above mentioned copper plates are genuine and not "fake", as the reasons for dismissing them are erroneous and assumptive.
These copper plates are actually "proof of land ownership" issued by the government of Dadda II, who granted (donated) certain lands to certain people. Just like today, if the government donates land to a person, it gives the person a "stamp paper" to prove their ownership in future, similarly, these "copper plates" were given by the government of Dadda II, just like the "stamp paper", to any person who received a grant or donation of land. Today, the "stamp paper" is prepared by an officer, who stamps and signs it on behalf of its government, just like that, these "copper plates" were also signed and stamped by higher officers of Dadda II on behalf of him.
So while these copper plates were genuinely issued by the government of Dadda II, some historians believe that they were counterfeit copies of the legit grants to make a "fake" claim on property by the holders of these plates. However, the historians themselves have made their own "claims" on very shady reasons, which Georg Buhler, who knew Sanskrit himself, has dealt with in detail. He has proven that the copper plates are real and hence the grants were real as well, and so were the dates on those copper plates, which place Dadda II in the fifth century A.D.
After proving his points in the above mentioned article, Georg Buhler goes on to say: "Assuming, as we now must do, the three grants, Umeta, Bagumra, and Ilao to be genuine, we obtain from the seven sets of plates, the following pedigree of the Gurjara princes of Broach:--
Dadda I. [430 A.D.]
Jayabhata I. or Vitaraga I. [455 A.D.]
Dadda II. or Prasantaraga I. [Saka-Samvat 400-417, or A.D. 478-495]
(Period of Unknown Princes)
Dadda III. [580 A.D.]
Jayabhata II. or Vitaraga II. [605 A.D.]
Dadda IV. or Prasantaraga II. [Chedi-Samvat 380-385, or A.D. 633-634]
Jayabhata III. [655 A.D.]
Dadda V. or Bahusahaya [680 A.D.]
Jayabhata IV. [Chedi-Samvat 456-486, or A.D. 706-735]"
And then he gives a detailed description about the reign of each and every prince mentioned above, what a treat! He was a genuine scholar of Sanskrit who had a PhD in history and didnt have to rely on anyone for his "readings" or "translations", so I think we should trust his views more than the other less qualified scholars who didnt have a clue about Sanskrit.
Dear APS JI, Ashok Harsana Ji, Hun Gujjar Ji, (In order of birth year)
I have few doubts and I need an explanation:
1. My Gotra is Rathour. My village is situated in District Saharanpur and around 12 village are occupied by rathours in my area.
Some people used to say that our Gotra is Rathi and not Rathour. People used to say that Rathour is a Rajput Gotra so It can't be used by gurjars. But likewise one can argue that rathi is also used by Jaats. Which one of them is real ? Rathour or Rathi?
2. Rathours are generally found in Rajasthan. How comes 12 village of District saharanpur using the same surname. Is their any history associated with this?
3. With all respect, May I know more about APS DADA (1958) and humgujjar.
Dear Rathore Ji!
Saharanpur was an important strategic town of the Pratihar Gujjars. In fact, the old name of Saharanpur was Gujrat! All the Rajput and British historians agree that Pratihar Rajputs were the oldest and most powerful Rajput kings, the only problem is that the Pratihars were not Rajputs but Gujjars! I can provide you credible references if you may need.
So coming back to your question, its claimed that the Pratihars are Rajputs, but we still have Pratihar Gujjars; its claimed that Chauhans are Rajputs, but we still have Chauhan Gujjars; it's claimed that Solankis are Rajputs, but we still have Solanki Gujjars!; it seems it is also claimed that Rathores are Rajputs but we still have Rathore Gujjars just like yourself!
When the Muslims (Arabs and Afghans) attacked India, it was the Gujjars who were ruling Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat. The Arab historians like Al Masudi and Abu Sulaiman have written about this fact, and they have mentioned Gujjars in their writings as "the biggest enemies of Muslims" in India! The Gujjars defended India from the Arabs and Afghans for 400 years! but eventually their rule became weak and their empire was destroyed by the Afghan general Mahmood Ghaznavi, otherwise known as, Mahmud of Ghazni. This Afghan Mahmood Ghaznavi preferred to install Hindus in places of power for his empire in India so the local people will not see his government as "foreign", and for that purpose he chose those Hindu chiefs who were "friendly" towards him. Now, its a proven fact that the Rajputs rose to political power under the Afghan empire as "feudatories" or "friendly rulers". While the Gujjars, who were the "biggest enemies of the Muslims" had to leave their remaining kingdoms by immigrating to places where they were safe and able to protect their lives.
It seems that your ancestors were those Rathore Gujjars who were safe in Gujrat (the old name of Saharanpur, because it was a powerful centre of Gujjars), so they still call themselves with their original name, Gujjar. Its interesting that the areas where the Gujjars were powerful, the famous "Rajput clans" like Chauhan, Parihar, Solanki and Rathore call themselves Gujjars, but the areas where the Afghans were powerful, they call themselves Rajputs! Indeed, calling yourself a Gujjar in front of an Afghan ruler was an open invitation to horrible persecutions, and calling yourself a Rajput was a green light to safety and employment.
But I must say that I dont know much about Rathore Gujjars (or Rathore Rajputs as a matter of fact), but I know a whole lot about Gujjars as a whole, who were powerful rulers of Saharanpur, and its a fact that a lot of Gujjars came to Saharanpur for safety, when they were fearing persecution from the Afghans.
So in short, the fact is that the rulers of North-India before the Arabs and Afghans were Gujjars, but during the slavery period or the rule of the Arabs and Afghans, the Raj-Putras or Rajputs had become the rulers. It doesnt take a genuis to figure out that if the Rajputs were real "sons of a prince" they could only have been the sons of those Gujjar princes who were friendly to the invaders, because the princes before the Arab and Afghan invasions were Gujjars!
I hope it makes sense, Best Regards.
Post by humgujjar on Nov 28, 2016 11:36:50 GMT 5.5
Is Gujjar a Tribe, Race, or an Ethnicity?
Ancient Indian society was based on the following divisions:
1. Vamsa (Group)
2. Gotra (Clan)
2. Varna (Caste)
- Kshatriya (Warrior)
- Brahmana (Priest)
- Vaishya (Peasant)
- Shudra (Menial)
Gujjar was primarily the name of a Vamsa
The Gurjara rulers of Broach kingdom have written clearly in their records that they belonged to ‘Gurjara Nrpati Vamsa’ (Royal Gurjara Family). This proves that Gurjara was primarily the name of a ‘Vamsa’ (family or group of people), that named several places after itself in North India during the medieval times.
Gujjars belonged to the Kshatriya Varna (warrior group of people)
As mentioned earlier, the Broach Gurjaras were known as ‘Gurjara Nrpati Vamsa’ (Royal Gurjara Family). The records of this Gurjara dynasty make it clear that they belonged to a highly renowned Kshatriya family, proving that Gurjaras were part of the Kshatriya Varna (warrior caste).
Another Gurjara king, named Mathanadeva, who belonged to the Pratihara clan called himself ‘Maharajadiraja’ (King of Kings), meaning he was an imperial ruler. Hariraja, another Gurjara Pratihara king was also a renowned Kshatriya, who was known as a ‘Ferocious Gurjara’.
These instances prove that Gurjaras belonged to the Kshatriya Varna.
* There are some ancient communities, such as Gurjara Brahmanas and Gurjara Sutars, who use the prefix ‘Gurjara’ in a ‘non-ethnic’ sense. This has lead some historians astray into believing that ‘Gurjara’ was primarily the name of a kingdom, whose inhabitants were known as Gurjaras. Their thinking is based on the fact that several ancient records mention a ‘Gurjara kingdom’, so they argue ‘Gurjaras’ were men who belonged to ‘Gurjara kingdom’. They blatantly ignore the fact that in those days it was the people who gave their name to the places, rather than vice versa. Their observation is specially negligible in light of the historical evidence that Gurjara was the name of a Vamsa. Therefore, the expression ‘Gurjara kingdom’ found in ancient inscriptions should logically be translated as ‘kingdom of the Gurjaras’. According to these historians, Gurjaras were divided into the four traditional Varnas (Castes), and hence Gurjara Brahmans are the ‘priests’ and Gurjara Sutars are the ‘artisans’ of Gurjara kingdom. Here also they ignore the long standing tradition of the artisan and priest communities who often differentiate themselves based on who their patrons are. For example, a barber employed by a Rajput clan can call himself a ‘Rajput barber’, and the Rajputs too would have no objection with him using their name in this way. That some Brahmans were known as Gurjara Brahmanas because they were the Purohits (Priests) of Gurjara kings is attested in the book of an ancient Gurjara Brahmana who proudly claimed himself in the line of those Brahmans who were the priests of Gurjaraesvaras (Gurjara Lords). The theory that ‘Gurjara kingdom’ gave birth to a ‘Gurjara Vamsa’, or that a ‘Gurjara Vamsa’ gave birth to a ‘Gurjara kingdom’ which gave birth to a ‘Gurjara geographical identity’ has no evidence behind it. In those days ‘nations’ were not based on geographical identities, but rather on Vamsas and Varnas. In strict tribal communities, like medieval North India, people hardly put any emphasis on their geographical identity, many are even remotely aware of it. The existence of minor communities using the name Gurjara in a geographical or any other sense cannot be taken to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people, who are known as Gurjar or Gujjar, do not use the word Gurjara in a geographical sense. They use it in a tribal, ethnic, or national sense.
Gujjars eventually evolved into a nation or ethnicity
The Gurjaras started as a small group of Kshatriya clans, but as the circle of their influence grew and they came to rule distant people and their lands, they incorporated new clans into their fold. This happened primarily through feudal and matrimonial relationships.
One can argue that if Gurjara was a ‘Vamsa’ (which is also translated as ‘lineage’), how can new people join it? How can people share, or join an “ancestry”?
The ancient Vamsas, such as ‘Raghu-vamsa’ (Sun Lineage), had “qualitative” rather than “biological” origins. For example, the people who belonged to Raghuvamsa cannot be literally taken as ‘Children of the Sun’, but rather as ‘heirs of the People with Sun-god’s Qualities’. The Kshatriya kings who had the qualities of Raghu (Sun-god) were proclaimed by Brahmans as an Avatar (reincarnation) of Raghu.
This is the reason that while many dynasties in India claim descent from Raghuvanshi heroes of prehistoric time, they never have extensive genealogical trees connecting them directly to the said heroes.
The word Gurjara depicts warrior qualities. It originates from ‘Gurn’ (Enemy) and ‘Ujara’ (Destruction). The Gurjara Vamsa started from an event where a group of Kshatriyas defeated an enemy, and hence came to be known as ‘Gurjaras’. When the matrimonial and feudal relationships of these Gurjaras grew, more people who ‘matched the description’ were incorporated into the Gurjara identity. The fact that the country established by these Gurjaras came to be known as ‘Gurjaratra’ (country protected by the Gurjaras) lends further support to the above mentioned facts.
Thus, Gurjara evolved into a nation, which can also be described as an ethnicity. The leading factors of this nation were the warrior and agrarian communities. The Gurjaras were extremely enterprising, as they established their own country, language, and art. Today, the descendants of these ancient Gurjaras are mainly found among Gujjars, but Rajputs, Jatts, Kunbis, Patels, Khanzadas, Mewatis, and Maliks also have communities descending from them.
* I am not using the word “nation” in its modern sense, where nation states are more or less described through their geographical borders. In fact, I am using it in its ancient sense where kinship and culture were the basis of a nation. Another word to describe this form of “nationhood” is “ethnicity”.
Post by humgujjar on Nov 28, 2016 11:58:32 GMT 5.5
A Rebuttal of Shanta Rani Sharma’s Arguments (and of her supporters)
Shanta Rani Sharma published an article named “Exploding the Myth of the Gūjara Identity of the Imperial Pratihāras“. In this article she mentions the Gallaka inscription which states that Nagabhata I defeated the “invincible Gurjaras”. Naghabhatta I was the first king of the Imperial Pratihara dynasty, Shanta Rani implies that Gallaka’s inscription is conclusive and unambiguous evidence that Pratiharas were not Gurjaras.
She further asserts that Pratiharas such as Mathanadeva and Hariraja were known as Gurjaras because of their nationality not ethnicity; as she believes that beside the ethnic people called Gurjara, the nationals of Gurjaradesa (Gurjara Country) were also known as Gurjara.
Gallaka’s inscription cannot be regarded as conclusive and unambiguous evidence that Gurjaras and Pratiharas were two different people.
The fact that the Pratihara king Naghabatta I defeated the “invincible Gurjaras” has no bearing on his Gurjara ethnicity. For example, the Americans are the descendants of the British people, but they fought each other over the control of North America. So based on this fact, can one deny the British ancestry of Americans? There are many examples in history which show that kings often fought against their own family, tribe, ethnicity, and sometimes even siblings! Therefore, Shanta Rani’s attempt to give Gallaka’s inscription an “ethnic” color is purely subjective and arbitrary. The inscription has no intrinsic value in deciding the matter of Pratihara ethnicity.
On the other hand, we have two instances where Pratihara kings have directly been called “Gurjaras”. Parmashvara Mathanadeva calls himself “Gurjara Pratiharvayah” (Gurjara of Pratihara clan) in his Rajor inscription. On a point of importance, Mathanadeva was not a mere chief or feudotory, but a powerful King who styled himself with the imperial title “Maharaja Di Raja” (King of Kings). Another powerful Pratihara king, Hariraja, is also called “Garjjad Gurjara” (Ferocious Gurjara) in Kadwaha inscription. This is conclusive proof that Pratiharas were a powerful clan of the Gurjaras.
Other than that, there are two important contemporary testimonies that clearly call Imperial Pratiharas as Gurjaras. Ibn Rustah in his book Al Masalik Wa Mumalik has clearly written that, “In Hind…there is a kingdom whose king is called Al Jurz”. He has clearly distinguished between the Mumlikah (Country) and Malik (King) in this reference, leaving no shadow of doubt about what he meant to say. His statement is confirmed by another independent source, namely the Kaneres poet Pampa Bharata. He writes in his book that his patron (a Chalukya King) was the one who defeated “Mahipala” who was a “Gurjara Raja” (Gurjara King). The two corresponding references from Pampa and Rustah, make it amply clear that the Imperial Pratiharas were part of the Gurjara ethnicity. Any play on the word Gurjara after this is willful ignorance and nothing else.
The Imperial Rashtrakutta sources also confirm the presence of “a strong Gurjara army”. They mention their wars with the “thundering Gurjaras”, and the fact that these wars were “remembered by the old men”. Who were these “thundering Gurjaras” with their “strong Gurjara army” and “clansmen”, that were capable of stepping in a battlefield against the Imperial Rashtrakuttas? Of course, these references were only applicable to Imperial Pratiharas.
Post by Ashok Harsana on Nov 29, 2016 13:43:11 GMT 5.5
Thanks for the kind words of appreciation. I request you to keep posting relevant information to this forum to be in touch with other brothers. Regards
Post by humgujjar on Nov 30, 2016 8:03:54 GMT 5.5
Thanks for the kind words of appreciation. I request you to keep posting relevant information to this forum to be in touch with other brothers. Regards
Thanks Ashok Harsana Ji! Much appreciated. I will definitely keep documenting my ideas in this thread, and elsewhere on this forum. My 'view' on Gujjar history is pretty much in its final stage, now I am in the phase of writing it out and putting my sources together. I am aware that several of these ideas would be foreign to the general perception, however, I have tried to base them on facts which are verifiable as much as possible. I plan on writing a simple, short, but somewhat comprehensive history of the Gujjar nation, something like a blog for example would do for that purpose. Anyways, I will share everything here, and would be looking forward to your feedback (not necessarily agreement) on those crazy
Post by prashantvaidwan on Dec 7, 2016 20:53:29 GMT 5.5
Hi to all gujjars!
Let me introduce myself first. I am a Jat from western UP, my gotra is "baidwan". baidwans are Sikh and desi Jat both. Baidwans Sikhs are residing in Mohali. we have 4 villages In Mohali and one in west UP.
Now if I go back to the history of my gotra...we are branch of toor gotra (tanwar/tomar) and originated from somewhere near Faridabad. There are other gotra of Jat also who originated from tanwar..for example Jawla..
first let me clarify few points :-
- I believe that both jats and gujjars have rich history, closely kit in terms of traditions and physical traits. Even if I forget the past and talk about present..these two community are more aggressive , sturdy and rustic in AJGAR formation. Yadav and rajput stands second in aggressiveness.
- Secondly, I am not inclined to link myself and jats with each and every king in past. I am what I am ..a farmer, a Jat, a warrior..few Jat kindoms.....don't put myself in hindu varna system...and don't believe in brahmanical hierarchy..there are multiple paths in Hinduism...and I don't concur with brahmanic way....
- I am in search of history of AJGAR...it is quite complicated and mixed...I was a major contributor in History section of jatland...ashok harshana and AP singh know a few guys out there..
My opinion about AJGAR history is that previously there were known by their clan name..later they got divided in castes ...for example...tanwar gujjar tanwar Jat tanwar rajput
Now coming to the topic.....when I see the posts here..I don't see much difference than jatland.. as on jatland, many posters/historians are hell-bent to prove each and every great person on earth as jats...you are proving each and every one as gujjar....hahha......jats and gujjars are laughing stock....if any Jat or gujjar has so solid evidences..then show it to world......it's the right time...
let me clarify my points with two examples...
- one guy posted here shahmal was a mawai gujjar from baghpat area who fought against british in 1857....hilarious.....I have relatives in his birth village..BIJROL..5 km from his baraut.. so don't want to say even a word....it will kill credibility ...history of just 150 years back was distorted.....any difference from brahman/bhats way
- now for tanwar...if you have heard about Desh khap of baraut they have 84 villages..called as salaklaan tomer..raja salashpal after giving his delhi throne to raja jaipal in 1005 came here and these 84 village flourished...they have all the details...I wonder how you take claim of tanwar gotra completely....May be tanwar gujjar of delhi and tomer of baraut are related..I don't know if you guys know that history or just ignore it just for the sake of your ego........it's not called unbiased telling
- I have my data for chauhans and solankis also..but upper is enough for now
- as far as India subcontinent is concerned...let us leave apart south india...even in north india..all castes are mixed...In the same village you will find...black gujjar brown gujjar white gujjar...long headed gujjar , short headed gujjar....same for jats....mongoloid, Aryan, scythians, huns, dravid..only god or DMA analysis know how many mix is there...so talking of the racial purity is completely a nuts for all caste...still I think that Jat and gujjar have persevered their racial identity as much as possible ....yadav and rajputs are just any tom thingy and harry....any bheel , adivasi, chamar chooda..who got power somehow, became a Rajput....Rajput (except from few areas) and yadav don't stand anywhere if we see the physical traits...
so if any of you guy is willing to discuss leaving out all prejudice behind..we can extend this discussion...It' snot a challenge..it a try to unearth the AJGAR history....otherwise block me......we will take all measures starting from past history proofs , opinions of other historians and DNA..
First point is which word came first in history Jat gujjar Rajput...
- My start..Jat word was known first in 4th century
inscription from kanswa 409 AD by james tod about JIT (Jat) shailandra
"May the Jit’ha be thy protector ! What does this Jit’h resemble? Which is the vessel of conveyance across the waters of life, which is partly white, partly red? Again, what does it resemble, where the hissing-angered serpents dwell ? What may this Jit’ah be compared to, from whose root the roaring flood descends? Such is the Jit’h : by it may thou be preserved 1.
The fame of Raja Jit I now shall tell, by whose valour the lands of SALPOORA 1 are preserved. The fortunes of Raja Jit are as flames of fire devouring his foe. The mighty warrior JIT SALINDRA 2 is beautiful in person, and from the strength of his arm esteemed the first amongst the tribes of the mighty; make resplendent as does the moon the earth
Post by humgujjar on May 20, 2017 7:56:57 GMT 5.5
First point is which word came first in history Jat gujjar Rajput...
- My start..Jat word was known first in 4th century
First of all, welcome to the board! Secondly, wow, :-D. You asked a really hard question brother Prashant!!! Who came first, the Jatts or Gujjars?
My answer to that is, i don't know, neither do I know anyone who knows.
You mentioned that Kanswa inscription contains the oldest "scientifically traceable" mention of the word Jatt, and it is dated 409 AD by James Todd.
As far as I can tell you, the oldest "scientifically traceable" mention of the word Gujjar comes from Dadda II's copper plates. Dadda II was a Gujjar king who gave land grants to Brahmins, and these grants were recorded on copper plates. Seven of these copper plates containing these land grants have been discovered in places named Bagumra, Umeta, and Ilao.
These plates mention that Dadda II was a Kshatriya king who belonged to "Gurjara Nrpati Vamsa" meaning "Gurjara Royal Family" (word to word translation). According to Georg Buhler, Dadda II lived between the dates of 470 AD and 490 AD. The copper plates mention other kings of this dynasty as well, and the oldest king of this dynasty was ruling as early as 430 AD.
This information gives us two firm conclusions.
1: If the Gurjaras were powerful enough to rule a kingdom around 450 AD in one of India's most sought after regions due to sea accessibility, then they must have been an old and numerous people by 450 AD. How old and numerous? That is anyones guess, and it will always be a guess until any new information is unearthed. And as far as my knowledge goes, any such new information hasn't come to the surface yet. As a rough estimate though, historians say Gurjaras as a people were present as early as 200 AD.
2: Gurjaras were mentioned as Kshatriyas in the plates. Which firmly connects the origin of the Gurjaras with India, because Varnas were strictly enforced at the time these copper plates were made. In other words, if Gurjaras were originally Kshatriyas, then they must have descended from the ancient warrior clans of India.
I hope this helps, and trust me when I say this, I have always looked at Jatts and Rajputs as blood brothers to Gujjars. Yes, we do have our differences, and which family doesnt? But at the end, we are the same people who have kept the Kshatriya heritage alive in the Indian Subcontinent. I welcome you once again, and hope to see more posts from you. Take good care of yourself!