Research on history of Jat clans

If one goes through the lists of Punjab castes and tribes compiled by Ibbetson in the nineteenth century one would fined several (many) entries of the so called Khatri Punjabis listed as jat.Mull over it.Is not Khatri an escape from jat?

Does not make sense to me at all Dr. sahib!.. Can you please ponder upon

1. If all the people of across sindhu were labeled as jat..who were the people called as "Hindu" by Arab and Persian world?

2. If the khatri, rajput is an escape from jat? Are the chamar, choora, julaha, nai , teli , dhanak, dheemar also an escape from Jat...I guess these people were also inhabitants of Sindh...how these people get separated themselves from "jat" label? and why in low- esteem?

3. How the selected people in present day rajasthan, Haryana, west Up were termed as jat..rest were not?...how did the label reach to this area from Sindh?...were there no jats in this area at that time. All jats reached here from Sindh

4. Persian Mazal-e tawarikh clearly mentions about "jats and meds" as inhabitants if sidnh...why did they sepaarte med if all were labelled as Jat....hwo were teh med different from Jat?

5. As per my knowledge when Bin kasim invaded sindh..kaikana nd sushtan area of sindh was ruled by jats...and the jats were who repelled teh first arab invasion....is this false?


Can you please share the name of khatri tribes listed as Jat?.....I am pretty interested.. I am aware max 2-3 common gotras
 
Last edited:
During the earliest years of census conducted by the British, the numerators had a real problem. There many cases where the people were not sure whether they should register their caste as Jat or as Rajput. Perhaps the common bonds were in memory and the new labels were not well decided. This also explains the commonality of gotras in large number of cases. There can be studies made of the factors in addition to the pejorative connotation responsible for the shifting of labels.

How did the confusion get vanish for other similar communities as gakhars, awans, gujjars etc in undivided punjab..why only jat and rajputs were confused?


jats and rajputs were last to get themselves separated from label jat..because other communities were not confused ..so they got new identify lot before....



Jutts and rajputs are equally influential in pakistani punjab ...and they share common gotras..so whoever is in the strong zone...others in the region identify themselves to be the same
 
Last edited:
Jat clans from Kundika

Kundika (कुण्डिक) was one of eight sons of Dhritarashtra in the History of Puru and Pandavas (Aila dynasty).(Mahabharata:I.89.51)

Jat clans


  • Kunda (कुन्द)/(कुन्दा) - Kunda clan are said to be descendants of Kundika (कुन्दीक). [SUP][1][/SUP]
  • Kuladia - Kuladia clan are said to be descendants of Kundika (कुण्डिक) son of Dhritarashtra in the History of Puru and Pandavas (Aila dynasty). (Mahabharata:I.89.51).
  • Kundu (कुण्डू) - Kunda clan are said to be descendants of Kundika (कुण्डिक) son of Dhritarashtra in the History of Puru and Pandavas (Aila dynasty). (Mahabharata:I.89.51).
In Mahabharata

Adi Parva, Mahabharata/Mahabharata Book I Chapter 89 verse 51 tells us that Dhritarashtra had eight sons, viz., Kundika, Hasti, Vitarka, Kratha, Havihsravas, Indrabha, and Bhumanyu. [SUP][2][/SUP]
Shalya Parva, Mahabharata/Book IX Chapter 44 tells us about the ceremony for investing Kartikeya with the status of generalissimo (सेनागणाध्यक्ष), the diverse gods, various clans who joined it. According to Verse-53 Kundika was one of them who joined this ceremony. [SUP][3][/SUP]


In Buddhist Records

A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms by Fa-hsien[SUP][4][/SUP] tells us that His long journey to India lasted between 399 AD to 412 AD. After his journey he takes Ship for China. It was a Disastrous Passage to Java; and Thence to China; Arrives at Shan-Tung; and Goes to Nanking. Fa-hien succeeded in getting a copy of the Vinaya-pitaka' of the Mahisasakah (school); the Dirghagama and Samyuktagama (Sutras); and also the Samyukta-sanchaya-pitaka; — all being works unknown in the land of [[Han]. Having obtained these Sanskrit works, he took passage in a large merchantman. With a favourable wind, they proceeded eastwards for three days, and then they encountered a great wind. The vessel sprang a leak and the water came in. The merchants wished to go to the small vessel; but the men on board it, fearing that too many would come, cut the connecting rope. The merchants were greatly alarmed, feeling their risk of instant death. Afraid that the vessel would fill, they took their bulky goods and threw them into the water. Fa-hien also took his pitcher[SUP]*[/SUP] and washing-basin, with some other articles, and cast them into the sea; but fearing that the merchants would cast overboard his books and images, he could only think with all his heart of Kwan-she-yin, and commit his life to (the protection of) the church of the land of Han.

Note - * We have in the text a phonetisation of the Sanskrit Kundika, which is explained in Eitel by the two characters that follow, as=“washing basin,” but two things evidently are intended.

Now Kundika in sanskrit is equivalent to a small pitcher known as Kuladia in Rajasthani Language.

It is interesting to know the meanings of Kunda and Kundi of which Sanskrit is Kundika.

Kunda - a large earthen pot for storing water; a trough of clay or wood in Hindi

Kundi - a small earthen trough in Hindi

Kuladia - a small earthen trough in Rajasthani

On this basis and their antiquity I think Kunda and Kuladia clan people are all descended from Kundika of Mahabharata. The difference of small and large may be due historical or social reasons.

References -
1. Mahendra Singh Arya et al.: Adhunik Jat Itihas, Agra 1998, p.227,s.n. 30


  • 2. धृतराष्ट्रॊ ऽथ राजासीत तस्य पुत्रॊ ऽथ कुण्डिकः <dl><dd>हस्ती वितर्कः क्राथश च कुण्डलश चापि पञ्चमः
    </dd><dd>हविः श्रवास तथेन्द्राभः सुमन्युश चापराजितः (Mahabharata:I.89.51)
    </dd></dl>
  • 3. द्रॊण शरवाः कपिस्कन्धः काञ्चनाक्षॊ जलं धमः
    <dl><dd>अक्षसंतर्जनॊ राजन कुनदीकस तमॊ ऽभरकृत (Mahabharata:IX.44.53)</dd><dd>एकाक्षॊ द्वादशाक्षश च तदैवैक जटः परभुः</dd><dd>सहस्रबाहुर विकटॊ वयाघ्राक्षः क्षितिकम्पनः (Mahabharata:IX.44.54)</dd></dl>
  • 4. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms/Chapter 40,f.n.4
 
Last edited:
Does not make sense to me at all Dr. sahib!.. Can you please ponder upon

1. If all the people of across sindhu were labeled as jat..who were the people called as "Hindu" by Arab and Persian world?

2. If the khatri, rajput is an escape from jat? Are the chamar, choora, julaha, nai , teli , dhanak, dheemar also an escape from Jat...I guess these people were also inhabitants of Sindh...how these people get separated themselves from "jat" label? and why in low- esteem?

3. How the selected people in present day rajasthan, Haryana, west Up were termed as jat..rest were not?...how did the label reach to this area from Sindh?...were there no jats in this area at that time. All jats reached here from Sindh

4. Persian Mazal-e tawarikh clearly mentions about "jats and meds" as inhabitants if sidnh...why did they sepaarte med if all were labelled as Jat....hwo were teh med different from Jat?

5. As per my knowledge when Bin kasim invaded sindh..kaikana nd sushtan area of sindh was ruled by jats...and the jats were who repelled teh first arab invasion....is this false?


Can you please share the name of khatri tribes listed as Jat?.....I am pretty interested.. I am aware max 2-3 common gotras

1.The Arabs used the terms 'Hindu' and 'Jat' alternatives- the former aa geographical concept initially and the latter a sociological term on the analogy of people already known to them among themselves (with soft 't'.

2. Regardless of the wider identity, The Chamar etc. would continue to be known and called by their limited identity. Though they share the kisan operations yet their specific identity shall continue ( no doubt things have changed in modern times when even naming them by their restricted specific identity leads to jail).

3. Outsiders make no distinction between their smaller and larger identity. The are concerned with the latter only as they have hardly an occasion to draw closer to get to know the former identity.

4.Majma -twarikh is a thirteenth century work claiming to present history and tales both.It very badly mixes the Mahabharata events and characters only to justify its being a tale treasure. Therefor not much cant be obtained by its authority.
5.The people west of the right bank of Indus were pro kasim and and those east of the left bank were opposed to him (this is what we gather from the Chachnamah), not withstanding their dislike for Dahir and earlier his father Chach for obvious reasons. The eastern on the analogy of the westerns (already known as Jats(with soft ‘t’) were called by the same term/label. We do such things in moderndays. All south Indians were once called Madrasis. A closer look slowly broke the myth.Similar is the case of the term Bangladeshi.
5.Ibbotson’s Glossary would not contain a great number to illustrate the point I had made, The process had taken place several centuries ago.But still I would give the following;
Ahuja;Babbar; Baidwan; Balaagna’ Chaddha; Chanana;Chhajjar; Dhall; Hazra; Kapahi; Kataria;
 
1.The Arabs used the terms 'Hindu' and 'Jat' alternatives- the former aa geographical concept initially and the latter a sociological term on the analogy of people already known to them among themselves (with soft 't')

Rana ji..thanks for explanation

is it not possible that they were known as jats already and arabs used the same term?...how do you defy this?

2. Regardless of the wider identity, The Chamar etc. would continue to be known and called by their limited identity. Though they share the kisan operations yet their specific identity shall continue ( no doubt things have changed in modern times when even naming them by their restricted specific identity leads to jail).

does not seem quite right to me..but accepting it

3. Outsiders make no distinction between their smaller and larger identity. The are concerned with the latter only as they have hardly an occasion to draw closer to get to know the former identity.

Could not understand this!...arabs were initially aware with Sindh people and they used "jat" in derogatory men for them...my question is "how the selected people in today jatland" were tagged as Jat....did all of them come from Sindh with this tag? and if they took it on their own...why would someone take a derogatory tag if earlier they had more respectable name as "krishaka"

4.Majma -twarikh is a thirteenth century work claiming to present history and tales both.It very badly mixes the Mahabharata events and characters only to justify its being a tale treasure. Therefor not much cant be obtained by its authority.

so does chachnama not talk about medh people?

5.Ibbotson’s Glossary would not contain a great number to illustrate the point I had made, The process had taken place several centuries ago.But still I would give the following;
Ahuja;Babbar; Baidwan; Balaagna’ Chaddha; Chanana;Chhajjar; Dhall; Hazra; Kapahi; Kataria;

I did not even search for other clan when I see that you mentioned "Baidwan"...it's my clan name.......we have just 5 native villages..

4 Sikhs currently and one Vedic hindu.......how did the khatri come in picture for baidwan........we are originated from "toor" gotra...can you plz explain?
 
Historians handle the broth with their own investigations. They do not interrogate like journalists to make a story. They just get a hint and dig with their own spade.
No one has to coin things; It is a case of extension of existing labels by way of analogy-analogy of appearance, vocation, status in general etc.

Dr. Sahib, Thanks for your snub !

I am not a story writer journalist. If you do not like my putting questions/or have no intention to reply, that is your sweet will.

Cheers !!
 
Rana ji..thanks for explanation

is it not possible that they were known as jats already and arabs used the same term?...how do you defy this?



does not seem quite right to me..but accepting it



Could not understand this!...arabs were initially aware with Sindh people and they used "jat" in derogatory men for them...my question is "how the selected people in today jatland" were tagged as Jat....did all of them come from Sindh with this tag? and if they took it on their own...why would someone take a derogatory tag if earlier they had more respectable name as "krishaka"



so does chachnama not talk about medh people?



I did not even search for other clan when I see that you mentioned "Baidwan"...it's my clan name.......we have just 5 native villages..

4 Sikhs currently and one Vedic hindu.......how did the khatri come in picture for baidwan........we are originated from "toor" gotra...can you plz explain?
YKhatri among the PUoy may be right here on the basis of direct information. But the fact remains that several so called khatris among the Punjabis have Common gotras with the Jats.This could have happened as a result of shift in caste name, and gotra continuing as befor being a family identity.
 
Dr. Sahib, Thanks for your snub !

I am not a story writer journalist. If you do not like my putting questions/or have no intention to reply, that is your sweet will.

Cheers !!
Dr. Rajpal ji, would any one even in utmost disagreement with colleagues use the expression 'disgusting'? If one cares to consult a dictionary the meaning would set one thinking whether he was just.

On the contrary any polite disagreement taken as a snub is not fair, I believe.
 
YKhatri among the PUoy may be right here on the basis of direct information. But the fact remains that several so called khatris among the Punjabis have Common gotras with the Jats.This could have happened as a result of shift in caste name, and gotra continuing as befor being a family identity.

.Ranaji.might be..but this theory is also as loose as theory of "making each and everything on earth as Jats merely on the basis of similar names" without strong backup....I see no difference.......may I call it a hypothesis or stretch of imagination for now...

as we discussed in past about DNA thing with some evidences but you admitted not to go in that direction without understanding the subject thoroughly...:).....

apology but so as of now.....I am inclined to debunk your view..........
 
Last edited:
Dr. Rajpal ji, would any one even in utmost disagreement with colleagues use the expression 'disgusting'? If one cares to consult a dictionary the meaning would set one thinking whether he was just.

On the contrary any polite disagreement taken as a snub is not fair, I believe.

No comment, Sir, except that I might be wrong in considering use of 'label' for 'Jat community/caste people as disgusting ! But consider the matter as closed.

Thanks and regards
 
.Ranaji.might be..but this theory is also as loose as theory of "making each and everything on earth as Jats merely on the basis of similar names" without strong backup....I see no difference.......may I call it a hypothesis or stretch of imagination for now...

as we discussed in past about DNA thing with some evidences but you admitted not to go in that direction without understanding the subject thoroughly...:).....

apology but so as of now.....I am inclined to debunk your view..........

Prashant ji,

I concede your right to differ. Perhaps I could communicate better in a live forum. I am not quite an adapt on consolidating the different podts together. Any way I am benefitted a lot herte too. Thanks.
 
Rana Saheb

In reference to your theory about Jat origin...You mention It was given by Arabs who had among them a class of people considered low may be around their invasion of Sindh ..known as Jat ..with soft T ..

First I would like to know where is the source for this information about a class of people known as Jat..(with soft )living among Arabs in around seventh century AD.

Second if Arabs knew them as Jat with Soft t why Indians then changed that to Jat with hard T ,...

again if Arabs also mean Jat with soft then How can we deny the existence of people known as Jat earlier who were known as Jarts/Jartikas by other writers and sources like Mahabharata much earlier then sevent century AD.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dr Rana as always. We should give some examples of how different groups in contemporary society had common origin in the past. Gotr origin is one way to do that, which got split over time and again and ended up as parts of different groups that we see now.

I will try to provide few examples, time permitting.

Maybe we can start somewhere. You provided one such good example of Rana originating from Chaudaharana (Chaudhary). I always think of Chauhans with their origins which later split in different groups, as discussed quite a bit here and in Jat History group maintained by Mr Ravi Chaudhary.

Rana originated from Choudhrana...... where is the source?
 
if Majmul Twarikh is a thirteen century work then Chachnama is also almost contemporary in time scale. on that scale both are irrelvent

M-U-T quotes earlier Sanskrit texts Where as Chachnam is based on narration from an earlier book composed by personal bard poets in euology of reigning king....


Earlier part ofChachnama dealing with Chach and Dahir times is apersian translation of earlier book written by personal bard poets of Chach in praise of his master as was the practice in those times ,where all sorts of imaginery tales were interpolated to praise their hero of story,Prithviraj Raso,Harmir Raso,HarshCharita,Raghkul stories where heroes were elevated to status of Gods and opponents were decimated ,
if we read Chachnama Harsha was decimated by Chach but if we study bhanbhatt narrations King of Sindh were no match for Harsha
We see in Prithviraj Raso How Prthiraj goes to Afganistan and bard Chanderbardayi sings Mat chuk chouhan ,,etc we very well know that all that was fabrication.....Similarly ...

Jats were enemies of Chach who could be potential threat to his rule .Chach ministers advised him to curtail their lethal power by imposing a ban on their horse ride or a ban on carrying weapons which is quite natural as even today govt.imposes ban on carrying weapons or impose sections to control hostile crowd which is quite natural but important point is ......

was he able to enforce that , just see outside Sindh area......

Harsh Wardhan(a Smani) was ruling in near by kingdom, a faith Chachnama associates with Jats .A Smani King was ruling in Sivistan which is reported Jat by other historians.Akham Lohana a Jat whom Chach fought is reported much higher in status by birth by Chach himself then How can we say that Jats were lower in Status ???

Is it not a standard method to evaluate the Historical value of a source material before basing our findings on that ?

Chachnama and Prithviraj Raso are similar stories with lot of fabrication and are not treated authentic informations ...by all modern day historians,
 
Last edited:
YKhatri among the PUoy may be right here on the basis of direct information. But the fact remains that several so called khatris among the Punjabis have Common gotras with the Jats.This could have happened as a result of shift in caste name, and gotra continuing as befor being a family identity.

Khatri/Arora also known as Punjabi has always been a trading community these days or the days of Chinese Han chronicles when they lived in Bactria nothing to do with Jats or Kashtriya thing and yes there are no Ahuja chadda or baidwans among Jats.
 
Last edited:
Another important point unanswered so far despite Arabs knowing all Indians as Jats ....Why a section of Indian with similar status was given a different name Med by Arabs ??

I hope you give an answer to these genuine queries???
 
Rana Saheb

In reference to your theory about Jat origin...You mention It was given by Arabs who had among them a class of people considered low may be around their invasion of Sindh ..known as Jat ..with soft T ..

First I would like to know where is the source for this information about a class of people known as Jat..(with soft )living among Arabs in around seventh century AD.

Second if Arabs knew them as Jat with Soft t why Indians then changed that to Jat with hard T ,...

again if Arabs also mean Jat with soft then How can we deny the existence of people known as Jat earlier who were known as Jarts/Jartikas by other writers and sources like Mahabharata much earlier then sevent century AD.

Narendra Ji,
1. It would be audacious on my part to claim any theory of my own. I only expres sertain ideas which I gather from odd readings. I am basically a Sanskritist. Here I am an amateur. So please construe my observations accordingly.
2. I do not have knowledge of the Arabic language. So I depend on secondary sources.
3. The linguistic nuances of phonetic changes would better be discussedseparately. Suffice to say that its intricacies are astounding.
 
Rana originated from Choudhrana...... where is the source?

Narendra Ji,

1. There is a gotra among jats- Chaudharaan, which I had known since my childhood.I believe this from the sanskritic origin-Chaudhar ayanaa.
2. At some stage the people of this gotra started writing their gotra as Chaudaahrana. This did not stay longber as it was longish.
3. It got replaced by the last part -'Rana' aladder up (at least in believing)in the reckoning among gotras.
4. In my own case -my gotra is Jatraana. The same thing happened here- retaining of the last part which makes it member of the elite names of gotra 9by virtue of its origins in Raja)
 
if Majmul Twarikh is a thirteen century work then Chachnama is also almost contemporary in time scale. on that scale both are irrelvent

M-U-T quotes earlier Sanskrit texts Where as Chachnam is based on narration from an earlier book composed by personal bard poets in euology of reigning king....


Earlier part ofChachnama dealing with Chach and Dahir times is apersian translation of earlier book written by personal bard poets of Chach in praise of his master as was the practice in those times ,where all sorts of imaginery tales were interpolated to praise their hero of story,Prithviraj Raso,Harmir Raso,HarshCharita,Raghkul stories where heroes were elevated to status of Gods and opponents were decimated ,
if we read Chachnama Harsha was decimated by Chach but if we study bhanbhatt narrations King of Sindh were no match for Harsha
We see in Prithviraj Raso How Prthiraj goes to Afganistan and bard Chanderbardayi sings Mat chuk chouhan ,,etc we very well know that all that was fabrication.....Similarly ...

Jats were enemies of Chach who could be potential threat to his rule .Chach ministers advised him to curtail their lethal power by imposing a ban on their horse ride or a ban on carrying weapons which is quite natural as even today govt.imposes ban on carrying weapons or impose sections to control hostile crowd which is quite natural but important point is ......

was he able to enforce that , just see outside Sindh area......

Harsh Wardhan(a Smani) was ruling in near by kingdom, a faith Chachnama associates with Jats .A Smani King was ruling in Sivistan which is reported Jat by other historians.Akham Lohana a Jat whom Chach fought is reported much higher in status by birth by Chach himself then How can we say that Jats were lower in Status ???

Is it not a standard method to evaluate the Historical value of a source material before basing our findings on that ?

Chachnama and Prithviraj Raso are similar stories with lot of fabrication and are not treated authentic informations ...by all modern day historians,

Narendra Ji,

Agreeing fully with you on the historical value of the Chachanamah I would like to say almost the same about M-U-T as it it also comes to us through a perambulatory route of fiction and imaginations nd distortions. So let us let them alone for their own literary vaue as kissas, legends or whatever.
 
Back
Top