जाटों को 'चचनामा' में ‘चांडाल’ कहने के पीछे का

[phoolkumar]

itna to mera vishwas karo bhai sahab, agar main inko response dene ke peechhe 10-10 comments daal raha hu to inko tavjjo bhi deta hu aur inke work and background ko bhi jaanta hu,..... warna main JL pe jahaan debate itni out of direction jaati dikhe wahaan se kanni kaat leta hu, so don't worry I am aware of his work! wo alag baat hai ki kabhi inka work padhne ka mauka nahin mila!

Phool
It is really sad that you don't know about Rajpal ji as a Historian

 

[narenderkharb]

.................................

 

[abhisheklakda]

rajpal ji maine english translation padha hai, mirza kalichbeg original translator hai, usme ye to nahi likha ki jat chandal the , par unke sath chach ne kya kiya ye jarur likha hai/aur iske hisab se manusmriti me chandal ke sath joo kuch hota tha, wo chach ne jats ke sath kiya....ho sakta hai baad me chandal shabd ka istemal bhi hua ho??
...........................................................................
Chach stays at Brahman-abad and fixes the revenue.Chach then stayed at the fort of Brahmanabad till all the affairs of that country were settled, the dues of the Treasury fixed, and the welfare of his subjects was assured. He degraded the Jats and the Luhanahs and bound over their chiefs. He took a hostage from them, and confined him in the fort of Brahmanabad. He im*posed the following terms on these people. (the Jats and the Lúhánahs), namely, that they should not carry swords, except on occasions of urgent necessity; that their under*garment should be of some woollen cloth; that they should not wear velvet or silken cloth; that they might use scarfs of cotton thread, of black or red colour; that they must ride horses without saddles; that they must walk about bare*headed and bare-footed; that, when going out of their houses, they must take dogs with them; that they must supply firewood to the ruler of Brahmanabad; that they must serve him in the capacity of guides and spies; that, if they distinguished themselves for these qualities, they would be considered trustworthy and honest; that they must live in harmony and co-operate with king Agham's son Sarhand; and that, if an enemy invaded the country, they should consider it their duty to stand by him and fight for him. In this way, Chach brought his affairs to a con*summation and his sovereignty was (fully) established. If any person proved himself to be refractory, haughty or perverse, he compelled him to give solid security. In the case of some men of this class, he had recourse to another policy, viz., that he appointed them to some respectable posts. Thus, everything was ultimately set right.

Rai Chach moves towards Kirmán and marks out the boundaries of Makran​

​

​

...................................................

 

[phoolkumar]

great post brother Abhishek, and this was what I read from my references in either as it is or with little diverted form. And this is what I intended to say that Jats were degraded to status of "Chandal and/or Shudra" during that period!

and same is the situation has arisen today in haryana, when jat women have to run in police stations for "urea bags".... can it be called any kind of democracy where farmer women are compelled to present themselves in "police stations" for urea bags and that too in a Hindu party run government, which acclaimed status of equality and unity for all hindus? it is the period of second chach phase where jats are filled with feeling of highly depriviable status.

the lopesided behavior of hindu party run government clearly shows that they don't consider jats as hindu rather just tools to fulfill their ambitions of forming governments, just like the way once chach has done to jats in past.

rajpal ji maine english translation padha hai, mirza kalichbeg original translator hai, usme ye to nahi likha ki jat chandal the , par unke sath chach ne kya kiya ye jarur likha hai/aur iske hisab se manusmriti me chandal ke sath joo kuch hota tha, wo chach ne jats ke sath kiya....ho sakta hai baad me chandal shabd ka istemal bhi hua ho??
...........................................................................
Chach stays at Brahman-abad and fixes the revenue.Chach then stayed at the fort of Brahmanabad till all the affairs of that country were settled, the dues of the Treasury fixed, and the welfare of his subjects was assured. He degraded the Jats and the Luhanahs and bound over their chiefs. He took a hostage from them, and confined him in the fort of Brahmanabad. He im*posed the following terms on these people. (the Jats and the Lúhánahs), namely, that they should not carry swords, except on occasions of urgent necessity; that their under*garment should be of some woollen cloth; that they should not wear velvet or silken cloth; that they might use scarfs of cotton thread, of black or red colour; that they must ride horses without saddles; that they must walk about bare*headed and bare-footed; that, when going out of their houses, they must take dogs with them; that they must supply firewood to the ruler of Brahmanabad; that they must serve him in the capacity of guides and spies; that, if they distinguished themselves for these qualities, they would be considered trustworthy and honest; that they must live in harmony and co-operate with king Agham's son Sarhand; and that, if an enemy invaded the country, they should consider it their duty to stand by him and fight for him. In this way, Chach brought his affairs to a con*summation and his sovereignty was (fully) established. If any person proved himself to be refractory, haughty or perverse, he compelled him to give solid security. In the case of some men of this class, he had recourse to another policy, viz., that he appointed them to some respectable posts. Thus, everything was ultimately set right.

Rai Chach moves towards Kirmán and marks out the boundaries of Makran​

...................................................

 

[drrajpalsingh]

rajpal ji maine english translation padha hai, mirza kalichbeg original translator hai, usme ye to nahi likha ki jat chandal the , par unke sath chach ne kya kiya ye jarur likha hai/aur iske hisab se manusmriti me chandal ke sath joo kuch hota tha, wo chach ne jats ke sath kiya....ho sakta hai baad me chandal shabd ka istemal bhi hua ho??
...........................................................................

...................................................

Thanks for the comment. This is the point which I had made that there is no mention of Jats as 'Chandal' in that book.

great post brother Abhishek, and this was what I read from my references in either as it is or with little diverted form. ........

Kindly remember the site space must not be misused to spread misinformation in the name of history.

Since you admit that this 'foundation less'' thread discussion was initiated on the basis of facts quoted 'with little diverted form' so there remains no issue to be discussed further; hence it must be given a final stop.

Thanks

 

[phoolkumar]

Jats were met to the situation of "Chandals" in Chach period and its mentioning is clearly explained by various authors. I still stand by my say and there is nothing baseless in it. Supporting comment from friends also assert it. And don't be so judgemental, thanks!

Mere threads se aapka itna pyaar dekh ke main to gad-gad ho gaya!

rest read the second paragraph of this post usmen bhi "उनकी अछूत जैसी स्थिति लाने में कोई कोर-कसर नहीं छोड़ी।" note the "जैसी" word not as it is!

 

[phoolkumar]

yah lijiye shriman yah rahi detail, aap yah book lijiye aur ismen is page pe padh lijiye, thanks! agar aap itni hi "baal ki khaal nikaalne" pe utaaru ho gaye hain ki mere thread ko hi baseless bataane pe tule gaye hain to please get this book and have a read:

Albruni’s India (English Translation by Rajnikant Sharma page No.387) refers Jat as a Sudra, Chachnama refers to Jat as a CHANDAL Caste.

ismen page number aur book as per your demand donon hain!

baaki baseless to aapko meri post ko vaise hi nahin kahna chahiye tha, jab D.R. Chaudhary, Pratap Faujdar aur Hawa Singh Sangwan Ji jaisi references rakh di thi, aur ab to fourth reason bhi de diya hai!

 

[drrajpalsingh]

yah lijiye shriman yah rahi detail, aap yah book lijiye aur ismen is page pe padh lijiye, thanks! agar aap itni hi "baal ki khaal nikaalne" pe utaaru ho gaye hain ki mere thread ko hi baseless bataane pe tule gaye hain to please get this book and have a read:

Albruni’s India (English Translation by Rajnikant Sharma page No.387) refers Jat as a Sudra, Chachnama refers to Jat as a CHANDAL Caste.

ismen page number aur book as per your demand donon hain!

baaki baseless to aapko meri post ko vaise hi nahin kahna chahiye tha, jab D.R. Chaudhary, Pratap Faujdar aur Hawa Singh Sangwan Ji jaisi references rakh di thi, aur ab to fourth reason bhi de diya hai!

You admitted a short while ago that Chachnamah [ Primary source] does not contain the word Chandal to denote Jats.

Now you are producing another author's testimony [based on secondary source] to prove your earlier point.

At least, think where we are committing mistake. When full translated into English text of Chachnamah [original source of this thread as claimed by the title of the thread] is available, we must base our discussion on that book only.

You have started the thread giving heading as

• जाटों को 'चचनामा' में ‘चांडाल’ कहने के पीछे का...... so the evidence to support it must come from 'Chachnamah' and not from any other secondary source or quote from this person and then translate quote from that person and then quote from this or that distinguished researcher or author.

• To put the record straight kindly quote evidence either from 'Chachnamah' or stop putting one after another fickle arguments for the sake of argument, please.

Thanks

 

[phoolkumar]

You asked for book and page number, I have produced that.

Have you never used secondary references in your research work so far tildate? And if yes, then how many times? And which principle of research says that secondary references are prohibited in research work?

Means kal ko main RAmayan ya Mahabharat ya Geeta se related kuchh post launga to aap kahoge ki nahin us book ki reference le ke aao jo sabse pahle likhi gai thi. Do you know akeli ramayan ke 300 versions hain is world mein to main to rah liya aapko original hi dhoondh ke dene mein.... aap aur main to kya koi dharm ka guru tak mahabharat, ramayan aur geeta ki original first copy kab aur kiski banai hui hai nahin bata sakta........ even koi yah bhi nahin bata sakta ki aaj ke din oldest copy of ramayan, mahabharat or geeta kiske paas aur kahaan rakhi hui hai...... ya fir aap bata sakte hon to bata dijiye .... aur fir aapko itna hi shauk chadha hua hai sir, to aap khud kyon nahin padh lete original "Chachanama" se..... totally illogical baat.... bachchon jaisi jidd pe ade hue hain aap isse jyada kuchh nahin!

You admitted a short while ago that Chachnamah [ Primary source] does not contain the word Chandal to denote Jats.

Now you are producing another author's testimony [based on secondary source] to prove your earlier point.

At least, think where we are committing mistake. When full translated into English text of Chachnamah [original source of this thread as claimed by the title of the thread] is available, we must base our discussion on that book only.

You have started the thread giving heading as

• जाटों को 'चचनामा' में ‘चांडाल’ कहने के पीछे का...... so the evidence to support it must come from 'Chachnamah' and not from any other secondary source or quote from this person and then translate quote from that person and then quote from this or that distinguished researcher or author.

• To put the record straight kindly quote evidence either from 'Chachnamah' or stop putting one after another fickle arguments for the sake of argument, please.

Thanks

 

[phoolkumar]

Just stuck to one thread on JL itself about same topic, please read the second last line of fourth paragraph of this thread, which uses the same reference on saying the same thing, which I have brought in my post. So why this dual standard of strict filterning just with my posts only, as I see no question raised on facts produced in this post by you or any other moderator?

http://www.jatland.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-24956.html


Moreover if such references can be used in Supreme Courts to justify reservation for Jats, and supreme court accepts them, then why you have so big objection to it?

 

[ygulia]

Guys do not write the guess work in History. These type of analysis such as unnecessary "Chandal" brings bad name to the community.

 

[phoolkumar]

As far as this thread is concerned, 4 reference bases are produced. Fourth one is so strong evidence that it was accepted by Supreme Court of India even. Read in comment 30 above.

Guys do not write the guess work in History. These type of analysis such as unnecessary "Chandal" brings bad name to the community.

 

[anilsangwan]

I agree. Kitaab ko padhe bina hi usko aadhaar maan kar apni research ( read "kalpana") ka pahad khada karna galat hai ! Aise bakwaas historian hi naiyya dubote hain !

Guys do not write the guess work in History. These type of analysis such as unnecessary "Chandal" brings bad name to the community.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

As far as this thread is concerned, 4 reference bases are produced. Fourth one is so strong evidence that it was accepted by Supreme Court of India even. Read in comment 30 above.

And none of them is from the base book 'Chachnamah’ on which the thread foundation rests.

Acceptance of your line of arguments based on ‘doubtful quotes’ would mean that you have proved correct your hypotheses that ancestors of the Jats were 'Chandals'.
But this is wrong deduction. Remember many irrelevant quotes or half quotes cannot substitute original version of Chachnamah text and therefore these dubious evidences cannot be used for reconstruction of history.

Before moving forward, it is desirable to introspect how much harm is being inflicted upon real history of Jats by such type of ill-conceived titles of threads !

Nonetheless, when arguments fail to convince all concerned, it is better for me to withdraw myself from the discussion and thus ignore such attempts aimed at misrepresentation of our history before the world.

 

[phoolkumar]

इस लेख में अगर यह बात सामने लाइ गई है कि किसी जमाने में किसी ने हमको चांडाल कहा या उस तरह का व्यवहार हमसे किया तो इसका यह मतलब कतई नहीं लिया जाए, कि हम उससे चांडाल हो जाते हैं|

मेरा लेख सिर्फ यह बताता है कि हमें इतिहास में किसने क्या कहा, हम क्या थे और क्या नहीं, यह लेख यह बात नहीं कहता| मैंने साथ ही यह भी कहा है कि एक विचारधारा से हमारी विचारधारा नहीं मिली या हमने उनकी विचारधारा को उनके अनुरूप नहीं धारण किया और इसके ऐवज में उन्होंने हमको चाण्डालों जैसा व्यवहार दिया तो इससे भी यह साबित नहीं होता कि हम चांडाल थे: जो कि डॉक्टर राजपाल शायद आप कहना चाह रहे हैं|

नहीं, हम उससे निर्धारित नहीं होते, जो दुसरे हमारे बारे सोचते - कहते या प्रचारित करते हैं; हम अपने गुणों और प्रतिभा से निर्धारित होते हैं|

इसलिए इस बात से तो आप बेफिक्र रहें, कि इस लेख के द्वारा मैंने यह कहना चाहा हो कि हम जाट "चांडाल" हैं; जी नहीं|

 

[phoolkumar]

मैं समझ रहा हूँ कि इस थ्रेड से कई भाई यह समझ बैठे हैं कि जैसे मैंने जाटों को चांडाल ठहरा दिया| जो भाई इस भावना में बहे जा रहे हैं वो कृपया ध्यान दें कि इस पोस्ट में कहीं भी मैंने यह नहीं कहा है की हम चांडाल हैं या कभी थे|

मैंने सिर्फ वो तथ्य सामने रखे हैं जो दूसरों ने हमको बनाने की कोशिश करी या एक ऐसी हठधर्मिता दिखानी चाही कि या तो तुम हमारी विचाधारा से निर्विरोध जुडो और इसको मानो अन्यथा हम तुम्हें "चांडाल" कहेंगे|

बस यही तथ्य मैंने इसमें रखना चाहा है कि जाटों ने अपनी स्वछँदता की क्या-क्या कीमत चुकाई है| और दूसरों का इतिहास में हम से कैसा व्यवहार रहा है, इसके सिवाय और कुछ भी नहीं|

ना "चांडाल" कहने वालों के कहने से, न किसी और के कहने से हम चांडाल हो जाते और ना कभी हम थे|ना वंश से, न खून से ना मानवीय चरित्र से|