How Gathwala Jats got the title “Malik”

[jitendershooda]

History aaj kal fiction hi lagne lagi hai, Jaise ki 'panchtantr ki kahaniya'. This discussion reminded me of an old thread where Sh. S Rana ji clarified the 'Jut jut sanghate' sansrit/pali translation.
Aajkal to wahi baat ho gai hai .... "Kuch Vidvan log iss paksh ko mante hein aur Kuch Vidvan Log iss paksh ko, lekin hein sab Vidvan". Nothing is validated to an extent of belief and thus only personal speculations/interpretations are there, where the other person can only respect others point of view .

 

[phoolkumar]

u stay happy!

nyu chingre te ke kaam challe se bhai.....:angel:



ईब तो जनरल सुहाग के सेना अध्यक्ष बने पाच्छे उन ने इ बतावेगा एक गूगल / विकी पीडिआ पे या बात पाई थी।

भारत सरकार का कई लाख करोड़ पैसा बचेगा अगर वो पूरी फ़ौज हटाकर केवल कुछ निन्दाने के गठ्वाल रख लें।


(eeb chingre jaa beshak te bhai)

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Sir, Please do the google or go to wikipedia by querying on google or direct.... ye figures wahin se le ke daale gaye hain, mere imaginations se nahin uthaye maine......

Please see that wikipedia does not claim authenticity. Rather it itself says that the contents of their papers/articles need authentic references.

Please think for a while and form your own opinion, from where did a faujdar of Sirhind bring 10 lac soldiers to crush 41 sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh and remember that it was at the fag end of 18th Century when India was not populated as thickly as today. Even Mughal emperor had not such large number of armed forces. The original sources for the two battles are abundant and have to be tapped before accepting the sky-rocketing number of soldiers fighting against just less than four scores of their opponents.So Kindly visit some good repositories/archives to test and verify the statement of wikipedia.

So we must not blame wikipedia or google. The blame lies with us who blindly follow the written words without reading their sources critically or examining them properly.

You are young scholar carrying out your studies from some foreign university so you must use rigorous assessment of the given statements before approving them for public domain.

History cannot be 'invented' it has to be reconstructed on the basis of original sources [preferably primary followed by secondary sources], otherwise it would be anything but not history at all.

Wish you a bright research career.

 

[ssgoyat]

Please see that wikipedia does not claim authenticity. Rather it itself says that the contents of their papers/articles need authentic references.

Please think for a while and form your own opinion, from where did a faujdar of Sirhind bring 10 lac soldiers to crush 41 sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh and remember that it was at the fag end of 18th Century when India was not populated as thickly as today. Even Mughal emperor had not such large number of armed forces. The original sources for the two battles are abundant and have to be tapped before accepting the sky-rocketing number of soldiers fighting against just less than four scores of their opponents.So Kindly visit some good repositories/archives to test and verify the statement of wikipedia.

So we must not blame wikipedia or google. The blame lies with us who blindly follow the written words without reading their sources critically or examining them properly.

You are young scholar carrying out your studies from some foreign university so you must use rigorous assessment of the given statements before approving them for public domain.

History cannot be 'invented' it has to be reconstructed on the basis of original sources [preferably primary followed by secondary sources], otherwise it would be anything but not history at all.

Wish you a bright research career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamkaur

Wikipedia itself says for this controversial line :"citation needed". (No reference given for this line)


How convenient it is with Wikipedia. One can change it further from 10 Lacs to 20 Lacs (If it's not a locked/moderated page) and quote it's reference to substantiate one's claim.

 

[phoolkumar]

Bhai jaspreet ji ki avshkyta hai yahaan, wo Sikh hain to Chamkaur ki ladai aur guru govind singh ji ke is jauhar pe jaroor prakash daal saken..... bhai sahab thanks in advance for providing the detailed insight and figures here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamkaur

Wikipedia itself says for this controversial line :"citation needed". (No reference given for this line)


How convenient it is with Wikipedia. One can change it further from 10 Lacs to 20 Lacs (If it's not a locked/moderated page) and quote it's reference to substantiate one's claim.

 

[phoolkumar]

Thanks for the public wishes for my personal life, which in fact and if you feel and care so much about me on that part, might have sent me a personal message. Neither this thread was meant to wish me for my life but a discussion portal to discuss the subject underline.

Moreover I haven't claimed any figure of my own, whatever I have provided I have talked with reference, the question comes on reference not on me so better take the deabte in that direction, thanks!


And sir please don't always run in hurry to counter something, I suggested google in addition to wikipedia and not just wikipedia. So please go through the other links also, for example putting here a series of links carrying almost same information and figures, you may like to heed it from here: https://www.google.fr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=i9SqU87tCovZ8gef54DYDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=battle+of+chamkaur


thanks!

Please see that wikipedia does not claim authenticity. Rather it itself says that the contents of their papers/articles need authentic references.

Please think for a while and form your own opinion, from where did a faujdar of Sirhind bring 10 lac soldiers to crush 41 sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh and remember that it was at the fag end of 18th Century when India was not populated as thickly as today. Even Mughal emperor had not such large number of armed forces. The original sources for the two battles are abundant and have to be tapped before accepting the sky-rocketing number of soldiers fighting against just less than four scores of their opponents.So Kindly visit some good repositories/archives to test and verify the statement of wikipedia.

So we must not blame wikipedia or google. The blame lies with us who blindly follow the written words without reading their sources critically or examining them properly.

You are young scholar carrying out your studies from some foreign university so you must use rigorous assessment of the given statements before approving them for public domain.

History cannot be 'invented' it has to be reconstructed on the basis of original sources [preferably primary followed by secondary sources], otherwise it would be anything but not history at all.

Wish you a bright research career.

 

[prashantacmet]

Bhai phool kumar....aap "veer ras" ki kaviatye likhte ho aur saath hi saath "atisyokti" bhi karte ho.......waah bhai waah.....gathwalo ko aap jaise uttam kavi ki jaroorat hai...

bahi waise yeh nidana pahaad par basa hua hai ke...aapne "nidana heights" likha hai....confuse sa ho rya huin main

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Thanks for the public wishes for my personal life, which in fact and if you feel and care so much about me on that part, might have sent me a personal message. Neither this thread was meant to wish me for my life but a discussion portal to discuss the subject underline.

Moreover I haven't claimed any figure of my own, whatever I have provided I have talked with reference, the question comes on reference not on me so better take the deabte in that direction, thanks!


And sir please don't always run in hurry to counter something, I suggested google in addition to wikipedia and not just wikipedia. So please go through the other links also, for example putting here a series of links carrying almost same information and figures, you may like to heed it from here: https://www.google.fr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=i9SqU87tCovZ8gef54DYDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=battle+of+chamkaur


thanks!

Friend,

The discussion on the thread topic has already been over on the facts and figures; if something new remains to be added, it is time to do so.

Would it not better, you start a new discussion on the issue of Sikh history on sub-forum General History, only if you are interested and feel competent to prove your point of view; and concentrate here on 'How gathwala Jats.......'.

Thanks and regards

 

[phoolkumar]

The figures, facts and references provided after a gap of time on this thread were in one to one relation to the question where it was asked that how can so less person or army can defeat so big army, so these two examples are produced or found in that connection and hence to prove the logic that if battle of chamkaur and saragarhi can happen on same line then why not the ecounter of gathwalas can happen?


and how the gathwala ecounter held, its all given in initial posts of this thread.

Note: these examples are produced on this thread to use as referential material here to set an analogy between the three. moreover one example is of sikhs and second is of sikh regiment under british army command.

Friend,

The discussion on the thread topic has already been over on the facts and figures; if something new remains to be added, it is time to do so.

Would it not better, you start a new discussion on the issue of Sikh history on sub-forum General History, only if you are interested and feel competent to prove your point of view; and concentrate here on 'How gathwala Jats.......'.

Thanks and regards

 

[drrajpalsingh]

We were told that comparisons are made between the contemporary issues and personalities in history;

perhaps, that perception is not valid as of now;

when,

we are adamant to prove our prejudiced view without quoting authenticated contemporary or near contemporary sources !

 

[phoolkumar]

All is talked on the basis of references nothing home created.

We were told that comparisons are made between the contemporary issues and personalities in history;

perhaps, that perception is not valid as of now;

when,

we are adamant to prove our prejudiced view without quoting authenticated contemporary or near contemporary sources !