ravichaudhary
New member
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jat- the term origins, history, etymology etc
- Thread starter drssrana2003
- Start date
ravichaudhary
New member
Our primary task here , as I see it, is to create a structure, a framework for the study of jat history.
The framework would cover, collection of data, linguistics, and scientific research .
To put flesh on the framework, is to attract the scholars who desire and are capable of contributing.
We will continue to discuss and argue,( sometimes vehemently) about the right and wrong interpretations.
History is a soft, very soft subject. It has myriad versions, and interpretations. It is full of arguments pro and con.
It is hard to determine , one single acceptable version.
In our anxiety to find ‘authentic’ history , let us never lose sight of that.
At best eventually, we will have consensus and some subjects and less on others.
We are grateful that scholars such as Dr Rana have joined the site. For those unaware of his contributions, he has along with being a reputed academician, and a Sanskrit scholar. has been the driving behind the Surajmal Institute for a number of decades. We are familiar with the Surajmal Institute.
With his leadership, we hope more scholars will come, and more importantly, we hope that many in our younger generation will take to the study of Sanskrit, Pali, other ancient languages, archeology, etc.
Ones life’s goals cannot be simply to be a computer programmer, an engineer or a Doctor.
There is more to the human spirit.
Ravi Chaudhary
The framework would cover, collection of data, linguistics, and scientific research .
To put flesh on the framework, is to attract the scholars who desire and are capable of contributing.
We will continue to discuss and argue,( sometimes vehemently) about the right and wrong interpretations.
History is a soft, very soft subject. It has myriad versions, and interpretations. It is full of arguments pro and con.
It is hard to determine , one single acceptable version.
In our anxiety to find ‘authentic’ history , let us never lose sight of that.
At best eventually, we will have consensus and some subjects and less on others.
We are grateful that scholars such as Dr Rana have joined the site. For those unaware of his contributions, he has along with being a reputed academician, and a Sanskrit scholar. has been the driving behind the Surajmal Institute for a number of decades. We are familiar with the Surajmal Institute.
With his leadership, we hope more scholars will come, and more importantly, we hope that many in our younger generation will take to the study of Sanskrit, Pali, other ancient languages, archeology, etc.
Ones life’s goals cannot be simply to be a computer programmer, an engineer or a Doctor.
There is more to the human spirit.
Ravi Chaudhary
drssrana2003
New member
Jat- the term origins, history, etymology etc.
Referring to Rana, Burdak, Chaudhary et al.
The discussion generates enough interest in looking the dual nature of the crisis. At the one hand there is need to relocate the past from what is actually felt ie, the real state of existence. And, on the other hand there is quest for contemporary structures of identity that suits to the changes in the modern world of today. The tragedy is that of history. These are no different but time and again the oft repeat challenges before society and even nations. For eg, Pakistan is also the similar case, but they have actually buried the past for good to survive the contemporary times.
Some sociological observations about Jat are as follows:
1) Jat is also used as ethnic identity label in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and this is different from the Muslim converts who are Jats. Most of these Jats are actually nomads or equivalent to vagabond castes of India such as nat, bazigar, bhand and other entertaining classes or to say so the Kuchi Jats of Afghanistan who are equivalent to Banjaras. So, to limit the explorations of the term Jats not only needs the temporal bindings but also geographical limits to stretching an argument.
2) Iranians had been using the term Jat for different purposes but they for much part of the history treated them at par with the Baloch farmers.
3) The clans of Haryana and western UP have a unique social structure which actually narrows the definition of Jat rather than broadening it. So, care must be taken before putting an argument for the larger extended community of Jats.
4) Some how archaeological evidences are brutally ignored in terms of reclaiming history. The fact that temples and oldest structures are present since Budhhist period, we have not tried to show the historic changes that this community has undergone through out this period. When, Hazaras of Hazarajat, Afghanistan are known to have converted to Islam from Buddhism, what was the status of Jats during this period. Were the Jats Budhhist at the same period? Such inter-community reference points are needed to provide stronger evidence for whatever the case may be.
S.S.Rana writes:
Ambrish has raised very valid points to be taken into account for arriving at a reasoned formulation with regard to the identity of the people of shared traditions, custom,beliefs, language and the way of life in general.The term 'Jaat ' , as I can see, is generally taken to be synonymous with any similar or even remotely similar sounding and a monolithic social group is imagined to have common origins.This approach initiated by the western writers in the early phases of the notice taken of the Jats of north and north west India for their flattering credentials.Very well meaning enthusiasts from our community took the cue from there. What needed to be critically reviewed, continued to lurk in our psyche and continues to rule even today in many quarters.To add tothe perceived pride many of our pinees sought to trace the antiquity of the term jaat in ancient Sanskrit texts (erroneusly )interpreting the rules of grammar and regardless of the laws of nature, mixing myth and reality.
We have to take into account the diversity of the world of words before we plunge to establish identities of tems or people for that matter.
In my view what we need is less emphasis on nomenclature and more critical examination of ethnic connections traceable in our shared beliefs and ways of life (leaving ,of course the immediate past and present for obvious reasons of mixing with others).
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanskrit or Prakrat languages
We have earlier discussed on Sanskrit or Prakrat languages. It is a tricky question which came first. We have to consider the past society in India looking to the present situations. Today we have English more popular than Hindi which is national language. Most of the society people start learning local language which is different from both. I think the society faced similar situations earlier in ancient times. The language of Rulers was always different from mass language. Sanskrit was the language of Aryans considered noble but it was not the language of common people, Prakrat was the language of masses.
Clan names changed in transliterating from one language to another and that is probably reason we find same clan name with difference in different regions. The migration of Jat clans is least discussed topic in jat history.
Let us study language variations here and authentic rules of language transliteration.
Regards,
We have earlier discussed on Sanskrit or Prakrat languages. It is a tricky question which came first. We have to consider the past society in India looking to the present situations. Today we have English more popular than Hindi which is national language. Most of the society people start learning local language which is different from both. I think the society faced similar situations earlier in ancient times. The language of Rulers was always different from mass language. Sanskrit was the language of Aryans considered noble but it was not the language of common people, Prakrat was the language of masses.
Clan names changed in transliterating from one language to another and that is probably reason we find same clan name with difference in different regions. The migration of Jat clans is least discussed topic in jat history.
Let us study language variations here and authentic rules of language transliteration.
Regards,
drssrana2003
New member
Jat-the term origins, history, etymology etc.
Laxman ji,
I find it difficult to agree with the view that Prakrit (not Prakrat) is earlier than Sanskrit in face of overwhelming evidence to prove the contrary. The Vedas, the earliest liteary heritage of not only the Aryans but also of the whole of humanity, happen to be in Sanskrit. There is no tace of Prakrit in the days of the Vedas.All known chain of works of the Vedic tradition, viz.the Brahmanas (books on liturgy), Aranyakas and the Upanishads were all written in Sanskrit. Yaska, an eighth century B.C.E. expert on the science of Vedic etymologies refers to spoken Sanskrit with its different regional variations.The language of the Mahabharata is as good as spoken Sanskrit. We know that it belongs to a very early peiod not to be out done by any Prakrit work.The reference in the Ramayana to Hanuman resorting to Sanskrit speech in order to convere with Sita, should mean that Sanskrit was a spken language IN valmiki's time. Panini whose date is sixth century B.C.E., had prepared a grammar of the Sanskrit language after observing its rich variety of diction and forms.He had many predcessors, who had done a similar job. A vast amount of writings of the most ancient times is available today, which dealt with the day to day socio-religious life of the common man. tThe Problem arises when we take the word 'Prakrit' to mean Primary or natural and assign the meaning 'polished' or 'impoved'. Admittedly language is like a river.It changes its coure and colour in diferent environs and with the flux of time. A time came when bounded in rules of grammar and pedantry gaining an upper hand, the flow of same going along the comon mases could not wait for the pedantic version to continue to prevail. Prakrit did emerge from the shadows, again, in its own versions, in urn to e superceeded by the various Apabhranshas.The so called modern Indian languages, with the exception of the Dravidian group,are all a culmination of this process. One can imagine any nmber of possibilities, but without the evidence of historical linguistics it shall remain in he domain of fancy. I would love it if any tenable evidence is brought forth to prove the anteriority of Prakrit to Sanskrit.
Regards.
s.s.rana
Laxman ji,
I find it difficult to agree with the view that Prakrit (not Prakrat) is earlier than Sanskrit in face of overwhelming evidence to prove the contrary. The Vedas, the earliest liteary heritage of not only the Aryans but also of the whole of humanity, happen to be in Sanskrit. There is no tace of Prakrit in the days of the Vedas.All known chain of works of the Vedic tradition, viz.the Brahmanas (books on liturgy), Aranyakas and the Upanishads were all written in Sanskrit. Yaska, an eighth century B.C.E. expert on the science of Vedic etymologies refers to spoken Sanskrit with its different regional variations.The language of the Mahabharata is as good as spoken Sanskrit. We know that it belongs to a very early peiod not to be out done by any Prakrit work.The reference in the Ramayana to Hanuman resorting to Sanskrit speech in order to convere with Sita, should mean that Sanskrit was a spken language IN valmiki's time. Panini whose date is sixth century B.C.E., had prepared a grammar of the Sanskrit language after observing its rich variety of diction and forms.He had many predcessors, who had done a similar job. A vast amount of writings of the most ancient times is available today, which dealt with the day to day socio-religious life of the common man. tThe Problem arises when we take the word 'Prakrit' to mean Primary or natural and assign the meaning 'polished' or 'impoved'. Admittedly language is like a river.It changes its coure and colour in diferent environs and with the flux of time. A time came when bounded in rules of grammar and pedantry gaining an upper hand, the flow of same going along the comon mases could not wait for the pedantic version to continue to prevail. Prakrit did emerge from the shadows, again, in its own versions, in urn to e superceeded by the various Apabhranshas.The so called modern Indian languages, with the exception of the Dravidian group,are all a culmination of this process. One can imagine any nmber of possibilities, but without the evidence of historical linguistics it shall remain in he domain of fancy. I would love it if any tenable evidence is brought forth to prove the anteriority of Prakrit to Sanskrit.
Regards.
s.s.rana
drssrana2003
New member
Jat-the term origins, history, etymology etc.
Laxman ji,
I find it difficult to agre with the view that Prakrit (not Prakrat) is earlier than Sanskrit in face of overwhelming evidence to prove the contrary. The Vedas, the earliest liteary heritage of not only the Aryans but also of the whole of humanity, happen to be in Sanskrit. There is no tace ofPrakrit in the days of the Vedas. All known chain of works of the Vedic tradition, viz.the Brahmanas (books on liturgy), Aranyakas and the Upanishads were all written in Sanskrit. Yaska, an eighth century B.C.E. expert on the science of Vedic etymologies refers to spoken Sanskrit with its different regional variations.The language of the Mahabharata is as good as spoken Sanskrit. We know that it belongs to a very early peiod not to be out done by any Prakrit work.The reference in the Ramayana to Hanuman resorting to Sanskrit speech in order to converSe with Sita should mean that Sanskrit was a spken language. Panini had prepared a grammar of the Sanskrit language after observing its rich variety of diction and forms.He had many predcessors, who had done a similar job.A vast amount of writings of the most ancient times is available oday which dealt with the day to day socio-religious life of the common man. The Problem arises when we take the word 'Prakrit' to mean Primary or natural and assign the meaning 'polished' or 'impoved'. Admittedly language is like a river.It changes its course and colour in diferent environs and with the flux of time. A time came when bounded in rules of grammar and pedantry gaining an upper hand the flow of same going along the comon masses could not wait for the pedantic version to continue to prevail. Prakrit did emerge from the shadows, again, in its own versions, in turn to e superceeded by the various Apabhranshas.The Modern Indian languages, with the exception of the Dravidian group,are all a culmination of that process. One can imagine any number of possibilities, but without the evidence of historical linguistics it shall remain in he domain of fancy. I would love it if any tenable evidence is brought forth to prove the anteriority of Prakrit to Sanskrit.
Regards.
s.s.rana
Laxman ji,
I find it difficult to agre with the view that Prakrit (not Prakrat) is earlier than Sanskrit in face of overwhelming evidence to prove the contrary. The Vedas, the earliest liteary heritage of not only the Aryans but also of the whole of humanity, happen to be in Sanskrit. There is no tace ofPrakrit in the days of the Vedas. All known chain of works of the Vedic tradition, viz.the Brahmanas (books on liturgy), Aranyakas and the Upanishads were all written in Sanskrit. Yaska, an eighth century B.C.E. expert on the science of Vedic etymologies refers to spoken Sanskrit with its different regional variations.The language of the Mahabharata is as good as spoken Sanskrit. We know that it belongs to a very early peiod not to be out done by any Prakrit work.The reference in the Ramayana to Hanuman resorting to Sanskrit speech in order to converSe with Sita should mean that Sanskrit was a spken language. Panini had prepared a grammar of the Sanskrit language after observing its rich variety of diction and forms.He had many predcessors, who had done a similar job.A vast amount of writings of the most ancient times is available oday which dealt with the day to day socio-religious life of the common man. The Problem arises when we take the word 'Prakrit' to mean Primary or natural and assign the meaning 'polished' or 'impoved'. Admittedly language is like a river.It changes its course and colour in diferent environs and with the flux of time. A time came when bounded in rules of grammar and pedantry gaining an upper hand the flow of same going along the comon masses could not wait for the pedantic version to continue to prevail. Prakrit did emerge from the shadows, again, in its own versions, in turn to e superceeded by the various Apabhranshas.The Modern Indian languages, with the exception of the Dravidian group,are all a culmination of that process. One can imagine any number of possibilities, but without the evidence of historical linguistics it shall remain in he domain of fancy. I would love it if any tenable evidence is brought forth to prove the anteriority of Prakrit to Sanskrit.
Regards.
s.s.rana
The Sanskrit and Prakrit debate:
It is all too not off the mark if one questions the precedence of Sanskrit before any other form of language. But, few things have to be borne in mind. The speech precedes all forms of linguistic structures. So, if one can prove that the Sanskrit and its structure and rules were formulated after some primeval speech be it Prakrit or some Adi-Sanskrit then the claims can be investigated further along Burdak ji' s argument.
The another fact is that it has to conform the rules of evolution vis-a-vis Persian and other such sister languages. There is an old Persian which is also known as Dari, spoken in Afghanistan and Tajikistan. This language has relatively simple structures compared to Persian. So, linguistic structures can be one source of dating. Unfortunately Sanskrit predates over this aspect as it reveals the oldest forms of writings unlike the case of Prakrit.
Agreed! it can be propounded that linguistic difference remained between the common and the elite, but then it is certain stage of social history. The linguistic class like stratification can indicate the racial or ethnic admixture as one of the possible historic process. If it is a possibility then all ancient theorization about the Jats are under serious challenge.
If Prakrit was common man's lingua franca the claims for the disadvantage have some basis as similar to the claims of the sub-altern history which has come only after the exhaustion of the history of the elite. Though archaeology reveals material culture the other way round. It is the subaltern history that is revealed first and then the history of the elite is verified through it.
But in any case so far as the study of Jats is concerned it is strange cocktail of subaltern contemporaneity and ancient elitism that produces a historical discourse which only mystifies the cause of study rather than throwing much light on it.
May I suggest that let' s take a break and start looking into those histories which are not our histories and then find how they are different and how they are similar in order to identify the universal historical processes and generic processes that can explain the origins and formations of caste here eg the Jats.
thanks!
Ambrish<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
It is all too not off the mark if one questions the precedence of Sanskrit before any other form of language. But, few things have to be borne in mind. The speech precedes all forms of linguistic structures. So, if one can prove that the Sanskrit and its structure and rules were formulated after some primeval speech be it Prakrit or some Adi-Sanskrit then the claims can be investigated further along Burdak ji' s argument.
The another fact is that it has to conform the rules of evolution vis-a-vis Persian and other such sister languages. There is an old Persian which is also known as Dari, spoken in Afghanistan and Tajikistan. This language has relatively simple structures compared to Persian. So, linguistic structures can be one source of dating. Unfortunately Sanskrit predates over this aspect as it reveals the oldest forms of writings unlike the case of Prakrit.
Agreed! it can be propounded that linguistic difference remained between the common and the elite, but then it is certain stage of social history. The linguistic class like stratification can indicate the racial or ethnic admixture as one of the possible historic process. If it is a possibility then all ancient theorization about the Jats are under serious challenge.
If Prakrit was common man's lingua franca the claims for the disadvantage have some basis as similar to the claims of the sub-altern history which has come only after the exhaustion of the history of the elite. Though archaeology reveals material culture the other way round. It is the subaltern history that is revealed first and then the history of the elite is verified through it.
But in any case so far as the study of Jats is concerned it is strange cocktail of subaltern contemporaneity and ancient elitism that produces a historical discourse which only mystifies the cause of study rather than throwing much light on it.
May I suggest that let' s take a break and start looking into those histories which are not our histories and then find how they are different and how they are similar in order to identify the universal historical processes and generic processes that can explain the origins and formations of caste here eg the Jats.
thanks!
Ambrish<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Last edited:
I have gone through a book by Dr Naval Viyogi: Nagas – The Ancient Rulers of India. (p.154). This gives reference of Dr Bharat Singh's book - "Pali Sahitya ka Itihas" pp-21 while discussing Etymology of some clans gives following table how alphabets change. It says there is a peculiar tendency in certain alphabets while changing them from sanskrit to pali or prakrit language. Few examples are:
Sanskrit → Prakrat
R → L
P → B
K → H
T → Th or Dh
Ch → J
Sh → Chh
Nagas – The Ancient Rulers of India mentions the history of Nagavanshi rulers. Many Jat clans find mention in it. Nagavanshi are the rulers of India 500 BC to 500AD. Naga rulers find frequent mention in Ramayana and Mahabharata. Many Jat clans also have origins in Nagavansha. This book gives a List of some important Gotras of Nagavanshi Taka kshatriyas, which includes along other Jat clans specifically Jat as well:
Andoria (Andhra), Bath, Bathon (Paithan or Paitan) Bhat, Bhatti (Yadavas), Chima, Chohan, Darji, Dogra, Gawhar (Gowharwal), Jassal, Jat, Kakar, Kalal, Kanait (a branch of Kulindas), Kanaujia, Kanpuri, Khakhar, Khas (Khasa Nag), Kori (Koliya Nag), Lahota , Lata , Lodhi, Madar (Madra), Mahar, Mahra, Mahtar , Mair, Malwan (Malava), Mor (Morya), Nagara , Nila, Pal, Panwar, Pawar (Parmar), Raj-Rishi, Rangra, Rathor , Rati (Ratti or Rastri), Salotri (Salvagotri) , Taka (Takshak), Tank, Wattu.
I wonder why Jat historians are ignoring the history of Nagavansha while writing Jat History. If we try to find solution only in India or only in Aryans or only in Central Asia we may not get our complete history.
Sanskrit → Prakrat
R → L
P → B
K → H
T → Th or Dh
Ch → J
Sh → Chh
Nagas – The Ancient Rulers of India mentions the history of Nagavanshi rulers. Many Jat clans find mention in it. Nagavanshi are the rulers of India 500 BC to 500AD. Naga rulers find frequent mention in Ramayana and Mahabharata. Many Jat clans also have origins in Nagavansha. This book gives a List of some important Gotras of Nagavanshi Taka kshatriyas, which includes along other Jat clans specifically Jat as well:
Andoria (Andhra), Bath, Bathon (Paithan or Paitan) Bhat, Bhatti (Yadavas), Chima, Chohan, Darji, Dogra, Gawhar (Gowharwal), Jassal, Jat, Kakar, Kalal, Kanait (a branch of Kulindas), Kanaujia, Kanpuri, Khakhar, Khas (Khasa Nag), Kori (Koliya Nag), Lahota , Lata , Lodhi, Madar (Madra), Mahar, Mahra, Mahtar , Mair, Malwan (Malava), Mor (Morya), Nagara , Nila, Pal, Panwar, Pawar (Parmar), Raj-Rishi, Rangra, Rathor , Rati (Ratti or Rastri), Salotri (Salvagotri) , Taka (Takshak), Tank, Wattu.
I wonder why Jat historians are ignoring the history of Nagavansha while writing Jat History. If we try to find solution only in India or only in Aryans or only in Central Asia we may not get our complete history.
ravichaudhary
New member
Comparing Prakrit and Sanskrit directly may not answer the queries being generated.
It depends upon what one means by Sanskrit and what one means by Prakrit.
Even before we get into such questions, we need to be aware of how languages evolve.
Sanskrit and Latin are ancient languages. We can agree there.
They are structured languages, with well defined rules of grammar, syntax etc.
Before a language could reach the point it had to be in its structured state, it must have been unstructured, with variations in dialects, from region to region and that to at short distances, as is the case even today.
Out of these various dialects, a structured language was defined, and that language came to be called Sanskrit. Latin too would have followed a similar path.
Thus when we talk of the common speech forms of language as opposed to the form of structured Sanskrit, the question arises as to what forms of nomenclature would one give to the Proto -Sanskrit.
Then did proto -Sanskrit die out completely, to be replaced by structured Sanskrit?
That would defy common sense.
What is likely that proto Sanskrit continued to evolve, and Sanskrit evolved into the language used by a specialized educated class- Priests, the ruling class etc?
The common man, continued to use the proto Sanskrit, or common mans speech.
That is what I take to be Prakrit.
In later years, we find that a later form of ‘Prakrit’ was being used in written inscriptions e.g. by the time of Asoka (conventional dating 300 BCE), and that is what commonly scholars mean when they talk of Prakrit.
Relying too much upon the Ramayan and the Mahabharat, without some research and reasonable conclusions, as to how the language of these epics evolved, would also I suggest be leading the traveller into a waiting trap.
These epics were in short oral forms, and then got expanded as the centuries passed.
When were they composed- 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE, 1000 BCE, 200 BCE , 500 AD, etc etc. Thye wee still being revised as late as teh 18th century.
My thoughts are that Structured Sanskrit, was not a divine revelation.
We need to sit back and take a critical look.
Ravi Chaudhary
It depends upon what one means by Sanskrit and what one means by Prakrit.
Even before we get into such questions, we need to be aware of how languages evolve.
Sanskrit and Latin are ancient languages. We can agree there.
They are structured languages, with well defined rules of grammar, syntax etc.
Before a language could reach the point it had to be in its structured state, it must have been unstructured, with variations in dialects, from region to region and that to at short distances, as is the case even today.
Out of these various dialects, a structured language was defined, and that language came to be called Sanskrit. Latin too would have followed a similar path.
Thus when we talk of the common speech forms of language as opposed to the form of structured Sanskrit, the question arises as to what forms of nomenclature would one give to the Proto -Sanskrit.
Then did proto -Sanskrit die out completely, to be replaced by structured Sanskrit?
That would defy common sense.
What is likely that proto Sanskrit continued to evolve, and Sanskrit evolved into the language used by a specialized educated class- Priests, the ruling class etc?
The common man, continued to use the proto Sanskrit, or common mans speech.
That is what I take to be Prakrit.
In later years, we find that a later form of ‘Prakrit’ was being used in written inscriptions e.g. by the time of Asoka (conventional dating 300 BCE), and that is what commonly scholars mean when they talk of Prakrit.
Relying too much upon the Ramayan and the Mahabharat, without some research and reasonable conclusions, as to how the language of these epics evolved, would also I suggest be leading the traveller into a waiting trap.
These epics were in short oral forms, and then got expanded as the centuries passed.
When were they composed- 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE, 1000 BCE, 200 BCE , 500 AD, etc etc. Thye wee still being revised as late as teh 18th century.
My thoughts are that Structured Sanskrit, was not a divine revelation.
We need to sit back and take a critical look.
Ravi Chaudhary
Last edited:
narenderkharb
Active member
So far ..
Laxman ji has given different versions and suggested most probable one..
Ravi ji and Ambrish are not very certain ..
Dr Rana is most certain but widely off the mark in his understanding of the term Jat as per my observation .Hypothesis on which he framed his theory about origin of word Jat is highly erroneous and has no base at all .However I do respect his sincere efforts and an attitude that is not based on false glorification
I find myself closer to Laxman ji in his understanding of this term but sure that Jat word has no connection with Krishna Gyati sangh or Panini grammer neither they originated from hairs of lord Shiva as suggested by some historians.
Laxman ji has given different versions and suggested most probable one..
Ravi ji and Ambrish are not very certain ..
Dr Rana is most certain but widely off the mark in his understanding of the term Jat as per my observation .Hypothesis on which he framed his theory about origin of word Jat is highly erroneous and has no base at all .However I do respect his sincere efforts and an attitude that is not based on false glorification
I find myself closer to Laxman ji in his understanding of this term but sure that Jat word has no connection with Krishna Gyati sangh or Panini grammer neither they originated from hairs of lord Shiva as suggested by some historians.
narenderkharb
Active member
Ravi Choudhary wrote.......
[Comparing Prakrit and Sanskrit directly may not answer the queries being generated.
It depends upon what one means by Sanskrit and what one means by Prakrit.
Even before we get into such questions, we need to be aware of how languages evolve.
Sanskrit and Latin are ancient languages. We can agree there.
They are structured languages, with well defined rules of grammar, syntax etc.
Before a language could reach the point, it did to be in its structured state, it must have been unstructured, with variations in dialects, from region to region and that to at short distances, as is the case even today.
Out of these various dialects, a structured language was defined, and that language came to be called Sanskrit. Latin too would have followed a similar path.
Thus when we talk of the common speech forms of language as opposed to the form of structured Sanskrit, the question arises as to what forms of nomenclature would one give to the Proto -Sanskrit.
Then did proto -Sanskrit die out completely, to be replaced by structured Sanskrit?
That would defy common sense.
What is likely that proto Sanskrit continued to evolve, and Sanskrit evolved in the language used by a specialized educated class- Priests, the ruling class etc?
The common man, continued to use the proto Sanskrit, or common mans speech.
That is what I take to be Prakrit.
In later years, we find that a later form of ‘Prakrit’ was being used in written inscriptions e.g. by the time of Asoka (conventional dating 300 BCE), and that is what commonly scholars means when they talk of Prakrit.
Relying too much upon the Ramayan and the Mahabharat, without some research as how the language of these epics evolved, would also I suggest be leading the traveller into a waiting trap.
These epics were in short orals forms and then got expanded as the centuries passed? When were they composed- 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE, 1000 BCE, 200 BCE , etc etc.
My thoughts are that Structured Sanskrit, was not a divine revelation.
We need to sit back and take a critical look
Ravi Chaudhary ]
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
^
^
^
^
Agree here .
[Comparing Prakrit and Sanskrit directly may not answer the queries being generated.
It depends upon what one means by Sanskrit and what one means by Prakrit.
Even before we get into such questions, we need to be aware of how languages evolve.
Sanskrit and Latin are ancient languages. We can agree there.
They are structured languages, with well defined rules of grammar, syntax etc.
Before a language could reach the point, it did to be in its structured state, it must have been unstructured, with variations in dialects, from region to region and that to at short distances, as is the case even today.
Out of these various dialects, a structured language was defined, and that language came to be called Sanskrit. Latin too would have followed a similar path.
Thus when we talk of the common speech forms of language as opposed to the form of structured Sanskrit, the question arises as to what forms of nomenclature would one give to the Proto -Sanskrit.
Then did proto -Sanskrit die out completely, to be replaced by structured Sanskrit?
That would defy common sense.
What is likely that proto Sanskrit continued to evolve, and Sanskrit evolved in the language used by a specialized educated class- Priests, the ruling class etc?
The common man, continued to use the proto Sanskrit, or common mans speech.
That is what I take to be Prakrit.
In later years, we find that a later form of ‘Prakrit’ was being used in written inscriptions e.g. by the time of Asoka (conventional dating 300 BCE), and that is what commonly scholars means when they talk of Prakrit.
Relying too much upon the Ramayan and the Mahabharat, without some research as how the language of these epics evolved, would also I suggest be leading the traveller into a waiting trap.
These epics were in short orals forms and then got expanded as the centuries passed? When were they composed- 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE, 1000 BCE, 200 BCE , etc etc.
My thoughts are that Structured Sanskrit, was not a divine revelation.
We need to sit back and take a critical look
Ravi Chaudhary ]
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
^
^
^
^
Agree here .
Last edited:
Applying the rule of "tendency in certain alphabets while changing them from sanskrit to pali or prakrit language" quoted on S.No. 28 of this thread:
Sanskrit → Prakrat
R → L
P → B
K → H
T → Th or Dh
Ch → J
Sh → Chh
The clan Taka (Takshaka) in Sanskrit becomes Dhaka in Prakrat.
This explains origin of Dhaka so far not mentioned by Any Jat Historian.
This formula can be used to explain origin of many Jat clans from Nagavansha.
This also leads us to conclude that Jats were in India when Aryans were spreading their rule.
Regards,
Sanskrit → Prakrat
R → L
P → B
K → H
T → Th or Dh
Ch → J
Sh → Chh
The clan Taka (Takshaka) in Sanskrit becomes Dhaka in Prakrat.
This explains origin of Dhaka so far not mentioned by Any Jat Historian.
This formula can be used to explain origin of many Jat clans from Nagavansha.
This also leads us to conclude that Jats were in India when Aryans were spreading their rule.
Regards,
Wikipedia source tells us about Brahmi and Prakrit -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brāhmī_script
Like Kharoshthi, Brāhmī was used to write the early dialects of Prakrit. Its usage was mostly restricted to inscriptions on buildings and graves as well as liturgical texts. Sanskrit was not written until many centuries later. As a result, Brāhmī is not a perfect match for Sanskrit, and several Sanskrit sounds cannot be written in Brāhmī.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brāhmī_script
Like Kharoshthi, Brāhmī was used to write the early dialects of Prakrit. Its usage was mostly restricted to inscriptions on buildings and graves as well as liturgical texts. Sanskrit was not written until many centuries later. As a result, Brāhmī is not a perfect match for Sanskrit, and several Sanskrit sounds cannot be written in Brāhmī.
Wikipedia on Prakrit says -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prakrit
The word Prakrit itself has a flexible definition, being defined sometimes as, "original, natural, artless, normal, ordinary, usual", or "vernacular", in contrast to the literary and religious orthodoxy of saṃskṛtā. Alternatively, Prakrit can be taken to mean "derived from an original," i.e., derived from Sanskrit. But there are scholars who believe that Prakrit is older than Sanskrit, and it is on the base of Prakrit (original) that the Sanskrit (refined) language was made. This also is in tune with the Jain religion, where the first Tirthankar is Adinath himself.The Prakrits became literary languages, generally patronized by kings identified with the Kshatriya caste, but were regarded as illegitimate by the Brahmin orthodoxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prakrit
The word Prakrit itself has a flexible definition, being defined sometimes as, "original, natural, artless, normal, ordinary, usual", or "vernacular", in contrast to the literary and religious orthodoxy of saṃskṛtā. Alternatively, Prakrit can be taken to mean "derived from an original," i.e., derived from Sanskrit. But there are scholars who believe that Prakrit is older than Sanskrit, and it is on the base of Prakrit (original) that the Sanskrit (refined) language was made. This also is in tune with the Jain religion, where the first Tirthankar is Adinath himself.The Prakrits became literary languages, generally patronized by kings identified with the Kshatriya caste, but were regarded as illegitimate by the Brahmin orthodoxy.
urmiladuhan
New member
The language of Rulers was always different from mass language.
Regards,
Is there a good reason for this?
Very interesting post. Thanks, Burdak ji!
urmiladuhan
New member
In later years, we find that a later form of ‘Prakrit’ was being used in written inscriptions e.g. by the time of Asoka (conventional dating 300 BCE), and that is what commonly scholars mean when they talk of Prakrit.
Ravi Chaudhary
I enjoyed reading the post for the simple reason that it explained a complex subject (history-linguistic soup) lucidly.
By the analogy given above i.e., Prakrit: common man; Sanskrit: elite, Asoka likely came from non elite class.
The syllable theory is a good reference to model out the linkages. The quest is that how this four piece puzzle that one has matched gets into larger fitting. Thus, solving puzzle in parts itself would not foresee the whole picture. The whole picture is more than the sum of the parts.
Therefore, if one believes in 'one to many' and 'many into one' as one of the frequent processes in caste formulation then perhaps we need to look into gujars, yadavs, rajputs and see how Nagas or any other ruling clans are related to their pasts. I hope it would validate the aforesaid claims by Burdak ji and others.
To put it simple I would not like to claim any exclusive past of the Jats. The ancient clans must have served as primordial raw material for horizontal and vertical social stratification.
rgs!
Therefore, if one believes in 'one to many' and 'many into one' as one of the frequent processes in caste formulation then perhaps we need to look into gujars, yadavs, rajputs and see how Nagas or any other ruling clans are related to their pasts. I hope it would validate the aforesaid claims by Burdak ji and others.
To put it simple I would not like to claim any exclusive past of the Jats. The ancient clans must have served as primordial raw material for horizontal and vertical social stratification.
rgs!
Last edited:
drssrana2003
New member
Jat- the term origins, history, etymology etc.
I think I can't measure up to continue to argue in front of the mountains of knowlede. So, thanks for every thing.
I think I can't measure up to continue to argue in front of the mountains of knowlede. So, thanks for every thing.
One of the typical situation is the total gap of knowledge of social structure from 3rd century AD to 9th century AD. This is the period where all the major formations in terms of caste emerged and there one needs to focus rather going into much older period. Perhaps if we get this period sorted out the older things can be better explained.
rgs!
rgs!
urmiladuhan
New member
I think I can't measure up to continue to argue in front of the mountains of knowlede. So, thanks for every thing.
Please don't give up so easily! A valid point will eventually prevail.