This is absolutely ridiculous. It seems that you have fallen into the trap of the modern-day Sikh historians (largely of tarkhan (carpenter "skilled" labourer / artisan) and khatri ("munshi" [admin] or "hatti vaale" [shop keeping] backgrounds - those who have traditionally ancestrally occupied a lower strata of society than the Zamindar Jatt, and now wish to re-write Punjabs political and socio-economic history with a religious undertone [emphasizing 'egalitarianism' which never really existed) backed only by fabricated lies and unverifiable events).
JatLand.com would be the last place I would expect to read this sort of rubbish (let alone expect someone to believe it!)
(1)
Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a Jatt - this is commonly known in Punjabi culture and verifiable through various contemporary sources of the time.
* First of all -
all LEGITIMATE wives of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (legally/religiously married) where off Jatt Sardar/Chaudhary backgrounds (Sardar was a term used to denote a powerful Chaudhary/maalik/zamindaar who took autonomous control of territories - esp. during the fall of Aurangzeb, and the time of Ahmed Shah Abdali... infact many Muslim Jatt clans of Punjab where referred to as Sardars in history i.e. Kharral Chaudhries and Sial Chaudhries in the folk work Heer Warris Shah - proving that the title was in no way exclusive to any religion but rather cultural for rural-elites...it is only within the last 40-50 years MAX it has been hijacked by "turbaned and bearded" Sikhs as a religious title). I could go on about the re-writing of history and an attempt to re-define cultural terms - which has occurred after Indian Independence and the Punjab Land Reforms, by insecure Non-Jatt Sikhs.
*
Maharaja Ranjit Singh's ancestors:
Bhara Mall Jatt -> Budh Singh ("Desu") -> Naudh Singh -> Charat Singh -> Mahan Singh -> Ranjit Singh
Budh Singh was a cattle thief
(a cultural trait amongst the Jatts and Gujjars of the Gujranwala region (even those occupying the upper strata of rural society as Zamindars/Chaudhries/Sardars of huge estates); just read
Baburnama for Babur's own experience with Jatts and Gujjars of this region).
Budh Singh owned 25 acres of land, 3 ploughs, and later founded (and became Chaudhry/Sardar of) the village Sukerchak - his "jagir"/fief.
* Maharaja Ranjit Singhs ancestors where the Chaudhries/Founders/Maaliks of the village Sukerchak in Gujranwala (hence why Ranjit Singh's and his ancestors immediate misl was called "Sukerchakia" misl not "Sandhawalia"... It is only later that members of the clan broke away and founded another Jagir whose main village was Sandhanwala [in the Sialkot district].
*
Sansi is a Jatt sub-clan/gotra of the Sandhu clan [WHICH IS STILL very prominent in Gujranwala and Sialkot!]. Obviously, because Sansi is a sub-clan of the Sandhu clan, there are going to be less "Sansi"s than there are "Sandhu"s. Talking about small clans: I'm a
Berring Jatt, there aren't many of us, but
official land records, family history and bard tales all suggest that we held our village for the last 12 or so generations (excluding my generation and my father's generation).
HENCE: Size/population of a gotra/clan doesn't mean anything.
customs/traditions of maharaja ranjeet singh did not match to jatts as sati-pratha
this is false... ONLY Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rajput wives (he wasn't even legitimately/religiously married to them, I think) and dancing girls committed Satti (from what I can remember of (I think) Lord Aukland's accounts)... but the fact is, his favorite/legitimate/"authorized" Jatt wives did not commit satti, i.e. atleast Maharanji Jinda (Aulakh Jatti) didn't.
Jatt misals of that time did not recruit mazhabi sikhs (sikh churas) in their misals, sukerchakia misal was having lot of mazhabi
Zamindars recruited and fed every Tom, Dick and Harry they could in order to up their number of recruits/militia. It would be stupid not to (who doesn't want a larger militia in that situation?) ...
However, officers/leaders/"Sardars" of these Misls where almost always Jatts (or another zamindar tribe i.e. Gujjar), and only these zamindar tribes could capture and hold villages [
Mazhabis, Chammars, Tharkhans, etc. where under the patronage and the social hierarchy of the baahi/tiller/small-holding peasant, let alone the Chaudhry/Sardar - hence they couldn't possibly capture a village even if they wanted to - i.e. because families, relatives etc. where dependant on Jatt peasants and chiefs for grain etc. It was only after Jassa Singh (Ramgarhia/THarkhan) inherited his misl from a Jatt (who's own sons where simply not interested, possibly because relations where bad) that the dynamics of power temporarily changed between the two communities in certain territories. This was rectified when Maharaja Ranjit Singh united all the misls to form his Kingdom - he immediately confiscated all Ramgharia/THarkhan jagirs (again, see Lord Aukland's accounts). Truth is, even Ramgarhias (one of only two non-Jatt misls) where not considered socially equal by the Sardars of the Jatt misls. It was only later in history that Maharaja Ranjit Singh became extremely liberal at rewarding non-zamindars with land.
none of the british historian recognized ranjeet singh as jatt, he was called SANSI. jatt historians after independence claiming sansi -sandhawalia from jatt lineage.
, again, see Lord Aukland's personal accounts. Obviously, culturally (in Punjab atleast), his own clan is going to be his major identity, not his entire tribe (because he has any enemies of the same tribe)... feudal titles where held by members of individual CLANS, not by entire tribe/race/ethnicity/caste!
(2) With regards to
Baba Deep Singh, he was definately a Jatt:
sikh-reality.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/baba-deep-singh-shahid.html (quote from Naveen Panth Parkash, 1880 AD, Giani Gian Singh) which is considered accurate by Nihang and Non-Nihang Sikhs.
Clearly states him being a Jatt of the Village Dhukohe, near Jallandhar.
deep singh faimly was not having an land, after his sacrifice land was given to him.
... can you prove this?
Jatt peasants & zamindars provided resources TO the "Sikh" panth/cult/"Gurus", not the other way round.
Even today in his village , his house is adjoining mazhabi not jatts?
... Well, his village is in Jallandhar, and the entire Doaba region in general has been invaded by Choode/Mazhabis and Chamaar ever since Jatts started emigrating abroad in large numbers. Even the MLA of the region has been a chamaar (thanks to reservation) ever since reservations came about (infact, the chamar MLA family (his son, and grandson, also MLA) openly use "CHAUDHARY" as their SURNAME! - despite having no connection to any Jat linage or any other land-owning/feudal lineage, - they are clearly and obviously chamaars!). I know this because my village is in Doaba too, and I could tell you EVERYTHING about the shift in power and the hijacking of Jatt tribe/clan identities that has taken place in the last 50 years.
PS: You want to know the best way of learning about Jatt history and heritage? Stop reading **** from the internet, and go talk to a real educated Jatt belonging to the region who knows about his ancestors.
And yes,
Mazhabis do have Jatt surnames/gotra/clan-names in Punjab NOW, just as they write "Sharma" etc... but t
his has ONLY been the case after they started acquiring land due to reservation and the de-feudalizing of Punjab under Punjab Land Reform acts (which took place 3 years after the Indian Independence).
Hence there is a saying amongst (true) Jatt Sardars/Chaudhries of Punjab that a clan/gotra name isn't enough to verify a true Jatt, always ask for the ancestral village, the location of his ancestral zamin (land), and his grandfather and great grandfathers name, and of known rishtedars (relatives).
"akali phule singh was also a mazhabi not jatt as per them...surprised!!", "ATWAL jatts of today are from mazhabi lineage.", Even jatt historian shamsher singh has accepted that"
Mazhabis still lack an idenity and an icon as a community - hence
it's in there best interest to hijack iconic figures from history on "religious" grounds. If they claim that Baba Deep Singh and Akali Phoola Singh where Mazhabi's, then why don't they present solid contemporary reference from the time period?!
I've never heard of Shamsher Singh, but I can tell you, if he is claiming this without any tangible proof or theory, he is most likely a fool.
