Ram Navami Triggers A Saffron Surge In Bengal

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, vayuu1 said:

Ever heard of battle of rajasthan, ever heard of bappa rawal, ever heard of nagabhata Ist, nobody is denying Bengali's are cowards, but why are you guys turning blind eye in the name of secularism.

 

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

 

 

Bappa Rawal is folklore. Not history. But even then, he was a Guhilot Rajput. 
Nagabhatta was a Gujjar. To my knowledge, there is no Jatt ruler attested by name anywhere in India before 15th-16th century.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

[randomGuy]

Watch this from 25 Mins till end, ...  Inspirational throughout. Hilarious in parts, like at 42min 50sec. 

 

[Tibarn]

Lol at a certain someone trying to show off his knowledge of Jat history. 

 

The person's post

 

Quote

Thats coz Jats are not a historical people. They are originally pastoral people (cow-goat-camel herders) from Sindh & western Rajasthan region that spread after big chunks of Punjab and Haryana region was depopulated by Timur.  This is why we literally don't hear about Jats in history till like 300-400 years ago.  And this is why Jats are so varied- they took the customs and religion of the lands they went to. Thats why the Jats in haryana are hindu, Jats in Indian Punjab are Sikh and Jats in Pakistani punjab are muslims. You don't find Hindu Jats from Pakistan or Muslim Jats from Haryana very easily for this reason.

The wikipedia article on Jat history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people#History

Quote

The Jats are a paradigmatic example of community- and identity-formation in early modern Indian subcontinent.^[17] "Jat" is an elastic label applied to a wide-ranging, traditionally non-elite,^[a] community which had its origins in pastoralism in the lower Indus valley of Sindh.^[17] At the time of Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sind in the 8th century, Arab writers described agglomerations of Jats in the arid, the wet, and the mountainous regions of the conquered land.^[19] The new Islamic rulers, though professing a theologically egalitarian religion, did not alter either the non-elite status of Jats or the discriminatory practices against them that had been put in place in the long period of Hindu rule in Sind.^[20] Between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries, Jat herders migrated up along the river valleys,^[21] into the Punjab,^[17] which had not been cultivated in the first millennium.^[22] Many took up tilling in regions such as Western Punjab, where the sakia (water wheel) had been recently introduced.^[17][23] By early Mughal times, in the Punjab, the term "Jat" had become loosely synonymous with "peasant",^[24] and some Jats had come to own land and exert local influence.^[17]

According to historians Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot,^[25]

The Jats also provide an important insight into how religious identities evolved during the precolonial era. Before they settled in the Punjab and other northern regions, the pastoralist Jats had little exposure to any of the mainstream religions. Only after they became more integrated into the agrarian world did the Jats adopt the dominant religion of the people in whose midst they dwelt.^[25]

With passage of time, in the western Punjab, the Jats became primarily Muslim, in the eastern Punjab, Sikh, and in the areas between Delhi Territory and Agra, primarily Hindu, their divisions by faith reflecting the geographical strengths of these religions.^[25] During the decline of Mughal rule in the early 18th century, the Indian subcontinent's hinterland dwellers, many of whom were armed and nomadic, increasingly interacted with settled townspeople and agriculturists. Many new rulers of the 18th century came from such martial and nomadic backgrounds. The effect of this interaction on India's social organization lasted well into the colonial period. During much of this time, non-elite tillers and pastoralists, such as the Jats or Ahirs, were part of a social spectrum that blended only indistinctly into the elite landowning classes at one end, and the menial or ritually polluting classes at the other.^[26] During the heyday of Mughal rule, Jats had recognized rights.

That certain someone retyped the wiki article on Jatts

Then the person decided to provide this link to a book, India Before Europe, to show how well versed/well read regarding history he is.  

Quote

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZvaGuaJIJgoC&pg=PA269&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 Unfortunately, he cited google books, a free preview that google gives of random books online, but if one actually follows the link provided, one would see that only a select few pages are available. It looks like a certain someone didn't read the book he cited and instead tried to hide the fact that he wikipedia'd Jat people specifically for this thread. 

 

Lo and behold, when one goes to the bottom of the wiki article on Jat people

Quote

1.  
2. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Asher, Catherine Ella Blanshard; Talbot, Cynthia (2006). India before Europe. Cambridge University Press. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-521-80904-7. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

One sees that he just google searched the book referenced in Wikipedia, and searched for the specific lines that he copied.

 

Then when someone looks at the source of this pseudo-historian's "knowledge", the google books version of India Before Europe,  one gets this page as what his "knowledge" comes from

 

That is the page that he used to claim what he did about Jats. When one reads that page, the writers provided 0 citations or references for any of the sentences written on the page, and there are also no footnotes at the bottom of the page either, which could provide citations/references.

 

So this genius quotes a book that he himself didn't read; the book itself doesn't provide either in text citations or footnotes as references; and this genius wants people to believe what is written in this book. 

 

This book excerpt that he uses as "evidence" would neither qualify as a primary nor secondary historical source, yet he passes what is written in it as fact. This same poster argued for a week that secondary sources aren't valid, when it suited him defending a mass murderer like Ashoka, but now doesn't even provide a primary or secondary source for his claims about Jats.   

 

He claims, in his trademark shitty English:

Quote

Thats coz Jats are not a historical people.

 

Historians use oral history as a primary source (http://www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg11.htm). He wouldn't know that of course, as he is ignorant and not a trained historian. Jats, Hindu or Sikh, trace their lineage all the way back to Ramayana times, claiming to be descendants of Lord Ram himself. How accurate their oral histories are, is up for debate among qualified people, but claiming Jats are not a historical people without a reference is hilarious, and can only be posted by the poster in question.  

 

He of course decided to take a shot at me, even though I told him to not mention/quote me until he learns to start providing references for his fantastic claims, but he seems to be a glutton for punishment. 

 

Quote

But of course, it doesn't fit the Hinduvta narrative, so instead of producing evidence based analysis as in above book, they will cry 'colonialist! evil white people! western imperialism!' etc etc. 

Standards of historical research are a Hindutva conspiracy in this specimen's small mind.  He provided an excerpt of a book that he didn't read, the excerpt of which provides no references for anyone to check. He literally is taking the word of a few pages preview to be truth. 

 

Then he creates a boring strawman of arguments I never made, projecting his own incompetency onto me. This same person lectures other people about being appreciative about "the West," while he never misses a chance to insult the United States, even comparing them to Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that much (maybe most) of the technology that humans benefit from today, such as internet, cars, etc are all derived from American ingenuity. Hypocrisy isn't new to this poster. It looks like he wants everyone to worship Scandinavians like he does, unfortunately, not everyone takes pride in being a coolie. 

 

TL:DR

This poster failed to provide a reference for any of the claims he made about Jat people, isn't a qualified historian, and is talking about of his rear-end

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

TL:DR

This poster failed to provide a reference for any of the claims he made about Jat people, isn't a qualified historian, and is talking about of his rear-end

Except i provided qualified historical opinion from a qualified historian. Come back to me when anyone finds any evidence of Jatts being a historical people or even the Jatts can name a ruler they had 2000 years ago.  Obviously every hindu group will claim they are from the days of Ram and Sita or Mahabharata. But claims don't make it so. Especially in a civilization(india) that ranks dead-last in histographical accuracy. 

 

Too bad, nobody cares about your flawed analysis over presented qualified opinion. The same guy who cites a random hindutva from swarajya magazine as authority over professional historians isn't expected to understand what qualified opinion is. 

 

As for primary vs secondary evidence, it missed your young brain that the ascendancy of primary vs secondary evidence is valid when BOTH are present. In the case of Jatts, there is zero primary evidence prior to near-modern times that can be objectively verified. yes, oral tradition is primary source but not when it has zero basis in anything or is contradicted by history. So Jatts can claim whatever they like. But nobody mentions a word about them. The Gujjars or the Arabs or the later rajputs, the invaders such as Mohammed of Ghazni or Ghauri- nobody mentions the Jatts. So if the Jatts are ignored by their immediate neighbours till near-modern history, it shows what their oral history is valid for - nothing.

 

 

And in typical kiddo fashion, you can't stick to either ignoring me or debating me. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Gollum]

Imam Barkati is a dangerous man. His real place is Alipore jail, not by the side of Bengal CM.

He is readying the stage for an entire generation of radical Islamists desperate for kuffar blood. Bengal is changing fast, unless Bengalis don't put a check on radical elements at the earliest, things can become very messy. For India to be strong, we need a strong Bengal. She led the Indian renaissance just a couple of centuries ago, time to get her act together and lead the country once more in the 21st century.

 

Sent from my SM-G350E using Tapatalk

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Imam Barkati is a dangerous man. His real place is Alipore jail, not by the side of Bengal CM.

He is readying the stage for an entire generation of radical Islamists desperate for kuffar blood. Bengal is changing fast, unless Bengalis don't put a check on radical elements at the earliest, things can become very messy. For India to be strong, we need a strong Bengal. She led the Indian renaissance just a couple of centuries ago, time to get her act together and lead the country once more in the 21st century.

 

Sent from my SM-G350E using Tapatalk

 

 

Until the border is secured, nothing is going to change. People harp about how Bengal doesn't do crap, but they never mention the fact that the Bengal border is 5x the size of Punjab border and gets far less BSF forces. True, Pakistan is a bigger problem than Bangladesh but that doesn't mean Bangladeshis arnt gonna cross over to far richer India. 
 

Until very recently North bengal was a FUBAR due to having the world's most convoluted borders and its enclave-exclave with Bangladesh.

Those enclave-exclaves are a haven for smuggling and illegal immigration because nobody can enforce laws in there. IIRC, we were the only country to have a 3rd order enclave (thats an enclave in an enclave in an enclave!). 

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Except i provided qualified historical opinion from a qualified historian. Come back to me when anyone finds any evidence of Jatts being a historical people or even the Jatts can name a ruler they had 2000 years ago.  Obviously every hindu group will claim they are from the days of Ram and Sita or Mahabharata. But claims don't make it so. Especially in a civilization(india) that ranks dead-last in histographical accuracy. 

 

Too bad, nobody cares about your flawed analysis over presented qualified opinion. The same guy who cites a random hindutva from swarajya magazine as authority over professional historians isn't expected to understand what qualified opinion is. 

 

As for primary vs secondary evidence, it missed your young brain that the ascendancy of primary vs secondary evidence is valid when BOTH are present. In the case of Jatts, there is zero primary evidence prior to near-modern times that can be objectively verified. yes, oral tradition is primary source but not when it has zero basis in anything or is contradicted by history. So Jatts can claim whatever they like. But nobody mentions a word about them. The Gujjars or the Arabs or the later rajputs, the invaders such as Mohammed of Ghazni or Ghauri- nobody mentions the Jatts. So if the Jatts are ignored by their immediate neighbours till near-modern history, it shows what their oral history is valid for - nothing.

 

 

And in typical kiddo fashion, you can't stick to either ignoring me or debating me. 

A "qualified" historian who gives no references . You can't discern which of the historian's statements are backed up by sources and which are their opinion. 

 

You are taking a leap of faith that they have material to support what you claim. 0 references.

 

Wikipedia historian talking about debate. 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

A "qualified" historian who gives no references . You can't discern which of the historian's statements are backed up by sources and which are their opinion. 

 

You are taking a leap of faith that they have material to support what you claim. 0 references.

 

Wikipedia historian talking about debate. 

Because every history book is not a thesis paper. I quoted a book, not a thesis. Common practice in history, as you will learn one day. Not to mention, she is an authority in history herself. She is making a qualified assertion, not analysis of evidence. Not to mention, what citations is required to make the statement 'Jatts are around from near-modern times only' ? She doesnt need to cite authority, because she is one. And what evidence can one cite that proves Jatts don't exist prior to pre-modern times ? You cant cite evidence for a negative. 

 

Suffice to say, someone who cannot differentiate between a hack like Sanjeev Sanyal and professional historians, has no credibility to determine who is historical authority and who isn't. Congratulations also for proving that you actually have no idea what citation conventions are. 

 

If you think the author is wrong, feel free to quote any reference to Jatts by anyone else prior to 14th century CE. Strange that nobody in North India ever mentions the Jatts prior to that. 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

This guy calls Sanjeev Sanyal a hack, yet he quoted an architect as part of his defense against Sanyal. Not to mention Sanyal provided references for every claim he made in his book, and I provided . This guy disregarded everything written by at least 3 historians books I directly quoted about Ashoka, included lefties like Romila Thapar, non-partisan historians like Lahiri, and non-Indians like Charles Allen, but dismissed them as Sanghis/Chaddis.  

 

Then he disregarded secondary sources because they didn't suit his agenda, but uses them now. This idiot even provided links to websites which themselves stated that secondary sources are used as part of historical research and are not to be disregarded, yet he still disregarded them. Now he is shifting goalposts, and inventing arguments that no-one made.

 

I give him a whole day to come up with an argument and that is what he posts. This is why nobody takes you seriously clown. You want to have a debate, but don’t even read the post you quote. You are showing your weasel like tendencies again. Why am I not surprised? I stated 3 things in the original post you quoted:

 

 

1)      You pretended to read a book to try to give off the impression that you are well versed in history. You instead rewrote a portion of a Wikipedia article and passed it off as your “knowledge.” Go ahead and post screenshots from the book if you indeed read it There is nothing to debate on point 1. I’m not wasting time on 1 any further unless you post screenshots not from Google Books.

 

2)      You made the claim that Jats aren’t a historical people. Your shitty English is getting obnoxious. For a people to be a historic people they have to be a group of people and have a history. The Wikipedia article you plagiarized itself shows Jatts have a history all the way to the time of Bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh (a primary source derived from the Arab chroniclers that arrived with your Jihadi co-travelers). The portion of that book you plagiarized, India Before Europe, by those two lazy historians also shows the same: it mentions their movement eventually to Punjab etc.

 

This low IQ coward and his obnoxiously shitty English is funny

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historic

 

Quote

a :  famous or important in history

b :  having great and lasting importance

c :  known or established in the past

d :  dating from or preserved from a past time or culture

 and the definition of people via MW

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people

Quote

1 plural :  human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest

2 plural :  human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons salespeople —often used attributively people skills

3 plural :  the members of a family or kinship

Literally by definition they are a historic people. That other people may or may not have also become Jatts later in history doesn’t change that. Next you will say the Americans aren’t a historic people because the first Americans came into existence only slightly over 300 years ago and that more and more diverse people have become American from their foundation to now.

 

To add to that, Jatt’s themselves have oral history of their forefathers for generations. If you didn’t know, oral history is a type of primary source. Now watch this coward show his true colors. 

UC-Santa Cruz

http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/oralhist

Quote

Oral history is a method of conducting historical research through recorded interviews between a narrator with personal experience of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of adding to the historical record. Because it is a primary source, an oral history is not intended to present a final, verified, or "objective" narrative of events, or a comprehensive history of a place, such as the UCSC campus. It is a spoken account, reflects personal opinion offered by the narrator, and as such it is subjective. Oral histories may be used together with other primary sources as well as secondary sources to gain understanding and insight into history.

This clown decided to only use primary sources when arguing for his hero the mass-murderer Ashoka, yet didn't even know that historians don't consider primary sources to be objective. 

 

In the whole Ashoka thread this clown claimed primary sources were objective and accepted at face value. Now, with Jatts he will argue the opposite, because that what morons like him will do. 

 

UNC

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/762

 

Quote

HISTORIANS AND HISTORY TEACHERS HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF PRIMARY SOURCES upon which to draw when we approach the past. Newspapers, census data, diaries, letters, photographs, memoirs, and other documents all surely have their place in both the historian’s research and the classroom. But oral history has several unique benefits that no other historical source provides.

Oral history allows you to learn about the perspectives of individuals who might not otherwise appear in the historical record. While historians and history students can use traditional documents to reconstruct the past, everyday people fall through the cracks in the written record. Politicians, activists, and business leaders may show up regularly in official documents and the media, but the rest of us very seldom do. Chances are, if someone had to reconstruct your life story from the written record alone, they would have very little to go on — and the information they would be able to gather would reveal very little about the heart and soul of your daily life, or the things that matter most to you.

Yale

http://primarysources.yale.edu/

Quote

What are primary sources? Primary sources provide firsthand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic or question under investigation.

They are usually created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

Primary sources can be found in all of Yale’s libraries and museums as well as in online resources.  You can browse the collections of those libraries and museums or begin your search with examples of various formats.

 

 

U of Illinois 

http://www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg11.htm

Quote

Examples of primary sources: Oral histories

Oral histories are accounts given by a person of events earlier in their life. Often, they are taken by family members, historians, archivists, or others who interview older people in an attempt to document events and lives that might otherwise be forgotten.

Oral histories are valuable. But when using them as primary sources, it is important to consider that memory is fallible. In the intervening years between the events and the recounting of them, a person may be influenced by others’ accounts as well as books or even movies about the events in question. In general with primary sources, the closer in time to the events that the account is given, the more reliable it is considered to be.

      

Only a pseudo-historian like yourself can think that a group of people would have to be existent in text to exist or that they have to be derived from/ include only people from one recent lineage. It’s a good thing real historians and don’t take advice from internet trolls with no formal training in history. Congrats on exposing yourself once again.

3)      That the book you plagiarized from doesn’t have any references/citations/footnotes in the only portion that you provided on the forum. That is a fact, there are literally no citations in the google book link you pasted.  Thus no one can check if what that book states is the authors’ interpretation, or actually has a primary sources/secondary sources it is based on.

 

You can sufficiently disprove both 1) and 3) by showing that you have the book and posting screenshots/pics , whether from your computer or your smartphone, of random non-Google Book pages of the book, to show you have it and have read it, and a screenshot/pic of the bibliography that refers to the specific portion you plagiarized, to show that the portion you plagiarize isn’t just a piece of interpretation by two random authors you found on Wikipedia.

You could also quickly buy the book online, to save face, so, if you want to waste money on that book, feel free. The book doesn’t have very good reviews on Amazon however.

Either way, 1) and 3) aren’t important to me. I want to see something that supports that Jatts aren’t a historic people, when primary sources exist saying otherwise, and the only reference you provided also speaks of Jatt history. It looks like your weak English skills got the better of you again.

 

Regarding your random Swarajya diatribe, I referenced a number of books, three written off the top of my head by the author of the Swarajya article Sanyal, Charles Allen, Thapar. (Go ahead, ask for a page number(s), screenshots, and the bibliography of the book, and I will provide it. I don’t have to pretend that I read books unlike you).  

 

Now there better be some references in your next post you cuck, otherwise, as you seem to tell everyone, *ck off.  

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

This guy calls Sanjeev Sanyal a hack, yet he quoted an architect as part of his defense against Sanyal.

Responding like with like. I presented qualified historian opinion. You chose to trash that by quoting a nobody. I quoted another nobody to trash your nobody. Consistency in standards is something you are yet to learn.

 

Quote

 Not to mention Sanyal provided references for every claim he made in his book, and I provided

Show us where Sanyal provided reference for the assertion that Ashokan pillars are 'away from any inhabited site'. 

 

Quote

Then he disregarded secondary sources because they didn't suit his agenda, but uses them now.

No agenda except for chaddis to obfuscate. Its pretty simple. When BOTH primary and secondary evidences are present, primary evidence > secondary evidence. When no primary evidence is present, its all secondary evidence. DUH!
 

Quote

You instead rewrote a portion of a Wikipedia article and passed it off as your “knowledge.”

Strawman. I never claimed that i was the first person to discover the fact that Jatts are not historically very old ethnicity. So the insinuation that i am 'passing off someone else's knowledge as mine' is a laughable strawman.

 

Quote

For a people to be a historic people they have to be a group of people and have a history. The Wikipedia article you plagiarized itself shows Jatts have a history all the way to the time of Bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh (a primary source derived from the Arab chroniclers that arrived with your Jihadi co-travelers). The portion of that book you plagiarized, India Before Europe, by those two lazy historians also shows the same: it mentions their movement eventually to Punjab etc.

They are mentioned as pastoral nomads by the Arabs. Which is exactly what i stated in the first place. 

There is also no mention of them in ANY Indian sources through that period. Indicating that they are not a historical people.

 

Quote

Literally by definition they are a historic people.

Sophistry. By that definition, every group of people- even a new self-proclaimed ethnicity from 5 years ago, are historical. since anything in the past, is history.

 

Quote

 

To add to that, Jatt’s themselves have oral history of their forefathers for generations. If you didn’t know, oral history is a type of primary source. Now watch this coward show his true colors. 

yep, oral history is a primary source- when its not contradicted. There is no mention whatsoever of Jatts outside of Sindh province till after Timur. Not one Gujjar or Rajput or any single neighbours of theirs mention them. 
There isn't a single hindu group in India that claims its history from 'later than Ramayana/Mahabharata'. So that fantasy means nothing.

Bengalis too claim 'oral history from the time of Mahabharata'. Doesn't change the fact that by Megasthenes' own description, the identity of 'Bengali' doesnt exist but Andhra exists. 

Also, not all historians accept oral history as 'primary source' if oral history isn't liturgically preserved. Meaning, oral history is considered primary source when there is basic religious strictures to preserve the form. Such as oral history of the Vedas or Vendidad or such. Random stories of origination and ethnic identity that is not religiously enshrined is not accepted as accurate by many historians. 

 

As for your own quote, the disingenuous argument is pretty self-evident. Note, 'personal experience of historically significant evidence' is the definition of oral history even **YOU** provided. Ie, the Jatt accounts are irrelevant, as nobody amongst them have a 'personal experience of historically significant evidence'.

 

Quote

Oral history is a method of conducting historical research through recorded interviews between a narrator with personal experience of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of adding to the historical record. Because it is a primary source, an oral history is not intended to present a final, verified, or "objective" narrative of events, or a comprehensive history of a place, such as the UCSC campus. It is a spoken account, reflects personal opinion offered by the narrator, and as such it is subjective. Oral histories may be used together with other primary sources as well as secondary sources to gain understanding and insight into history.

Quote

This clown decided to only use primary sources when arguing for his hero the mass-murderer Ashoka, yet didn't even know that historians don't consider primary sources to be objective. 

 

In the whole Ashoka thread this clown claimed primary sources were objective and accepted at face value. Now, with Jatts he will argue the opposite, because that what morons like him will do. 

 

Historians don't consider primary evidence to be objective IF AND ONLY IF it is contradicted by other primary evidence. I also gave you the example how primary evidence doesn't say ANYTHING about Jewish slaves building the Pyramids but secondary evidence (the Bible) explicitly states so. Yet primary evidence shows that the workers were paid and were not slaves. So no egyptologist will contradict primary evidence on the basis of secondary evidence. You ran away from that.

I also asked you to present a SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE ARTICLE that says you can give primacy to secondary evidence over primary evidence, when BOTH are present. You ran away from that too.

 

Quote

That the book you plagiarized from doesn’t have any references/citations/footnotes in the only portion that you provided on the forum.

It doesnt need to. The assertion is coming from a source of authority. An authority in history does not need to cite other historian's opinion as reference. Neither can one prove a negative. I asked specifically what evidence would be needed  ? A tabulated citation of all material evidence of Jatts dated ? Thats called pedantry.

 

Quote

I want to see something that supports that Jatts aren’t a historic people, when primary sources exist saying otherwise, and the only reference you provided also speaks of Jatt history.

Basic logic fail. One cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jatt history goes beyond 'near modern times'. Feel free to provide evidence that are not stories which ONLY the Jatts tell themselves. Bengalis since 300s AD, Andhras from 100s BC etc. are all attested by their neighbours as well. Zero corroboration from the Jatts during this period.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

I am claiming that there is no history of Jatts , no mention of Jatts, nothing whatsoever, 2000 years ago. None, Nada, Zilch. There is no evidence that can be presented, since there is no evidence of a negative. The only logical counter is to PRESENT EVIDENCE. Which you've not done. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

This jobless janitor wants to rehash the entire Ashoka thread here.  Anybody who wants to see what a phony this git is should go the the Shivaji statue thread. Here you go

He does his usual BS, make claims ridiculous claims, fails to support them, shifts the burden of proof, and then bores everyone to death with his pseudo-historical perspective. Now he wants to derail another discussion having the same evidences presented to him again, so that he can make up some half-baked reason to disregard them. He will label professional historians like Thapar, Allen, and Lahiri as Sanghis, because they actually accept what the same sources present to them. All the while not being a trained historian himself. 

 

So, seeing as you provided no screenshots or a bibliography, you concede point 1). You didn't read the book you quoted. You have no evidence for its reliability, yet you lecture others about historical sources.  Please provide a single reference that states that one should accept everything written in a book by a historian at face value, even if one doesn't see a bibliography/in-text citations/references. Oh wait, you won't be able to find one. 

 

You defend point 3) with nothing other than your opinion. You claim that one should take the portion of the book you plagiarized at face value. Why, because you say so?  Please provide a single source that says that everything written in a book should be accepted at face value, even one written by two historians. Once again, you won't find one. People who actually read books on history know that facts and interpretations should have clear distinctions. The fact that you think only a thesis requires citations, displays your ignorance of research in general, (I'm not surprised).

Here is how actual historical books are written. Author AR Kulkarni Book: Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji

An excerpt from chapter 5 of that book:

Kulkarni himself uses in-text citations, 3 and 4 at this excerpt and 185, 186, and 187 at the bottom excerpt.  

At the end of chapter 5, he provides references for every fact he cited. Starting with 1

and then ending in 187 

  

 

187 citations and references in a single book chapter. The entire book has 10 chapters. And your historical source can't even put a single in-text citation 

 

What's funny is that the book likely has a bibliography, and actually has value, but anyone actually familiar with history knows what is fact, cited, and what is interpretation, what isn't cited.  The method of not using in text citations is what is used in popular history books, not serious scholarship. What's funny is you call Sanyal a hack, but he follows the same method of citation as the India Before Europe writers, expect I can actually provide a bibliography for his entire book, chapter by chapter, so I can actually state where he is interpreting and where he is stating fact. You can't do either. 

Of course Sanyal has an entire Bibliography as well, this being for chapter 4, the only part of the book where the mass-murderer Ashoka was relevant, where he references a number of other historians, as well as other types of resources. 

The difference is, most people, when they read Sanyal's book, know that it is a piece of popular history, not a dense, historical reference. That is why the bibliography is actually important. The fact that the method of citation he uses is the same as those two professional historians from India Before Europe, either shows that he follows the same standards they do, or that they follow the same that he does. Either they wrote a piece of popular history, or he wrote a serious historical text. Anyone with a brain would say both appear to be works of popular literature, but one can't expect that level of integrity/honesty from someone like you. 

 

2) The only part I care about. I specifically laughed at your stupid comment that Jatts aren't a historical people. Nothing you provided disproves that. If you want to say nothing refers to them as Jatts before xyz, that's your prerogative to be wrong.

The wikipedia article, and by proxy India Before Europe, you plagarize, itself states this, directly from the Wikipedia article

Quote

"Jat" is an elastic label applied to a wide-ranging, traditionally non-elite,^[a] community which had its origins in pastoralism in the lower Indus valley of Sindh.

... and later

The Jats also provide an important insight into how religious identities evolved during the precolonial era. Before they settled in the Punjab and other northern regions, the pastoralist Jats had little exposure to any of the mainstream religions. Only after they became more integrated into the agrarian world did the Jats adopt the dominant religion of the people in whose midst they dwelt

 

 The Wikipedia article you plagiarized only states that their religious identity, not their identity as Jatts, developed sometime in the precolonial era. The google books excerpt you provided shows no citations for either the first or second statement from India Before Europe. The page you indirectly plagiarized from the book

No sources/citations for these claims that Jatts slowly adopted the majority religion of the region they were in. Even if there were citations there, nothing there states that Jatts were non-historic people precolonial era. That's your nonsense, not something the historians who wrote this book stated.

 

The only thing that can be misconstrued that the Jatts didn't exist, from the Wikipedia article you plagiarized was this bolded part, written by Maryam Shail, cited by wikipedia at the bottom.

Quote

The Jats are a paradigmatic example of community- and identity-formation in early modern Indian subcontinent.^[17] "Jat" is an elastic label applied to a wide-ranging, traditionally non-elite,^[a] community which had its origins in pastoralism in the lower Indus valley of Sindh.^[17] At the time of Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sind in the 8th century, Arab writers described agglomerations of Jats in the arid, the wet, and the mountainous regions of the conquered land.^[19] The new Islamic rulers, though professing a theologically egalitarian religion, did not alter either the non-elite status of Jats or the discriminatory practices against them that had been put in place in the long period of Hindu rule in Sind.^[20] Between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries, Jat herders migrated up along the river valleys,^[21] into the Punjab,^[17] which had not been cultivated in the first millennium.^[22] Many took up tilling in regions such as Western Punjab, where the sakia (water wheel) had been recently introduced.^[17][23] By early Mughal times, in the Punjab, the term "Jat" had become loosely synonymous with "peasant",^[24] and some Jats had come to own land and exert local influence.^[17]

Quote

Mayaram, Shail (2003), Against history, against state: counterperspectives from the margins, Columbia University Press, p. 19, ISBN 978-0-231-12730-1, retrieved 12 November 2011

If you understood English, you would see that the bolded part clearly states that the Arabs described agglomerations of Jats. It doesn't say Arabs invented them. If anything, it implies that the Arabs learned that they were called Jats. 

 

This Maryam character cites Arab writers who were present during the invasion of Sindh by your favorite barbarians. That is the definition of a primary source that described the existence of a people, the Jatts, as early as the 8th century. 

 

Now what Jats themselves think. They trace their history orally, even the Wikipedia article you plagiarized states the same, mentioning 

Quote

Jats pray to their dead ancestors, a practice which is called Jathera

If you know how these types of ceremonies work, the family usually recites the names of all their forefathers during a specific yagna or a pooja. Aside from just the lineage of forefathers that each Jatt family remembers, they also remember their own clan histories orally. They themselves claim to be a people existent since Rig-Vedic times. That is oral history of their existence. Just because you don't wan't oral histories to be true, to fit your ridiculous claim that Jatts aren't a historic people, doesn't change the fact that historians use oral histories as primary sources (I provided 4 links from 4 universities stating as such). 

 

Unlike you, Jatts themselves also have researched their own history as well. They are very serious about researching their own history. Bhim Singh Dahiya, a Jatt, wrote 2 books pertaining to his research in Jatt and Indian history.

Quote

1) Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study) 

published by Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana. This book is a reconstruction of the History of Jats from time immemorial. His linkages of the clan names/ Gotras to the existence of the Jats in Central Asia, and Europe, put a stamp on the histography of the Jat History, for the people who could not have access to the works in Hindi or Urdu.

2)Aryan Tribes and the Rig Veda 

In 1992, he brought out his next book- Aryan Tribes and the Rig Veda, published by Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana. Here he demonstrated how over 80 Jat Goths, Gotras, clans could be traced back to the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is treated as a historical record of deeds and memories of the Indo-European tribes in India, rather than considering it merely a religious prayer book as was generally assumed earlier.

  

One can get more or less the entire 1st book and relevant parts of the 2nd book online:

1)

https://www.jatland.com/home/Jats_the_Ancient_Rulers_(A_clan_study)

2)

https://www.jatland.com/home/Rigvedic_tribes

 

(Aside: As well as tons of other whole/partial books on Jatt and Indian history here:

https://www.jatland.com/home/Jatland_Library/Online_Jat_history_books_on_Jatland_Wiki

Some of the books

Quote

Online Jat history books on Jatland Wiki

 

Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study) - On line complete book on Jatland Wiki

by Bhim Singh Dahiya, IRS

Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd, AB/9 Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi-110064, 1980

---

History and study of the Jats - On line complete book on Jatland Wiki

By Professor B.S Dhillon

Beta Publishers, Canada, 1994 ISBN 1895603021

---

History of the Jats - On line complete book on Jatland Wiki

by Ram Swarup Joon , 1938, 1967

---

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

by Hukum Singh Panwar (Pauria)

Publisher - Manthan Publications, Rohtak, Haryana, 1993

ISBN 81-85235-22-8

---

History of Bharatpur - On line complete book on Jatland Wiki

By Jwala Sahai

Printed by Lall Singh, in Moon Press, Agra, 1912

---

James Todd Annals - James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Volume II (On line part of book on Jatland Wiki)

(With a Preface by Douglas Sladen), First Indian Edition 1983 (Originally Published in 1829-32), Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. 54, Jhansi Road, New Delhi-1100055

---

 

The Jats - Their Role in the Mughal Empire - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

Dr Girish Chandra Dwivedi, Edited by Dr Vir Singh 2003.

Publisher - M/S Originals (an imprint of low priced publications), A-6, Nimri commercial Centre, Near Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi-110052. e-mail: lpp@nde.vsnl.net.in, url: http://www.lppindia.com, © Surajmal Memorial Education Society

ISBN 81-88629-08-1 (H.B.) Price Rs 325/-& ISBN 81-88629-11-1 (P.B.) Price Rs 160/-

---

History, Caste and Culture of the Jats and Gujars - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

by Bingley, A.H.,

reprinted by the Ess Ess Publications, New Delhi, India, 1978,first published in 1899

---

 

History of the Jats:Dr Kanungo - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

by Dr Kanungo 1925

---

History of the Jats - Prof Kalika Ranjan Qanungo, 2003.

Edited and annotated by Dr Vir Singh

Publisher - M/S Originals (an imprint of low priced publications), A-6, Nimri commercial Centre, Near Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi-110052. e-mail: lpp@nde.vsnl.net.in, url: http://www.lppindia.com, © Surajmal Memorial Education Society

ISBN 81-7536-299-5 (H.B.) Price Rs 240/-& ISBN 81-7536-107-7 (P.B.) Price Rs 150/-

---

 

 

History of Origin of Some Clans in India (with special Reference to Jats)

By Mangal Sen Jindal (1992)

Publisher - Sarup & Sons, 4378/4B, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002

ISBN 81-85431-08-6

---

 

 

Antiquity of the Jat race, 1954 - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

by Ujagar Singh Mahil, Delhi

From My Bones - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

Author - Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon (1998): , New Delhi,

Publisher - Aryan Books International. ISBN 81-7305-148-8.

for anyone who wants to read them)

 

Back to Gappu: You lose on point 2), now bring something substantive, not some book with no references that you scavenged from google. your opinions.

[Muloghonto]

51 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

---

 

•  

History of the Jats:Dr Kanungo - Some content Online on Jatland Wiki

by Dr Kanungo 1925

People, watch the hypocrisy of the Chaddis. In this very thread, he points and laughs about 'wikipedia' article. But at the same breath, he quotes 'jatland wiki'. 

 

Quote

He will label professional historians like Thapar, Allen, and Lahiri as Sanghis, because they actually accept what the same sources present to them. All the while not being a trained historian himself. 

And i have presented historians of impeccable pedigree to back up my points about Ashoka. 

 

Quote

You have no evidence for its reliability, yet you lecture others about historical sources.  Please provide a single reference that states that one should accept everything written in a book by a historian at face value, even if one doesn't see a bibliography/in-text citations/references. Oh wait, you won't be able to find one. 

As i said, a person who continuously fails to demonstrate understanding of hierarchy of primary or secondary evidence has no business being anything but a laughing stock.

That is why you cannot directly respond to my post about why Ashokan history gives precedence to primary evidence over secondary evidence and why your contention of 'why in case of Ashoka but not in case of Jatts' is spurious. But yes, keep running away.

 

Quote

People who actually read books on history know that facts and interpretations should have clear distinctions. The fact that you think only a thesis requires citations, displays your ignorance of research in general, (I'm not surprised).

Again, irrelevant, because the citations provided are for factual citations. One cannot cite a negative. no historian ever gives 'sources' when they say 'Roman empire didnt exist in 500 BC' because you CANNOT give evidence to a negative. Run away from that too.

 

Quote

 

Of course Sanyal has an entire Bibliography as well, this being for chapter 4, the only part of the book where the mass-murderer Ashoka was relevant, where he references a number of other historians, as well as other types of resources. 

And he was still wrong. I pointed out that his assertion that 'Ashokan pillars are not near cities' is factually incorrect. Something you ran away from too. 

 

Quote

he fact that the method of citation he uses is the same as those two professional historians from India Before Europe, either shows that he follows the same standards they do, or that they follow the same that he does. Either they wrote a piece of popular history, or he wrote a serious historical text. Anyone with a brain would say both appear to be works of popular literature, but one can't expect that level of integrity/honesty from someone like you.

Sanyal is not a historian. His work on history CANNOT be the same pedigree of an expert. Doesn't matter how many books YOU write on Electrical Engineering or how many citations you have. You are NOT a professional in the field and your opinion has no academic value.

 

I shouldn't have to teach this fundamental lesson to a so-called post-grad student.

 

Quote

 The only part I care about. I specifically laughed at your stupid comment that Jatts aren't a historical people. Nothing you provided disproves that. If you want to say nothing refers to them as Jatts before xyz, that's your prerogative to be wrong.

Readers, take note to the level of hack job this guy is. Doesn't even know the BASIC scientific principle that you cannot disprove anything because that is proving a negative. Negatives cannot be proved, only positives can be proved.

Nothing you have presented proves that Jatts existed 2000 years ago. Not a shred of evidence.

 

Quote

The Wikipedia article you plagiarized only states that their religious identity, not their identity as Jatts, developed sometime in the precolonial era.

Blatant falsehood. 

The very first line of the wikipedia article YOU quoted me says this:

"The Jats are a paradigmatic example of community- and identity-formation in early modern Indian subcontinent.^[17]"

 

That it goes on to say 'The Jats also provide an important insight into how religious identities evolved during the precolonial era.' is pretty simple too. 

It says 'ALSO'. As in Additition to showing community and identity forming, they ALSO show religious identity evolution. Ie, in conjunction. It is an additive statement, not an OR statement. Again basic English sophistry won't get you anywhere.

 

So yet another example of a falsehood and false argument. The article i cited CLEARLY states that they are an example of community and identity formation. i.e., ethnic community. Not religion.

Stop misrepresenting the opposition.

 

 

Quote

That is the definition of a primary source that described the existence of a people, the Jatts, as early as the 8th century. 

Yes. 8th century is pretty new. Which is exactly the argument presented. Jatts are like Slavs- no ethnic identity prior to 1000-1300 years ago. Zero mention from anyone prior. 

Quote

If you know how these types of ceremonies work, the family usually recites the names of all their forefathers during a specific yagna or a pooja. Aside from just the lineage of forefathers that each Jatt family remembers, they also remember their own clan histories orally. They themselves claim to be a people existent since Rig-Vedic times. That is oral history of their existence. Just because you don't wan't oral histories to be true, to fit your ridiculous claim that Jatts aren't a historic people, doesn't change the fact that historians use oral histories as primary sources (I provided 4 links from 4 universities stating as such). 

That is mythology. Not oral history. The definition of Oral history YOU YOURSELF PRESENTED, states that for something to qualify as oral history, it must be recounted by someone of 1st hand experience. So unless you can present a 3000 year old Jatt, their claims are just as irrelevant as Pashtuns claiming descent from one man who met Mohammed.

 

 

Quote

 

Back to Gappu: You lose on point 2), now bring something substantive, not some book with no references that you scavenged from google. your opinions.

Sorry kiddo, a person who cannot tell his rear from his top, who trashes wikipedia and on the same breath cites Jatwiki as source has no basis to credibility whatsoever.

I didn't present my opinions, i presented opinions of historians. Ie, authority in the field. 

You counter with self-aggrandized writings of a Jatt about how Jatts are from Vedic times. Gee, conflict of interest much ?? Unlike you, i have consistency standards. Just like i don't accept unsubstantiated nonsense from muslims about muslim history, i don't accept unsubstantiated nonsense from Jatts about Jatts or even bengalis about Bengal. But to a chaddi like you, you will happily pass off Jatts speaking about Jatts as perfectly valid but muslims speaking about muslims as nothing more than brainwashing.

 

And yes, its obvious that Jatts had to come from somewhere. They didn't just materialize out of nowhere. I tend to agree that they are of Indo-Scythian stock. But the IDENTITY of Jatts didnt exist till relatively recent times. Just like how the IDENTITY of Slavs didnt exist till 800s-ish AD. It doesnt mean that these people materialized out of nowhere, it means that they considered themselves something else prior to developing a newer ethnocentric identity. 

 

2000 years ago, there was no Jatt. What is Jatt today, 2000 years ago, were probably Indo-Scythians, like your precious Jatt-wiki claims.  But not Jatt. Just like how 2500 years ago, there were no Marathis. 

 

 

PS:  from your precious Jattland wiki:

 

Quote

 

The Jat people are considered to be the merged descendants of Indo-Scythian tribes of the region, merging with Indo-Aryans to form the Jat people.^[39] DNA studies have proved that Jat people are  Indo-Scythian (see Jat DNA Genetics section). The original home of the Jats was in Central Asia near the country we now call Ukraine. Many recent DNA studies have provided scientific confirmation & proof that the Jats came from Ukraine, due to them having many Ukrainian DNA markers & Genes.^[40][41] DNA studies have proved that Jat people are  Aryo-Scythians.(see Jat DNA Genetics section).

 

 

Thank you for saving me the effort to demonstrate that Jatts, just like Arabs and Turks, are NOT from the Indian subcontinent, even their own historians consider them as Indo-Scythian stock, i.e. Central Asian Indo-Iranians arriving into indian subcontinent, just like Semetic Arabs or Turkics arriving in the Indian subcontinent. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Muloghonto

[ravishingravi]

It is important to find an alternative to Leftist parties in WB. In case, BJP comes to power, my guess is that situation could get worse before it gets better. It could be like Kashmir with all Azadi chants. It is my home state. I have seen the vice like grip the left, socialists and unions have had. It could also open doorway for Pakistan to incite terrorist attacks. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, ravishingravi said:

It is important to find an alternative to Leftist parties in WB. In case, BJP comes to power, my guess is that situation could get worse before it gets better. It could be like Kashmir with all Azadi chants. It is my home state. I have seen the vice like grip the left, socialists and unions have had. It could also open doorway for Pakistan to incite terrorist attacks. 

BJP will do fine in WB if they don't let VHP/RSS run amok trying to tell Bengalis how to behave. But somehow i doubt they will have the balls to stand up to the chaddis.