Are Punjabi/Potohari Rajputs just Jatts and Gujjars?

Jan 2019
198
Valencia
#1
Most of these so-called "Pakistani Rajputs" (especially in Punjab, Azad Kashmir where most are) share marital and clan ties with neighbouring Jatts and Gujjars. Also there is not a single source anywhere confirming the existence of Rajputs in Punjab, Azad Kashmir prior to the British arriving. Most of these are also very obscure tribes like Hon, Kharal, Jharral etc with zero recorded history. If anyone is able to show me a source of rajputs in these regions prior to the British, I would appreciate it.

To me, it seems like they were just random tribes who wished to gain recruiting privileges from the British Raj by claiming Rajput status.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,648
New Delhi, India
#2
That is impossible. If there were brahmins and vaishyas in Punjab, then there must have been Rajputs too. In history, there were Mallis (Multan) and Youdheyas (Bahawalpur) and so many others. They had their Gana-Rajyas.
 
Jan 2019
198
Valencia
#3
That is impossible. If there were brahmins and vaishyas in Punjab, then there must have been Rajputs too. In history, there were Mallis (Multan) and Youdheyas (Bahawalpur) and so many others. They had their Gana-Rajyas.
Is there any source from the pre-British showing this? We have sources for other parts of India but I can’t find any for Punjab.

I think Pakistani Rajputs in general are just Jatts, Gujjars and obscure clans like Gakhars and Khokhars pretending to be Rajput so that they would be favoured by the British.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,648
New Delhi, India
#4
Probably all those who are now known as 'Khatris' belong to what you may term as Rajputs. There cannot be any other derivation of 'Khatri' other than 'Kshatriya'. They had to take up business after their powers were destroyed by various invaders.
 
Jan 2019
198
Valencia
#5
Probably all those who are now known as 'Khatris' belong to what you may term as Rajputs. There cannot be any other derivation of 'Khatri' other than 'Kshatriya'. They had to take up business after their powers were destroyed by various invaders.
Khatris are completely separate from Rajputs. Not all Kshatriyas are Rajputs. Also, we can't be certain that Khatris are Kshatriyas.
 
Oct 2018
62
Bangalore,India
#6
Probably all those who are now known as 'Khatris' belong to what you may term as Rajputs. There cannot be any other derivation of 'Khatri' other than 'Kshatriya'. They had to take up business after their powers were destroyed by various invaders.
Khatris are not at all 'same' as Rajputs IMO. Khatris,Rajputs,Jatts and Gujjars along with many others in North India have Indo-Scythian,Swetha Huna,Kushan(Tocharian origin),other Iranics probably,Indo-Greek,Bactrian roots too along with Indian Kshatriya roots. Remember,ethnicity got strict only in the Medieval era. So many kept coming and assimilating. But all these have different combinations of origins. All have different languages,cultures and surnames. Overlap exists between these groups but that doesn't reinforce sameness in all aspects. I am not speaking in support of Caste system but just clarifying.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,648
New Delhi, India
#7
Whoever came to India and adopted Hinduism was put in one of the four varnas, so it does not matter who these people were. Jat, Gujar, etc. retained some of their separate identity, the rest (earlier ones) just got melted in.
 
Jan 2019
198
Valencia
#8
Khatris are not at all 'same' as Rajputs IMO. Khatris,Rajputs,Jatts and Gujjars along with many others in North India have Indo-Scythian,Swetha Huna,Kushan(Tocharian origin),other Iranics probably,Indo-Greek,Bactrian roots too along with Indian Kshatriya roots. Remember,ethnicity got strict only in the Medieval era. So many kept coming and assimilating. But all these have different combinations of origins. All have different languages,cultures and surnames. Overlap exists between these groups but that doesn't reinforce sameness in all aspects. I am not speaking in support of Caste system but just clarifying.
Please do more reading before spreading outdated antiquated theories. Rajput is a collection of clans with different origins. Not some Scythian/Huna rubbish. No Rajput claims as such. Solankis claim origin from Rastrakuthas of South India for example. Chandels and Bundelas are linked with tribal groups of Central India. No such Scythian crap.
 
Oct 2018
62
Bangalore,India
#9
Whoever came to India and adopted Hinduism was put in one of the four varnas, so it does not matter who these people were. Jat, Gujar, etc. retained some of their separate identity, the rest (earlier ones) just got melted in.
Jatts are in most probability, Indo-Scythian with some Greek and Kushan touches. Gujjars claim descent from Kushans. But that's to be contested. Gujjar name bears more similarity to Swetha Huna who had Turkic touches though the base population was Iranian and Tocharian. Kushans in my opinion are ancestors of Khatris,Rajputs and Pashtuns. Well,in part and not whole.
 
Oct 2018
62
Bangalore,India
#10
Please do more reading before spreading outdated antiquated theories. Rajput is a collection of clans with different origins. Not some Scythian/Huna rubbish. No Rajput claims as such. Solankis claim origin from Rastrakuthas of South India for example. Chandels and Bundelas are linked with tribal groups of Central India. No such Scythian crap.
As @Aupmanyav mentioned,people who came to India and adopted Hinduism and Buddhism in the Pre Medieval were mostly allotted Kshatriya status. And considering good climate and riches,many did come in as well. This has solid proof. So considering this Kshatriya clans,there could be many clans of diverse roots who adopted a culture. Nothing as discredited theories. Indians as a group itself has diverse origins which explains the humongous diversity in India.
As a matter of fact,most nations have significant diverse origins even if today homogeneous and though not as diverse as India. Anybody suggesting otherwise vehmently have some agenda. Being united in heritage is perfectly fine but trying to give different narratives of History neither work for that nor prove anything.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions