Are Punjabi/Potohari Rajputs just Jatts and Gujjars?

Jan 2019
212
Valencia
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.
Please provide some reliable sources. No British-era stuff please but actual academic work.
 
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
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.
Can you stay on topic please. If you wish to discuss the British-era debunked mythical origin of Rajputs in general than use another thread please. This thread is specifically about the Jats and Gujjars of Punjab being alloted Rajput status by the British.
 
Oct 2018
63
Bangalore,India
Before this,I would like to first clarify that not all British narratives are false nor that all otherwise are true. That's a wrong yardstick to use to learn about anything.
As you look at the list of Rulers of any foreign origin Empires in India in that particular Era I said,you see they first start with foreign names and eventually Indian Hindu names dominate. This clearly shows they blended into the Hindu Kshatriya class without any doubt. You can see the lists of all empires like Kushans,Indo-Scythians,Indo-Greeks,Huns,etc. It's the same everywhere. For example I would annex this link. Here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aupmanyav
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
Before this,I would like to first clarify that not all British narratives are false nor that all otherwise are true. That's a wrong yardstick to use to learn about anything.
As you look at the list of Rulers of any foreign origin Empires in India in that particular Era I said,you see they first start with foreign names and eventually Indian Hindu names dominate. This clearly shows they blended into the Hindu Kshatriya class without any doubt. You can see the lists of all empires like Kushans,Indo-Scythians,Indo-Greeks,Huns,etc. It's the same everywhere. For example I would annex this link. Here
Your use of Wikipedia links tells me that you're not serious about history at all. And you have yet to provide me with any respectable academic sources to back up your claims. Now please stay on topic.
 
Oct 2018
63
Bangalore,India
Your use of Wikipedia links tells me that you're not serious about history at all. And you have yet to provide me with any respectable academic sources to back up your claims. Now please stay on topic.
I wonder what your sources are,well(don't take any pains as I care in the least about any of those). Carry on.
 
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
Okay, so the use of the term "Raja-Putra" can be seen in medieval Rajputana, Awadh, Bihar, regions of MP etc. There is no such use of the term Raja-Putra in Punjab. This is more or less definitive of my point.
 
Jan 2019
10
Pakistan
Okay, so the use of the term "Raja-Putra" can be seen in medieval Rajputana, Awadh, Bihar, regions of MP etc. There is no such use of the term Raja-Putra in Punjab. This is more or less definitive of my point.
it's true punjabi rajput are actually jatt and gujjar but there is 10% real minority who migrated from india
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dewal

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,858
New Delhi, India
And you have yet to provide me with any respectable academic sources to back up your claims. Now please stay on topic.
I am exasperated by people who deride Wikipedia. It is one of the most wonderful resources on internet on all things under the sun. False things do not last long on Wikipedia nd someone or the other is bound to correct it. It always mentions and asks for sources. And here, our people so easily dismiss it.
Okay, so the use of the term "Raja-Putra" can be seen in medieval Rajputana, Awadh, Bihar, regions of MP etc. There is no such use of the term Raja-Putra in Punjab. This is more or less definitive of my point.
Sure, they were/are not known as Rajpoots, but as Kshatriyas (in local parlance - Khatri). When they were defeated by invaders right from Alexander's time, had no principalities to rule and were not allowed to take up arms, they had to take up trading as profession. If they adopted Islam then they were allowed to take up arms and land holdings. The Muslim Rathores, Chauhans and Ranas (and various castes and clans) of Pakistan have that ancestry. It is quite a simple thing which is being needlessly complicated. Jats and Gujars are different from them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ScientistAlexandrus
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
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.
Gakhars do not claim Rajput origin, they say they are Kiyanis from Iran. They put Kiyani as surname.
 
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
I am exasperated by people who deride Wikipedia. It is one of the most wonderful resources on internet on all things under the sun. False things do not last long on Wikipedia nd someone or the other is bound to correct it. It always mentions and asks for sources. And here, our people so easily dismiss it.Sure, they were/are not known as Rajpoots, but as Kshatriyas (in local parlance - Khatri). When they were defeated by invaders right from Alexander's time, had no principalities to rule and were not allowed to take up arms, they had to take up trading as profession. If they adopted Islam then they were allowed to take up arms and land holdings. The Muslim Rathores, Chauhans and Ranas (and various castes and clans) of Pakistan have that ancestry. It is quite a simple thing which is being needlessly complicated. Jats and Gujars are different from them.
I demonstrated the issue with Wikipedia when I exposed that false "Jahnu Rajput" guy who created a fake wiki page and it remained in place untouched for a week until I reported it. If I hadn't had done so, it would have been in place much longer. There are many such pages on Wikipedia. Also, just because some high-profile articles have no errors doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't missing information. Wikipedia in relation to Indian history is notable for its inaccuracies and its errors. Most of it is just caste glorification. I recommend that you use JSTOR so you have access to the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress.

As for your next point, you seem to be saying that Punjabi Rajputs are descended from Khatris, correct? The notion of Khatris being kshatriyas seems to be a community myth. Can you name me some Khatri chieftancies or kingdoms? I certainly don't know any. You are also saying that Muslim Rajputs are different from Jats and Gujjars which is patently false when one considers that they share the same surnames, clan affiliations and inter-marry with one another. Your idea is based on the notion that Brahmins and Kshatriyas exist together but that's not true. West Bengal has no Kshatriyas, many parts of South India have no Kshatriyas, Assam had no Kshatriyas until the Ahoms. Many such places exist.