JaiMahakaalKalika

Even if I accept that SOME 'Jats' have degraded themselves... assuming that the people you are talking about are genuinely Jats (which I highly doubt, adopting surnames is big practice amongst Punjabi community, especially "Sikhs")... Jats still have a history of martial valour (need I remind you that the Sikh regiment even today is 95% Jat-Sikh, since when it was formed, up until WWII it remained exclusively Jat-Sikh; President's Bodyguards (India) EVEN TODAY are only recruited from Hindu-Jaats, Jat-Sikhs or Rajputs). [not light sikh infantry - that was created much later for mazhabis] Jats have a history of chieftain/landed/noble/aristocratic/royal titles... ...you're a Tarkhan yourself, aren't you?... I am curious to know your supposed 'martial' history? or do you have no other identity apart from your "religion" - which is constantly evolving and split between 1000000 different deras/interpretations/jathedars?

LOL Khalistan argument would never have happened if Gyani Zail Singh, being the maha-phudu tarkhan that he was, had never joined hands with Indra Gandhi in order to get rid of Jat Sardar Darbara Singh (CM of Punjab popular amongst the Landed Class). He failed and created a right mess of it, by funding "extremist-Sikh" groups he had no control over in the end LOL. Maha-phudu Tharkhan and his "intelligent" engineering lol. So the Congress Party made him president of India after Operation BlueStar, because he was a 'Sikh', he not only accepted the offer like a beysharam, but he did admin cut ALL with the position... and the poor tarkhans legs used to shake as used to give public speeches LMAO... Vah bei vah TK'ano

Lol the panth is controlled by Jats? I wish it was, it wouldn't be in the atrocious state it is in today!! it's controlled by scavangers who have no clan or caste or tribal identity... i.e. people at the Akal Takth, people representing the Deras, people representing the "Sikh missionary" groups abroad, people on the internet who like to represent the "panth" or the "sikh nation" lol ... Jats just mind their own business and keep you caste-less, clan-less Sikhs fighting amongst yourselves.

Gurtej Singh's arguments, the ones that you started this topic with, are full of references... you will find everything you need in there.

I will not get into 'faaltu' argument with the rest... There has never been an autocratic 'Raj' in Punjab for 1000's of years simply because of the tribalistic culture amongst the Jats and Gujjars and other tribes (inc. Punjabi Pathaans etc.). Punjab (like the rest of the Jat belt, inc. modern-day Haryana, West UP etc.) has been ruled by local despots and chiefs who fail to see each other as equals, let alone the other tribe as more 'superior'. And besides even when an autocratic Raj was formed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh (a Sansi Jat of the Sukerchakia clan), most, if not all of the BIG jagirdars (i.e. the top level Sardars) have been Jats: i.e. Sandhawalia Sardars are Jats, Sukercharia Sardars are Jats, Majithia Sardars are Jats, Phulkian Sardars are Jats, Attariwala Sardars are Jats, etc. etc. (also 95% of local landed chieftains/small-jagirdars where Jats too!) and they are still proud of their JAT ancestry). I don't know what could be more proof. ... And besides the term 'Sardar' has nothing to do with Sikhi, it was a term used to describe big Zamindars (land-barons) whom often kept armed-retainers... i.e. see Heer Waris Shah and the description of Kharral Jat Chaudhries of Takth Hazara, and the Syal Jat Chaudhries of Jang. --- even today, those JAT CLANS still exist! The only difference is, East Punjab has seen Zamindari-rights abolished, therefore you no longer find official titles like 'Chaudhry', 'Malik', 'Sardar', 'Sardar Bahadur', 'Rai Bahadur', in West Punjab people still use their titles as they haven't been (cunningly) abolished like they where by Nehru and co. to give all non-landed people/caste/communities a fair chance.

What are you? a chamar? a bapha? a chooda? a nai? a bahman? seems like you're the maha-phudu of all the phudus that ever existed... You wouldn't know a word of English if it wasn't for the British Empire introducing schools in Punjabi villages, or offering your parents or grandparents the opportunity to come abroad as skilled-labourers... where it was in the best interest of the Jat zamindars to keep all the other castes uneducated so they could work on their farms and fix their ploughs for the rest of their lives in exchange for grain. At least give the British empire the respect it deserves for God's sake, or atleast acknowledge their positive points. Fact is, Jats would continued to treat you people like shit if the British Empire didn't intervene with certain rights for laborers, and offer you people other opportunities. And besides, it was the Majithia (Jats) and the Nabha Dynasty (Sidhu-Brar Jat) who led the Singh-Sabha reforms and allowed Gyani Dit Singh (a Chamar) to introduce 'egalitarianism' into the "Sikh panth" half-a-century later. Sikhism and the Sikh identity was never egalitarian; it was the influence of the British, and the re-interpretation of Sikh scriptures (in a Christian/victorian manner) i.e. post-1920's version of SIkhism, and the influence of free-masonry and similar ideologies from the west which re-shaped Sikhism into an egalitarian supposedly-'casteless' religion. Yes, Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa in 1699 and gave all amridharis the name "Suraj-banshi Kshatriya", but social practice of casteism amongst the Sikhs continued to be the same in the presence of the GUru and nowhere is it mentioned any 'amridhari' sikh of the period married a man/woman of another caste... it just gave them a martial 'brotherhood' identity regardless of their original caste-by-birth, that's all.

Here is the original conversation where Dalbir Singh ('JathedarSahib') has pulled this from: http://postimg.org/image/ki5mptzv1/

Also; if you are going to prove that it's false, at-least back it up with a reliable source!

Hmm, if anyone seems to have conjured up history over the last 50 years or so, it seems to been the modern-day "Sikh" historians; nowhere do they ever mention anything from the contemporary Persian Mughal sources, simply because there are so many discrepencies between Sikh history and other sources of the time. Fact is... almost all the attention the "Sikhs" get abroad (and in India) for being a martial race with standards and values, is almost entirely thanks to Jatt zamindar class of the Punjab. This is a well documented fact. You cannot shun/disregard the Jatts from history, and then continue to cherish the martial endevours of their ancestors... Also; if anyone has developed a 'literary culture' and have sought to make themselves seem more superior; it is the lowly-placed "castes and communities" (of 20th century Punjabi villages) who have hid behind the 20th century label "Sikh" and have attempted to forge their own history out of nothing, and yet continue to claim the martial/socio-economic history of the Jats. Up until the 20th century, it is a fact that all other rural castes/communities where socio-economically dependent on their Jat zamindars. The very fact that Dalbir Singh has deleted all his comments, and has reconstructed and posted Gurtej Singh's replies as a topic on SikhAwareness says it all about the inferiority complex some Sikhs feel when they hear the word 'Jatt' in Sikh History. Perhaps it's better not to develop a literary culture; if all that's going to be is a bunch of unjustified lies like modern day "Sikh" history -- which all contemporary Mughal records don't line-up with. Anyone can hide behind a computer and throw dirt on historians who are experts in their field (namely Muzaffar Alam, Irfan Habib, etc.).

It's common knowledge that Jathedar's make great liers, "JathedarSahib". This wasn't taken from a 'Jatt History' thread... but a facebook conversation. Here's a link to the original conversation, the 'missing points' are (quite conveniently for you) Your Own posts: http://postimg.org/image/ki5mptzv1/ I take it you're Dalbir Singh, ... the guy debating the issue of 'Jaats' only using "Singh" after (as you falsely proclaim) converting to Sikhism, after Gurtej Singh suggested (and proved, using historical evidence and analysis) that the title was prevalent amongst several zamindar (landed) castes/communities such as the Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Yadhavs and to some extent Marathas, quite some time before the creation of the Khalsa in 1699. Also: none of your points seem to be referenced, at all.