Why the Rajputs failed miserably in battle for centuries

[Koi]

Bhai Dharam Singh Ji was a Jatt. That's a well known proven fact. @BhagatSingh do you actually have any historical Granth reference or baani reference that says otherwise? 

"Dharam Singh hattheelaa Jatt bakhaaneeye" - Khalsa Mool Mantar 

[JustAnotherSingh]

6 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Well Das, Ram and Chand are used as surnames by either Kshatriya or Brahmin clans.

Is that an assumption?

Not to put you on the spot mate, but you often concoct these really esoteric theories contingent on a particular interpretation of one minor detail that goes against the bulk of what Sikh historical evidence has to say. I'm all for making creative theories, but there has to be a more rigorous standard for supporting them.

For one, your notion about the surnames being exclusive to Kshatriyas is ridiculous. Bhai Bidhi *Chand* is just one example of a Jatt (Chinna) with those names. If you go to Haryana today you will see Jaats with the name "Chand" and "Das" all the time. The names may at one point have been linked to Kshatriyas, but as they are general surnames and not gotre specific to a bloodline, there was eventually a trickle-down effect where they became general names.

All the Sikh literature specifies that the Panj pyare came from different castes, and there is absolutely no mention of them being Kshatriya (by varna). We actually know which caste was which varna--Khatris are Kshatriya, despite being involved in mercantile work, for example. The Panj Pyare was composed of a water carrier, a barber, a Jatt, a washerman, and an actual Khatri/Kshatriya. 

The way you actually determine if someone is Kshatriya is to look at their gotra. Daya Singh was a Sobti, which is a Khatri gotar. We know Khatris are Kshatriyas according to the varna system, and bam, we have our answer. This is how every single Sikh historical text attributes caste. Nobody thinks the Gurus were Khatris because they had Das and Dev, it's because we know their gotars (Bedi, Trehan, Bhalla, and Sodhi) were all Khatri. If you provided evidence that all the other four had gotre associated with groups that are Kshatriya (e.g. Khatris/Rajputs), you would have a strong case. You do not, and thus relying on Das/Chand/Ram is entirely disingenuous.

Furthermore, you're mixing up the pre-1699 meaning of "Kshatriya" with the post-1699 meaning. Let's go back to Vedic times. There's good evidence that at one point, castes were fluid and based on the work you picked out for yourself. So if you were born in a Brahmin household or whatever and wanted to be a warrior, you would be deemed a "kshatriya" regardless of your bloodline. At some time, these became concentrated to specific bloodlines/clans, which were "locked in" to the Kshatriya varna. This means that someone like Mehta Kalu, despite doing shopkeeping work, was part of the "Kshatriya" varna because of their bloodline/clan.

When Guru Gobind Singh gave everyone Amrit, he also re-invigorated the idea of "Kshatriya" with the Vedic sense of the word. Meaning that everyone in the Khalsa was automatically a "Kshatriya" not because of their family, but because of their occupation in the here-and-now as warriors. This is why the Khalsa adopted many warrior aspects from the Kshatriyas. You're deliberately conflating the two to make it seem like because proficient Sikh warriors referred to themselves as Kshatriyas in battlefield, they literally came from Kshatriya families, which is false; what the Guru did actually lampoons the traditional idea of caste further.

From a more practical POV, yes early Sikhi was rife with Khatris and Brahmins. However, there were still quite a lot of people from other castes who followed the Gurus. We all know a certain Kalal raised by Guru Gobind Singh's family, there were high-profile Jatts especially starting to make headway under the 6th Guru's time (which is why he got a lot of flack from people who said he chose unsavory company), and so on. Most of the parties taking Amrit were not Khatris either, as they were from lower classes. In fact, there's a little historical tidbit about how some Khatris from Delhi refused Amrit because it interfered with their head-shaving ceremony and because it attracted a lot of lower-caste people, exemplified in the original Panj Pyare which had four such people.

[BhagatSingh]

@JustAnotherSingh

Good response! Thanks.

[Guest guest]

4 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

At the time of Guru Gobind Singh ji this would have been the case. Since most of the sikhs of our Gurus were kshatri and brahmins. Most of them were from similar background as the gurus themselves, ie kshatriyas who had taken up different professions.

However after Guru Sahibs, Banda Singh ji came into the picture. His lax policies on recruitment, lead to a surge of Jatts in his army. There was much to loot on Banda Singh ji's conquest. So a lot of lower castes joined the ranks and the panth to benefit from this.

this also sounds like fiction

[BhagatSingh]

28 minutes ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

Not to put you on the spot mate, but you often concoct these really esoteric theories contingent on a particular interpretation of one minor detail that goes against the bulk of what Sikh historical evidence has to say. I'm all for making creative theories, but there has to be a more rigorous standard for supporting them.

It is a necessary process to generate many different hypothesis and then start cutting them down to the good ones. Indeed the support needs to be strong otherwise it is a weak hypothesis. But that's fine too sometimes, weak hypotheses are good to work with until further evidence is available, as you'll see after reading the rest of this post.

Also I have mentioned this on other threads that what I know, I attribute to the kripa of Ustad Nar Singh Narayan ji so I tend to stick to what he shows me, and don't budge until he says to move on or shows me something else. He is the authority of all authorities. The authority over "every single Sikh historical text". He has shown me things, those texts and  living sikhs could not.

 

Anyways, if you have questions or counters to any of my theories, then do start a new thread and I'd be happy to discuss them there. That's why I post them up here. They are like clay and thus to be played with.

 

10 minutes ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

For one, your notion about the surnames being exclusive to Kshatriyas is ridiculous. Bhai Bidhi *Chand* is just one example of a Jatt (Chinna) with those names.

Yes back when this hypothesis was fresh, I looked up these counter-examples.

On Bidhi Chand I found this -

Some say that he was a Hindu Chhina Jatt of the village of Sur singh,
but it is also believed that the title 'Chhina' was given to him by Sixth Satguru Sahib.
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Bhai_Bidhi_Chand_Chhina

 

Another example is Ravi Das ji  who was a Chamar but he has Das surname. 
But it could be that name "Ravi Das" may have been given to him by his guru. That would override the initial name given to him at birth and the new name would not have to stick to any rules of caste-exclusive names.

 

Quote

If you go to Haryana today you will see Jaats with the name "Chand" and "Das" all the time. The names may at one point have been linked to Kshatriyas, but as they are general surnames and not gotre specific to a bloodline, there was eventually a trickle-down effect where they became general names.

 

Yes over-time they become general names. Also see above comment on Ravi Das ji. And the comments Below on the Gurus' names.

This is why modern examples are not good like those Jatts in Haryana. I don't know about Jatts in Haryana, are you sure they are not from Kshatriya clans whose forefathers started farming? That happens a lot too.
 

 

Quote

The way you actually determine if someone is Kshatriya is to look at their gotra. Daya Singh was a Sobti, which is a Khatri gotar.

This is how every single Sikh historical text attributes caste. Nobody thinks the Gurus were Khatris because they had Das and Dev, it's because we know their gotars (Bedi, Trehan, Bhalla, and Sodhi) were all Khatri. If you provided evidence that all the other four had gotre associated with groups that are Kshatriya (e.g. Khatris/Rajputs), you would have a strong case.

That's right.

However the surnames like Das, Ram and Chand also give it away, given that they haven't been changed or given to the person by their guru or by others later on.

For example, the Dev and Das in our Gurus' names have been added later on.

I believe -
Guru Nanak Dev ji's name was just Nanak. Dev was added later. Same with Guru Arjun Dev ji.
Guru Amar Das ji was just Amar, his nickname was Amru.
Guru Ram Das ji changed his name to Ram Das from Jettha.

 

So the Guru's names don't count in this theory.

 

Quote

You do not, and thus relying on Das/Chand/Ram is entirely disingenuous.

I understand where you are coming from but I haven't laid out the full theory yet. So you don't even know the whole thing lol.

And besides Das, Ram and Chand are simply a means to the discussion. It gets people asking questions... woops. Now the secret is out. ;)
 

Quote

We actually know which caste was which varna--Khatris are Kshatriya, despite being involved in mercantile work, for example.

We know Khatris are Kshatriyas according to the varna system, and bam, we have our answer.

Khatri is Kshatriya written in Punjabi, in Gurmukhi script. We don't have a letter for Ksh, so we use either ਖ or ਛ
ਖਤ੍ਰੀ  and ਛਤ੍ਰੀ are both pronounced as ਕ੍ਸ਼ਤ੍ਰੀਯ

People confuse this up because nowadays Khatri has become synonymous for 'traders' because so many of the kshatriya became traders. ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥

 

Quote

Let's go back to Vedic times. There's good evidence that at one point, castes were fluid and based on the work you picked out for yourself. So if you were born in a Brahmin household or whatever and wanted to be a warrior, you would be deemed a "kshatriya" regardless of your bloodline. At some time, these became concentrated to specific bloodlines/clans, which were "locked in" to the Kshatriya varna. This means that someone like Mehta Kalu, despite doing shopkeeping work, was part of the "Kshatriya" varna because of their bloodline/clan.

That maybe true.

Let me expand on it a bit.

There is Kshatriya - the warrior archetype of a warrior, this is part of four archetypes of society - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. These archetypes are present in everyone, in different amounts.

And then there is a Kshatriya, one who is a warrior, who embodies the Kshatriya archetype of strong man, skilled with weapons, leader, etc.

And then there are Kshatriya clans, those who descend from warriors - warrior lineages or warrior clans.

Here we are talking about the warrior lineages.
 

Quote

All the Sikh literature specifies that the Panj pyare came from different castes, and there is absolutely no mention of them being Kshatriya (by varna). The Panj Pyare was composed of a water carrier, a barber, a Jatt, a washerman, and an actual Khatri/Kshatriya.

So you admit Daya Ram was Kshatriya because he was from the Sobti lineage.

Himmat Chand Kahar was from Kahar lineage - Kahar are kshatriya clans

Dharam Das and Sahib Chand were Chibber Brahmins, related to Kesar Singh Chibber, as I found out from Amardeep.

Who is left? Mohkam Chand?
His father's name was Tirath Chand. It's not added later on and it was not given to him by his guru. Chand was the name he and his father shared. So here I will take his Chand name seriously. Thus they belong to a kshatriya clan.

The Chand surname has its history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chand_kings

So the Panj Pyarey were not from all kinds of clans. They were only from Kshatriya and Brahmin clans.

[JustAnotherSingh]

@BhagatSingh, we aren't talking about spiritual or meditative practices here , we are discussing history which requires historical evidence. If you're suggesting Waheguru (yes, I got your "Narsingh Narayan" reference) has given you some historical insight on which you base your theories, kindly lay them out (which you amply have in this post, so thanks). If you're suggesting that Waheguru has exclusively enlightened you and only you on the truth of the matter, and there's no way someone like me who's not initiated will be able to understand, well, I'm afraid any discussion on my part will have to cease, just like it does when arguing with people who claim that they saw the lights of heaven beaconing to them (i.e., because it's literally impossible to have a discussion on that as it's based on one person's subjective experience.

1) I am highly skeptical of "Chhina" being given by the 6th Guru, never seen that in any other sources (sikhiwiki isn't exactly rigorous all the time) and it's a gotra so it doesn't make much sense why it would be given in the first place. In any case, there's not really any doubt that he was a Jatt, not a Khatri.

2) The example with Ravi Das has no real relevance to the one with Bidhi Chand anyway (comparing surname to Gotar), but even if we buy into this (I'm not seeing any historical reason to do so in the first place); it "could also be" that the Panj Pyare were part of the castes they are traditionally attributed to and they underwent a "surname change" as well. That is to say, your argument here is cyclical.

3) Many Jatts claim to be from Kshatriya descent, vis-a-vis claiming that their ancestors were Rajputs that were disgraced in some form and were thus kicked down to Shudar-Jatts as the Phulkian family likes to claim (nobody ever talks about Kshatriyas becoming Jatts/Jaats "because they started farming," it always has a negative sense attributed to it). Many Muslim Jatts similarly claim to be descendants of the Sayyids or Mughals. Both are probably just interpolated bloodlines that the groups use to up their sense of personal tribalism, and have very little basis in fact. 

Even then, such surnames are ephemeral and are not "passed down"/indicative of family history the way Gotre are. For example, the son of Shiv Ram was Kalyan Chand Das, whose own son had the surname "Dev." 

4) Your point on "Khatri" and "Kshatriya" in Gurmukhi makes a lot of sense to me and resonates with what I've read. There's some oddities in the language given that there are groups like "Bhatti" who are Rajput (and thus Kshatriya) although they are not Khatri. I know most Punjabi Rajputs specify that part of their heritage and don't identify as Khatri, although that could just be their personal ego going on.

5) Regarding the Gurus' surnames, I don't exactly get what you're going on, but I'll break it up very simply like this. Sure, the Gurus' surnames may have been added later (I don't know that they were, I'll take your word on it) and they all happened to be Khatri/Kshatriya. However, we have plenty of evidence of a lot of other people with those surnames who weren't as such. You can try to explain this phenomenon away for each individual scenario as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the gotar is still the only real thing that denotes caste. That's why even apne who claim Singh's purpose was to replace gotre are a bit off the mark, as the name serves a different purposes. Most Rajputs would have traditionally had Singh, but it's just an additional title; the real thing that denotes their bloodline and thus their right to claim that caste is their gotar.

6) Agree on the warrior archetype vs lineage distinction, it's what I was trying to get at myself. When early Sikhs referred to themselves as Kshatriyas in the battlefield, I believe it's for the purpose of invoking the archetype (as are many of the references to varna in Vedic times/texts). It's something the Brits had quite a bit of trouble with when trying to figure out India's caste system (hence why they never really did and the average Westerner's perception of the caste system is quite off).

What I am saying is that the panj pyare almost certainly did NOT belong to warrior lineages, other than our Daya Sobti. They exemplified the warrior archetype, and were thus "Kshatriya" in that sense. But the majority of Sikhs who took Amrit were not from designated warrior lineages, because the whole concept of the Khalsa ridicules the importance of such things in the first place.

7) You really should have started with the points about the gotras in the first place instead of the Dev/Das/Ram/Chand conundrum, as those are really the meat and potatoes in terms of evidence to prove your point.

-Kahar is a scheduled caste. Yes, they claim to be originally descended from Rajputs; but nearly every single group does (even my family name claims that we were once Rajputs from Amber), and the difference is in which groups' claims are considered legitimate, lineage-wise. 

-Regarding the Chibbers, I think things are a bit more complex. Dharam Das was a Jatt who became Dharam Singh on Vaisakhi 1699; this is a different individual than the Dharam Chand Chibber, a Brahmin who was also a close confident of the Guru (all the Chibbers were) and was the grandfather of Kesar Singh Chibber. Similarly, Sahib Chand the barber, who became Sahib Singh the Panj Pyare and died at the battle of Chamkaur, is a different individual from Sahib Chand Chibber who became Sahib Singh, who died in a battle with Hatai Khan. 

To be clear, I have no doubts the Chibbers were Brahmins. Their last name proves it. But the Panj Pyare Sahib+Dharam were different individuals from the Chibber Sahib+Dharam. Plus, if the two were one and the same, Kesar Singh Chibber would have certainly made note of the fact that 2/5 of the Panj Pyare were from his household (and given the general affluence of the family I don't think they would have easily gotten mixed up with a farmer+barber). On this point, I'm kinda interested as to what the gotras were of the three other Panj Pyare; I'm particularly surprised that Jatt historiographers would have forgotten the lineage of Jatt Dharam Das.

8) The Chand surname having its own history and his father+him having the Chand surname does not prove anything to your point. The point is that when these names are ephemeral and given on a per-generation basis, they don't signify anything in terms of lineage. If I'm a Chand and I am wondering whether to pick Dev, Das, Ram or Chand for my kid, there's a 1/4 chance of each option. Therefore, in the 25% of the time when it's the same name, it still doesn't mean anything. 

I don't know much about the Chand dynasty but it also could be that certain dynasties go by different names/the naming conventions are different at particular times. Just because the ruler of Punjab in the 19th century was from the "Singh dynasty" doesn't mean I'm an heir to the throne.

[amardeep]

Fantastic discussions guys. Keep it up.

[amardeep]

From a recently published blog article:

 

In an ironic twist of faith the Marathas and the Rajputs, who are lauded as the cream of the sub-continent’s military crop by Hindu nationalists, were more or less in cohorts with the Mughals. ‘Only very rarely do we hear of Hindu chieftains seeking to protect Hindus… Rajput chieftains offered no opposition even to temple demolitions by the Mughals…’ (14) The Rajputs were handicapped by three main factors viz. a lack of natural resources (they were mostly desert dwellers) (15), a parochial tendency to concentrate solely upon feudal and dynastic interests (16) and finally their own pecking order. (17) In the aftermath of the Mughal conquest of the sub-continent, the Rajputs were the first to fragment socio-political taboos by offering their females in marriage to Muslim males. (18) At a time when most Hindus despised even the notion of Muslims touching their food, the Rajputs expected their daughters to warm the beds of their Mughal overlords. The main pillars of Mughal administration and security, it is somewhat telling that out Akbar’s 416 military commanders 47 of the most prominent were Rajputs. (19) Whilst Maharana Pratap’s revolt was ongoing, the Rajputs of Marwar, Ambar, Bikaner and Bundi marched against him and played a decisive role in crushing his forces. (20) Their own obdurate interests often collided with any national sentiments they might have possessed and overruled the latter. It is no wonder then that the Rajputs, as a whole, failed to initiate and lead any long-lasting revolution to oust or even break the Mughal grip upon the sub-continent.  

The Marathas though distinctive in their political acts were more or less similar to the Rajputs in that that prior to Shivaji they were proud sub-ordinates of the Muslim oppressors. Shivaji’s own father had allied himself with the Southern Pathans during the Karnataka expedition, ‘in which the Hindu religion was ruthlessly put down, lands devastated, shrines desecrated, idols broken, women’s honor violated, and all the accumulated wealth of centuries drained away…’ (21

 

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/the-stalwarts-revolution/

 

[amardeep]

Regarding the Khalsa being a blend of all castes:

From Gurbilas Patshahi 10:

Prior to the creation of the Khalsa, the Guru summoned his Rajput neighbors to Anandpur and declared, ‘agree to adopt the ways of the Khalsa; you, who pay tribute to the Turks and consider yourselves as their subordinates. Seek the shelter of the Khalsa and assemble under it’s banner. Over throw Mughal authoritarianism! Lest you cringe afterward that I discriminate against you, I have sent for you first so that you may avail yourself of this opportunity and learn at the feet of the Khalsa.’ (44) The Rajputs collectively replied, ‘you, who have welded the four generic castes into one; how can you even consider that we will dine with the other castes? How can your Panth obtain Raaj? How can goats slay a tiger? Some do the despicable work of agriculture, others deal in merchandise; some are the despised sub-humans of the foothill plains. How can they wrest from us our Raaj? People will bawl at the very notion. It is very preposterous of you to suggest that the 12 high sub-castes dine with the seven low sub-castes.’ (45)

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/the-stalwarts-revolution/

[dalsingh101]

29 minutes ago, amardeep said:

Regarding the Khalsa being a blend of all castes:

From Gurbilas Patshahi 10:

Prior to the creation of the Khalsa, the Guru summoned his Rajput neighbors to Anandpur and declared, ‘agree to adopt the ways of the Khalsa; you, who pay tribute to the Turks and consider yourselves as their subordinates. Seek the shelter of the Khalsa and assemble under it’s banner. Over throw Mughal authoritarianism! Lest you cringe afterward that I discriminate against you, I have sent for you first so that you may avail yourself of this opportunity and learn at the feet of the Khalsa.’ (44) The Rajputs collectively replied, ‘you, who have welded the four generic castes into one; how can you even consider that we will dine with the other castes? How can your Panth obtain Raaj? How can goats slay a tiger? Some do the despicable work of agriculture, others deal in merchandise; some are the despised sub-humans of the foothill plains. How can they wrest from us our Raaj? People will bawl at the very notion. It is very preposterous of you to suggest that the 12 high sub-castes dine with the seven low sub-castes.’ (45)

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/the-stalwarts-revolution/

Lovely!

Can we get the original text? 

[dalsingh101]

@amardeepThat piece from tisarpanth you linked to is atrocious man! lol  It's just another piece of jut propaganda. 

 

Quote

Given the grim state of the Punjabi peasantry today it would be conducive to ask oneself whether another Banda Singh is required to answer the tyranny of the times, and if so who should he hold accountable for the present state of the Khalsa Panth?  

The peasantry want to look close to home (i..e. amongst themselves) for the cause of their woes. 

To translate a Panjabi saying:

If you continually place jackasses on the throne, learn to bear the donkey's kicks.

 

Badal/Akali Dal/SGPC - Run by, dominated by, and repeatedly voted in by.......  do the maths.

 

What a bunch of tossers - crying about your own self-inflicted leadership.......you couldn't make it up. 

[Guest guest]

^Dalsingh seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder, always shouting about caste discrimination.

have you suffered caste discrimination yourself?  what caste are you?

[dalsingh101]

23 hours ago, Guest guest said:

^Dalsingh seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder, always shouting about caste discrimination.

have you suffered caste discrimination yourself?  what caste are you?

 

 

 

So combating and facing up to disgusting casteism in our society is having some 'huge chip on your shoulder'. 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by amardeep
Abusive language

[paapiman]

14 hours ago, Guest guest said:

what caste are you?

Why are you asking him his caste? Are you a Sikh? For a Sikh, it is a sin to ask another Sikh, about his caste. We should avoid asking such a question to Non-Amritdharis too.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

On 3/6/2016 at 3:00 PM, dalsingh101 said:

@amardeepThat piece from tisarpanth you linked to is atrocious man! lol  It's just another piece of jut propaganda. 

 

The peasantry want to look close to home (i..e. amongst themselves) for the cause of their woes. 

To translate a Panjabi saying:

If you continually place jackasses on the throne, learn to bear the donkey's kicks.

 

Badal/Akali Dal/SGPC - Run by, dominated by, and repeatedly voted in by.......  do the maths.

 

What a bunch of tossers - crying about your own self-inflicted leadership.......you couldn't make it up. 

Yes Tisarpant blog is heavily opiniated however his ability to dig out various sources and bring together into an article is commendable. I often leave his analysis aside and just go for the various quotes and sources he provides.

[BhagatSingh]

On 2016-06-02 at 3:30 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

@BhagatSingh, we aren't talking about spiritual or meditative practices here , we are discussing history which requires historical evidence. If you're suggesting Waheguru (yes, I got your "Narsingh Narayan" reference) has given you some historical insight on which you base your theories, kindly lay them out (which you amply have in this post, so thanks). If you're suggesting that Waheguru has exclusively enlightened you and only you on the truth of the matter, and there's no way someone like me who's not initiated will be able to understand, well, I'm afraid any discussion on my part will have to cease, just like it does when arguing with people who claim that they saw the lights of heaven beaconing to them (i.e., because it's literally impossible to have a discussion on that as it's based on one person's subjective experience.

When faced with the unknown I look to him and trust in his words.

Quote

1) I am highly skeptical of "Chhina" being given by the 6th Guru, never seen that in any other sources (sikhiwiki isn't exactly rigorous all the time) and it's a gotra so it doesn't make much sense why it would be given in the first place.

Well Sikh wiki is the place I saw that suggested he was a Jatt.

Gotras can become names and titles. Like Mata Gujri - means belonging to Gujjar - but that doesn't mean she was specifically of Gujjar gotra. She maybe, she may not, the point is that these Gotras have meanings other than implying a gotra. Chhina has a meaning besides being a Jatt gotra, so it can be a title or a nickname.

So it is possible that Guru Sahib gave Bidhi Chand that title.

Quote

In any case, there's not really any doubt that he was a Jatt, not a Khatri.

You haven't really shown that he was a jatt or khatri.

Anyways, what I originally said was that certain names were heavily in use by certain castes. A small amount of confirmed jatts with the name chand, does not take away from that. There are so many more kshatriys and brahmins with that name.

Das, Ram and Chand were heavily being used by kshatriyas and brahmins at that time.

 

Quote

2) The example with Ravi Das has no real relevance to the one with Bidhi Chand anyway (comparing surname to Gotar),

I think you need to re-read that part about Ravi Das ji again.

Anyways, I will repeat, a few members of non-kshatriya, non-brahmins does not take away from the fact that Das, Ram and Chand were popular kshatriya and brahmin names.

 

Quote

3) Many Jatts claim to be from Kshatriya descent, vis-a-vis claiming that their ancestors were Rajputs that were disgraced in some form and were thus kicked down to Shudar-Jatts as the Phulkian family likes to claim (nobody ever talks about Kshatriyas becoming Jatts/Jaats "because they started farming," it always has a negative sense attributed to it). Many Muslim Jatts similarly claim to be descendants of the Sayyids or Mughals. Both are probably just interpolated bloodlines that the groups use to up their sense of personal tribalism, and have very little basis in fact. 

It is Bachittar Natak Granth that claims Bedis and Sodhis are kshatriya otherwise for all we know they were vaishya.

Why is that relevant?

We have to take into account what people are saying about their own ancestry. That's the only way we can know, there can't really be any other evidence, besides their words and their records anyway. The tribes kept their own records which we gotta work with. It's hard to trace ancestry from other sources.

Jatts have no reason to falsely claim they descend from kshatriya clans. They are doing well for themselves and have been since Banda Singh ji Bahadur and even before probably.

It is a fact that many many kshariya did start farming, they did become jatts. So if Some jatt tribes are claiming ancestors from Kshatriya clans, they probably are telling the truth. I have no reason to doubt it. And you have not presented any reasons either. The burden of proof would be on you to prove them wrong.

 

Quote

Even then, such surnames are ephemeral and are not "passed down"/indicative of family history the way Gotre are. For example, the son of Shiv Ram was Kalyan Chand Das, whose own son had the surname "Dev." 

Yea of course. But the names that are given have significance to that clan. Das, Ram and Chand are significant names for kshatriya and brahmins.

 

Quote

4) Your point on "Khatri" and "Kshatriya" in Gurmukhi makes a lot of sense to me and resonates with what I've read. There's some oddities in the language given that there are groups like "Bhatti" who are Rajput (and thus Kshatriya) although they are not Khatri. I know most Punjabi Rajputs specify that part of their heritage and don't identify as Khatri, although that could just be their personal ego going on.

The word "khatri" has become it's own word, meaning "kshatriyas who are now traders", it is referring to specific gotras that heavily went into trading being of kshatrya origin, like the Bedis and Sodhis.

So there the word Khatri has significance for certain gotras.

Broadly Khatri is actually referring to kshatriyas because it is a corruption of the word when using a different script. So all Rajputs, Bhattis, etc are actually khatri, warriors, but they may not have ancestors who went into trading, khatri.

 

Quote

5) Regarding the Gurus' surnames, I don't exactly get what you're going on,

All I am saying is that Dev was a title given to the Gurus by their Sikhs. Just like Chinna could be a title given to Bidhi Chand by Guru Hari Gobind ji. It can be a gotra or a title. It is possible.

Quote

but I'll break it up very simply like this. Sure, the Gurus' surnames may have been added later (I don't know that they were, I'll take your word on it) and they all happened to be Khatri/Kshatriya. However, we have plenty of evidence of a lot of other people with those surnames who weren't as such.

Ok well present the evidence then. Let's see what you got.

 

Quote

Most Rajputs would have traditionally had Singh, but it's just an additional title; the real thing that denotes their bloodline and thus their right to claim that caste is their gotar.

You are right that gotra is important and it would over-ride any name they have like Das, Ram and Chand.

However when gotra is unavailable then you can look at these names and be fairly sure.

Singh is an example of a name or title that is exclusively in use by the Kshatriya clans esp. Rajputs. So when we don't have the gotra, we can safely guess that Singh is not really referring to a Jatt or a Shudra.

Das, Ram and Chand are like Singh. In absence of gotra, we can safely guess they are referring to Kshatriyas or Brahmins.

 

Quote

6) Agree on the warrior archetype vs lineage distinction, it's what I was trying to get at myself. When early Sikhs referred to themselves as Kshatriyas in the battlefield, I believe it's for the purpose of invoking the archetype (as are many of the references to varna in Vedic times/texts). It's something the Brits had quite a bit of trouble with when trying to figure out India's caste system (hence why they never really did and the average Westerner's perception of the caste system is quite off).

What I am saying is that the panj pyare almost certainly did NOT belong to warrior lineages, other than our Daya Sobti. They exemplified the warrior archetype, and were thus "Kshatriya" in that sense. But the majority of Sikhs who took Amrit were not from designated warrior lineages, because the whole concept of the Khalsa ridicules the importance of such things in the first place.

That's not the case though. Guru Sahib, who was Sodhi, is talking about his Kshatriya lineage when he talks about how Bedis and Sodhis descended from Kshatriya sons of Bhagwan Ram Chandra ji. 

And then he specifically says -
And in the following verses, Guru Sahib (or court poet speaking on his behalf) is emphasizing his own Kshatriya roots. It seems that Guru Sahib wanted to inspire the Kshatriyas, who had gone into other occupations, to return to being warriors.

ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਪੂਤ ਹੌ ਬਾਮਨ ਕੋ ਨਹਿ ਕੈ ਤਪੁ ਆਵਤ ਹੈ ਜੁ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਅਰੁ ਅਉਰ ਜੰਜਾਰ ਜਿਤੋ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਕੋ ਤੁਹਿ ਤਿਆਗ ਕਹਾ ਚਿਤ ਤਾ ਮੈ ਧਰੋ ॥
छत्री को पूत हौ बामन को नहि कै तपु आवत है जु करो ॥ अरु अउर जंजार जितो ग्रहि को तुहि तिआग कहा चित ता मै धरो ॥
I am the son of a Kshatriya and not of a Brahmin who may instruct for performing deep meditations; how can I absorb myself in the embarrassments of the world by leaving you;

ਅਬ ਰੀਝ ਕੈ ਦੇਹੁ ਵਹੈ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਜੋਊ ਹਉ ਬਿਨਤੀ ਕਰ ਜੋਰ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਜਬ ਆਉ ਕੀ ਅਉਧ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਬਨੈ ਅਤਿਹੀ ਰਨ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੋ ॥੨੪੮੯॥
अब रीझ कै देहु वहै हम कउ जोऊ हउ बिनती कर जोर करो ॥ जब आउ की अउध निदान बनै अतिही रन मै तब जूझ मरो ॥२४८९॥
Whatever request I am making with my folded hands, O Lord ! kindly be graceful and bestow this boon on me that when ever my end comes, then I may die fighting in the battlefield.2489.

So combine that with the knowledge that Das, Ram, Chand are Kshatriya/Brahmin names. It is not difficult to see why the Panj Pyarey might have been Kshatriya. But to be fair they could be Brahmin too.

 

Quote

-Kahar is a scheduled caste. Yes, they claim to be originally descended from Rajputs; but nearly every single group does (even my family name claims that we were once Rajputs from Amber), and the difference is in which groups' claims are considered legitimate, lineage-wise. 

Well go on. Show how it is legitimate or not legitimate.

If I were in your place, I would accept my family's claim of having descended from any particular tribe because that's all we have to work with. If possible I would try to obtain the records by the Pandit of the village to solidify their claim.

Point being - If Kahar are claiming descent from Kyastha then I would take them as Kshatriyas.

Quote

-Regarding the Chibbers, I think things are a bit more complex. Dharam Das was a Jatt who became Dharam Singh on Vaisakhi 1699; this is a different individual than the Dharam Chand Chibber, a Brahmin who was also a close confident of the Guru (all the Chibbers were) and was the grandfather of Kesar Singh Chibber. Similarly, Sahib Chand the barber, who became Sahib Singh the Panj Pyare and died at the battle of Chamkaur, is a different individual from Sahib Chand Chibber who became Sahib Singh, who died in a battle with Hatai Khan. 

To be clear, I have no doubts the Chibbers were Brahmins. Their last name proves it. But the Panj Pyare Sahib+Dharam were different individuals from the Chibber Sahib+Dharam. Plus, if the two were one and the same, Kesar Singh Chibber would have certainly made note of the fact that 2/5 of the Panj Pyare were from his household (and given the general affluence of the family I don't think they would have easily gotten mixed up with a farmer+barber).

I'll take your word for it.

Quote

On this point, I'm kinda interested as to what the gotras were of the three other Panj Pyare; I'm particularly surprised that Jatt historiographers would have forgotten the lineage of Jatt Dharam Das.

If you take away anything from this post then take this -

In the absense of the gotra, one must rely on the name to determine the ancestry.

Because their names were attached to the clans. Many clans kept certain names, names which were not (or rarely) used by members of other clans.

And we can pinpoint these naming trends in history. Different names going in and out of fashion for different clans.
 

Quote

8) The Chand surname having its own history and his father+him having the Chand surname does not prove anything to your point. The point is that when these names are ephemeral and given on a per-generation basis, they don't signify anything in terms of lineage. If I'm a Chand and I am wondering whether to pick Dev, Das, Ram or Chand for my kid, there's a 1/4 chance of each option. Therefore, in the 25% of the time when it's the same name, it still doesn't mean anything. 

 

You are misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying they both have the name Chand hence gotra is confirmed. No.

I am saying they both have the name Chand which means it's not a title.

These names were given on a per generation basis but they were selected from a pool of names that would be suitable for their gotra.

Names like Das, Ram and Chand signify kshatriya and brahmin gotras. And so if Chand is not a title then it is hinting at the gotra.

Quote

I don't know much about the Chand dynasty but it also could be that certain dynasties go by different names/the naming conventions are different at particular times. Just because the ruler of Punjab in the 19th century was from the "Singh dynasty" doesn't mean I'm an heir to the throne.

Here Chand dynasty is not important in the way you think - "Singh dynasty" doesn't mean I'm an heir to the throne - it is important because it shows how the name Chand is a popular Kshatriya name, associated with kshatriya kings.

The same way Das and Ram are also associated with kshatriya and brahmins. Bhagwan Ram Chandra ji was a kshatriya, and after his popularity, the names Ram and Chandra were heavily in use by the kshatriyas of medieval India.

 

In the absense of the gotra, one must rely on the name to determine the ancestry.

[BhagatSingh]

On 2016-06-02 at 11:44 AM, Koi said:

Bhai Dharam Singh Ji was a Jatt. That's a well known proven fact. @BhagatSingh do you actually have any historical Granth reference or baani reference that says otherwise? 

"Dharam Singh hattheelaa Jatt bakhaaneeye" - Khalsa Mool Mantar 

Where did I say he was not a jatt?

[JustAnotherSingh]

"Gujjar" vs "Gujri" is nothing more than a red herring, the difference is that Gujri is actually a normal first name that just sounds like the gotar (just like Sodi) and Chhina was always a last name for Bidhi Chand. 

This'll be my last post on the topic as I don't see it reaching anywhere conclusive. 

@BhagatSingh, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to show how every single Sikh historical text written that states there was only one Khatri as part of the Panj Pyare and the other four were emphatically not so are in fact wrong and that your theory that they were all Khatri (or potentially Brahmin) is correct. Ganda Singh was faced with a similarly daunting task when he started his research on Banda Singh Bahadur despite the negative reputation Banda had garnished over the misl and Sikh-Raj period; Ganda Singh was successful because he provided sufficient evidence (in the form of contemporary works from a variety of sources and multiple lines of argument) to make his case of how Banda Singh was in fact an utmost Gursikh whose reputation was tarnished over the years. 

On the other hand, you have not really done anything to that effect and keep throwing arguments that are not much more than grasps, and frankly speaking, makes me feel you are trying to pursue some ideological message instead of objectively evaluating the history here.

The only line of argument you've presented so far is that Dev/Das/Chand/Ram are Khatri (and apparently also Brahmin) surnames. When provided with examples of Jatts and Dalits with such surnames, you have tried to steer the conversation somewhere else by proving that they were actually Khatri (or they were just meaningless titles.

The fact remains that we do not have extensive literary records of the time period and make do with what we do have. It is simply not the case that Jatts/Dalits with the specific surnames are just outliers compared to a wide spectrum of Khatris who held such names. In present-day Haryana, an example of what pre-Khalsa Punjab would have looked like with regards to surnames, we see that pretty much all Jaats' surnames are either Des/Dav/Chand/Ram or Kumar/Singh; all of which are technically originally "Khatri" surnames. If we had to take a Panj Pyara from Haryana today, they could all be from different castes yet have those surnames; so effectively, the surnames would be absolutely meaningless. 

Given that there were several Jatts and Dalits at the Gurus' time who had such surnames (Namdev, Ravidas, Bidhi Chand, Garib Das, etc), we can assume that the situation at that time was similar to the situation in Haryana today. Furthermore, there were many Khatris who didn't go by such surnames; Kaura Mal and Sucha Nand, to name a few. Such surnames may have meant something at some point in time (i.e., ancient times), but I think it's reasonable to see that it was not the case at the time of the Panj Pyare; which is what also makes sense with the Sikh historical texts that say all 5 of them came from different castes.

 

The final question is regarding groups like the Kahar and whether or not they are legitimately Kshatriya or not. Kahar is a scheduled caste. The gotra signifies such. This means that by gotra alone, the Kahars are the descendants of other Kahars and decisively not from Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya lineages. Compare that to someone with the last name "Talwar" or "Bedi," whose last name is from a gotra that has a lineage to Kshatriyas. Some Kahars supposedly claim that at one point, they actually were Kshatriyas with a proper gotra denoting such and were just demoted to such a lineage for XYZ reasons and their gotra was subsequently changed. I mean, it's their family history, right? Why isn't it legitimate if they believe it?

Because literally every group in India does this to some extent. Every single Hindu or Sikh (and some Muslim) Jatt clan claims to be descended from Rajputs at some point in time. They can't claim that they are rajputs because their lineage (gotra) clearly says otherwise, which is why they point to "ancient times" vaguely. We know this is false because Jatt groups came into India after vedic times as tribes from the West and were classified as shudras under the varna system; but you see the interpolated lineages nonetheless! Every Dalit group claims to be from Rajputs. Even some Gurjars, descended from outside tribes, claim that they are from Rajputs. If you go to Pakistan, it's the same shit flipped in the other direction; Dalits claim to be descendants of the Mughals, Jatts claim to be descendants of Turks/Pathans/Sayyids. It's funny in a way; let's take a Muslim Jatt family who claims they were descendants of the Sayyids (descendants of the Prophet Muhammad). One kid in the family converts to Sikhi, and two generations later the kid is claiming that they are from ancient Rajput blood. It gets even better when you notice how every single group that claims ancestry to Rajputs isn't just claiming ancestry to an average Rajput on the street; they claim to be the descendants of solely the top-dog Rajput rulers. This phenomenon has no real grounding in history and is nothing more than a meta-commentary on the unhealthy obsession with bloodlines within the Indian subcontinent (a culture that ironically, the Gurus tried to eliminate when making the Khalsa in the first place). The only "legitimate" Khatris are the people whose lineages are actually Khatri; which is sufficient proof to show how yes, only 1/5 Pyare were from Khatri background.

 

[Guest guest]

On 3 June 2016 at 10:54 PM, dalsingh101 said:

 

 

 

So combating and facing up to disgusting casteism in our society is having some 'huge chip on your shoulder'. 

 

 

It seems like it is in every post you type.  Could you give me some personal examples (you witnessed) of this 'disgusting casteism'?  

I do not think that 'casteism' is all bad.

[Guest guest]

On 4 June 2016 at 0:55 PM, paapiman said:

Why are you asking him his caste? Are you a Sikh? For a Sikh, it is a sin to ask another Sikh, about his caste. We should avoid asking such a question to Non-Amritdharis too.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

What is wrong in it?  How is it a sin to ask that?  In a discussion or in response to a statement about caste, it is a natural and obvious thing to ask.  Though yes it would be inappropriate at a religious event or sancta etc

Yes I am a sikh.  

[paapiman]

33 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

What is wrong in it?  How is it a sin to ask that?  In a discussion or in response to a statement about caste, it is a natural and obvious thing to ask.  Though yes it would be inappropriate at a religious event or sancta etc

Yes I am a sikh.  

There is bachan in a Rehatnama or a Hukamnana, which prohibits a Sikh from asking caste (of a fellow Sikh).

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

I read that rahitnama in India on a wall in the mountains . It said something like:

The Sikhs who refer to Amrit as water and the Sikhs who ask another Sikh about his caste,- they will all go to hell.

 

 

 

[amardeep]

Here it is.

Amrit ko paani kahe ,Sikh ki poochhahe jaat.
Kahe GOBIND SINGH Nand Lal ji ,so sikh jampur jaat."
 

There is also this which I think is from the Bhai Desa Singh Rahitnama

Jo Sikha Ko Puche Jaat Soh Sikh Nahi Mero Aad Jugaad (Those who ask a sikh's caste, they are not my sikh, they never were, and they never will be)

[BhagatSingh]

@JustAnotherSingh
I could be wrong but I am sensing a bit of agitation, a bit of restlessness from your post. If that's the case, then just relax and take it easy.

To me it does not matter whether the discussion swings this way or that way, or whether this or that theory is correct or not. I know only Hari's way, that which is. I know that as long as I stay attached to Hari's way, then I am good to go whether I am right or wrong about any particular topic or theory. I am not attached to either outcome.

I get nothing out of this discussion other than the fun of discussing it.

On 2016-06-05 at 2:27 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

@BhagatSingh, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to show how every single Sikh historical text written that states there was only one Khatri as part of the Panj Pyare and the other four were emphatically not so are in fact wrong and that your theory that they were all Khatri (or potentially Brahmin) is correct.

You didn't understand what I said then.

I am not saying that is incorrect.

Quote

Sikh historical text written that states there was only one Khatri as part of the Panj Pyare and the other four were emphatically not so are

It seems Paapiman is the only one who understood my point.

I am not saying Dharam Singh was not a jatt before he took amrit (clarifcation for you @Koi) i am not saying the others weren't barbers, or washermen or whatever they were doing. I am not saying that the panj pyrarey were not doing these occupations, that the Sikh historical texts say that they were doing, at the time they took amrit.

That's not the point at all..

My point is that -

There were many people from warriors tribes that became traders for various reasons. (e.g. Bhai Daya Singh ji)
There were many people from warriors tribes that became farmers for various reasons.  (e.g. Bhai Dharam Singhi ji)
There were many people warrior tribes that became barbers for various reasons. (e.g. Bhai Sahib Singh ji)
Etc

Descendants of kshatriya clans had started doing other occupations for various reasons.

My point is that the Panj pyrarey were descendents of such kshatriya clans. They were doing other occupations before taking amrit.

Now this is just a hypothesis.  I think there is good support for it.

Gotra

1. Sobti and Kahar are kshatriya clans.
http://www.peoplegroupsindia.com/profiles/kahar/

Clan Name Preferences

2. Das, Ram and Chand are kshatriya clan names. They have a history of attachment to kshatriya clans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_(surname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chand_kings

Bhagwan Ram Chandra ji was a celebrated kshatriya icon, and thus Ram and Chand were common names selected for kshatriya males.

When gotra is unavailable then you can look at these names and be fairly sure.

Singh is an example of a name or title that is exclusively in use by the Kshatriya clans esp. Rajputs. So when we don't have the gotra, we can safely guess that Singh is not really referring to a Jatt or a Shudra.

Das, Ram and Chand are like Singh. In absence of gotra, we can safely guess they are referring to Kshatriyas or Brahmins.

(Singh is no longer attached to Kshatriya clans as strongly nowadays but back then it was almost exclusive)

Bachittar Natak

3. Further support for this hypothesis comes from the following verses in Bachittar Natak, where he describes this phenomenon of Kshatriyas doing other occupations, mostly trading (that is Vaishya). I think he wanted to correct this, and that's why he emphasized his own warrior ancestry.

Guru Gobind Singh ji (or one of his court poets depending on your belief) describes this phenomenon in Bachittar Natak of Dasam Granth.

The situation was -

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
दोहरा ॥
DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥
बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥
The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥
बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥
The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

 

So he sought after all the non-warriors from warrior clans. And he emphasized his own warrior clan as well in order to inspire his non-warrior kshatriya sikhs, who were involved in other proffessions, to fight and get back to their roots. He inspired them to chant these prayers about dying in a battlefield as the only thing that matters.

ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਪੂਤ ਹੌ ਬਾਮਨ ਕੋ ਨਹਿ ਕੈ ਤਪੁ ਆਵਤ ਹੈ ਜੁ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਅਰੁ ਅਉਰ ਜੰਜਾਰ ਜਿਤੋ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਕੋ ਤੁਹਿ ਤਿਆਗ ਕਹਾ ਚਿਤ ਤਾ ਮੈ ਧਰੋ ॥
छत्री को पूत हौ बामन को नहि कै तपु आवत है जु करो ॥ अरु अउर जंजार जितो ग्रहि को तुहि तिआग कहा चित ता मै धरो ॥
I am the son of a Kshatriya and not of a Brahmin who may instruct for performing deep meditations; how can I absorb myself in the embarrassments of the world by leaving you;

ਅਬ ਰੀਝ ਕੈ ਦੇਹੁ ਵਹੈ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਜੋਊ ਹਉ ਬਿਨਤੀ ਕਰ ਜੋਰ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਜਬ ਆਉ ਕੀ ਅਉਧ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਬਨੈ ਅਤਿਹੀ ਰਨ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੋ ॥੨੪੮੯॥
अब रीझ कै देहु वहै हम कउ जोऊ हउ बिनती कर जोर करो ॥ जब आउ की अउध निदान बनै अतिही रन मै तब जूझ मरो ॥२४८९॥
Whatever request I am making with my folded hands, O Lord ! kindly be graceful and bestow this boon on me that when ever my end comes, then I may die fighting in the battlefield.2489.

 

20 hours ago, amardeep said:

Here it is.

Amrit ko paani kahe ,Sikh ki poochhahe jaat.
Kahe GOBIND SINGH Nand Lal ji ,so sikh jampur jaat."
 

There is also this which I think is from the Bhai Desa Singh Rahitnama

Jo Sikha Ko Puche Jaat Soh Sikh Nahi Mero Aad Jugaad (Those who ask a sikh's caste, they are not my sikh, they never were, and they never will be)

If Guru Sahib said this, it would be entirely consistent with the hypothesis I put forward.

Because Jaati (occupation) is not the same as Varan (ancestry, archetype).

The Panj pyarey had different occupations but I think they were all of Kshatriya descent due to aforementioned reasons.

 

Objections

On 2016-06-05 at 2:27 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

The fact remains that we do not have extensive literary records of the time period and make do with what we do have. It is simply not the case that Jatts/Dalits with the specific surnames are just outliers compared to a wide spectrum of Khatris who held such names.

This is not the case. We do evidence that suggests that back then Das, Ram and Chand were common kshatriya names, due to their attachment to famous kshatriya tribes, royalty and icons. See point #2 above.

On 2016-06-05 at 2:27 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

Given that there were several Jatts and Dalits at the Gurus' time who had such surnames (Namdev, Ravidas, Bidhi Chand, Garib Das, etc),

The existence of a few individuals does not take away from the fact that Das, Ram and Chand were common kshatriya names.

Furthermore, Nam Dev ji and Ravi Das ji would probably have received the names from their Gurus or even their Sikhs. Similar to how Lakshhman Dev ji received the name Madhav Das ji from his Guru Janaki Das ji and then was called Banda Singh ji by Guru Gobind Singh ji's sikhs.

Our Gurus received names from their Sikhs - Guru Nanak Dev ji, Guru Angad Dev ji, Guru Arjun Dev ji. Dev was the name given to them by Sikhs.

These were spiritual names detached from the worldly clan name preferences.

 

As for Bidhi Chand you have not shown one way or another.

On 2016-06-05 at 2:27 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

"Gujjar" vs "Gujri" is nothing more than a red herring, the difference is that Gujri is actually a normal first name that just sounds like the gotar (just like Sodi) and Chhina was always a last name for Bidhi Chand. 

Gujri is the feminine of Gujjar. It doesn't just sound like a gotra, it has the same meaning as that gotra, ie Gujar. This is very relevant to our discussion because it highlights that just like Gujri, Chhina can be a title or a name. 

On 2016-06-05 at 2:27 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

The final question is regarding groups like the Kahar and whether or not they are legitimately Kshatriya or not. Kahar is a scheduled caste. The gotra signifies such. This means that by gotra alone, the Kahars are the descendants of other Kahars and decisively not from Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya lineages.

I think they are Kshatriya. We must keep in mind the difference between occupation and ancestry.

http://www.peoplegroupsindia.com/profiles/kahar/

On 2016-06-05 at 2:27 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

Because literally every group in India does this to some extent.

There could be a lot of mischief as you seem to think. That's fair. But I think it is actually true to some extent. The same group often got involved in different occupations, and for so long that they were thought to be the members of the clans who were known for those occupations. So even though these groups might be classified under another jaati, their ancestry might lie somewhere else. It is quite possible and should not be dismissed so easily.

So Kahar claiming ancestry from Hrishi Kashyap might be accurate.

The same way Bedi and Sodhi claim ancestry from Purushotam Ram Chandra ji might be accurate.

[BhagatSingh]

Ball in your court

Let's start with this one.

On 2016-06-02 at 3:30 PM, JustAnotherSingh said:

What I am saying is that the panj pyare almost certainly did NOT belong to warrior lineages

How do you know?

You are also making a lot of claims in your posts. Let's see your evidence now. Start by presenting the evidence for the above claim.

 

And you too.

On 2016-06-01 at 11:15 AM, dalsingh101 said:

Loads of Sikh texts (even old ones)  speak of the 'merging of 4 varans' with the event of the Khalsa

Where is your evidence for this?

Where is the evidence that the Panj Pyarey came from each of - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra  - the 4 Varans?