10-02-2005, 11:58 PM
"Rising,
Could you please share the arguments (possibly with links) and how you rip them apart?
Thanks "
Sure. The following websites r some of the worst propagaters of this shaka/kushan rubbish.
www.jatland.com www.jattworld.com www.dalitstan.com
www.jatt.com yahoo jat history group
The above are just a small example. There are many more websites, running into their hundreds claiming jats/rajputs/gujars r descended from foreign tribes.
Now, u may ask why we should be bothered about such claims. Ok. First of all, most of these claims were first talked about by the british colonialists. No one had ever before them even mentined shaka's or kushan's developing into todays jats or rajputs. Secondly, the theory was developed to divide Indians. The theory was developed into a racial concept claiming these various groups r more physically superior to the native population. A theory essentially to divide the Indian people. And if u take a look at the websites above, they take great satisfaction in trying to claim that jats and so on r physically superior to the other tribes. (which is a load of rubbish) These shaka theories r on par with the ait theory. A theory creating to deny India and it's people of it's truthful history.
About ripping their arguments apart, here are some of the factors i discuss.
First of all. The question has to be asked what happened to the culture of these so called superior invading tribes? Usually when an invader attacks, it is them that pushes their own culture, things like language, dress code, religion and so on, on to the natives. What happened to their culture? Secondly, it seems like they have made no contribution, or influenced the natives in any way at all.
Also, it is claimed that these invading shaka's colonised most of north India down to Gujrat. Now, in that particular period, these tribes would have hardly numbered a large population at all. How did they capture and colonise such a large land mass and it's much increased population and not leave a significant mark on it's land and their native people? It just doesnt make sense at all.
Then we can look at physical features. A hell of a lot of these jats and Rajputs in particular, r as dark as n****s. What happened to their original features? These jats claim they like to marry within their own communities, if this was the case,
they would have by large kept their original features. A comparison can be made with parsis and the jews that arrived in India. Now some of these groups arrived in India at a very early stage, parsis in particular, they've managed to retain their features and cultural/religious identity, why couldnt these shaka's or kushans keep them? Like one of the above contributers said, the shaka's/kushans were from
the mongolia/china area. Chances are that they had oriental features. How many of these jats/rajputs have such features? Next to nothing is the answer.
The above are just some of the common sense points that i use when debating with these fanatical colonial theory propagating jats such as ravi chaudry on jat land.
Could you please share the arguments (possibly with links) and how you rip them apart?
Thanks "
Sure. The following websites r some of the worst propagaters of this shaka/kushan rubbish.
www.jatland.com www.jattworld.com www.dalitstan.com
www.jatt.com yahoo jat history group
The above are just a small example. There are many more websites, running into their hundreds claiming jats/rajputs/gujars r descended from foreign tribes.
Now, u may ask why we should be bothered about such claims. Ok. First of all, most of these claims were first talked about by the british colonialists. No one had ever before them even mentined shaka's or kushan's developing into todays jats or rajputs. Secondly, the theory was developed to divide Indians. The theory was developed into a racial concept claiming these various groups r more physically superior to the native population. A theory essentially to divide the Indian people. And if u take a look at the websites above, they take great satisfaction in trying to claim that jats and so on r physically superior to the other tribes. (which is a load of rubbish) These shaka theories r on par with the ait theory. A theory creating to deny India and it's people of it's truthful history.
About ripping their arguments apart, here are some of the factors i discuss.
First of all. The question has to be asked what happened to the culture of these so called superior invading tribes? Usually when an invader attacks, it is them that pushes their own culture, things like language, dress code, religion and so on, on to the natives. What happened to their culture? Secondly, it seems like they have made no contribution, or influenced the natives in any way at all.
Also, it is claimed that these invading shaka's colonised most of north India down to Gujrat. Now, in that particular period, these tribes would have hardly numbered a large population at all. How did they capture and colonise such a large land mass and it's much increased population and not leave a significant mark on it's land and their native people? It just doesnt make sense at all.
Then we can look at physical features. A hell of a lot of these jats and Rajputs in particular, r as dark as n****s. What happened to their original features? These jats claim they like to marry within their own communities, if this was the case,
they would have by large kept their original features. A comparison can be made with parsis and the jews that arrived in India. Now some of these groups arrived in India at a very early stage, parsis in particular, they've managed to retain their features and cultural/religious identity, why couldnt these shaka's or kushans keep them? Like one of the above contributers said, the shaka's/kushans were from
the mongolia/china area. Chances are that they had oriental features. How many of these jats/rajputs have such features? Next to nothing is the answer.
The above are just some of the common sense points that i use when debating with these fanatical colonial theory propagating jats such as ravi chaudry on jat land.