Gurjars: Their Origin and History

There are almost as many theories about the origin of Gurjars as there are writers who have done any research in this matter. Just about any research, deep or superficial. Every original writer differs from every other on one count or the other. Here I would like to recollect all that I have gathered about the origin of Gurjars. My source of this view is partially what has been written in some of the books and a part is arrived at by filling the missing links showing what would have happened in the past.

Gurjar history dates back to more than three thousand years. How much more than this can not be said with certainty. The reason is not that we don't have any historical records of their origin or early period but that their evolution was so gradual that one couldn't feel the transition immediately. So it is almost impossible to fix a particular date for their origin. It is a principle, a way of living, a culture which makes one a Gurjar. It is not a religion and nor does religion bind it. There are Gurjars who are Hindus and there are Gurjars who are Muslims, Sikhs or Jains etc etc.

There is no solid base behind the theory that the Gurjars migrated from China, Central Asia or some other far off place into India. There might have been people in India who were Gurjars but their forefathers came into India from other parts of the world including China and Central Asia, but it is not true that Gurjars originated in Central Asia or some other part of the world and from there they came to India. Rather the vice versa is very much possible that though they originated in India, later many of them moved to other parts of the world and took Gurjar culture elsewhere. Huns and other such tribes entered India as migrant tribes having different physical attributes and some of these migrant clans became Hinduised and adopted Gurjar culture and thus came to be known as Gurjars thereafter. In this way we can see that though Hun and Kushana tribes adopted Gurjar culture, not all Huns and Kushans might have become Gurjars. At least they might not have been Gurjars from initial stage in their history wherever they might have been, be it in China, Central Asia or elsewhere. It was just like samrat Ashok getting influenced and then adopting Buddhist way of life

Gurjars as a distinct culture originated in the north-western part of Indian Sub-continent, along the plains of Indus, Satluj and now extinct Saraswati Rivers covering parts of present day Rajasthan and Punjab, on both sides of border ie India and Pakistan. It did not start as a different religious or other ethnic group but as a culture and as followers of certain principles set-out mutually in the larger interests of the individuals, the society and the country they belonged to. These were the principles laid down to be followed by everyone who wanted to be a part of that culture. The language they used was derived from Sanskrit and is known as Gurjari, Gujjari or Gojri language. It is considered to be mother of many a North Indian languages.

There was no religious bondage. In fact at that time outlook towards religion was philosophical and not fundamentalist. All those people who adopted that system gradually became an identity distinct from rest of the people and started commanding respect from others. As the culture was a refined system, it influenced more and more people and they took this system to even far off places by migrating to those places from the land of their origin.

Some of the kings, especially the ones who entered India and established their kingdoms here, and followed this exclusive way of life, ruled states small or big and at the same time many other rulers adopted it when they came in contact with this culture. Later on the off-springs of those families who ruled a state at one time or the other started calling themselves Rajputs irrespective of whether they further got to rule or not.

It was during the Moghul and the British period that the followers of this culture could no longer hold on to the glorious past and during this period degradation took place as their followers, true to their principles and ethics, opposed the foreign powers but lost in their war and thus lost all the favours of the government as well. They were always an irritant to invaders who came from outside of India. They very strongly and openly opposed the English power but by that time, being out of power for almost 700 years and being in constant war with their mighty opponents, they had lost most of their power so though they continued to oppose the British power, they did not meet with great success. And in the bargain got worst of both, the political and economical progress.

Gurjars very actively took part in first war of independence in 1857 and had risen up in rebellion against British power. As the British Imperialist power succeeded in suppressing the uprising, they started witch hunt and targeted the Gurjar community, amongst others, being most active against the Raj. Subsequently Britishers acted very vindictively and displaced many Gurjars and uprooted many Gurjar villages, my village Chandrawal being one such village, confiscated many movable and immovable properties, hounded and killed many young and old male members of the community and banned all recruitment of Gurjars in government services. This was enough to deprive Gurjars of their rightful due. They were not in a position to fully put to use their talent and energy and thus this lack of avenues, aided by frustration on being neglected by the government led them to other acts like robbery and dacoity against the British government as well as those people within or outside their groups who supported government and its oppressive policies.

This transformation from 'noble-people' to rebellious ones did not come out instantly. It took hundreds of years. Thankfully it is over now and community is now on its way to restore its past glory and with fast all-round development, aided by a sincere and conscious effort, it will surely not take that long but a far far short time for the community to regain and relive its past glory.

"The Difficulty of Being Good": Is it really that bad?

My Dear Gurcharan Das,

            Sometime back I laid my hands on your book ‘The Difficulty of Being Good’. It was with great interest that I was looking forward to read this book. From pre-release previews and from your own campaign over TV Channels I understood this was a book with your views on the relevance of the great epic ‘Mahabharat’. I bought it at first opportunity and then read it too.

            How do I feel now? It is a mixed feeling. Least I can say is I wanted to read it and have read it, might not read it a second time and will not recommend it to anyone. Yeah, good or bad but this is my feeling today. And yes I will try my best to explain to you as to why I will not recommend this book to others.

            I have felt that somewhere you are apologetic about this great book ‘Mahabharat’. Call it book, call it epic or history –whatever, but you somehow leave an impression that you do not agree with the ideals and concepts espoused in ‘Mahabharat’. At every stage, I feel, you have tried to dissociate yourself from the epic and its central values. I feel you could not comment on it as a critique rather you have only tried to criticize it. There is a difference between critical analysis and criticism and I feel you have got drifted towards the latter.

            Reading through first three chapters I had started getting a feel of the things to come. And then I went back to the prelude and read first couple of para’s again. In the second para you had made an innocuous confession that you had never read this classic of your country earlier. You read this classic for the first time, a little-late in the day and then wrote a book on that a little too early, after just one reading. During the short period between your first reading and your script for this book you really did not have much time to actually ‘study’ these scriptures. And this thing became very clear in the Chapter 4 when you mentioned to Srimad Bhagwadgeeta as ‘700 fratricidal verses’. I am not asking for any forced respect for Srimad Bhagwadgeeta from you but at least I expected some restraint in dismissing it as mere ‘fratricidal verses’. I accept these are not your words and you have picked these words from the book of Sh. D.D.Kosambi, but your selection of these adjectives for Srimad Bhagwadgeeta has betrayed your own depth of understanding of the ‘Song Celestial’, as described by another author Gerald Larson, or the ‘Perennial Philosophy’ (as described by Aldous Huxley) or the ‘Song of God’ as called by Christopher Isherwood.

            I do not put the entire blame for that on you. This only shows the vast knowledge contained in those 700 verses which needs time and a good effort to be fully understood. A single reading is just not enough. Those who have neither read it properly nor believe in it like Sh D. D. Kosambi call it ‘700 fratricidal verses’. His total reading is perhaps limited to counting the verses and his understanding is limited to the fact that it was rendered by Shri Krishna to ‘persuade Arjuna to fight’. I would call it sheer unfortunate that due to your own lack of understanding of these ‘700 verses’, you have chosen those words of Sh Kosambi to describe Shrimad Bhagwadgeeta. It has done your book no good.

            Sir, my next reason for not recommending this book is your analysis of the events of Mahabharat. You have written a full chapter on ‘Krishna’s Guile’, as you have liked to name the chapter. The chapter starts with Duryodhana’s address to Shri Krishna, “Aren’t you ashamed… of striking me down so unfairly?”. You have further gone on to say that Krishna, instead of safeguarding dharma, instructs the Pandavas to do precisely the opposite in the name of ‘strategy’. Again, you seem to be apologetic and critical of the way Duryodhana, Bhishma, Drona, Karna etc were eliminated one by one by Pandavs and Shri Krishna. You have tried to imply that they, all those Kaurav Warriors, were fighting ‘fairly and valiantly’ and that they were killed by ‘crooked means’. Well, first thing first, it is not my intention, nor my capability, to justify or criticize actions of Shri Krishna, the Pandav’s or the Kaurav’s. I have only tried to give my reasons for my disillusionment from your book. You have made it amply clear that you have not fully understood the concept of ‘dharma’ otherwise you would not have commented that Shri Krishna instructs the Pandavs to go against dharma. I sure would have appreciated if you had considered the UNFAIR advantages of those FAIR and VALIANT Kaurav’s before commenting on this issue. I have tried to list out some of the ‘advantages’ of those FAIR and VALIANT Kaurav’s over your adharmik Pandavs and their forces:

            -Bhishma Pitamah could chose the manner and time of his death, he was ‘invincible’ till he ‘laid down his bow and weapons’. With this UNFAIR advantage he was causing devastation on Pandav armies without himself getting killed. You have two options: to keep fighting him with his advantages and lose your entire army to him or neutralize his advantage of being invincible and being able to choose the time of his death. How do you do that?
            -Duaryodhana has chosen to fight Bhim in a Mace-fight with an UNFAIR advantage of having a body of ‘Vajra’, not affected by blows of Maces. How do you neutralize that?
            -Drona is their guru and most accomplished and powerful master of the martial art. How do you neutralize his advantages?
            -Karna’s death in the hands of Arjuna is one of the most misinterpreted episodes of Mahabharat. Not only you, a number of people feel apologetic about that. But did Karna not die fighting in the battlefield? Did he surrender or put-up his arms? Was he seriously injured and lying on the ground when Arjuna shot at him? Did he ask for a time-out in the midst of the battle when his Chariot got stuck in the mud? These are a few questions about that episode. And it would be right to comment on the manner of his death only after we consider all these aspects.

            Sir, these are the main reasons why I feel that I will not recommend your book to anyone. There are a few more reasons which further strengthen my resolve. On more than a couple of occasions you have said that the ‘Character of Yudhisthir’ is influenced by Ashoka and the Mouryan Empire. Then at the end of Chapter 4 you have commented, and I quote: “Had the Buddha been Arjun’s Charioteer rather than Krishna, the Mahabharat would have gone in a different direction”. Again, though you have quoted it from Romila Thapar’s work, you have not mentioned the context in which she had made this statement. It seems to be true yet hypothetical to comment like that. Why only Buddha, the outcome would sure have been different had there been anyone else in place of Shri Krishna. Mahatma Gandhi would have reacted differently and so would have Sardar Patel, Pandit Nehru or George Bush of America, for that matter. The outcome would have been different in each case. But if you are trying to imply that Mahatma Buddha would have handled the issue in a better manner than how Shri Krishna handled it, then the least I can say is that you know of Shri Krishna nothing.

            It is generally said that Lord Rama was an ideal king and Lord Krishna is more pragmatic and that to know Krishna fully you need to know Rama first. And Sir, you have not yet given any proof of your having known Lord Rama. I wish you read, study and understand the Character of Lord Rama first and then re-read Mahabharat and study the Character of Sri Krishna again. And then if you write a sequel to this book, I am sure, that will be a better book and even you would see the difference.

            And then maybe I would consider recommending that book to others.

Sincerely,

Raj

God did not create the universe: Says Stephen Hawking

Dear Mr. Stephen Hawking,

Recently I came across this news report on the net where they have referred to your latest book and quoted you having said that God did not create the universe.

By Michael Holden – Thu Sep 2, 9:08 am ET

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

Sir years ago I read your book  "A Brief History of Time," and then followed your articles and statements on black holes, big bang, gravity etc etc.

Though at times I did not fully understand your statements yet I always accepted those statements as authority having come from you. The underlying presumption was that you ARE an ‘authority’ on the subjects you write and you are making the statement after due research.

However Sir, I must confess, as I read this report on your latest book I have had a change of opinion and now for the first time I have felt a need to cross check your statements and search for corroborations from other writers or physicists. For the first time today I have felt that No… I don’t have to accept everything only because you have said it, I must evaluate it myself and then only should I decide whether to accept it or not. Your this statement has really affected your credibility. And that too adversely.

Your statement has given rise to a number of queries in my mind. Leaving apart the fact whether god did or did not create the universe, or even the basic question whether god exists or does NOT exist, the question on top of my mind is whether you believe in god or not ….? In your book if you had said that you do not believe in god it would have been a different thing altogether. God is a matter of faith and spiritual research more than it is a matter of ‘scientific’ research as we understand it today. You are well within your rights when you say you don’t believe in god. But when you say God did not do this… you create a doubt whether you are questioning the existence of God or that though you believe in god you are only questioning HIS capabilities. These are two different situations. One is about his being or not being and second is a position where you accept his presence but have doubts about his powers and capabilities.

For this query lets first see what if you really do not believe in existence of God. In that case I don’t think there is much to discuss. You have written so much about Big Bang. Its all fine. But what if I say I don’t believe in Big Bang, that it is all BIG BUNKUM and that nothing like Big Bang ever happened… what do you do? Nothing. The matter ends. So in case you don’t believe in god there’s nothing one can do. But in that case my only request would be that considering your position it would be better for all of us, and you as well, if you concentrate on your field of physics and refrain from making such abstract remarks on other fields. No one expects and will appreciate a lecture from you on matters of faith or spiritualism as you have not so far established yourself in those fields. Thus if you don’t have faith and understanding about god your this particular statement in your book becomes irrelevant and might even be considered a publicity gimmick by you like many other authors have done in the past.

On the contrary if we consider that though you believe in god but all you want to convey is that god has his limitations and has not  done all the things generally attributed to him, then it is entirely different situation. Then it becomes a matter of one’s personal understanding and interpretation of the things spiritual. You have stated that, and I quote, “the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics”. Very fine. Who can deny it. It is as much true as the fact that all evolution is an inevitable consequence of the laws of biology. All births and deaths and health and disease and happiness and sadness et al follow one law or the other. Either it is physics, biology, chemistry or anything else. It is not a matter of debate at all. But sir, frankly speaking the idea I get from your statement is that by reiterating the importance of the law of physics in Big Bang, you are deliberately trying to deny someone else his due. Unless you had a motive behind it, you would not have made such a statement about something so obvious.

Reading your statement as a whole, ‘God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics’, I get an idea as if you are saying , “Mom did not cook the meal and the dinner on my table was an inevitable consequence of the effect of heat on raw food…..”. How true. How true Mr. Hawking, yet how incomplete and how immature, and how insensitive. Purely from the periscope of your so called science yes, it is physics, chemistry or biology at work. Mom’s preparation of food and to put it in oven was an inevitable consequence of the laws of chemistry working in her brain releasing those chemicals at the right time to make her prepare the meal mechanically for her biological offspring. It is as simple in your view.

However, sir I assure you there is a lot more to it than mere chemistry and physics. We would be well advised not to speak of that unless we understand that fully. If we ignore this basic thing I don’t think we can do our mom or the god any harm but we sure stand to lose our own reputation and credibility.

Please think about it.

Sincerely,

A believer beyond physics, chemistry and biology.

First Impression: The Last Impression?

            It is said that the first impression is the last impression. Is it true? Is it true for all times? I have my doubts. Yes, first impression has a great bearing on how the things will progress subsequently but can it really be the last impression? Can there be no change. I feel that would make all inter-personal relationships, all interactions meaningless. At first instance whatever inputs were available an impression was formed… but with flow of more inputs that impression will get modified. Well.. if there are no more inputs thereafter then yes, may be that first impression would never change. But that would be because of the lack of any inputs thereafter and not because that was a ‘permanent’ impression ab-initio. Impressions do change. Perceptions do change. And it is all because of further interactions and exposures. But at the same time it is also true that impressions do not change with every new interaction or input. Registering a new impression or input on a blank slate is pretty easy but to edit that and replace one input with another takes a lot of efforts. And well most of the time we falter here. Newer inputs in general are not allowed to change or modify the existing inputs without any compelling reasons or extra efforts. Probably that is the reason why one concluded that the first impression is the last impression.

            Unless there is a reason and effort that first impression might not change at all. So, even as it is true that one’s perceptions keep on changing based on the inputs and one’s own understanding of those inputs, there is slight practical truth also in the saying the first impression is the last impression. In a majority of cases indeed there might not be reason and an effort enough to register a change. Without an effort, from either end, the first impression might as well turn out to be last one. But then it would be more by default then by design. When we come across someone for the first time a lot of mental processing starts and we register first impressions about a number of things related to his personality. And next time when we meet, that ‘page’ in the memory opens and we see those impressions already there so there is no more processing of the type there was on earlier occasion. We might, at the most, notice a few missing links but will always assess them in relation to the previously noted impressions. Anything not in conformity with the already registered impressions might not get registered here unless there is a conscious and deliberate attempt or the new input is strong and powerful in itself that it gets registered automatically deleting the old files. Thus though the first impression is NOT the last impression, it might end up to be the last impression unless that conscious effort for change is there.

Akram's comments about our bowlers

“Some of the young Indian players (bowlers) are softies and spoilt…..” said Wasim Akram. And true to his position as Captain of the Indian team, Dhoni defended the youngsters. Fine. But then some of the press walas, including Pronnoy Roy of NDTV also questioned Akrams logic and came to the defence of the “Indian players”. Did we need that type of reaction from NDTV or any other channel for that matter. Roy even asked Akram whether he would prefer speed over inaccuracy. Well I think it is what we should be concerned about. Can't we have both? Speed as well as accuracy? Can or should NDTV question Wasim Akrams credentials the way Roy 'tried' to grill him over the issue? I feel NDTV would do a great disservice to Indian cricket if it tries to play down Akrams comments just because they have come from a foreigner. Of all the foreigners I think Akram is the last cricketer whose sincerity to cricket or integrity can be doubted. He is one Pakistani player, unlike Waqar and many others, who commands respect of his opponents be they from India, England or any other country.

His observation about fast bowlers is very valid. He was referring to fast bowlers and they really lack ENDURANCE if not enthusiasm. Physically most of them are not able to sustain it over two or three series. They are prone to fatigue, fractures and sprains. There is nothing wrong if Akram has commented on this issue. We should take it sportingly in its true spirit.

But at the same time Akram should also not exceed his brief. He should refrain from making suggestions like ‘Dravid should be recalled for ODI’s’. Let it be left to the selectors. And if at all Pronnoy Roy should have grilled him on this issue.

To tweet or not to tweet

To tweet or not to tweet that was the question. And it was a big question. Orkut, Facebook, Hi5, Twitter are realities of the day and I could not help but to ponder over the issue- To Tweet or Not to Tweet. One may have one’s views on it but one may not ignore it. First there was the e-mail to be in touch. Then came the messenger followed by those social networks. And don’t forget the SMS, MMS and short lived Pagers. And now here is the twitter. These are all different platforms and have there own merits and demerits. All these social groups are different from e-mails and chats and now this twitter is even different. It has features of an SMS, a Chat, a social group and even an email to a certain extent…. Still it is different and has a character and utility of its own. It too has its merits and demerits just like any other thing on the net. Some very good things about it and still others not so good.

One demerit of it, just like that of almost all other social networks, is the risk of it getting addictive. One feels compelled to go to the site and connect to the group to see what is new, what is in response, and what is NOT there. A gap of say 4-5 hours, at times seems too much. The moment one, addicted to these sites, gets access to the net, one feels the compulsion to visit the particular site and read mails, chat or tweet whatever. At times it might not be required or desirable still one gets connected. It is bad. It is bad with other social groups and it is bad with twitter. The work suffers, the efficiency suffers. Though the sense of urgency in twitter is not that much as it is in a chat still it is there and one has to overcome it.

Secondly at times one may react impulsively and then that is there for all to take notice. One may at times make a remark that may not go with one’s social or official position. It becomes difficult to differentiate here. Like a political remark in personal capacity is different issue but it may become AN ISSUE if made by a government official. Even if it is not made in official capacity. One needs to guard against such remarks. One such seemingly innocuous remark may turn out to be a big embarrassment. Ask Shashi Tharoor for his ‘cattle class’ remarks. On twitter it becomes difficult to separate an individual from his official or personal position. And then these records are for ever. Something unpleasant may prop up years later. Another point is that it emphasizes on small ideas or remarks without much scope of deliberations or explanations on this platform. In the long run it may add up to a collection of abstract thoughts without much relevance for the day. Though really speaking by nature it is meant for that only. It is just aimed at sharing instant news, views and happenings and not as a forum to discuss in detail and come out with a thesis.

These were some of the demerits of tweeting. On the positive side one may say that all these points mentioned above can be overcome and a few may in fact be used as a tool to share your views and news effectively and without committing much resources in term of time and money. Its one greatest advantage is sharing your thoughts with your group, or may be with the world itself, instantly. It is a very good medium for that. Earlier, and that includes before chats, blogs etc, etc, what all options did one have to air and share ones views? Hardly any. One had to write a letter to ‘Dear Editor’, send it through ‘dak’ and wait eternally. It might or might not reach the editor, then might or might not be chosen and might or might not be relevant by the time it reached the editor’s table and finally might or might not get published. Send a letter to an individual… again it might or might not reach or get read. In fact this reading or understanding part can not be ensured even now still one has better chance of getting a response now.

So I feel it is good to share your small news bits. At times you might not feel like informing all about a particular event yet you may want to share it with many in a nutshell. Twitter is a good avenue for same. One good thing is that it does not need your full article like in a newspaper report or in a blog. It just needs your small and crisp remarks on that. One may express whether one likes or dislikes something….. Whys and wherefores can be written in a blog in detail..  

So for now I am tweeeeeeting……..
http://twitter.com/rkbasatta