Is the term 'jat' Sanskritic in Origin?

Is the Term ‘Jat’ Sanskritic in Origin? Dr. S.S. Rana The people who are called, and call themselves Jats today are, no doubt, the most ancient Aryans, generally settled in north and north-west lndia. Many writers1 have tried to prove their antiquity through the antiquity of their clan names, inseparably from the label Jat. In most cases the emphasis has been on the label, ‘Jat’ presuming it to be of sanskritic origin. It is not necessary that if the people are ancient, their current label should also be equally ancient. But the temptation of tracing the label in sources, where it does not exist on the part of several amateur Jat historians, has led to great amount of confusion. The confusion has got worse confounded, especially at the hands of those who 0ver taken by their caste (label) patriotism have thrown to winds the regard for authentic historical facts and sound principles of research and linguistic investigation. In the case of several of such writers the label became more important than the people themselves. For them, ancient Sanskrit texts, particularly those of uncertain authenticity2 came handy to yield, mixed with some imagination, the desired crop. The most favourite and sought after ally in the otherwise very uncertain field has continued to be the Paninian text jaTa, jhaTa sanghAte. The text has been erroneously described as- sUtra of ashTAdhyAyI or a shloka or a phrase in the ashTAdhAyI, by most of such writers (who do not seem to do any thing with Sanskrit), with generally faulty Roman transliteration, giving scope for miscarriage of intent. The effort of some writers in claiming to be precise by citing the reference number (3.3.19) of the text sought to be quoted from the ashTAdhyAyI, leaves one looking for the originally cited text only to land into an enigma, since the text at 3.3.19 is entirely different viz. akartari cha kArake sanjnAyAm.Let us explain things: The ashTAdhyAyI is a work of eight chapters, each having four quarters, where each quarter contains a number of sUtras arranged in a linguistically systematic and meaningful manner. The sUtras, individually and many a times in combination of several sUtras by inferencorder, explain the formation of words of the Sanskrit language, as it was in Panini’s time. The sUtras deal with the raw material in the form of verbal roots (dhAtus) by adding sufixes to obtain nominal and verbal forms of words. Panini has identified and after appropriate classification put the verbal roots (dhAtus) in a separate compilation, called the dhAtupATha. Our two dhAtus are listed at serial numbers 305 (jaTa) and 306 (jhaTa- sanghAte) in the dhAtupATha with the simple meaning that each of the two is used in the sense of a cluster or a heap. The sUtra in the ashTAdhyAyI at 3.3.19 says that the suffix ghanˆ(having net value of ‘a’) comes after verbal stems when the sense of the root is denoted as having attained the completed state, e.g. prAsah, AhArah etc. However, the condition is that the (noun) word thus formed shall not be the one which can be used as an agent in the nominative case (in kartA kAraka).But our term jATa (if we take it as a Sanskrit term) can not be explained by the sUtra under reference, as it is very much used in the nominative case (kartA kAraka). Though words like jaTA (hair locks), jaTah (one having jaTA) or jaTila (one having intertwined hair ) can be explained by other sUtras,the fact remains that Panini has nowhere in his works mentioned the word jATa as such. If we wish to manufacture it retrospectively as a Sanskrit word of ancient ages Panini’s sUtras do not warrant it, the ancient Sanskrit literature does not reflect it. It is a pity that even some people, well versed in Paninian grammar have failed to notice the true meanings of the references made. Bhim Singh Dahiya and Hukam Singh Pawar sound parochial in insisting that the term jATa has been deliberately obliterated from the ancient Sanskrit literature by the canny brahmanas for ulterior motives. Do they mean to say that the whole of sanskrit literature has come from brahmana pen? And if one were to accept Dahiya’s thesis that almost all ancient rulers of India were Jats, how come that they as patrons of learning could have been so ignored by their court poets and other contemporary writers. Paradoxically both of them go on tracing the term jATa in various ancient Sanskrit texts where it does not exist. Further, it may be pointed out that Panini leaves little scope for mixing up of the meaning of the words ‘sangha’ and ‘sanghAta’, the former meaning an association of persons working for a common purpose, a corporation, a political unit or a group of living beings (prANi samUha), while the latter standing for a heap, cluster, accumulation, grouping, collection etc., generally of inanimate things, and of living entities, only when they give a monolithic appearance (aprasRitAvayavah samUha, sanGhAtah)like a herd of sheep (avikaTah).It may also be mentioned here that Panini has listed as many as twenty dhAtus meaning sanghAta, all of which lead to the formation of nominal stems which convey the meaning of group, heap, combination or cluster of inanimate things3. We also have a long history of the use of the two words i.e. sangha and sanghAta in ancient sanskrit literature, giving two distinct meanings as explained above4. Kautilya in his ArthashAstra makes the same distinction between the meaning of sangha and sanghAta5.Therefore, the attempt on the part of several writers in first assuming the term jATa to be of sanskritic origin and then trying to derive the same from the root (dhAtu) jaTa meaning sanghAta, and there after proceeding to construe it to convey the meaning of a political republic (sangha)is far fetched and untenable. B.S.Dahiya and Hukam Singh Pawar have imagined the term jATa in the word jATya listed by Yaska (of the 8 th century B.C.E.) in his etymological treatise Nirukta (I.14) among terms which had become obsure in their meaning with the passage of time. Explaining the term under reference Yaska states: “ jATya, ATNAro i.e. the term jATya means a wanderer (mendicant, presumably having matted hair). Both the above referred writers have gone far beyond this simple meaning, giving unbridled flight to their imagination. Dahiya has (hopefully, inadvertantly!) altered the very text ATNAro into jATaNAro to instantly obtain the desired result,i.e. jATa.This kind of argumentation is unacceptable. Hukam Singh on his part laboriously wades through a wide period of history, offering arbitrary and weird etymologies of the term, getting amusing at times. For sample, consider this: “jATa is called ATNAra because he has blister folds (ATaNa in modern Khadi Boli) on his feet.” This is neither good linguistics nor good history. Hukam Singh’s suggestion that the jaTA-pATha of the vedic mantras could very well be taken as jATa-pATha (i.e.a recitation arrangement done by jats) surely will send any one having an idea of the vedic recitation system, into splits. Dahiya’s penchant for marshalling Sanskrit and Prakrit texts, especially inscriptions in support of his thesis only reveals the inadequacy of his competencies in truly interpreting them. No right thinking person would like to go with him in tracing the Jats from demons like JaTAsura and bANAsura mentioned in the Brihatsamhita of varahamihira. Another favourite text of the proponants of sanskritic connection of the term jATa is the disputable reading ‘ajayajjarto hUNAn’in the sanskrit grammar of Chandragomin of the 6th century C.E. in the context of illustrating the use of Lang LakAra to denote an incident pertaining to immediate past The alternative reading ajayat gupto hUNAn is supported by majority of scholars. However, even if we accept the former reading it does not help as the arguments advanced are based on assumptions. It is proposed by a section of scholars like K.P.Jayaswal (on whom Dahiya and Hukam Singh rely) that the jartah (=jATa)here refers to Yashodharman, the Aulikara king who is referred to have defeated the hUNas in his Mandasor Pillar Inscription. But this suggestion comes under cloud with the discovery, in 1983, of the Risthal (near Mandasor) Inscription (of 476 M.S. = 515 C.E.) of his father (?) Prakashadharman. The inscription clearly states that the latter defeated the hUNas led by Toramana (Mihirkula’s father). In any case the grammarian Chandragomin of 5th century C.E. could not have referred to a posterior event in the life of Yashodharman of the 6 th century C.E.(vide his Mandasor Stone Inscription of Malava Samvat 589 (=532 C.E.). Moreover, deriving the term jATa from jarta arbitrarily, without putting the same in a chronological frame work remains merely a wild guess. We may also refer here to the futile suggestion of some writers who try to connect the vedic term jaritA with jarta, since the former simply means the singer of praise (of a deity).Equally untenable is the perambulatary derivation of the term jATa from jnAti via jnAta and jata offered by Thakur Deshraj in his painstaking work Jat Itihas. Mere incidence of the letters ‘j’ and ‘t’( no matter hard or soft) falling together in a term have led many a novices to jump to unwarranted conclusions, and ironically, welcomed in certain circles only offer examples of caste patriotism. But it becomes difficult even for a layman to stomach the assertion (as we find in the Devasamhita) that the Jats owe their origin from the locks of hair of the mythical god Shiva, or for that matter the hair tuft of Virabhadra was the source of the Jats. Mythology should not be mixed with historical investigation. The domains of the two are entirely different. So we have to reconcile and look for the antiquity of the people we are talking about on the strength of their clan names which occur in abundance in ancient sanskrit sources including inscriptions, and for the moment, delink the label jATa for its own history and provenance to be researched separately. Panini can be of great help as he has supplied us with a big list of gotras clan names) in his gaNa-pATha and also the sUtras dealing with taddhita suffixes in the apatyAdhikAra. Having no success in tracing the term ‘jATa’ in the in the sanskritic or Indic sources, we should proceed to explore the possibility of the term having something to do with the Arabic/Persian connections of a much later period than hitherto believed. We should also ponder over the question why the term jATa has continued to carry a pejorative sense since the times we have noticed it being used for (or restricted to) a community which has ever stood for justice and truth as the saying goes, as also the fact that the term Jat transcends the meaning of a caste and is used in a general sense for describing people, language, food, colour or things, albeit in a pejorative sense.   Notes: 1. Thakur, Desh Raj (Jat Itihas-in Hindi, 1934); Joon,Ram Swrup ( History of Jats, Urdu/Hindi-1938, English-1967); Dahiya, B.S.(Jats:The Ancient Rulers-1980); Pawar,Hukam Singh (The Jats:their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations,1993); 2. DevaSamhita –in Sanskrit, written in 18th/19th century,most likely commissioned to spread the absurd theory of the origin of Jats from the hair locks of Shiva. 3. Such dhAtus are: goSTa; loSTa;jaTa; jhaTa; piTa; piDi; pUla; mRIkSa; vakSa; SUla; SroNRI; SlokRI; STyai; styai; hudi ( of bhvAdi gaNa);and musta; pUla;pidi; Dapa;Dipa;ghaTa (of churAdi gaNa) aSUnga; aSa ( of divAdi gaNa). Many words coming from these dhAtUs conveying the meaning of cluster, heap or a monolithic combination can be observed in the modern Indian languages, e.g. goSA or goSTA;lothA; piTaka; pinDi;pULI or pULA etc. 4. Use of sangha for animates in the Bhagvadgita:bhutaviSeSa-sanghAn (11.15); mahrSi-siddha-sanghAh (11.21);gandharva-yakSAsura-siddha-sanghAh (11.22);avanipAla-sanghaih (11.26); siddha-sanghAh (11.36) Panini’s: references to Sangha can be seen in the sutras: 1.2.13; 3.3.42; 3.3.86; 4.1.1and 5.1.58. We get a sense from Panini that sangha and gaNa were synonymous terms.Yaudheya gaNa is counted among Ayudha-jIvi-sanghas. The use of the term sanghAta for inanimates may be seen below: upAya-sanghAta iva pravRiddha –Raghuvansha, 14.11;kshata-setu-bandhano jalasanghAta ivAsi vidrutah- Kumarasambhava, 4.6; tuSAra-sanghAta-shilAtaleShvapi- Kumarasambhava, 5.55; ….toyaugha-nikara-vrAtavAra-sanghAta-sanchayAh -Amarakosha- 5.39 Also see Mahabharata ( XII.298.17) for use of sangfhAta for a heap or cluster: sanghAtavAn martyalokah parasparamAShritah 5. i)Kautilya uses the term sangha in the sense of a corporation (sajAtAdnyah sanghah-2.1.32; deShasya-JAtyAh-sanghasya dharmo-grAmasya vA mithah-3.7.40; tena jnAti-kula-sanghAnAm-3.10.45; jAti-sanghASchhidreSu prahareyuh-9.6.72; deSha-grAma-jAti-sangha-mukhyeSu-13.5.9 and in the sense of a union of labourers (tena sangha-bhRitA vyAkhyAtAh -3.14.12.; and in the sense of a confedertacy of princes (mitra-sanghasya vA yo antasthAyI tam labhet -9.6.16; and in the sense of an oligarchy (sangha-lAbho danDa-mitra-lAbhAnAmuttamah-11.1.1; viShiSTa-balAbhAve sama-balaistulya-bala-sanghairvA balavatah sambhUya tiSThet-7.15.3; viSheSataScha sanghAnAm sangha-dharmiNAm cha rAjakulAnAm dyUta-nimitto bhedastannimitto vinASah..-8.3.64 ii) Examples of sanghAta used in the sense of cluster, heap or combination or group of inanimates in the Arthashastra: pratisargamekArtha-charyAm sanghAtam cha varjayet-5.4.10; aSTaproti sanghAtya…iti naipAlakam-2.11.100 and also`2.14.17,26,30 sanghAtavAn martyalokah parasparamAsritah (Mahabharata, XII.298.17) B -13 IDC Aptts, Plot-8C, Sector-11, Dwarka, NewDelhi-110075 M:9868573074