I find identifying who is and not a sikh a laughable idea. Whoever says they are sikh, they are. As for Jats and casts, excerpt from Khuswant Singh's History of the Sikhs, Volume 1, page 15.
"The Jat's spirit of freeom and equality refused to submit to Brahmanical Hinduism and in its turn drew the censure of the privileged Brahmins of the Gangetic plains who prnounced that "no Aryan should stay in the Punjab for even two days" because the Punjabis refused to obey the priests. The upper caste Hindu's denigration of the Jat did not in the least lower the Jat in his own eyes nor elevate the Brahmin or the Kshatriya in the Jat's estimation. On the contrary, he assumed a somewhat condescending attitude towards the Brahmin, whom he considered little better than a soothsayer or a beggar, or the Kshatriya, who disdained earning an honest living and was proud of being a mercenary. The Jat was born the worker and the warrior. He tilled his land with his sword girded round his waist. He fourght more battles for the defeence of his homestead than the Kshatriya, for unlike the martial Kshatriya the Jat seldom feld from his village when the invaders came. And if the Jat was maltreated or if his women were molested by the conqueror on his way to Hindustan, he settled his score by looting the invaders' caravans on their return journey and freeing the women he was taking back. The Punjabi Jat developed an attitude of indifference to worldly possessions and an instinct for gambling with his life against the odds. At the same time he became conscious of his role in the defence of Hindustan. His band of patriotism was at once hostile towards the foreginer and benign, even contemptuous, towards his own countrymen whose fate depended so much on his courage and fortitude."
:wink:
