Talk:Kshatriya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Archiving The Old Page

I have archived the old discussion page as the size was longer than is preferable. You can find it by clicking the above link. For furthur discussion, please post here. -- Shishir Rane 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Non Indian Kshatriyas

I have also added some more clans of Non-Indian Kshatriyas. -- Shishir Rane 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

=== Non-Hindu ===

There are some tribes in the Middle East and the Near East, who are the descendants of the original Vedic Kshatriyas, but who traveled west and settled there.

====Middle eastern tribes====

Main article: Mitanni

The Mitanni was a historic pre-Hindu empire in the Middle East, which preceded the Semitic Civilization. The descendants of the Empire have been Aramianized and now practice one of the Semitic religions.

====Persian tribes====

Main article: Persian Empire

Some tribes of Persia are believed to be of mixed Indo-Iranian affinities.

There are plenty of Indo-Iranian tribes in Persia. What evidence is there that any of them are descended from Vedic Kshatriyas?

The Mitanni were Indo-Aryan but again there is no evidence that they were the descendants of Vedic Kshatriyas. According to J.P. Mallory, the possibility that the Mitanni "wandered from India into Western Asia is readily dismissed as an improbably long migration, again without the least bit of evidence." And to call them "pre-Hindu" is misleading. It is more accurate to say that their pantheon retained several of the Indo-Aryan gods mentioned in the Rigveda. CiteCop 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New Comment

I fully agree with SK comment-this wikipedia is a joke.First Rajputs introduced their version of origin from fire and now marathas have come with their version of cock and bull stories.I neither agree with the content on maratha origin nor will buy the logic that all modern kshatriya are of recent origin- Mr Rane/Dudhane do you mean to say all past kshatriya disappeared from earth,where did they go-blown with the wind. DS

I think more discussion is required on kshatriya descendants issue.list is too long and contains castes which has no history of war.One is not kshatriya merely because names suggest it or someone is engaged in some sort of samskara.List banks too much upon Rajputs not being Aryans. DsHolywarrior 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon(24.193.79.118 )need to justify edits on talk page here.It is not fair to add some community or delete without citing reasons for it. DS Holywarrior 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

could someone please clarify a doubt i have about yadavs. In south india they are classified as sudras. I know that they claim kshatriya status as chandravanshis. they claim that Krishna was a yadava so they are also kshatriyas. but from my understanding of the Krishna story he was not born a Yadava. He was born a Kshatriya that was raised amongst the Yadavas in order to protect him from his uncle who was trying to Kill him. So he in not directly related to them. so how can the entire community claim to be Kshtriyas just because they adopted one kshatriya.?

Dear Anonymous There are no actual yadavas in south india.There are people who claim to be yadav on the basis of their descent through Yadava empires in south india who themselves were north indian settlers.Yadvas in north too were called sudras in census conducted by Francis Buchanan in 1883 who gave kshatriya status to Rajputs only(which is highly disputed now).Other censuses were free to all and they refused to elevate their caste status because of aspiration of getting benefits of remaining low.Another query of yours regarding Krishna.krishna was a yadav first and anything later .Many people because of ignorance and jealousies think he was brought up by yadavs only.Yadav king Vasudeva and NandGope were grandsons of Yadav king Devmidh.Deviki was the daughter of king DEVAK(younger brother of another contemprory yadav king Ugrasen who was the father of king Kamsa).On the basis of the facts Lord Krishna spent his childhood at his uncle NandGope's house.Hence child swapping theory itself can not create disputes about his parents named vasudeva and deviki being yadavs.Claim is not based on the facts you are saying.They do have unparalleled and unmatched record of ruling by many kings of yadava clan (whom mahabharata too declared to be extinct and buddhist scriptures tells us they were living in kaliyuga too).It is misleading,jealous and ridiculous claim to establish your sudra claim on yadavs.Because Yadavas are the most ancient Vedic kshatriyas of Indo-Aryan origin and they have been known for their mystic knowledge and power. If you have even little knowledge of Hindu religion and culture you will be appreciated to remember that No scripture till date has called them so.If you have one to name you will be appreciated.Yeah chandravanshi claim is flawed I too think they are neither chandravanshi nor suryavanshi they are simply yaduvanshi.Some scriptures called them chandravanshi because of their proximity to kurus.Another Flaws and Fraudulent claims are mostly from communities who divide themselves among both.One such notorious ones are Rajus.Could you plz throw some light on their shady claims I do have as little knowledge about them as you have about yadavs.Cheers. DS

DS I agree with you people who claim to be belonging to both suryavanshi and chandravanshi are really notorious.I see only Marathas listed in that category are having war history ,perhaps Rajus too have but others like Khatri and many others don't have any war history nor they are counted among Martial races of india.Particularly Khatris are known as mercantile caste.There should be some logic for claiming kshatriya status.

Kshatriyas are Sudras

You know i was shocked when i read in a book that the Brahmins never accepted any other Kshatriya clans but Rajputs as Kshatriyas. They say that in the Kali Yuga there are only Brahmins and Sudras. No wonder the Marathas, Nairs, Reddys etc are called Sudras. Mad tho

Most of these Brahmanas were sidelined during Budhhist era and they started siding with Mlechhas during Islamic era/Post Budhhism,declaring Kshatriya to be extinct.Later these Mlechha claimed themselves to be Brahman/Kshatriya.Holy---+----Warrior 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the title of "dhangar" as part of Kshatriya communities , since the related wiki link to them ambiguously state that they are shepherds and peasant which is not equal to kshatriya--Son of Kurus 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But according to manushmriti cowherding is permissible for both Kshatriya and Brahmanas it only prohibits ploughing and this too is contended by other evidences.Your removals should be reverted.Holy---+---Warrior 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior/DS, you are wrong to confuse innate nature or virtue with profession. A Kshatriya is innately a warrior, and his profession can vary from aristocracy to lately having taken up farming.

"Gavisti literally means "A search for cows". The basic social unit in those days of a pastoral society was the Gotra which literally means a cowpen or cow shed. The Kshatriyas of every tribe had the function of not only acquiring cattle reared by other tribes, but also protect the cattle that belonged to their own tribe. Herein could lie the origin of the concept of Kshatriyas being protectors of cows." This is different from the innate nature of the peasantry, raising animals to trade and profit from them for sustenance. ~Suryabandhu

MAn is the whole India full of kshatriya's

Kayastha aint kshatriya they are claimed descendants of chitragupta ( the accountant of lord yama) with all due respect they aint kshatriyas.

Yadavs are gavalas they aint kshatriyas traditional more like modern age OBC gangstas.( debatable will check and let you know)

Sakas don;t include jats and tarkhans and lohabans

Lohabans desecndant claimed of LUv. Definetly not sakas. Saka is a small region in Iran sistan couldn;t have possibly influenced such diverse ethnic tribes and Indian(south asians) fiercely marry within their own tribes/acceptable gothra/groups. Either a small no. of sakas from the small land of sakas mass raped and killed all males of a huge number of diverse ethnicites.

Few clans of MArathas are not traditional kshatriyas.( I'll give the list by next week)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokbagga (talk • contribs) .

Yes many tribes mentioned in the list are not kshatriya including Khatri,called lowest of men in Manu Smriti.Thanks but be bold to sign your rantings.Holy|Warrior 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

MY GOD........HOLYCOWARD IS STILL UP TO NO GOOD!!!.......Man, what is your deal anyways??? why can't you accept Khatris/Kshatriyas relationship.....the whole India knows it, the whole world knows it.......except you and a handful of others.......holycoward, does it not go to show that you are in denial, and are so pissed in life because Khatris are the true Kshatriya? Let me ask you something, what is your background? if the caste system still existed, what would you be? -JAY3

A very proud SHUDRA.But what about you.Should I cite manusmritiu again.Holy|Warrior 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make false quotes from Manusmriti. The Khatri/Kshatriya relationship is accepted. Plus, JAY3 please don't insult holywarrior by calling him "Holycoward". This is very bad manners and is a personal attack and a violation of wikipedia policy. He has a biased POV but I'm sure he is not a "coward".Hkelkar 11:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very likely that Khatris came from Kshatriya. Anyway HW, how can kshatriyas be shudras? They are two different castes in the Indian caste system. You can argue that kshatriyas no longer exist if you want to but you can't say they are the same as Shudras. That is very illogical. Please give an exact source from the Manu Smriti, like which chapter and line. There are many examples that contradict your argument. One is that non-Indian scholars even claim that it was written around 200 C.E. (see article). Also, the Rajputs existed in the Mughal Era and it is well known that they are part of the kshatriya caste. Hence after what you claim to be the Manu Smriti, "kshatriyas" still exist. Gizza^{Chat ©} 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Da Gizza I am not the person who has written the topmost unsigned comment.For Khatri - Kshatri relationship plz go thru Article Khatri its archieve page and earlier version;Manushmriti CH 10 citation phps still exist there.Otherwise you can also talk to uswer:diwyapanyc ; phps you know him well.Some vandals removed those citations.There is nothing like "well known" thing.What you believe may be wrong.Holy|Warrior 16:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about saying that comment was yours :). It still seems a bit unclear. Though this is a generalisation, Khatris are overall fairer than the average Indian because most people from Punjab have fairer skin. It is also known that Sudras have darker skin than Brahmins and Kshatriyas as they were the original inhabitants of India whereas the Brahmins and Kshatriyas were the Aryans. How can a relatively fair skinned ethnic group be part of a dark skinned, exploited caste? Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We cannot decide one's ancestry based on skin color (particularly in Indian context); for that purpose we should analyse anthropology.Anthropologically not everyone called Shudra are of darker skin.Next,in south India highest order of Brahmins tend to go blacker(raising serious question on your perception that Brahmins were originally white/aryan).there are roughly two kinds of indo europeans Aryan descent and scythic descent.Not everyone from scythic descent had chance to become Kshatriya though they were as fair as their Kshatriya brotherens.Holy|Warrior 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing the Agnivanshi section

I have taken out the italic sentence from the article: -Although the Rajputs are far from being a homogenous race, recent Genetic & historical studies done in India have yielded evidence of the Scythian roots of Rajputs [1]. By the tenth century, Post-Gupta Kshatriya rulers of northern and central India also adopted the term Rajputs and were responsible for the continuity of administrative style and coinage of the preceding period[6].-

The main reason for the removal being that a non-published book by a non-existant author with random and suggestive data from 5 books[2] (also from an ambiguous website) should by no means be considered as 'Recent Genetic and Historical studies in India'. I have seen this website for many years, and as I am from Rajasthan, I rather doubt the existent of the so called 'Rajasthan Liberation Front' , of which the webpage is said to be affiliated, which is the reason why I raised the issue. Regards, Maharaj Devraj 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Plz cite policy violation regarding this citation.It rests on work done by renowned researchers.Wikipedia accepts primary,secondary and tertiary sources too.Regards,  HW  09:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Still I agree with Devraj.Even citation does not say so.Assuming such is WP:NOR OR and wordings should be changed.I would like Devraj himself to take initiative. HW  09:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation is back with changed wording.Plz discuss it here. Ikon |no-blast 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

=I think the new wording is much better . Ikon |no-blast , should be fine as long as it conforms to Wikipedia's standard of academic integrity. Devraj Singh 09:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Potential edits for the Kshatriya page

Hello,

I had posted the following information earlier but it seems that Ikon... does not want anyone to discuss it here. It is interesting to observe that when I wanted to discuss these issues at the Yadav page, he removed it from there saying that Kshatriya page is the right place for it. I don't know if there is a policy to deal with such issues.

I am new here so I might make some mistakes, they will not be deliberate. My objective in presenting the following info is to edit the list of castes listed under Kshatriyas. Based on research, I find the list incorrect. I am starting with Yadavs, but will continue to refine it further.

I am presenting the following information with the objective of asking the interested people why should Yadavs be included as Kshatriyas when all evidence suggests they are not? If our discussion here convinces all that they should continue to be there, then it is great, if not, we should start the corrections.

Following are some references from published journal articles that clearly say that Yadavs are not Kshatriyas. In your replies/comments, please provide proper reference as I have provided, and we can all learn. For those seeking conspirecies, my interest is only academic, and let us keep only well researched and referenced info in public domain. I do not agree with a lot of it, but making/creating stories is not the right way. If you don't like something a published articles says, then the only way to deal with it is to write and publish yourself, and then refute the article you disagree with, and not just claim that it is wrong. By the way, I hate the caste system as it exists today, but that is my personal preference. I saw the list of castes under kshatriyas here and decided to post these. enjoy.

For Ikon.., please allow others to discuss issues, it is arrogant of you to make decisions about what can and cannot be discussed on a page. You are entitled to your views only, until authorized.

1) A New Demand for Muslim Reservations in India

Theodore P. Wright, Jr. Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 9. (Sep., 1997), pp. 852-858.

At the time of publication of this article, Prof. Theodore P. Wright, Jr. was Professor Emeritus, Political Science Department, State University of New York, Albany.

“the commission had recommended and V. P. Singh ordered the extension of 27% reservations to OBCs defined in terms of Hindu subcastes, generally of Shudra varna just above the untouchables in ritual status.” Page 855.

Please note that Yadavas are part of the OBC castes.

2) Exploration in Caste Stereotypes

Gopal Sharan Sinha and Ramesh Chandra Sinha Social Forces, Vol. 46, No. 1. (Sep., 1967), pp. 42-47.

Authors belonged to Patna University, India, at the time of this article.

Classify Ahir as backward caste, different from Forward castes that includes Rajputs and Brahmins

3) Is India Becoming More Democratic?

Ashutosh Varshney The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 2000), pp. 3-25.

Author was (at the time of publication) an Associate Professor of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

“Weighted down by tradition, lower castes do not give up their caste identities; rather, they “deconstruct” and “reinvent” caste history, deploy in politics a readily available and easily mobilized social category (“low caste”), use their number to electoral advantage, and fight prejudice and domination politically.”

“In the 1980s and 1990s, a southern-style plebian politics has rocked North India. The names of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Yadav, Kanshi Ram, and Mayawati – all “vernacular” politicians who have risen from below—repeatedly make headlines. They are not united. Indeed, substantial obstacles to unity, both vertical and horizontal, remain. Vertically, though all lower castes are below the upper castes/varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas), there are serious internal differentiations and hierarchies within the lower-caste category. And horizontally, even though caste system is present all over India, each caste has only local or regional meaning, making it hard to build extralocal or extraregional alliances. Thus, horizontal mobilization tends to be primarily regional or state-specific, not nationwide.” On page 6

“Technically, the term OBC incorporates two different disadvantaged communitites—Hindu and non-Hindu. Of these, Hindu OBCs are the low castes whose traditional social and ritual status has been above the ex-Untouchable scheduled castes, but below the upper castes (figure 1). Hindu OBCs overlap mostly with the Sudra varna of traditional hierarchy, a category consisting mainly of peasants and artisans.” Page 8

“Bein mostly sudras, the OBCs have faced many social and economic disadvantages, but the fit between the two categories – OBC and Sudra—is not perfect. If one goes by the all-India classification of castes, a national level abstraction, the picture that emerges is unable to capture the many regional variations in dominance and power. Sociologists and social anthropologists construe the term Sudra to include, but the category of OBC on the whole excludes, the so-called “dominant castes”: the Jats, Reddys, Kammas, Patels, Marathas, and others. The notion of “dominant castes”was coined by M. N. Srinivas (1966) to specify those groups which, in a ritualistic or formal sense of the all India caste/varna hierarchy, have been termed sudras, but the ritualistic usage of the term is vacuous because these groups have historically been substantial landowners and rather powerful in their local or regional settings. In any realistic sense, the term Sudra can not be applied to them, nor are they typically included among the OBCs.” Page 11

Note that even the dominant caste mentioned are not mentioned as forward caste. Plus these cannot be termed as sudras and are not included in OBC category. Yadavas ARE included in OBCcategory. OBC category is shudra category.Can you show it??.It is violation of WP:NOR.  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

“… new distinctions are also getting institutionalized between upper OBCs, such as the Yadavas, and the lower OBCs, such as the Telis and Lodhas. These differences have already undermined the OBC cohesion evident at the time of the Mandal agitation on the early 1990s.” page 12

“By an large, the category of OBCs is equal to the Sudras minus the dominant castes. The dominant castes in northern and western India—the Jats and Patels, for example—have in fact opposed the extension of reservations to the OBCs.” Page 17 author presumes dominant caste and OBCs are shudra BY AND LARGE -- a dubious word which does not tell who are and who are not.  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

“The upper OBCs, such as the Yadavs, are indeed peasant proprietors and also beneficiaries of Zamindari abolition. Much like the Patels in Gujarat at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Yadavas have achieved sufficient upward mobility since the green revolution, and have used their numbers to considerable effect in a democracy. Once can indeed say that they are fast becoming a dominant caste, and will in all probability be viewed as such in the coming decades. But the lower OBCs, such as the Lodha, Pal, Mali, Teli and Maurya, are not as privileged.” Page 17. Author does not mention anything about OBC and your shudra assumption. Again you violates [WP:NOR]]  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

4) Sanscritization vs. Ethnicization in India: Changing Identities and Caste Politics before Mandal

Christophe Jaffrelot Asian Survey, Vol. 40, No. 5, Modernizing Tradition in India. (Sep.-Oct., 2000, pp. 756-766. Copyright 2000 by the Regents of the University of California/Society.

See page 762… “In North India, while caste associations took shape at an early date, they did not prepare the ground for a resilient ethnicization process but operated within the logic of Sanskritization. These shortcomings are well illustrated by three cases chosen among the Shudras and the Untouchables, respectively the Yadavs and the Chamars.

Shudras here refers to British Census Record, author does not challenge their claim.Though details are of fringe importance and focussing too much on it is again violation of WP:NOR.  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Yadav Movement: Ahirs as Kshatriyas

The “Yadav” label covers a great number of castes. The common function of all these castes was to take care of cattle as herdsmen, cowherds, and milk sellers. In practice, however, the Yadavs have been spending most of their time tilling the land. While they are spread over several regions, they are most specially concentrated in the Ganges Plain where they represent about 10% of the population. They for one of the largest castes in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh with respectively 11% and 8.7% of the population. The Yadavs reportedly descend from immigrants from Central Asia, the Abhiras, who established kingdoms in North India. From the 1930s onward, intermarriage-based fusion was made easier when North Indian Yadavs started to migrate from their villages to towns. But this ethnicization process remained largely unachieved because the Yadav movement remained imbued with the ethos of Sanskritization. The Yadavs lent themselves to such Sanskritization because they had a special relation to the Hindu religion, owing to their association with the Arya Samaj. The Arya Samaj is an association too often regarded as purely Punjabi and confined to the urban middle class. The Arya Samaj did not hesitate to mobilize lower caste people against the Brahmins, but not against the caste system. In fact, they followed the path of Sanskritization. Their campaigns were especially successful in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The “Aryanization” of the Yadavs. The propensity of the Yadavs toward Sanskritization is evident from their attempt at “Aryanizing” their history. The first history of the Yadavs was written by Kithal Krishna Khedekar in the late 19th century. This work was finalized by his som, R. V. Khedekar, and published in 1959 under the title The Divine Heritage of the Yadavs. The book situates the origins of the Yadavs in the Abhiras and then the ruling dynasties mentioned as Yadavas in the Mahabharatas and the Puranas. Most of these caste histories try to demonstrate that Abhiras were of Aryan origin and that Rewari is the last representative of the Abhira kingdoms.

This narrative certainly aimed at giving the Yadavs an ethnic identity, but the ethnicization process was embedded in the Sanskritization logic. In contrast to the lower caste leaders of Maharashtra and South India—who tried to invent a bahujan or a Dravidian identity that presented the Shudras and Untouchables as the original inhabitants of the country against the Aryans—the Yadavs claim that they are Aryans in order to enhance their status within caste society. Thus, Yadavs, largely because of the influence of the Arya Samaj, remained imbued with the ethos of Sanskritization. It prevented them from developing an emancipatory identity like in the West or in the South.”

Author again does not make any claim of challenging their views.The reference is regarding their attachment with arya samaj.Nothing more than that.  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Further continues to write,

“The untouchables of North India were also exposed to the influence of the Arya Samaj at the turn of the 20th century. This is evident from the Jatav movement in Uttar Pradesh. Jatavs are Chamars, Untouchable leather workers, who claim descent from the Yadu race, which, allegedly, entitled them to be known as Kshatriyas like the Yadavs, and once again the Arya Samaj missions were responsible for propagating these views. They were especially successful through their schools among the sons of Agra Chamars who had become rich thanks to the Leather trade. They were drawn by the teachings of Swami Manikchand Jatavaveer (1897-1956). He was one of the founders of the Jatav Mahasabha In 1917. He was a teacher in an Arya Samaj-run school of Agra. Together with Sunderlal Sagar (1886-1952) and Swami Prabhutananda Vyas (1877-1950), they all preached moral reform, vegetarianism, teetotalism, and temperance for achieving a cleaner status. That was also the first inclination of Swami Achhutananda (1879-1933), who was to become a major Untouchable leader of the united Provinces in the 1920s-30s.”

5) The Affirmative Action Debate in India

Dharma Kumar Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Mar., 1992), pp. 290-302.

At the time of publication, the author was a Professor of Economics in the Delhi School of Economics.

Regarding the Mandal Commission report, the paper says,

“The procedure followed for the calculation of the proportion of OBCs in central government employment was even worse. The commission’s secretary wrote to central government offices asking them to state the number of OBCs employed, using two criteria. First, the employee, if Hindu, should not be a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya (the three upper castes broadly defined). Secondly—and this is crucial—the employees father or grandfather should not have studied beyond the primary level.”

In the paper, citation is provided from the Mandal report. Note that the Yadavs are ruled out as Kshatriyas, otherwise they would not be included in the OBC group.

The report makes no comment on Yadavas . Again violation of WP:NOR.BTW who are Kshatriya????  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

6)The Distribution of Selected Castes in the North Indian Plain

Joseph E. Schwartzberg Geographical Review, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Oct., 1965), pp. 477-495.

Presents the status of castes from authoritative references and shows Rajputs as Warriors and landowners (Kshatriya occupation) and Ahirs as Cowherds and cultivators.

Do you mean this is enough to proove the statement that Rajputs are Kshatriya and Ahirs are mere Cowherds.BTW authoritive references has failed to produce such results so far. If you have present it..  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Says about the Ahirs..

“The Ahir, or Goala (go, cow; wala, person) as he is known in the eastern part of the study area, is, his name and reputation notwithstanding, more than a milkman, grazier, and breeder of cattle; he is a member of one of the largest and most widespread cultivating castes of India. ……In status they rank somewhat lower than the Kurmis and slightly higher than the Lodhs …”

I must say the statement is wonderful as such detailed gradation was never made by any source so far.Since no logic is provided , sd be thrown into dustbin.Hindu beliefs accept only four grades, nothing more than that.Not a useful citation for project hinduism.  Ikon |no-blast 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

7) The Rise of the Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt

Christophe Jaffrelot The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 2000), pp. 86-108.

this article aslo talks about Yadavas and their caste status, basically the same things discussed so far.

Again, the information in quotes is from the articles and not mine. It is QUOTED.

Shashis 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis

The user in question above has record of vandalism and trolling on Yadav page. He has been answered well on talk:yadav several times but still comes up with new logic broadly based on these assumption.

Kshatriya = Rajput, OBC = Shudra.Through The refs. (which are actually observations) he has presented he skews the view through many twisted arguments, which are violation of WP:NOR. I leave it to the readers on this page whether his arguments are worth entertaining. I had asked him to take this issue to this page because it relates many communities. He rather pasted it on two places, which may not be considered fair, and also violates WP:SPAM. Because of his anti-yadav paranoia, I chose to answer him there alone, which he considers, I rmvd it from here because of fear, which is ridiculous, because although I have been involved in discussion here, I haven't nominated any comunity (including yadavs) on this page, nor have I rmvd anyone. If anyone finds any major edit in article here, plz show me.  Ikon |no-blast 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

> Nice fancy words to impress, but lies! Please don't avoid the issue here by making false charges and providing irrlevant links, just answer. For the reader, please verify the claim made by this Ikon about my assumption of Kshatriya=Rajput and OBC=shudra, at least I cannot find these assumptions. The references are all from published articles in reputed academic journals. The authors are well known professors. Now, I am not arrogant enough to just say that they are all incorrect. THERE IS NO MORE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAN A PUBLISHED RESEARCH ARTICLE IN AN ACADEMIC JOURNAL. Also, the detiled paragraphs in the references are all in the articles, I have added my observations in one or two sentences, and that too very clearly, so any issues with the information that anyone has in essence is an issue with these research articles. I am not sure what better evidence to present. Ikon further says "his anti Yadav paranoia" when refering to my posting. If I understand correctly, then by that same logic, Ikon is anti Rajput? I do not believe so. We should all present evidence to help wikipedia develop into a credible source. Too bad if the information is negative about a group of people, it is not anyones job here to make everyone feel good. We owe it to everyone to present the correct information, if possible. If we are not sure, we can say so on the page. Also, please read the discussions that I have had with the Ikon. He has provided no reference/evidence, and has made numerous personal attacks, seems like he is bent upon presenting wrong information. Also, please compare the reference on the Yadav page with the ones that I have provided, and judge for yourself what is more credble. Shashis 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)shashis

Reply Ikon

Please go ahead and read my postings on the Yadav page discussion, all of them, and you will see for yourself what this person called Ikon ha been doing. I urge you to do so. He suggests that I hate Yadavs, I am surprised by this, and deeply offended. They are a great community, and I have known many, however, just because I like someone, I cannot agree to false propaganda about him/her no matter if it is positive or negative. I think we should present the right information.

Please read my postings carefully and you will know.

Ikon has not replied to any of the points that I have raised, and you can check this. It is in the public domain. Also, he/she has been levelling all sorts of accusations, some of whome I don't even understand as I am new to Wikipedia.

Like I have said, let us all share good references, and put here whatever is right. :)

By the way, all the references that I have provided are from PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN REPUTED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. PLEASE VERIFY TJIS AS WELL before you trust me or any other person. I will wait for some more time.Shashis 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)shashis

Reply

Plz tell me if these sources are less credible.

Abhira referred as Brahmin

,Abhira ruler of Somnath fighting against Mahmud,ref of Abhira as kshatriya Abhira are mentioned as Kshatriya in Mahabharata and were a very important part of Chakravyuha made by Dronacharya , the man who allowed only Brahmins and Kshatriyas in his army. All the sources mentioned by sashi does not at even one place says Yadavas are shudra.He makes many twisted arguments to arrive at this conclusion. When abhira (to be called ahir later) themselves were called Brahmana, Kshatriya then the efforts to trace their shudra origin is exercise in futility, forget about yadavas who are equally part of Yadav - Ahir society.  Ikon |no-blast 10:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sashi's observations are based on census records, which we all know declares Yadava's as shudra, this is the very basis of them being in OBC list. However census records lacked consistency and were changed from one census to another, and are good for sociological research not history related one. Sociologists started using this term because Kshatriya , shudra ... terms are controversial, any back calculations to arrive at certain conclusion is bad, and is considered as unpardonable sin in sociological research. Ikon |no-blast 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY> Thank you for the references, and I am happy that we are moving forward. The first reference seems good, I checked the article. The remaining two are doubtful, and clearly not as credible as any published research article in an academic journal. The credibility of the first reference also rests on the references provided within it, which are themselves credible being from such published research. In short, there is only one good reference, the first one. Let us now get to the point. The existence of a group of people referred to as Abhiras is well recorded, and there are no issues in this. Who these people were is not clear. Some researchers refer to them as one of the invading tribes. The problem is the assumption that Abhiras are the modern day Ahirs. Please show us the basis for this conclusion. Like I have said before, similarity in names does not mean anything. Also, if one could show that Abhiras and Ahirs are the same, then we run into the problem of shwing that Ahirs are related to Krishna. I am very interested in learning and maybe our search for a common ground would reveal new interesting and credible info. it is considered likely that groups of people were accomodated into different classes in the Hindu Varna system, and movement up and down within the system was not unusual. Interestingly, rcent genetic research suggests that genetic variation within a caste group is much more than across groups. In essence this means that genetically, it is hard to argue that any caste group is homogenous and people from the same racial stock might be members of different classes. However, we need more researchon this issue before drawing conclusions and work is still going on Shashis 06:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)shashis

REPLY cont...> Ikon is mistaken when he/she says that my observations are based on census records. Such records are just one source. By the way, all the Yadavs in India have accepted these census records as true when they accepted being part of the OBC group. Just to refresh your memory, in compiling the list for OBCs, it was explicitly stated as a criteria that the groups to be considered for inclusion SHOULD NOT BE KSHATRIYA OR BRAHMIN, and only those who were not one of these were even considered. I am surprised that this is even an issue. There are numerous sources that say what I am suggesting based on the references. Besides the references that I have provided, there is the Imperial Gazette of India at the University of Chicago library, there is a published book on the topic of caste and society in the 18th-20th century in India by a faculty member at Oxford Univ. that also provided many other references. I can provide the exact book details if required, I have checked it. It is sold on Amazon.com. I would not be surprised if one can disprove the claims of many groups of people with supposed origin from a historical figures or mythological figures (such as Parasurama etc.). Tgis is because as groups of people rise in stature, they find a glorious link to enhance their status. Some such links are ture, others false. What I am suggesting is that we can see this process happening today with many groups of people such as Kurmis and Yadavs. The unfortunate thing for Yadavs is that we are living today when such transformation is going on. Had this been done many centuries earlier, we would probably accept Yadavs as Kshatriyas, given their current political power. Regarding the consistency of census records, Ikon says that they lacked consistency and were changed from one occasion to another. I would like him to show this lack of consistency in case of Yadavs. At least we will learn something new. Please show. In short, here are the issues now: (1) show that Abhiras are Ahirs, and that Ahirs are related to Krishna or any ancient Kshatriya figure/tribe. (2) the census records with respect to Ydavs/Ahirs have indicated that thye are Kshatriyas. So far I have only seen similarity of names, and no other evidence. Contrast this with numerous references that I have provided. Note that all the references that I have shown say that Yadavs are Shudras, or a notch above that. Finally, Ikon suggests again and again that I am presenting some far fetched twisted argument to prove my point. This is wrong. I have presented quotes from references and have left the judgment on the reader. I have not tried to really draw any conclusion so far, and have invited arguments for or against what is presented in the references. They are in enough details and really leave little to be added to. SO THE DETAILS ARE FROM RESEAR ARTICLES, NOT MINE. I have added my point of view, but this is only until I learn something new, I am open minded. So far the weight of the evidence supports Yadavs being Shudras. Shashis 06:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)shashis

Re ----> I think you sd show Ahir and abhir were different, all sources and historians agree that they are same. BTW Abhira were cowherd, warriors and kings.If you accept manushmriti and tatva philosophy , then they are Kshatriya of very high grade may be just below brahmana. As per manushmriti 1)Fusion between two varnas is legal only when father is of higher origin and mother is of lower one and child will get varna higher to mother and lower to father.Further,

Abhira = Brahmin + Ambashta, Ambashta= Brahmin + vysya . Both are legal fusion and suggests abhira as kshatriya. As regarding census, most of Yadavas were illeterate during that time neck down in poverty, they could not even present their case well.Regarding arbitration case ---- they didn't pretend anything , they had frankly told they consider themselves descendants of Krishna and are bonafide Kshatriya known as Ahir/Gwal, a group claimed direct descent from Krishna called Krishnauth. They never ever claimed suryavanshi or chandravanshi stuff which are proven farce now , claimed by many other communities. Ikon |no-blast 08:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Re cont.-----> Regarding Krishna connection, Nanda called king of Gwals was also of authentic Yadava lineage, directly connected to Vasudeva sharing same grandfather, for clarity read on thru top of the page.Will you start another controversy whether gwals are real. Ikon |no-blast 10:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahir/Abhir link

Though the problem cited by Sashi is unfounded, still I wd like to forward him a proper research work on how Abhir becomes Ahir.Infact I have yet to come across any credible source which denies it.All notable Historians like H.A. Rose agrees and has not expressed even slightest doubt that Abhira are Ahirs (even the one sashi provides), so trying to distinguish the two is mischievous too.citation is Here. Ikon |no-blast 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY> I am happy that we are moving forward and learning. Please provide the details of the author of the reference that you have linked in your response where Abhirs are called Ahirs. I checked it and the place where it is mentioned, no reference is provided, only the author says that it is. The credibility of the reference rests on the authors identity and the publication where it is published, both are necessary.

I personally am open to the two being the same or different. If they are different, then we have something, and if they are the same, then also we need to discuss the approximate period of Abhirs coming to India and the period of Krishna's life. Both should match for Abhirs to be related to Krishna. Other wise the relationship can happen only if Krishna is proved to be borne after Abhir arrival. I am assuming that this information is available with the people who assume the relatiohsip between Krishna and current Ahirs and have put it here.Shashis 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

Rather I wd be happy if you proove them being different,till now I haven't found any citation to that effect, yes (and let me inform you) there are ppl who thinks Moslims called them, coz the term finds place in Moslim and christian scriptures too.However,references of Abhira in Hindu scriptures is most ancient one, and they were cowherds indeed.Yet, I must say their origin is not clear whether they originated in India or came from outside.Anthropologicaly they are also among scythic ppl but with most aryan features, Todd takes care calling them scythic with additional word even,adding they must have been a very ancient wave with the amount of aryan content in them.  Ikon |no-blast 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is this editor

One editor anonymously has done this edit [3],I can guess it but does he has courage to own it on Talk page!!!!!!!!!!!!!.Let us see.  Ikon |no-blast 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over Yadavs

It is a smart idea to dodge an argument by putting the responsibility of proving something on someone else. Let me expalin, I am not saying let us put Yadavs on this page, IKON or whoever has put it here is doing this without evidence. So let him or another who supports this inclusion prove it, I have presented my arguments and numerous references that suggest Yadavs are not Kshatriyas. I do not want to get lost and waste mytime on minor peripheral issues. In fact, I believe that at this time Ikon is not even sure what he is talking about. I want to focus on the real issue: Should Yadavs be included as Kshatriyas? Interestingly, while here ikon is arguing that Ahirs and Abhirs are the same and considering Ahirs and Yadavs as one group, on my talk page (see shashis discvussion page), he is suggesting that Yadav and Ahirs might be different. UNTIL SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED, YADAVS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF KSHATRIYA GROUP. I am waiting for a proper response with published credible references, not just same opinions. I want to keep Yadavs here, just show us some evidence. It is unfortunate that IKON is again trying to bully an editor. This type of act of his is what prompted me to enter this forum. Please refrain from this. Anyone reading our arguments is likely to agree with my presentation becasue I do not have a bias (at least I try not to have one to the best of my abilities), I have presented evidence, and I have given all the time for others to contradict me. No one has come forward so far. So what do you expect, it might be time to make changes. If someone goes ahead and makes changes, please respond to the changes using evidence, and do not revert back. IF YOU WANT TO REVERT TO THE OLD PAGE, THEN SHOW EVIDENCE supporting WHAT IS THERE ON THE PAGE. This is a fair way of moving forward. I do not have time at the moment to make careful changes, and I will wait until I have some free time. Meanwhile, others are welcome to contribute. Shashis 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

So you have proved that you don't want to improve, next time onwards I will slap you with warnings which may lead to formal bans. The friend of yours that 59.94... or 59.95.... IP is a very well known Troll and has vandalised pages in past , his deeds and his avatars are well recorded, I will simply ask you not to join him.What I had posted on your page was nothing but facts . Look below for clarifications.

1) Abhira and Yadava had been different is well recorded and accepted,I just told you Abhir= Ahir and Yadava= Abhir + Yadav = Ahir ok.I just showed you even Abhira were Kshatriya. 2) It is you who has failed to proove your point till now and has been almost testing the patience of the community with your rants. 3) If you are concerned about non kshatriya entries here, You must first delete Rajputs which looks dirty now for the loads of facts against them.  Ikon |no-blast 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

> REPLY> I don't care who the editor is, and neither do I want to join anyone. I do not like the way you address issues. For example, to the editor in question, you challenge unnecessarily about courage etc. Maybe the person is new and does not know the procedures. You can just revert the changes and repectfully ask the editor to discuss them first. Al least provide some more information and some proper warning. Remember that you have been wrong before, in my case where you had assumed I was somebody else and were very rude. Try to learn from your mistakes. Further, you have again behaved rudely with me. Please read your response to me and you will understand. I am not bothered about any act of yours. Please go ahead and "slap a warning" or whatever you want. It might be fun! In fact I look forward to an outside neutral intervention. That will save all of us time. Like I have said before, I am new here and do not know the procedure to have some sort of arbitration. I can learn, but I do not have time and inclination for it at the moment. If you believe that I am not arguing correctly and creating problems, then why don't you have something like a mediation? You know a lot about Wikipedia and it might save all of us time. You always talk about warnings, notice, Wikipedia policies etc, why not use your knowledge to save all of us some time? If a neutral authority agrees with your point of view, I will happily accept it here. How about it? Are you afraid? Let a neutral authority test both our claims. If my references are wrong, or if they have been mis-represented by me as you have claimed in your earlier posts, then I will withdraw from Wikipedia, otherwise you accept to withdraw. It is a challenge. Are you willing to accept it? I don't think so. I defnitely invite all readers to check the references that I have provided, they are open to the public. At least a reading will expose the games Ikon is playing. Regarding Rajputs and others being Kshatriyas, that is not what we have been discussing. If some group of people (no matter who they are) cannot be supported by evidence as being Kshatriyas, then they should not be here, for the sake of presenting right information. I am all for it. For that start a separate discussion. Here we are talking about Yadavs. Don't try to confuse issues again.Shashis 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

I think I have presented enf. proofs on this page, regarding Yadava being Kshatriya and Rajputs being Mlechha (sometime upgraded to shudra as concession), it is you who is afraid of loosing your position and have been playing game of sort.When I presented you the only surviving account on destruction of hindu temples (the Muslim Chronicles), you readily say these are doubtful because the next page was almost a nightmare for you. It talked about how captive muslims became Rajputs, like Shekhawat, the word itself means --- the incoming Sheikhs.You till now have not presented any credible source, it was I who told you Yadavas were called shudra in British census (perhaps you didn't know that either). I feel you don't have any expertise in any field and talks what fools and fanatics talk on any issue they take up.I do have the exact copy of Jafferlots citation and that wd proove how you misrepresent facts. Jaferlot just comments on post census scenario and nothing more than that, you selectively quoted him to obscure the tone . Your other sources are not credible, though authors are of obscure credibility, they don't support your claims whatever. Ikon |no-blast 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY> No matter how much noise you make. It is obvious that you do not want any neutral and qualified person to check our postings. I wonder why? Clearly we disagree. Both of us claim that we are playing games. I know you are and I am not. Your games are a reason why I am here. They are both entertaining and annoying at the same time. Keep them up! As a proof of your games, I have urged everyone again and again to check the history of our discussion starting at the Yadav discussion page, my discussion page, and then here. Your games will be obvious. I have said again and again, it does not matter to me what everyone else (like Rajputs etc) is. Let us focus on what we have been discussing. I have yet to see any credible reference provided by you in support of your claims. If you have an exact copy of something that proves I am lying as you suggest, why don't you accept my challenge? Let us ask/request for arbitration by someone who can check references and judge their quality. By the way, why don't you answer directly instead of dodging questions? SEND US YOUR REFERENCES THAT SAY YADAVs ARE KSHATRIYAS. I HAVE PRESENTED MANY REFERENCES, AND CAN PROVIDE MANY MORE THAT SAY YADAVS ARE NOT KSHATRIYAS, AND MANY SAY THEY ARE SHUDRAS. ALL THESE ARE REFERENCES FROM PUBLISHED JOURNAL ARTICLES BY WORLD RENOWNED PROFESSORS, AND NOT SOME POLITICALLY INSPIRED FEELINGS OF AN UNKNOWN PERSON. By the way, do not flatter yourself about the british census stuff. Most people who read about these issues are aware of it. There are many sources, including the census that say the shudra stuff. You are just not aware of them. I have pointed a few, but you want to ignore them. The census was not done in a vacuum. The Imperial gazette of the british government in India also says similar things. For those who might be new to this discussion, here is some simple support for my claim that can be verified quickly. The governemnt of India does not consider Yadavs/Ahirs as Kshatriyas. The Mandal commission only considered castes that were not Brahmins or Kshatriyas when doing their research. It was made explicit and can be easily verified (check the Mandal report or the published references that I have provided earlier in this discussion thread). The second, even simpler way to verify the lies of Ikon is to check the Yadav page version of about 3 months back. It had Vijayanagar kings listed as Yadavs. Interestingly, at that time the site for Vijayanagar kings themselves said that they were so and so (not Yadavs, had no connection to Yadavs) and provided research support for it. Even after a long discussion on this issue Ikon did not agree with the proof I had provided (so far still hasn't conceded ground). He kept on insisting that these Kings were Yadavs. However, look at the site of Yadavs now, from the list of ancient kings, the vijayanagar king's names have been removed (please verify), and many more have been added. The problem is, you work to provide proof that the information is wrong, he/she fights and resists and then even if things are corrected, he/she or others insert many more falsehoods. This is a problem that Wikipedia has to deal with. I think this is temporary. Sooner or later Wikipedia will realize the issue and allow only that content to be presented which has research support. To save time, you can just read the entire thread of our discussion where I have provided details with references. Ikon: Answer a simple question: If you are sincere about presenting right information on Wikipedia, why are you resisting so much on this issue despite so many credible references provided by me? You are trying to twist arguments, lie about postings, bully others, talk about unrelated issues (Rajputs etc) just to keep this false information on Wikipedia. Do you have some personal stake in this issue? It surprises and amuses me all the more. Regarding Rajputs, you will not be able to change the parameters of our argument with me. Please go ahead and start a new discussion on that issue. I don't care. If they are what you say, so be it. If they are not, then we will know. However, the key is to present good arguments and credible reference support. Good Luck! Shashis 16:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

Shasi's rants are now shifted to vijaynagar empire !!!! I don't know how it is related to present issue here. He again refers those records which directly or indirectly produces the same debunked census records.Perhaps Sashi is not even aware of what Risley, Crook and H A Rose (all British Royal Society anthropologists) and treated as authority on Indian caste System, says about this census record.Infact I have gone thru article by them (available on JSTOR) and they are even reluctant to use dubious caste designation, nor do they approve of the census records,explicitly saying these designations are not clear and hinders further research but are compelled to use it because of popularity of usage only.He again and again produces same Mandal commission reports which are based on Bristish Census Records, and No fresh research work.Point to be noted here, census were made free for all after sometimes and any body cd claim anything.So ppl who remained shudra in later census was by choice not compulsion. One can say why??? but reproducing same wd be far from truth, when we have loads of fact to the contrary. Ikon |no-blast 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY> So let us understand, the entire Yadav community, as you say, by choice claims shudra status (for whatever reasons), we know that the governement of India does not consider them Kshatriyas, the current well accepted Kshatriyas do not consider them Kshatriyas, the British did not consider them Kshatriyas, so many researchers (some of them cited by me) in their published documents do the consider them Kshatriyas, there is no published journal articles that we know of that considers them Kshatriyas, there is no reliable reference linking current Yadavs/Ahirs to Krishna who was a Kshatriya, there is no reference linking Yadavs/ahirs of today to any ancient Kshatriya dynasty, and yet brave Ikon fights on !!!!! (only yadav name is similar to yadu and decendents but that means nothing as other communities with stronger links to yadu claim the same, and in any case just names mean nothing, we have same names in may castes). Maybe you are right and I am missing something, pray explain O learned one :) Shashis 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

1)Govt of India does not recognise ANYONE as Kshatriya.2) No reseracher till now has shown any expresses interest in Kshatriya/Shudra stuff,3)Most reliable and authentic source is Mahabharata which recognises Yadava Abhira, Surasena and Many others as Kshatriya.Infact it was the clan name which exposed Rajput's myths as Kshatriya well recorded as Mlechha in scripture, yet Sashi fights on !!!!!!!  Ikon |no-blast 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS:----> Other communities with links to Yadu. Apart from Yadavas, no other community has any link to Yadu.There are some Rajputs whose roots are more close to sakas and the fact that they arosed from fire makes them same lot as other suryavanshi and chandravanshi arising from fire --- which actually means taking the clan name of illustrious dynasties. Is there any link which connects them with contemporary yadavs.Infact none Ikon |no-blast 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us keep focused on the discussion of Yadavs and why they should be included as Kshatriyas. If we include many issues, then we will never reach conclusion. You are welcome to start another thread about Rajputs, please go ahead. Do not attempt to include everything here so that we lose sight of the main point, if that is not your objective. It is not mine. Regarding status of different caste groups, you say that no one has studied it. This is factually incorrect. Please read the articles that I have referred earlier, there are many more. There is a book called "Hindu Castes and Tribes" that describes in details all the castes and tribes. There are others. Since you have access to Jstor, go ahead and check that to start with. Second, you say that Yadavs are the only ones linked with Yadu. Factually incorrect. No one has ever shown any link between the CURRENT Yadavs and the historical Yadu. This is the heart of the issue. The current day Yadavs have claimed links with the historical Yadu ONLY on the basis of name similarity. I will not go in circles, we have discussed this issue earlier on the Yadav discussion page. There are many communities with similar names, it says nothing about them being the same. I would be happy to accept Yadavs as Kshatriyas if you can provide reference (credible, research based) linking current Yadavs to Yadu. There is none to the best of my knowledge. There have been many rulers claiming links to acient Yadavas (all over India), the current Yadavs have no links to any of them. Please show it if there is. A lot of these things were symbolic. A claim of one or the other group as being a Yadava might have been symbolic (to link themselves with well regarded ancient dynasty and thus suggest that they possess similar virtues), there is always a possibility of this. Just as there is a possibility of the some of the groups among current Yadavs being linked to Yadu. However, such a possibility is alwasy there for all people. Remember Lucy? Not only the current day yadavs, even other groups within the OBC category claim links with Krishna and they have no obvious links with current Yadavs. Please read the references that I had provided earlier. I am simply suggesting that we should keep on this site what can be supported by credible reference. This is nothing against or for any group, this is a universal statement. It can only improve the quality of information on Wikipedia. Do you have anything against that? If not, the please present your references and do not make wild claims about things. If you cannot provide a reference, then let us agree on some issues. I do not believe that you have any reference because if you had any, you would have provided them on the Yadav page. I have discussed the quality or credibility of each reference on the Yadav page in the discussion there. Let us avoid making this a coffee table discussion.Shashis 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

Come to the point.Seems like sashi has many issues whirling around in his stomach, the most important one is Rajputs NOT being considered Kshatriya.Secondly,he has not provided any proof still counts them numerous!!!!! His so called proofs are full of flaws all being duly exposed, still his rants continues.I do not want to take up this Vijayanagar Empire controversy for now for I was not involved there even, though I do blv they were Yadava King. Sashi again and again shifts discussion on OBC classification ---- which has nothing to do with varna stuff. Directly or indirectly this guy tries to show Rajputs as Kshatriya, though the fact that they are not even remotely related to any kshatriya has been well exposed many times.Sashi has no explanation to till presented contradictions still he continues to bank on those articles.This attitude is not acceptable. Ikon |no-blast 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chhetri = Kshatriya

In colloquial Nepali, "Kshatriya" becomes "Chhetri".

Nepal also presents an interesting problem because indigenous Tibeto-Burman tribes such as Magars and Gurungs have conspicuous martial traditions and are disproportionately represented in Nepal's army and as mercenaries in the Indian and British armies. Yet they seem to be disproportionately underrepresented in government outside the military sphere. They are warriors but not rulers.

Some of these non-aryans claim Chhetri status and claim to have adopted this caste's dietary restrictions, e.g. not eating pork, beef, buffalo or perhaps even chicken. Some even wear sacred threads.

This runs counter to orthodox Hinduism in which aryans pretty much have a monopoly on the upper half of the pecking order. It's an interesting and dynamic phenomenon, quite different from the notion that caste is a static thing. And I hope someone from Nepal or anyone else with additional information will flesh this out so it can be added to the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.26.121 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Present Kings of nepal are Guhilot dynasty of Rajputs.Ancient rulers of Nepal Abhira called Abhira Gupta who were later replaced by Kiraits of mongoloid origin.Present kings status is only honorary  Ikon |no-blast 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Nepalese "Chhetri" and Punjabi "Khatri"

In response to the above editor's request, for what it's worth "Chhetri" and "Khatri" (Nepalese and Punjabi respectively) do NOT connote Kshatriya status in Indian society. According to the laws of Manu, the offspring of a Brahmin male and Shudra wife is to be called a "Kshettri" (as opposed to "Kshetriya") and because they do not have the warrior blood, is NOT allowed ANY administrative authority, but IS allowed to serve as a low-ranking soldier or civil servant. Chhetri and Khatri are regional varieties of "kshettri" and not "Kshatriya" (royal/blue blood Aryan warrior who is a member of the kingdom and entitled to rule i.e. hold high civil or military office or be the king).

There is an ENORMOUS difference between kshettri and Kshatriya, and this is the cause of much modern-day confusion. The Chhetris of Nepal and the Khatris of Punjab, as kshettris (i.e. not warrior race but higher up than a shudra) are NOT the Kshatriya people of Nepal or the Punjab. A vast number of common Nepalese have last name "Chhetri" and are kshattris. But the KSHATRIYA people of Nepal are for the most part the world-famous Gurkhas (i.e. the Gurung tribal people) and always have been (with the addition of Nepalese royal family who are a different type of Kshatriya). If you don't want to take the word of a Brahmin on this, or consult the Vedas, then go ahead and ask the royal family of Nepal. Or the British Army for that matter. Or the Gurkhas/Chhetris themselves. The physical appearance of a Gurung is very rugged compared to an ordinary Nepalese, and they have incredible strength and endurance. As GENUINE kshatriyas, this is native to their race. It is what they were made for.

The Kshatriyas of Punjab are ALL those who have genuine or proved Suryabansi and Candrabansi origin. This includes the Jatts (the largest group), the Rajputs, some other people like Gujjars, and 52-kula people and yet more. It does NOT include the mixed-blood half-Brahmin half-shudra "khatri" people, who can't show ANY link WHATSOEVER to the solar or lunar dynasties, and who were not among the 4 clans created from fire during the great yaaga. The Punjabi word for the Sanskrit "Kshatriya" is NOT "khatri" but "SHATRIYA"!!!

A kshettri is allowed to be involved in mercantile trade, but a Kshatriya is not.

Khatris i.e. Kshettris are known for being deceitful and cunning, which is perhaps the reason why they were differentiated from the equally intelligent but more honourable Brahmin caste in the first place. It may be interesting to note that pre-1857 (mutiny incident) in the days of the British Raj, the British were careful to AVOID recruiting khatris and preferred Brahmins and Rajputs to all others (even Sikhs). Brahmins and Kshatriyas have a sacred duty to work together to support each other.

This is the ORIGINAL law and in pre-British times even the kings and emperors had their lineages open to extremely careful scrutiny by learned Brahmins who determined whether they were entitled to have their place (such as in the case of Maharaja Chhatrapati Shivaji Bhonsle).

There are many people today who wish to exalt themselves by misinterpreting the Vedic law. However, they are not fooling the wise. Kshatriya derives from the old Persian Kshettiya which means "the king", and denotes royal blood. Being entitled to enlist in the army does not make you royal blood, in ANY culture.

All the references are here in this message. Manu's dharam shaster on the UNRELATED "kshettri" caste, the history of enthronement of Shivaji Maharaj, Persian meaning of the term kshettiya, British Army recruitment stats pre-1857. Any serious student of this subject will check these references to find out if what I'm saying here is the truth. Kshatriya deserves RESPECT and not to be defiled/polluted by wannabes, and it is the duty of brahmana to sort the weed from the chaff so that everyone can KNOW reliably whether someone is legit. Kshatriya deeds and martial accomplishments were brave beyond the imaginings of these internet liars who argue that "khatri" is short for Kshatriya. Kshatriya never retreats until ordered to, and stands there in the battlefield taking damage and dying, fighting to the last breath if needed. Kshatriya never lies, and never turns down a challenge to a fight. So DON'T STEAL that heritage.

For the sake of Shiva Mahakaal Mahadev, if you are a khatri or a chhetri then respecting your ancestors and your actual forefathers declare yourself as khatri or chhetri and not kshatriya, otherwise people like me will always show you up at inconvenient times and you will lose face in front of Westerners like now. All Indian warriors respect Shiva, and lying about your ancestry is a sure sign you disrespect Shiva and your father.

--Zubedar 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ZUBEDAR.......GET LOST WITH YOUR B.S.

DUDE, YOU ARE SO FULL OF B.S. THAT ITS RIDICULOUS. I MEAN, HOW CAN YOU SIT HERE AND CLAIM KHATRIS ARE NOT KSHATRIYA?? YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.......KHATRIS/KSHATRIYA ARE ONE IN THE SAME.

LET ME PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU. YOU CLAIM KHATRIS TO BE OF LOWER STOCK, RIGHT ABOVE SHUDRAS, CORRECT? WELL THEN, IF JATTS AND OTHER TRIBES/CLANS OF PUNJAB WERE OF HIGHER CASTE, WHY WOULD THEY FOLLOW THE SIKH RELIGION WHICH WAS CREATED BY 10 GURUS ALL OF WHOM WERE OF THE KHATRI CASTE?

Lets say hypothetically, If Jatts, according to you, are of the Kshatriya caste, then why would the great majority of them follow a religion started by members of a lower caste (Khatri)? Thats right, they wouldn't!!! That only goes to prove that Khatris were not of lower caste. Besides, I don't need to even use this example to explain this, everyone already knows the status of Khatris in Punjab / India.

HEAVILY BIASED AND RACIST ARTICLE

^In response to this: Manu's dharam shastra states that the Saka people (i.e. Jatts) were originally kshatriyas, but that they lost their status as kshatriyas and descended to shudra status when they failed to observe their duties. There is still quite a lot of pride in Jatt people, stemming partly from their kshatriya ancient history. However, it is not right to bring Sikhism into this discussion. Sikh is a spiritual way, and does not relate to matters of blood or tribe. For matters of blood or tribe you have to refer to tribal law (i.e. the Brahmin rules or shari'a if you are a Muslim, etc.). Sikh is nothing to do with caste status as it is solely concerned with the spirit not the food body.

--Zubedar 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Khatris

This all discussion going on without knowing roots.It is clear to a student of Indian History that Sanskrit had never been the language of common people in India.It was the language of higher classes.Therefore Buddha delivered his lectures in Pali and Prakrit.Ashoka s inscription are found in Pali.The word Kshatriya is of Sanskrit.It is deformed in local dialects.Kshatriya and Khatri are the same.It is not necessary that every kshatriya was a ruler.They were mainly soldiers and warriors.Later on other castes who were also warriors were considered as Kshatriyas,because it was the profession not the birth which was considered important for determining varna.At the time of Buddha castes started to be by birth.It is true that Sikh Gurus were Khatris.They were of higher castes then Jats who were only peasants at that time.Only Guru Gobind Singh ji turned them Martial.It is also to be understood that Punjab falls on the route of invaders.All the Invaders except europeans came from Kheyber Pass and Punjab.Therefore the condition of Kshatriyas became worse in Punjab who faced attack of invaders from the begining.Alexender attacked Porus who was a kshatriya.Kshatriya were further ruined by Indo Greeks,Manghols,Huns, and Muslims in Punjab.It is no wonder some persons consider them inferior to Jats and other communities.This is not true.

--Shivbramh 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Shivbramh you are mistaken about this. Khatri does not equate to kshatriya. There is some evidence linking the term khatri with the people of Bactria. On the other hand you as a Rajput will be aware that every kshatriya's lineage stems from a particular dynasty. As Punjabi khatris are not capable of showing their inheritance of kshatriya status from any legitimate historical dynasty, they have no right whatsoever to make such claims.

On the question of the Sikh Gurus, it is not disputed that they were khatris. That is to say, members of the Punjabi [b]business community[/b]. Satguru Nanak Devji's life story is well known, and the details of his caste responsibilities as a person born into a [b]Punjabi business family[/b] are well known to all.--Zubedar 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My dear all fellows,

with all due respect I have commented and want to assert that all invaders came through the route of Punjab.The kshtriyas of Punjab faced and sufferred their attack.First was Alexender the Great.The exsistence of all Kshatriyas was challenged and they were ruined.You can not compare them with Kshatriyas of Rajasthan and Eastern parts of India.It is historically accepted that they were Gurus of Sikhs.This itself proves their social status later on.So the thing is that due to onslaught of invaders Punjabi Kshatriyas lost their identity first.Guru Nanak Dev ji has himself pointd out all things. If one cares to read him deeply.I have no doubts that Khatris are Kshatriyas.However they are intermingled now.But the historical fact is this.

--Shivbramh 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I deleted this comment, which was inserted at the start of the article:

Tke Kshatriya (the warrior and king) in no manner must be bracketed with the Khatri (merchants) as this will not confuse us Indians but will confuse the foreigners.

Perhaps it was meant for the discussion page in the first place? Lusanaherandraton 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the reference of khatri being kshatriyas: "the 10 sikh guru's all were khatri's like guru tegbahadur n guru gobindsingh ji. n now also he may be general jj sing ahuja (cheif of army) or NC vij the former one. how many times we have to realise that we r the real kshtriyas... raja porus was also a khatri of sabharwal caste ".. this was a quote from khatri discussion group... but now that i added this to the knowledge base on wikipedia..i must say... this is all a intellectual/historical importance only. today, it is not ,race, color, or creed that gives a man and woman his status or place in society..it is his/her work ethic, morality and virtues..thank you

Dr N D King posts on Kshatriya and IP 208.125.3.245 on Khatri

The intriguing and funny case of Dr N D King resembling the similar posting pattern of IP 208.125.3.245

Dr N D King starts posting edits on 24 april 2007 , 11:19, 24 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Central Asia (passes NOT asses)
from this day onwards Dr N D King makes about 35 edits …
every single edit thereafter being only minor language , grammar edit ….
and then lo and behold on 26th July Dr N D King makes the following emphatic post in bold on the Kshatriya page viz
Revision as of 09:06, 26 July 2007 (edit) Dr N D King (Talk | contribs) m (→Further reading) ← Older edit The Kshatriya, or Royal and Warrior caste, is not to be confused with the Khatri which is a merchant caste

Now lets look at IP 208.125.3.245 posts on the Khatri page .
See the posts of this IP 208.125.3.245 strange ...same posting pattern grammar etc as Dr N D King and then posts its

see its post [4] Revision as of 21:12, 8 July 2007 (edit) (undo) 208.125.3.245 (Talk) Newer edit → "Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels was sure if you lie several times it does become the truth. Time proved him wrong. the Khatri (a caste of businessmen) is a much respected caste in India but they can not be classified as Kshatriyas (the warrior-royal-caste). Not only are the profession of these two castes in general totally different there is a big difference in structure and attitute too."

See the posts of this anonymous IP 208.125.3.245 and Dr N D King strange ...same posting pattern grammar etc as Dr N D King and then posts its opinion on Khatri . Meawhile IP 208.125.3.245 also has a personal problem with a pakistani politician who it says it knows personally

Lol
Cheers Intothefire 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)(blue)oh yeeah(blue)

Kshtriya 's Origin from GOD'S Heart or Arms.

'Balmiki Ramayana' and 'shanti parva'in 'MAHABHARATA' clearly says that kshtriya took birth from heart of GOD. A sukta in Xth Mandal of Rigveda talks about this theory- which has been declared as adultration by various renowend writers.As heart is always important than a mouth- that's why kshtriys were always given a higher status in the society and were treated as a ruling class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.120.76 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 

Jethwa

I shifted the Jethwa from under Suryavanshi to Chandravanshi because that is more consistent with their wiki page, which says they are Chandravanshi. Anybody who differs please explain Regards, Rorkadian (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)