Talk:Yadav/Archive 1

Cheikh Ata Diop "The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or reality," Published in 1974.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Yadavs and Jews?

The article makes reference to research showing Yadavs and Jews are connected. Is this backed up by any scholarly research? I see the one link that's in the article, but the writing makes me somewhat skeptical. Has any evidence been published in a scholarly journal? If not, and if it's just this one person's website claiming there's a connection, I'd suggest taking it out. There's a long history of Jewish communities in India, of course, but they're much better documented. Acarvin Thursday 15 December 2005 14:28 UTC

Dear user Article does not talk about jewish settlers in india.Rather it talks about jews origin through Yadavas.I don't have any idea whether it has been published in an scholarly magazine or not but it does contain a good work of research which is appreciable and is based on known facts no wild guesses.

Dear editor

Gene.D.Matlock is a renowned researcher and has done many research works.You can go through his works and try to find out yourself about his credentials.http://viewzone.com/

Mr Matlock like many other interpreters misinterprates Abraham to be a brahman.No,infact Abraham's earlier name was Abhiru and the word abraham seems to be derived from Abhiram(Abhira in Sanskrit).Moslems refers to him as Ibrahim.Maybe Brahmin too is derived from it.If Historians could prove this it will just twist the present notion of Abhira being born through Brahmin to Brahmin being born through Abhir,and this is highly likely for there are references of Abhira living in india perhaps even before arrival of aryans and if statement of Bhagwad Gita is to be believed that Krishna in past incarnation has given knowledge to manu(the first man on earth )after Noah flood ,It is likely that tribe of Krishna had survived this flood preserving all the ancient knowledge.Holywarrior 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is assumed Jew is derived from Yadu and hebrew from abhira which became habira first and later on hebrew.

Abhiri and Hebrew

I am putting up the comments of noted scholars who has found connection between abhiri and hebrew. "Since the Jews i.e. the Yedu tribes of Lord Krishna left the Dwarka region, the original Sanskrit that they spoke during Lord Krishna's time has undergone considerable change of pronunciation and admixture of words, so what was Sanskrit 5,742 years ago is now Hebrew." (World Vedic Heritage; by P. N. Oak; p. 530.) For detailed reference plz. see work by Gene. D .Matlock supported by the arguments of several other noted scholars like Godfrey Higgins and Yadav Singh(author of Yadava Through Ages}. [1] Wmnnzzr 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote:

Abhiri (dialactal form of ancient sanskrit) has been found to be close to Hebrew language.

end of quote.

Comment: I will not critizise the personal religious beliefts of the person writing this.

However, it is a fact that NO recognised scool of modern linguistics will accept this statement at all. I do not believe that any scientist could get work in linguistics in any recogniced universyty in the world, including in India, if he/she defended this thesis.

From a linguistic point of wiew this is like putting into a wikipedia article about astronomy that research prooves that the moon is made of green cheese.

Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-07-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.140.40 (talk • contribs)

Look above for your answers ,Click on the link provided to find references,and names of linguists,participate in the debate directly,(you will find that privilege too extended by Mr Matlock),if you consider yourself competent enough.I wish you good luck in your india-nepal related edit adventure.Assume good faith,you need not criticise anybody's religious affiliations it is considered Attack.Thanx.Holywarrior 11:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I incorrect?

I added the following sentences:

Yadavs are considered by the Indian government to be an Other Backward Class, or OBC. They are sometimes referred to as 'neo-kshatriya' on the basis of having in the past been classified as shudras.

– but an anonymous user has deleted this. Am I incorrect that Yadavs have OBC status? Is it untrue that Yadavs have by some, at some times, rightly or wrongly, been considered shudras? I have no axe to grind here, but we may as well get the truth out. Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 15:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear editor, I would like to reply your question.Yes it is true Yadavas has been considered OBC nowadays and several people would like to call them Shudras more because of jealousy rather than reality.several people down the ages had different beliefs regarding Yadavas and have tried their best to distort the facts to deprive this group from knowing their true history.Yadvas has undergone a bad phase of disintegration and several kings of this dynasty has indeed ruled under the tag of being Shudra (notable one was chandragupta maurya).But this group has proved its mettle in all the ages and under whatever tag they have been superb rulers.Shudra vaishyas or Kshatriya status is immaterial.And it is the irony that most hated scriptures among OBCs Manusmriti has called Abhirs(Ahirs )as Brahmanas .It is said that they are children of Brahmins who has wrongly been termed shudras because of alienation.

Regarding OBC status do you know YADAV WROTE IT YADAV SINGULALY FOUGHT FOR IT AND YADAV GOT IT

Nobody can claim upper than the yaduvanshi in regard to caste system. we have a solid history compare to any caste we have more kingdoms comapare to other castes, we ruled this country long time than any other kshatriya caste. why u forgot the Vijay Nagar & deogiri dynasty . Deogiri was more prosperous and bigger than today's London do u know about that. Due to Muslim rule and British rule we become backward. Yadava is the most tortured caste during the Gulami period. It'll take time to rise up.

Gopes,Ahirs and Yaduvanshis are three distinct groups.Gopes or Gwals find references in ancient scriptures.Gope means Mystique literally and gwals mean owner of cattles.Ahirs are a distinct group and Yaduvanshis are descendants of ancient Yadavs through matrilineal lineage (This lineage was acceptable among Kshatriyas).Nowadays this cluster is called Yadav.Maybe Yadavs have mixed with some non aryan the same is true with other castes but majority constitutes of people who had aryan origin because there are plentiful references throgh all the scriptures.It appears Gopes were the real source of this mystique knowledge which finds references in many scriptures.Shiva (also referred as Gopeshwar is known as Yogiraj-king of Yogis or mysticism).Later on Krishna was conferred the same title-Yogiraj based on his great knowledge of this cult which has found references in Bhagwad Gita.Regarding Kshatriya status,I don't think this was the real term before Krishna real term was rajnya .Actually Krishna was the Propounder of Kshatriya Religion.All Kshatriya have come after him and never before him.This term gathered importance after doctrine of Gita was publicised and actually practised by lesser known Brahmanas who were on conversion spree to make Kshatriya to save their lives from invaders and later on when their Kshatriya got defeated these people sided with same invaders and helped them prosecute the real ones both socially and physically.

Krishna, a Yadava?

I'm not sure how a mythological character can be considered as a famous personality of a caste, considering famous personalities required to be historical figures. I suppose, now I'm triggering a debate whether "Ramayana" and "Mahabharata" are historical accounts or mythologies.

Even if you consider "Mahabharata" a historical account, according it all the Yadava men were killed in the infighting. Only females remained, who while being taken to Hastinapur(or is it Indhra Prastha?) by Arjuna, were kidnapped by the dacoits. Effectively, the Yadavas of Krishna became extinct.

-Confused mind

REPLY

Dear confused mind

You seem to be a ridiculous person who links yadavas with Krishna only.Krishna was Bhoj(head of Yadava Kings)and several other contemporaray yadavas were ruling the earth.extinction of Krishna's family should not be concluded extinction of Yadavas.Several Kings of Yadava dynasty ruled after him .Krishna was one of Yadavas and not only of them.Yadavas of Kaliyuga are Bonafide descendants of yadava of dwapar or Adideva lord Shiva.You should have better try to gather facts rather than insert such dirty conclusions on wikipedia

aryan/non aryan which is superior?

Dravidians were the elite inhabitants in India before Aryan invasion. We Indians proud to be the decedents of Indus valley civilization which was actually a Dravidian one.There were only mother goddess and a male god(may be Siva)for Indus Valley people.No Neo-Extreme-Hindu theory can break this fact.I can actually understand the plus/minus points of both races as I'm living in Kerala.Kerala Brahmins(Namboothiries) claims to be the top most caste in India as Parasu Raman had given them the land Kerala. Before independence there was no admission to even non- Keralite Brahmins to their home.At the same time top class Dravideans called Nairs were in good touch with Namboothiries and there were inter caste marrieges between them.As I do not belongs to both these races I feel top classes of both Aryans as well as Dravideans are equal in aesthetic aspects as well as IQ.

Please challege it

Gopes,Ahirs and Yaduvanshis are three distinct groups.Gopes or Gwals find references in ancient scriptures.Gope means Mystique literally and gwals mean owner of cattles.Ahirs are a distinct group and Yaduvanshis are descendants of ancient Yadavs through matrilineal lineage (This lineage was acceptable among Kshatriyas).Nowadays this cluster is called Yadav.Maybe Yadavs have mixed with some non aryan the same is true with other castes but majority constitutes of people who had aryan origin because there are plentiful references throgh all the scriptures.It appears Gopes were the real source of this mystique knowledge which finds references in many scriptures.Shiva (also referred as Gopeshwar is known as Yogiraj-king of Yogis or mysticism).Later on Krishna was conferred the same title-Yogiraj based on his great knowledge of this cult which has found references in Bhagwad Gita.Regarding Kshatriya status,I don't think this was the real term before Krishna real term was rajnya .Actually Krishna was the Propounder of Kshatriya Religion.All Kshatriya have come after him and never before him.This term gathered importance after doctrine of Gita was publicised and actually practised by lesser known Brahmanas who were on conversion spree to make Kshatriya to save their lives from invaders and later on when their Kshatriya got defeated these people sided with same invaders and helped them prosecute the real ones both socially and physically.

gope gupta agarwal are they related

gope gupta agarwal are they relatedBhagwad Gita has termed Gwal/Gope as vaishya.Gope means hidden ,Gupta too means the same maybe Agrawal is apabhramsha of agragwal(head of gwals).Guptas and agrawals are among vaishyas.Will some enlightened person throw some light on this issue.It sounds rather interesting how castes are related to each other.

Yadavas were of Scythic origin

I think Krishna was among indo scythian (Ahir,Abhir or Aver)who overthrew Kamsa and the story about being swapped with a girl child when Yasoda was asleep and Kamsa trying to kill that and all the divine play are mere subterfuge implanted by brahmanas of which we have many in our scriptures.Another one is the story of YAyati,Progenetor of all the vedic Kshatriya tribes like puru ,Yadu etc in which it is said Puru the youngest son offered his youth to his father for 1000years in lieu of succession to the throne and yadu was cursed along with his sons not being able to rule.This seem to be a legend rather than true story.It tries to justify why Yadavs should not rule who were facing stiff opposition during that time.Yadavs were next to come in india after purus and were called lunar dynasty on the pretext of purus being called solar.
Scriptural references of scythic connotations of Yadus origin
1.Magasthenese says Surasena worshipped Herakles,2.Scriptures say Krishna lifted Govardhana (a mountain) and was called Giridhari fought with Indra (Aryan god of Water) and saved life of his people,however word giridhari means one who holds mountain and not lifts,which can be suitably concluded he had raised or protected the water level of reservoir in mountains which was target of Indra(known to be fighting with non-aryans for water).3.Krishna's statement--I arise from water--in bhagwad gita matches with Herakles statement-I am current of water.4.Krishna's statement I take birth in all ages to establish Dharma ,endorses there were many Krishna in the past which justifies his deeds scattered over a large period of time in varying situations.5.Existence of related tribes along the a strip from Greece to India like Youdi of Israel,Pathans of Afghanistan(claiming descent from jadon.(I have contributed from what I remember anybody finding the section in history may replace it with original version.It is astonishing that such a wonderful contribution disappeared both from article and talk page without trace.)Holywarrior 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Yadus were either Pre or later Aryan .Scythic wave followed much After.Both Aryan and Scythic comes under Indo-European group,it is difficult to differentiate when one is talking of period Aryan immigration era.Infact all subsequent waves were called aryan regardless of their place of origin.Wmnnzzr 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Real meaning of vasudeva

Vasudeva is derived from two words vasumeaning snake and deva meaning god.To become bhoj(Head of Kings) one needed to be son of this mythical character.Yadavas(gwals) who identified themselves with snakes gave this title to their bhoj,thats why Krishna was called vaasudeva meaning son of vasudeva and her mythical wife deviki.The story of child swapping has many flaws just as the story of yayati.Krishna's clash with another king who himself had declared vaasudeva is recorded in puranas itself.It proves beyond doubt that this title was merely honorary and had nothing to do with the birth of Krisna as a human being.Kshatriya used to give this title to their king like son of sun, moon etc which was all honorary.The story of child swapping seems to be added later on,by brahmanas, with a motive to alienate Krishna from gwals and create distinction between the two terms but has been poorly done.Brahmans wrote some books(in modern age) later on trying to declare krishna as brahman and the fabricated story tries to prove that Krishna who was acatually the son of vasudeva(the story takes refuge in same child swapping theory) was a brahmin .

Yadvas lost their glory many times and regained it.Both the great dynasties Maurya and Gupta belongs to yadava . Gupta is synonym of gope both words mean same in fact gupta in egyptian indeed mean cowherd.People who say why yadvas don't write gupta as their surname they should look at the development in recent past the surnames mahato and mandal too belonged to yadvas but they gave up writing this surname when many kurmis and other castes adopted it.(would Late Shri B P Mandal of Mandal Comission be considered a Kurmi?)

Kshatriyas were supposed to be preserver and owner of cows.In ancient times Cows(a divine creature should we call it animal?) were the wealth of people and yadavas have the distiction of bringing the concept of cow worship in the land of cow eaters aryans.Royal family of Nepal still call themselves Gurkha meaning preserver of cows.

Krishna not Chandravamshi

Against the popular belief generally due to ignorance,Krishna has never been called Chandravanshi.Actually Chandravanshis were purus(kauravs and pandavas),Yadus and krishna were Nagvamshi and hence he held the title Vaasudeva or Devikiputra(meaning son of God vasuki and deviki)this title has nothing to do with his physical birth.Nagvamshis and chandravamshis were together referred to as somvamshis.Symbol sun or suryavamshi had been ascribed to raghukul (of lord Rama)

Because Krishna held the title vaasudeva a story of child swapping had been deliberately fabricated.Actually these two people vasudeva and deviki does not find any reference anywhere thereafter.However same Krishna has been found to be challenged for this title by another king who too claimed to be vaasudeva and humbled by krishna (recorded in the same puranas).This makes mockery of child swapping story

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Krishna"

Real Meaning of Vaasudeva

Vasudeva is derived from two words vasumeaning snake and deva meaning god.To become bhoj(Head of Kings) one needed to be son of this mythical character.Yadavas(gwals) who identified themselves with snakes gave this title to their bhoj,thats why Krishna was called vaasudeva meaning son of vasudeva and her mythical wife deviki.The story of child swapping has many flaws just as the story of yayati.Krishna's clash with another king who himself had declared vaasudeva is recorded in puranas itself.It proves beyond doubt that this title was merely honorary and had nothing to do with the birth of Krisna as a human being.Kshatriya used to give this title to their king like son of sun, moon etc which was all honorary.The story of child swapping seems to be added later on,by brahmanas, with a motive to alienate Krishna from gwals and create distinction between the two terms but has been poorly done.Brahmans wrote some books(in modern age) later on trying to declare krishna as brahman and the fabricated story tries to prove that Krishna who was acatually the son of vasudeva(the story takes refuge in same child swapping theory) was a brahmin .

Yadvas lost their glory many times and regained it.Both the great dynasties Maurya and Gupta belongs to yadava . Gupta is synonym of gope both words mean same in fact gupta in egyptian indeed mean cowherd.People who say why yadvas don't write gupta as their surname they should look at the development in recent past the surnames mahato and mandal too belonged to yadvas but they gave up writing this surname when many kurmis and other castes adopted it.(would Late Shri B P Mandal of Mandal Comission be considered a Kurmi?)

Kshatriyas were supposed to be preserver and owner of cows.In ancient times Cows(a divine creature should we call it animal?) were the wealth of people and yadavas have the distiction of bringing the concept of cow worship in the land of cow eaters aryans.Royal family of Nepal still call themselves Gurkha meaning preserver of cows.

Major Yadava clans existing

Major clans of yadavas that exist these days are Krishnauth(claiming direct lineage to lord krishna),Manjrauth,gaur(also called goriya and mentioned in mahabharatha)

Yadvas are Kshatriya

It is a naïve discussion put on by some editors that Yadava surname had been adopted by cowherds on the pretext of Krishna being brought up by cowherds.No,if you look at the clans you will get clearer picture.Major clans of Yadava found in UP,Bihar and MP are Krishnauth,Manjrauth and Gaur.Krishnauth clan is widely believed to be directly linked to Krishna,manjrauth clan ,Gaur(goriya as pronounced in local dialects)clan which is rare these days for it is fastly being absorbed into other two because of being less in number and finds reference in scriptures which ranges from vedas to mahabharata).

Yadavas of Bihar,U.P.,and M.P., have lately been referred as ahirs which is just the extension of yadvas in west of india being referred by that name for being abhir in the past.

All Yadava races have their martial history .People tend to use Ahir,Yadav and Gwal(cowherd) terms interchangeably which is not fair.yes it is true majority of yadvas are engaged in farming and cowherding as occupation and has been recognised by that term for a part of history.

Parashuram

Went on a genocide and killed all Kshatriyas except for King Rama and his brothers Therefore a few kshatriyas were left. In the Mahabharata , Kunti was Kshatriya and she got children from the Gods - Indra ,Surya , Vayu , Aswins. It seems that Krishna was a gowala, and he and his brahmin friend Sudama , devised a plan to overthrow the Kshatriya kings (the yadavas) , who had , according to the Brahmins lead by Sudama , become wicked. Sudama was a shrewd brahmin , he devised a plan to overthrow Kamsa. Kamsa got killed , after the country fed Krishna beat him badly. After this Krishna released some prisoners , including Dayvaki and Vasudayva, and in order to qualify for Kshatriya status , proved his birth through them. Therefore, the brahmins led by the shrewd Sudama , elevated his status to Kshatriya hood and crowned him king. If you read the Mahabharata , you will notice that Sudama became quite wealthy after Krishna got the Raj Simhansan. This seems to be the likely story. Next , the Yadavas began to complain and trouble was brewing in the Kuru clan as well. And the Mahabharata begins, where the Pandavas became the allies of Krishna. The birth of the Pandavas is also mysterious. While having a picnic in the Himalayas , Kunti had sons??? Anyways the final conclusion is that whatever kshatriyas were left , (the Yadavas and the Kurus) lost the battle and perhaps escaped or got degraded. This is a Brahmin plan , to depose all original kshatriyas and replace them with various other castes or tribes. These new kshatriyas then henceforth , became the kings of India , therefore forward from Krishna's time true kshatriyas have not ruled India

Good guess work but the facts suggest otherwise.parshuram didn't kill all the kshatriya rather he had exterminated only 21 kingdoms who had become highly unreligious.there were new Kshatriya but Yadavs are not among them.

famous yadav

dear Sir there are one more very popular yadav in haryana.

Rao Birender Singh S/o Sh. Rao Balbir Singh (King of Haryana).

can we add this name also. i can tell more things about his life.

thanks

virender kumar yadav

rampura, rewari, haryana, india

This Article needs more contribution regarding yadava rebellion against british raj and Major Social movements engineered by yadavs.I would say article is still a stub.Holywarrior 13:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor

Gopes,Ahirs and Yaduvanshis are three distinct groups.Gopes or Gwals find references in ancient scriptures.Gope means Mystique literally and gwals mean owner of cattles.Ahirs are a distinct group and Yaduvanshis are descendants of ancient Yadavs Nowadays this cluster is called Yadav.Maybe Yadavs have mixed with some non aryan the same is true with other castes but majority constitutes of people who had aryan origin because there are plentiful references throgh all the scriptures.It appears Gopes were the real source of this mystique knowledge which finds references in many scriptures.Shiva (also referred as Gopeshwar is known as Yogiraj-king of Yogis or mysticism).Later on Krishna was conferred the same title-Yogiraj based on his great knowledge of this cult which has found references in Bhagwad Gita.Regarding Kshatriya status,I don't think this was the real term before Krishna real term was rajnya .Actually Krishna was the Propounder of Kshatriya Religion.All Kshatriya have come after him and never before him.This term gathered importance after doctrine of Gita was publicised and actually practised by lesser known Brahmanas who were on conversion spree to make Kshatriya to save their lives from invaders and later on when their Kshatriya got defeated these people sided with same invaders and helped them prosecute the real ones both socially and physically.

Deleted material that had been copied from a web site: Yadav History. Hu 08:21, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Yadavas nowadays has been linked with ahirs gwals abhirs etc. Authority no less than bhagwat gita called gwals as vaishyas.It is very confusing that some people considered them as shudras.All Hindu Gods have no reference in Vedas (The ancient book of hindus).It has been mentioned in Vedas that aryan people were fearing worshippers of Shiva who incidentally has also been referred to as Gopeshwar and gwals are also known as gopes.besides that both Ramayana and Mahabharata refers to non aryan tribe Nagvamshi (closely related to gwals).The time of krishna connotes that these people were not properly absorbed into the caste system of india,hence the confusion has existed till date.About Krishna one must know he has been called the destroyer of yadvas .It appears he was a real Gwal who later on was conferred kshatriyadom by brahmins .Besides that these people were closely linked with vedic kshatriya.I want to know which authentic ancient scripture has classified them as shudras.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wmnnzzr" sigma3s@india.com

Rajputs vandals space

Rajputs claim of being yaduvanshi is shady to say the least.Infact they are the greatest imposters who started posing as aryan kshatriya and even yadavs recently .Yaqdu clan of Rajput is infact Sisodia clan which has been recognised as sassanin branch of sakas.They should better justify the claim on rajput page first before attempting any vandalisation on this page.Holywarrior 06:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Greatest irony is that sisodia Rajputs who call themselves of Yadu clan also says they are Suryavanshi which clearly indicates copying.Calling oneself yadav and then claiming to be suryavanshi too is something ridiculous.Wmnnzzr 05:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Yadav ( not to be misconstrued with Ahirs) is the Rajput clan directly claiming descent from Yadu in the great epic Mahabharat. Lord Krishna was born in Yadu tribe. Ahirs ( a cow herding cast in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajsthan of India used to rever the lord Krishna, a born Kshatriya. The Ahirs believe that their ancestors walked together with Lord Krishna. Though most Ahirs now use Rajput name of Yadav clan, they are not related in any way to Rajput clans of Yadu/ Jadon Rajputs of Karauli, Dholpur etc in Rasjsthan, UP, Jadeja Rajputs of Gujrat and Bhati Rajputs of Jaisalmer. No matrimonial alliances of Yaduvanshi Rajputs are held with so called Ahir, cow herding cast. As per annals of the earstwhile rulers, Yaduvanshh Rajputs are Chandravansi. History works of Smith and James Tod can be relied in this regard. Moreover, in the records of British empire, which is the most reliable record, Ahirs are altogerhter different lots. As per the most authentic 1931 Census condcuted by the British Indian Governement in India, which was the only census conducted on the basis of castes prevalent in India at that time, Ahirs with so many gotras were different from the Yaduvanshis. The fact that Lord Krishna was born to Yadu kshtriyas is borne out in the Mahabharat according to which HE was the son of Vasudeva and Devaki and for fear of being killed by Kamsa of Mathura, Vasudeva had taken him to Nanda Baba and Yasoda who belonged to Ahir caste, a cow herding caste.These so called Ahirs became his followers. Only Since last 30 years, suddenly, the politicians from Ahir caste started using surname " Yadav". As per Rig veda and Various Purans and many historical works available in India, Yaduvanshi and Chandravanshi are Yadus( Jadon found in western UP, Jadeja of Gujrat, Bhatis of Rajsthan, jharejas, Banaphars of Mahobas, Dabi ( Rajsthan) Kharbad Rajput of Udaipur; Khagar of Atri Gotra found in districts of jhansi, Hamirpur, Jalon of UP, Hoysal of Dwar samudra whose capital was Belapur, , Sighel Rajput( Kashyap gotriya) found in Azamgarh district of UP and Chhapra, Bhagalpur, Mujjafarpur district of Bihar are some of the Yaduvanshi Rajputs and are recongnised as such by all the Rajput castes/clans in India.Yaduvanshi Rajputs in UP have Thikans in Aligarh,Awagarh of Etah UP, Somna,Hasnagarh, Kole ( Aligarh), Secunderabad, Shamasabad, Ghiror and mustafabad in Mainpuri. Raja Balwant Singh of Awagarh, a Jadon Rajput, set up Raja Balawant Singh College in Agra and helped Guru Rabindra Nath Tagore in setting up Shantinketkan University. Dullipsingh of Jamnagar after whom is named Dulip trophy in Cricket, Ranjitsingh after whom is named Ranjit trophy in Crciket are Yaduvansi Rajputs of Jadeja/ Jadon clan of Rajputs and are classified as one of 36 clans of Rajputs in the history and in his work by James Tod also. Chandrchud singh of Aligarh who is hero in Indian cinema is Jadon Rajput.These Yaduvansi Rajput clans do not marry the Ahirs! Yayati's first wife Devayani bore a son named Durvasu ( or Rigvedic Turvasus tribe. The descendents of Durvasu are called Durvasu Rajputs and Chandravansi. Yayati's second wife Sharmishta gave birth to eldest son named Drahayu. The Descendents of his are called Drahayu Rajputs who ruled in Bengal, Assam and Tripura and still found there. Anu Rajputs who are descendents of Anu, second son of Sharmistha, second wife of Yayati, set up Ushinar shivi, Kakaya pradesh etc. As per annals and governement records of British period, Ahirs are shown as differetn caste and in no way connected with the Yaduvanshi Rajputs!
From history contributed by dakota Durvasu has been counted among malecchas(foreigners) not to be confused with turvashu Wmnnzzr 07:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahirs has a long history of ruling it is wrong to say cowherding caste.Nowhere it has been called so in scriptures even.Plz do not confuse it with gwals.Wmnnzzr 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all I am sorry having put the name of dakota who has disclaimed these arguments.It was forwarded by someone(Rajput)which I want to answer.
1.He says Rajputs claim-What should any sane person say cliaming something and being is altogether different things.
2.Mahabharata says ahirs were followers of lord krishna and was brought up by them-What kind of lie is this-Mahabharata does not mention any account of Krishna's birth.His appearance is sudden being referred as yadav simply,Mahabharata does not talk of his parents even people only speculate based on his being called vasudeva and devikinandan.It is from tradition and puranas we know about nanda and yashoda being his human parents referred as gwals(not abhira).Amazing fact is that Vasudeva according to mahabharata is said to be residing in nagaloka (under sea)the reason why kunti his relative is called nagvamshi too though being sister of vasudeva.The story of child swapping you are banking on has serious flaws which simply aims at reconciling the facts that he was called vasudeva and son of nanda too.Abhiras were reffered as citizens of abhirdesh ruled by yudhisthira situated on the banks of holy river saraswati(this is mentioned in mahabharata).Even if I give you benefit of doubt that vasudeva did exist in human form and had given his son to nanda for bringing him up only-it may trigger debate between yaduvanshi and gwalvashi and nandavanshi,Rajputs have no space to sneak in. Your concocted story of jadon being found in rajputs-its really news to me.I know about jadeja and other related clans .Discent from jadon is being claimed by pathans.Do you know why??? There are proofs of them being jews in past who in turn are being linked with ahir/abhir.If you claim linkage via jadon theory you should try find pathan linkage which may be true. 3.Ahirs are separate and in no way linked to yaduvanshi rajputs-so it is so hard to learn.But which idiot said they are linked to Rajputras.Is there any Yaduvanshi rajput in reality.It is myth floated by some rajputras on this encyclopedia.Yaduvanshis never existed among rajputs. 4.Discent from Krishna-Mahabharata says all the sons of krishna got killed fighting each other according to his divine will.From where did such people emerged who claims discent from him for no reasons.Even if I give you benefit of doubt it goes with Krishnauth,the name itself suggests born from krishna-its not a new name even Francis Buchanan has recorded it in 1883. 4.Yadav word was floated 30 years ago-Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav will be very happy to learn he is merely 30 years old.Yadavs in census were recorded as gwals/ahirs because of the ocuupation they were engaged in but existence of yaduvanshi in west among ahirs and krishnauth in east has been recorded in same records. 5.Gotra matches with jats-I have heard rajputs share gotra with jats and gujjars.It is just your creation.Yes many tribes tooo claim to be ahir but they are of different origin.Are you talking about them.People who are true Ahir/yadav belong to the clans menrioned in the article,and I don't know any other race which has got such rich references among scriptures as Abhir/yadav have. Dear Dakota You have put up ridiculous sounding arguments here.Todd and Cunnigham had written that Rajputs are Ahir/Gujjar converts.He even proved this by closely observing their eating and lifestyle habits which has been sustantiated by anthropological evidences.In order to justify the claims of Rajputs being Yadavs you should better try to trace ahir/rajput connection which is more likely rather than creating confusion on this page.for your kind information all yadavs are not ahir either this is grey part of history.Holywarrior 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The user called dakota is trying to push his pov on this page .He/She seems to be a frustated lot who has started his old styled rantings already settled on this page,Holywarrior 06:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To whosoever is editing this article

Friend(s),

I would appreciate if you remove this poppytalk of Jewish connection of Yadavs. I respect the Hebres for whatever they have achieved despite persections throughout the History, but it becomes too much to digest when their name is mentioned on the most unlikely of pages - Yadav page on Wikipedia. Lets look at some of the fantastical assertions made in the article:

1) dating back to the Abhira kingdom of the Saraswati Valley who spoke Abhiri(ancient sanskrit) till buddhist period [1] which has been found close to hebrew.

What? Ancient Sanskirt close to Hebrew? Is that a new branch of linguistics language studies under the influence of psychotropic substance' which has been used as a base for this garbage?

2) Some scholars see connection to Jews of these abhira through biblical city ophir. Who are these 'scholars'? Boy! This is some really silly stuff.

I'm deleting this balderdash from the article.

Dear frnd U have deleted it but proofs are really compelling.Estonian dictionary of Bible too has recognised abhira and Ophir to be one and same.Holywarrior 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many scholars who subscribe to this view .some of them are Yadav Singh,Gene D matlock and Godfrey Higgins too a renowned historian and this is not poppytalk. what this coward anon. is saying is surely is.Wmnnzzr 16:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why these vandal rajputs don't sign their commentWmnnzzr 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am putting the content from main page to discussion section. - Let the auther come and have join the discussion group. - This is not the time where one come and say what ever he personally feel in the name of freedom of expression. - - Come with the reason and discuss with other fellow to make what ever point you want to. - - /************Seems Conflicting************************************************************************************************** - The following is incorrect, and represents Yaduvanshi Kshatriyas, a sub-caste of kshatriyas and very different from the modern day "Yadavas". The Yadavs (or Ahirs) of India are not accepted as part of the Kshatriya caste by anyone, and in earlier times rarely used a last name Yadav. It is a recent phenomenon to link themselves to more illustrious dynasties. The numbers presented are also incorrect, and this can be verified. Some of the the castes mentioned in Yadavas (such as Bhatis) are Kshatriya castes and maintain no marriage link with current "Yadavs". I do not intend to imply that any caste is superior or inferior, however, I do want to point out that what is presented here does not match history or current reality. I feel compelled to write this correction in the interest of those who want to learn. The basis of the claim of descent from Krishna by the Yadavs comes from the Mahabharata. However, the epic itself says that Krishna was only raised by the Yadavas and was the son of Kshatriya parents. One can either believe the Mahabharata or not. It is hard to argue for selective portions being correct and others being incorrect, without any basis. Historically, and even today, the primary occupation of the Yadav community has been the business of milk and cattle. This is inconsistent with the Kshatriya way of livelihood. Please do your own research before trusting this source. (This was contributed fr5om a vandal user Lupin and put into discussion by rajkumaryadav I am putting it again on proper place) Dear holy you are just getting too kind on these vandals.The only suitable option is to put there comments in garbage.This user Lupin had first expressed himself anonimously and was suitably answered by you.But since he is persistently putting up his views for no reasons there is only one alternative,book him for vandalism.Wmnnzzr 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC) One important point which should be answered is the surname issue.The present style of three word name is new in indian context.It was only when western tribes like muslims and british came to india,it became fashionable.Otherwise nobody was using any surname, yes there used to be many names of same person like lord vishnu had 108 names.Wmnnzzr 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Wmn I had restored these comments only to prevent third wave,if this user can't understand ,it is none of his fault,these ppl have inborn rigidity .There are handful of so called jadon rajputs.It is said they were also created from fire.Somebody coming out of fire (even if we assume it to be true) and claiming to be descendant of Yadu is something ridiculous.But one thing I have found both here and on Kshatriya page they have no shame at all.They will go on at length describing cock and bull story with single track mentality.They pour down all their nonesense and produce conflicting and self contradictory logics.They have only one logic of all the arguments you put before them Rajput=Kshatriya.But analysis has proved Rajput=Malechha.And one input I would like to put here Kautilya has used Malecchha term for White Hans only-The major constituent of Rajputra society.He has mentioned same sort of rigidity being found in these ppl.These malechha were known for remaining unclean and taking bath after many many days.The term is even nowadays is used derogatorily for unclean ppl.Holywarrior 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandal is 206.54.214.150 ,he has been identified now.Holywarrior 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ahirs of North India started calling themselves Yadav only in the last century.

They have nothing to do with the ancient royal Yadava clan in which Lord Shrikrishna was born. The ahirs are abhira, a tribal people.

The Maharajas of Jaislamer and the Yadava dynasty of Maharashta were Yadav kshatriyas. The Ahirs are just a tribe.

The Ahirs are not entitled to wear the janeu. That is why with the achievment of political power, the Ahirs have become the champions of Muslims and dalits.(this was contributed by vandal user:Longhunt )
So at last my instigations made you to obtain a log in.But You are advised to have only one log in and if caught you will be treated as sockpuppet, and wikipedia sockpuppet policy is very stiff.It is per user and not per account.You would have got my point.Response to your queries are as follows
1)Get it very clear Ahir=Abhir+Yadav ok.And perhaps you would have knowledge of what Yadav means.2)Maharaja of Jaisalmer are not Yadavs they are pretenders they are the same lot to which Pathans belong tracing their lineage to Jadon.For more clarification take pain to read my above comments.3)Yadava Dynasty of Maharashtra were of course yadava Kshatriya referred as Ahir-Yadava dynasty of Shourastra by Yadav Singh(Author of Yadava Through Ages) and their descendants to this day are called Ahir,Kuruba,Dhangar etc.Adding to your woes None of Yaduvanshi ever became Rajput.All so called Yaduvanshi Rajputs are Imposters.4)Ahirs are not entitled to wear janeu--- who told you this? come with proper citation man??? which scripture which Book says so.Tell you once again the most celebrated and identified Kshatriya Dynasty were Guptas recorded as Abhirs in Bhagwatam.5)They have nothing to do with the ancient royal Yadava clan in which Lord Shrikrishna was born. The ahirs are abhira, a tribal people.---I hope you have got the answer to this query too.If you don't know you are advised to learn in proper manner and put your questions after going through content and talks on the page.6)The Ahirs of North India started calling themselves Yadav only in the last century.Yes this is true infact both Ahir and Yadav words have suffered tremendous amount of generalisation.Go through Ahir--Yadav relationship below.
Telling you once again--- Ahir word is highly embraced in Haryana only even Yaduvanshi calls themselves.Wanna know why??? Abhirs have undeniably dominated annals of indian history in Post Mahabharata period(recorded in Bhagwatam) and Abhira ruled there till 1857.And yes Kshtriya term was used for yadavs and yadavs only with Abhira included.Nobody else was ever entitled to be called Kshatriya.Rajputs are not Kshatriya.only Yadavs are.Full Stop.Holywarrior 10:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Once Again on Talk page(following are unsigned comments from user: 203.200.12.4)
There is no doubt the ancient Yadavas were great. The issue is a bunch of cowherds claiming to be descended from them and appropriating the name Yadav. You may have numbers with you. But that does not make your claims of being descended from the ancient Yadavas true. All the groups mentioned under the name Yadav have very little in common with each other. The ones in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have nothing in common with the so called North Indian Yadavs, except being in the OBC list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.12.4 (talk • contribs)

Reply,First get the lesson on being Civil,Go through above discussion properly,All the questions has already been answered,changing IPs and username is of no use.We are not here to answer your rantings every now and then.One important question regarding north and south--- you should read pages Wodeyar,and other related pages ,You will get your answers about origin of south indian Yadavas.10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Holy -- + -- Warrior 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yadav Ahir Relationship

Ahirs of UP and Haryana do have Yaduvanshi clan in them and that justify their claim of being Yadavs.There are many theories about abhir(ahir)-yadav relationship.However not all yadavs are ahir.One theory which has gained currency now is that residents of holyland like sarswati valley or Dwarkas were called abhir/ahir.Holywarrior 06:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Another theory is that initially only yaduvanshis were called yadav and gwalvamshi were ahir(even gupta-the ancient ones) nandavamshi were nandas.with time all terms were generalised and yaduvamshi too started calling themselves ahir.Yadavas of UP and Bihar who has classifications as Krisnauth , manjrauth and Gaur too are the same lot.Krisnauth matches with Yaduvamshi,Manjrauth with nandavanshi(might have been nandauth in past)and gaur with gwalvanshi.Infact the very word gwal originates from Gaur.Gaur became Gwar and then Gwal and they too were Kshatriya as Mahabharata itself says. -Holywarrior

My edits

I have not edited this article anonymously. I am somewhat displeased at being labelled a vandal on this page. Lupin|talk|popups 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Apology- I sincerely apologise.It was I who could not do enough exercise to trace the last edit.Infact lupin's was a minor edit and vandalisation had already been done by user:206.54.214.150 Holywarrior 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My Sincere Thanks

To all those who are contributing to this article. Last time I visited these pages, stories of origin from Jews were carelessly thrown around here. I'm glad some knowledgeable people have pitched-in and created neat categories

Also request people to desist from revert-warring and pushing POV content. Anyone aware of the fate of Rajputs page would know that this is a self-defeating exercise and achieves nothing except bitterness and bad taste in the mouths of contributors.

There is a major period of time missed in the article. From the mythological origins, tghe article switches straight to the contribution in the 1962 war. We need to correct this. I suggest we add a short introduction of the major Yadaa kingdoms across India since the time of Mauryas to lend Historical credibility to the article. Some suggestions: 1) Rashtrakutas 2) Hoyasalas 3) Yadavs of Devagiri 4) Vijayanagara kingdom 5) Wodeyars

After discussing ancient history and middle ages, we can move on to Yadav contributions to the Indian freedom struggle (Tula Ram) after which we can move to independent India.

If anybody has objections in editing this article along these lines, please speak up.

Regards, indologistindologist

Even though there are sections on ancient Yadava Kingdoms,they are merely hyperlinks to other pages.I agree they need to be framed into sentences to make it more informative.Atleast a good summary should be added.Holy|Warrior 08:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the references?

I am surprised to find that this place is being used to create information and not present it correctly. Many groups of people have grand notions about their history, or some political agenda. However, this is not the right place for it. If the information is accurate to the best of our knowledge, then please present credible references here. This goes for any topic you write about. No amount of passion can substitute this. For example, how can one relate Yadavs to Kshatriyas? Please provide good arguments for it. I have nothing against any Hindu caste, Yadavs have contributed to India's development immensely, just like others. Why then demonstrate this inferiority complex by creating incorrect/unsubstantiated information here? Please support it credibly, just like others have done on numerous other pages.

Regarding the Kshatriya issue, among Hindus, only the forward castes wear Janeu. Do the Yadava wear it? If they do, support can be provided via references to religious texts or other history books/research articles. Another example, is the reference to Bhagwad Gita that says "Yadavas were possessors of great mystical knowledge is confirmed in Bhagvad Gita itself which says same knowledge was given to Manu (first man on earth), Surya and Ikshavaku (ancestor of Lord Rama) at very ancient time." Wrong information has its own legs, and this is not a proper reference. Please provide the section and other details in the Bhagwad Gita so that people can verify the information presented. Another example is "The Kshatriya religion was propounded by Krishna, and no reference is found before him. We only find Rajnya as the term alternatively used for it (Bhagwad Gita is emaciated form of hidden knowledge—Gope—which has its root in Shiva). Later on, many Kshatriyas were made based on the philosophy of this religion as revealed in Bhagavad Gita." Where are the references? What about caste references in the Vedas and the Puranas? Is the Gita older than all these texts? Please provide proper support for the material here. Many historians have worked on dating these texts.

I would advise you to go through Bhagwad Gita, or at least do a simple scan reading if you haven't already, and plz plz don't speculate here. Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a lot of this information depends on Krishna being a Yadava. Which historical, research or other credible source says that? Two words might sound similar, but they do not make the underlying meaning the same. There might be Yadava caste as well as a Yaduvanshi sub-caste among Kshatriyas, but they might not be the same. In fact other than some Yadavas, no one says they are the same. Other examples can be provided where names are similar but castes are different. For example, Goutam is written as their sub-caste by brahmins, kshatriyas, and some people belonging to the scheduled castes as well. There is a similar weak argument for relating Yadavas to Jews. PLEASE PROVIDE A CREDIBLE REFERENCE OF ANY ACADEMIC SOURCE THAT RELATES KRISHNA TO PRESENT DAY YADAVAS. I have not come across any such source. It is common now for many Scheduled Castes and OBCs to write Singh as their surname. There are many politicians who do so today. This is a process of attempting to blur caste differences to move up in society. I am not making a judgement about it, but showing that this is done commonly. After decades or more, many smaller such castes would start claiming Kshatriya status. It is not to say that all such claims would be incorrect. However, given the situation, it is more likely that the claim would be false, and such claims without thorough research are baseless. Krishna was born a Kshatriya, and raised among Gwalas. This is very clear. Until some references are provided for Yadavs being part of Kshatriyas from before Krishna's time, no one can credibly claim Yadav connection with Krishna. This is probably also the reason why a connection is attempted between Yadava and Yadu on this site. All this is just conjecture based on some small commonality between two words. As a researcher, I find it amusing. Such a method would surely make American Indians and Indians in South Asia the same people!

Looks like you haven't even gone through refs provided in the article.IMHO you should go through --- Abhira article as well.PPL whom you call gavala have their own clans well recorded even in British census. Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to give ref for your statement Krishna was born a Kshatriya, and raised among Gwalas, Chap you are soo ill informed and biased too , BE HONEST in your edits  Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of Wikipedia and as a user I would like it to succeed. It is the responsibility of all of us to contribute in a positive manner. I will wait for responses, and if there are none, then I will go ahead and delete these unreferenced portions. When and if more evidence is found, it can be added with proper references.

there are many references all you require is two eyes, however you may see it with one too, maybe better idea because you seem to be having different parameters about different communities. What makes you think only YADAVs are editing this page???? Your several conclusions speaks itself of your intentions.I would like you to see the talk header first and plz be back to the old ID .Thanks, If you attempt to remove statements --- there are policies which may take care of you.For your perception regarding Janeu even mlechha wear it, phps Domekatar (are they your Forward caste?????) too. I am sorry but I think I may have to rewrite Bhurabal page again. Phps there is little else that can be done to tackle likes of you. Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Another issue

One more issue I would like to discuss here. There is a lot of talk about Kshatriya/Rajput/Yadav etc and many ideas seem to be floating around. First, movement of people between castes was possible in old times, and there are examples of this (e.g. Karna in Mahabharat). The caste system was based on occupation, so there were many groups of people who moved up or down the caste ladder. I think the issue of Agnikul Rajputs can be explained on this basis. Maybe these were Kshatriyas who had converted to Buddhism and were returning to the Hindu fold and needed some sort of symbolic purification. Clearly symbolism was important otherwise how do you define the origin of castes from Brahma? We don't see people being born from the mouth or hands or feet. Another possibility is that Rajputs were Scythians who came to India and then got assimilated into Hindu society, and based on their profession, they were given Kshatriya status. We don't know this at the moment with certainty. All this is fine as the occupation is what defined the status. Now we have corrupted the system. The evidence for the foreign origin of Brahmins is equally compelling (and both can be strong or weak depending on the time frame of discussion; there has been movement of people both to and from India), so there is not point in arguing about it. There must be some clans older in India and some newer. Even Yadavs have foreign origin, remember Africa? The key point here is that the dispute lies is establishing the link between current day Yadavs and early Kshatriya Kingdoms. This is not done here. Even if one can prove that all the Rajputs came to India yesterday, that would still not solve the problem. So discussing issues that are irrlevant and create bad feeling are of no use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.196.28 (talk • contribs)

Yes, nobody wants bad feeling here,If you have I would ask you to hold it tightly within your hearts, Some ppl here are just merciless and might like to toss you to AFRICAN safari --- The research you are suggesting is almost equivalent to making Original Research, though I am not against it, Wikipedia policies counter it, and you may see many deleted articles Dholbajba, Dogmaiyaa, Domkatar up again.Are you willing to handle them. If you ask me, I have absolutely no problem. Ikon |no-blast 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Africa ----- A hypothesis comes to mind , DYK Apiru (African tribe), Ophir and Abhira are all related , both etymologically and sugests some historical linkage; What you call Indus Valley Civilisation (some scholars feel should have been sarasvati valley) was phps inhabited by these Apiru to be called Abhira and recognised as OPhir in bible, many practices of hinduism being traced there (But why were they BLACK????). A similar hypothesis says actualy culture belonged to blacks (backed by some COMPELLING evidences) which spread to some nomadic whites in course of time.Regarding Yadava northern Yadavas come under indo-european family, not sure about southern wing . Ikon |no-blast 13:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)