Talk:Kshatriya

Ahirs/Yadavs are real Kshatriyas

Ahirs are doodhwalas, No, they were not thee kshatriyas, Why they are ashamed of saying themselves Ahir. The tribes and castes of Bombay, Volume 1 By Reginald Edward Enthoven

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FoT6gPrbTp8C&pg=PA134&dq=yadavs+are+chandravanshi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=JA-sTaeLLofIrQfuzYSoCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=6wJ_TbmGMMyxrAeUudmtBw&ct=result&id=zxtuAAAAMAAJ&dq=gujjars+are+ahirs&q=ahirs

Also according to The Vayu purana the colonies of Kshatriyas are Vahlikas, Vadha- dhanas, Abhiras, Kalatoyakas, Aparitas, Sudras, Pahlavas.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=4yOUTcUPibSsB7Pm9P8L&ct=result&id=XFUIAQAAIAAJ&dq=abhira+afghanistan&q=The+colonies+of+Ksattriyas3+

The Vayu purana, Part 1-page-296

Restart merger discussion

The previous merger got stalled while Rajkris compiled evidence. Rajkris has now had over 2 months to compile that evidence, but has been unable to do so due to real life reasons. What xe has provided so far does not change my opinion, at least, nor, as far as I know, Sitush's. Furthermore, the previous discussion was tainted in part by the involvement of a now-blocked sockmaster. As such, I would like to restart the merger discussion. If you recall the rationale for merger was that there is no evidence in reliable sources that there is a separate group of people with their own customs/leaders/social structure/etc. called the Tamil Kshatriya. There is evidence that there may have been people in Tamil Nadu who claimed Kshatriya status, though the validity of those claims is uncertain; more importantly, even if those claims are valid and well-sourced, still they don't establish that the group is separate from the rest of the Kshatriya to require a separate article. So, I would like to again cull opinions to see if there is a consensus to merge the information from Tamil Kshatriya into this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add my last comments (I have finished writing them, just need a final check) by tonight or tomorrow and will submit them for rfc, etc. Rajkris (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Support merger - I could pick apart the analysis presented by Rajkris in the section that follows this but have already examined in detail a large number of proposed sources from both "sides" of the debate at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya. The sources below (where not in fact the same as previously examined) tend to cover the same ground, with the most obvious issue being that of synthesis. Some people may consider the outcome to be unfortunate, but we are bound by the community's policies and guidelines. Numerous contributors raised numerous sources, sometimes in a fairly vehement manner, in their attempts to demonstrate that a separate article could be justified. Initially open-minded, and with the explicit acceptance by all parties then involved that they would abide by my assessment, I came to the conclusion that there was insufficient reliable verification. One of those parties was Rajkris, whom I now think is probably flogging a dead horse. Without wishing to seem offensive, I do understand the passion but sometimes it gets in the way of logic. There simply is not enough to justify a separate article and, indeed, the current state of Tamil Kshatriya reflects this. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merger for the reasons given below. To sum up:

1)This term is used by some scholars to designate Tamil rulers

2)Hindu texts consider Tamil rulers as Ksahtriya

3)Tamil rulers identified themselves as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, the caste of rulers in the Hindu/Indian society.

Concerning Sitush assertion that there are number of scholars who claim that the word kshatriya cannot be applied to tamil society, my anwer is:

- using sources which tell that the Tamil society was different from the traditionnal varna model to imply that kshatriya cannot be used for tamil rulers is wrong.

- concerning scholars which tell clearly that one cannot use the word Kshatriya for Tamil rulers, i want to know on which basis they are asserting such a thing ???... Because in my refs, scholars tell that there are historical,archeological sources which tell that ... My opinion is these scholars assert such thing based on their political ideology rather than historical facts and therefore they are not reliable scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SOME REFS WHICH I WANT TO SUBMIT FOR TAMIL KSHATRIYA

Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.

Sources which tell that Hindu texts, sources considered Tamil kings as Kshatriyas

• Political and general history of the District of Tinnevelly in the ...Par Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12 [1]
  

"... in the Hari vamsa and several Puranas in which Pandya, Kerala, Kola and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida or of Dashyanta the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the Lunar line of Kshatriya"

• Hindu culture in ancient India Par Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156 [2]
  

"The Harivamsa and the Puranas relate that the kings of South India Pandya, Chola and Kerala were the descendants of Yayati, the Aryan king of the North." page 155

These sources may be too old and/or not reliable enough but they all tell exactly the same thing: hindu texts considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas... Therefore, a deeper analysis should be taken on this point...

Sources which tell that after 'Aryanisation' of the Tamil society, Tamil rulers started identifying themselves as Kshatriyas, the varna of rulers within the Hindu society and adopted traditions, practices which were related to this varna

• History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 1 page 377 [3]

"We similary find the Cholas of the south call themselves solar kshatriyas in inscriptions..."

• History of agriculture in India, up to c. 1200 A.D. by Vinod Chandra Srivastava,Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy, and Culture [4]

"... due to the impact of the Brahmanic order of society, chiefly, groups who were originally tribal and agrarian started changing their descent, relating themselves either with Suryavamsa (Solar line) or Chandravamsa (Lunar line), as the Kshatriya caste of nothern India."

• Art and culture of Tamilnadu by Sundeep Prakashan, 1980 [5]

"... tradition of Vedic ancestry is not mentionned in Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the sith century A.D. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the kshatriya honorific Varman to their names." page 2.

Sources which tell that Hindu religious authority considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriya

• Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112 [6]
• "The Brahmins who entered the field as adventurous immigrants from the north, soon became the advisors and confidants of the chiefs. They equated the Tamil chiefs to the kshatriyas..."

Other sources mentionning, talking about Tamil Kshatriya, Kshatriya varna, etc.

• The background of Maratha renaissance in the 17th century by Narayan Keshav Behere [7]
  

"... and the Chols who were purely Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 60

"The Cholas were Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 69

• Penumbral visions: making polities in early modern South India Par Sanjay Subrahmanyam [8]

"Further south, in the Chola country, one gathers that the varna status of rulers did continue to be a preoccupation; some of them are known to have performed the hiranyagarbha ceremony, by which they were inserted into a large womb-like gold vessel, and subsequentely emerged 'reborn', and declared to possess kshatriya status." page 229

• Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints [9]

"Ko-Chenga Chola, Caste: kshatriya" page 160, "Nedumaran, Caste: kshatriya" page 165, "Charaman, Caste: kshatriya" page 178

Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...

'To Sum Up

I have privided different refs which tell:

• Tamil rulers are considered as Kshatriyas in Hindu literatture sources
• Tamil rulers used this word for themselves
• Tamil Brahmins considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas
• Different scholars used the term Tamil Kshatriya

As you can see, there are so much refs dealing with Tamil speaking Kshatriyas... How can one tells that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designate Tamil nobles ???...

Sitush has rejected these refs by appleling to the following arguments:

• Old source
• Non reliable source
• Snippet view

I don't agree with his position because:

• Old book does not mean (always) wrong
• it is not because a book is considered not reliable that everything is wrong in it
• snippet view mention clearly Tamil Kshatriya and thefore need futher enquiry before taking any action

Sitush also argues that there are numbers of book which tell that there is no Tamil Kshatriya. I want to know on which basis these scholars assert that there is no such as Tamil Kshatriya whereas there are historical & archeological sources which assert the contrary ???... My opinion & answer concerning these scholars is: They assert this based on their idiology & political opinion instead of using scientific evidences & therefore they are not reliable scholars and so should not be used... Tamil Kshatriya is a term used to designate Tamil Nobles, Rulers and I support the existence of a dedicated article (but linked to the main article Kshatriya for this term. Can anyone tell me how to submit my refs to rfc & other stuffs ?... Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the formatting here per discussion on your talk and mine. Will review details later. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, I believe that you are really, honestly, fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. Your references may prove that there were Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu. Which one of those references indicates that the Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu are separate, distinct, or otherwise different from other Kshatriya? I know that Sitush has been arguing that there may not ever have been any Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu, but that's distinct from my argument, which is that unless you can show that there is an actual group called "Tamil Kshatriya", we cannot have an article on them. This is exactly the same as we cannot have an article called Indian bankers or Chinese car salesmen. Of course, there are bankers in India, which no one would deny, just as there are car salesmen in China. But we wouldn't write those articles, because there is no group called "Indian bankers". We do have an article on the field Banking in Switzerland, but not about a group of people. Please, what is your evidence that the Tamil Kshatriya are different enough from other Kshatriya that they deserve a separate article rather than just being incorporated into Kshatriya? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed

Dear Sitosh, I have noticed that you removed a referenced argument from the main article. Please justify your move. Any legitimately referenced research should be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by River10 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pandit Gangabhat

I have just reverted an edit here. As I understand things, and in common with other groups during the sanskritisation process, it was the decision of Pandit Gangabhat that underpinned the Maratha claim to kshatriya status. Is this incorrect? Various communities approached various pandits, but it was the genealogies produced by those individuals that mattered (and it has always been a matter of curiosity to me re: how many people they may have approached before they found one who supported them!) - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit has now been reinstated by the original contributor. I would be grateful to see the full text relating to this citation and this one. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pandit Gangabhatt presented the family tree of Shivaji (Bhosle).

But the other 95 Maratha clans claim themselves of being Rajput descent as well and not on the view of Ganga bhatt. On behalf of which Pandits, they claim thats a different point.

Example : Holkars claim that their ancestors belonged to the royal house of Udaipur Rajputs. [10] Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And here is the full citation of this Holkar related content : [11]. See the very first search result. The content is from that book only which I have presented as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see it - snippet view only. Can you see the entire thing? - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondly various communities claim themselves as Kshatriyas on various grounds. Some claim that on the behalf of Pandits, and some on others. Its not mandatory to mention on what grounds they claim so. Even in the case of other castes mentioned in the "Others" section, the names of Pandits are not mentioned. So in case of Marathas also, the name of Pandits who presented family trees of varoius clans need not to be mentioned.

@ Sitush

See [12] for full citation of Holkar related content. See the first search result. Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you may have missed my message of 14:00 above. The source is only available to me in snippet view (and, as happened a couple of days ago, I am not sure that a book on coinage really hits the mark anyway). - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Gujjar are not kshatriya this is mislead -wrong"

"vedic origin " "Gujjar are not kshatriya this is not in any veda. gurjjar, gujar, goojar are never be rajput. this is 100% wrong article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.178.44 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section for now. My reasoning is that the sources (eg: a book on costume) are poor, that there was an element of copyright violation in there, and that some of it was pure synthesis (the sentence trying somehow to infer that the Mihir name means that they must be kshatriya). I know that the position of Gurjars has been disputed on a few articles but cannot recall which ones. In any event, there is no harm in us thrashing out the pros and cons for there inclusion in this one. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)