Talk:Kshatriya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Kshatriya List[edit]

I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me and, it would seem, the person who comments in the thread below this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [1]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.

Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you undid the archiving here. This discussion isn't going on. The quote you have in boldface doesn't say that Rajput were Kshatriya; in fact, it very clearly lines them up as being not the same, because it refers to them as two distinct classes and places them in parallel. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [2]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh gosh, I am involved in too many articles with disputed content at present and my brain hurts. Rajkris, can this be stayed for (say) a week or so? Obviously, if others want to respond then that is perfectly ok but I really need a bit of time right now. You can ping me on my talk page to remind me in a week. Sorry about this but I've got a lot going on both on and off Wikipedia and am not even keeping up with fixing the obvious problematic changes to articles that show up on my watchlist, let alone many of the talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No pb. No hurry.Rajkris (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This topic is still open. In order to update it & make it more clear, I am listing below the different refs I found. For your reminder, this topic has been opened after the removal of the list of former ruling castes; please see my first reply on this topic above which explain why I'm completely against this removal.
  1. The Caste System of Northern India by Sir Edward Blunt, page 26 [3]: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'"
  2. Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [4]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya."
  3. Structure and Change in Indian Society by Milton B. Singer,Bernard S. Cohn, page 190 [5]: "Opportunities for seizing political power were more likely to be available to the leaders of dominant castes, and even tribes, than to others. This is why in South India dominant peasant castes such as the Marathas, Reddis, Vellalas, Nayars and Coorgs have been able to claim Kshatriyas status... Historically, the Kshatriya varna was recruited from a wide variety of castes all of which has one attribute in common that is, the possession of political power."
  4. The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India by Christopher John Fuller, page 19 [6]:"... so that many kings historically proclaimed as Kshatriyas irrespective of their birth. In the varna hierarchy (as the Purusha sukta makes plain) and in Brahmanical ideology (as set out in dharmashastra texts), kshatriya kings are inferior to Brahmans... In the countryside, locally dominant castes enjoying prepondarant control over the land fequently identify themselves as Kshatriyas... The members of non-Brahman dominant castes tend to be ambivalent about Brahman claims to preeminence; usually they are not denied openly, but nor is made too much of them. A royal military model of status ranking is instead given prominence, and landholders demand and commonly receive due deference from their subordinates, often clients bound by political and economic ties."
  5. Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man by Eugenia Vanina, pages 128 to 140 [7]:"To sum up, the caste system has been a complex, multi-layered institutionn changing through many centuries and, it is important to add, not only temporarly but spatially.(...) And even in the 'classical Hindu' period (...) this hierarchy was far from rigid and eternally fixed structure imagined by the Orientalists. (...) The elite of agricultural and pastoral castes, traditionally identified as shudras, would rise to the level of petty and medium feudal lords, shun physical labour, acquire military skills and warrior mentality and begin to claim kshatriya status."
  6. India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot from page 151 [8]:
"This process (caste ethnicisation) was partly shaped by Europenan ideas, as propagated by the missionaries and the British schools. While castes have always been perceived in India as a kin groups, the racial dimension that caste tended to acquire in the nineteenth century derived from European interpretations of Indian society."
"Susan Bayly points out that 'many pre independence ethnogaphers' from Britain 'portrayed India as a composite social landscape in which only certain peoples, those of superior "Aryan" blood, had evolved historically in ways which left them "shackled" by a hierarchical, Brahmanically - defined ideology of "caste". At the same time large numbers of other Indians - those identified in varying racial terms as Dravidians, as members of "servile" classes, aborigines, wild tribes, and those of so-called "mixed" racial origins - were portrayed as being ethnologically distinct from this so-called Aryan population, and were not all thought to belong to a ranked Brahminical caste order.' In addition to the ethnographers, the British administration imbibed these Orientalist categories and propagated them in society. In 1886, the Governor of Madras, Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his address to graduates of the university of Madras emphatically declared: 'You are of pure Dravidian race. I should like to see the pre-Sanskrit element amongst you asserting itself rather more.' Gradually, Non-Brahmins and Dravidianism coincided and the low castes looked at themselves as forming an ethnic category."
"In other words, colonial ethnography was largely responsible for merging caste and race, and more precisely for equating the 'Aryans' with the upper castes and the Dravidians with lowest orders of the Indian society. This perception prepared the ground for the interpretation of castes"in ethnic terms outside the 'Aryavarta', the northern region where the Brahmanical pattern was supposed to have taken root. Indeed, this ethnicisation process was more prominent in western and southern India than in the North."
  1. Casting Kings : Bards and Indian Modernity: Bards and Indian Modernity By Jeffrey G. Snodgrass Associate Professor of Anthropology Colorado State University, page 55 [9]: "The varna scheme described by ancient Hindu texts provides for an idealized society. These texts thus help us to understand how Brahmins, or at least Brahmin authors of certain religious texts, thought society should be organized. However these texts provide little evidence of how ancient Indian society actually was organized."
Based on the above refs, what one can tell is: understanding of Caste System in general and the notion of Kshatriya in paticular is based on British colonial & Christian missionaries POV, ideology. This POV traces its roots to ancient Hindu texts written by (some) Brahmins but those texts are theorical ones and do not correspond to historical reality. Regarding Khatriya, in reality, the ruling castes of the Hindu society assumed the function of Kshatriyas. This is how we must define & write the Kshatriya wiki article. Making Kshatriya dependent on the definition given by ancien Hindu texts (written by some Brahmins) is highly misleading & breaking wiki neutrality... But (of course) one must mention it. Ex of how we should, could write to core article of Kshatriya: ... In ancient Hindu texts Kshatriya was defined as... Legendary Kshatriyas were:.... In reality, the Kshatriya varna included the various castes which through the control of land (through military conquest, etc.), undertook the function of rulership & military power. These castes are: Rajputs, Kayasthas, Marathas, Rajus, Reddys, Vellalars, Nairs.


Rajkris (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion still open.Rajkris (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Ref Regarding Caste Perception & Construction During Colonial Era[edit]

India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot from page 151 [10]:

This process (caste ethnicisation) was partly shaped by Europenan ideas, as propagated by the missionaries and the British schools. While castes have always been perceived in India as a kin groups, the racial dimension that caste tended to acquire in the nineteenth century derived from European interpretations of Indian society.

Susan Bayly points out that 'many pre independence ethnogaphers' from Britain 'portrayed India as a composite social landscape in which only certain peoples, those of superior "Aryan" blood, had evolved historically in ways which left them "shackled" by a hierarchical, Brahmanically - defined ideology of "caste". At the same time large numbers of other Indians - those identified in varying racial terms as Dravidians, as members of "servile" classes, aborigines, wild tribes, and those of so-called "mixed" racial origins - were portrayed as being ethnologically distinct from this so-called Aryan population, and were not all thought to belong to a ranked Brahminical caste order.' In addition to the ethnographers, the British administration imbibed these Orientalist categories and propagated them in society. In 1886, the Governor of Madras, Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his address to graduates of the university of Madras emphatically declared: 'You are of pure Dravidian race. I should like to see the pre-Sanskrit element amongst you asserting itself rather more.' Gradually, Non-Brahmins and Dravidianism coincided and the low castes looked at themselves as forming an ethnic category."

"In other words, colonial ethnography was largely responsible for merging caste and race, and more precisely for equating the 'Aryans' with the upper castes and the Dravidians with lowest orders of the Indian society. This perception prepared the ground for the interpretation of castes"in ethnic terms outside the 'Aryavarta', the northern region where the Brahmanical pattern was supposed to have taken root. Indeed, this ethnicisation process was more prominent in western and southern India than in the North."


Rajkris (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking for such a ref since a long time. It clearly tells how the caste notion, perception has been shaped during the colonial era by the missionaries and British administration. Unfortunately, (deliberately or undeliberately,) this view is still topical to number of scholars who are dealing with Caste (in India). This is harming a lot the understanding of the caste system, the Indian society and India in general. I will detailed this asap.Rajkris (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing new about this. It is well-documented but contentious. And it has very little to do with this article. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course it has to do with that article in a way (I will explain). What do you mean by 'It is well document but contentious' ? Rajkris (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Read our articles on Caste, Caste system in India etc. And those are where the detail of the various debates should be. This article is simple: define the kshatriya varna and its role in Indian society. No need for loads of generalised commentary about the wider varna/caste issues, no need for much details about specific kshatriya communities/claimant communities. Don't let's try to make more of this article than should be the case, as happened with that coatracked Tamil kshatriya effort.

I've reformatted your quotation, btw: it is probably a copyright violation anyway but bolding it was certainly eyewatering. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


I agree that this ref is a better use for the above article you mentioned. I do not intend at all to use it as ref in this article but just enlightening (in this talk page) the following fact, trend: number of scholars (including Indians, mostly Brahmins) use the classical caste, varna hierarchy (priests are called Brahmins, rulers are callled Kshatriyas, merchants are Vaisyas, servants & peasant labour are called Shudras) to describe the North Indian society without any question eventhough reality was far more complex ([11] page 130 & [12] page 72).
But when it comes to South Indian society, they consider that the classical 4 order cannot be applied and they treat at best as Brahmin/Non Brahmin society and at worst Brahmin/Shudra society... This kind of 'mistake' is just amazing & appalling !... From my POV, I do believe it is more a kind of double game in order to divide the Indian society (British colonial era legacy!)... Now let's come to the Kshatriya caste (topic of thi article) & see how the ruling castes are perceived according to the region they come from (North or South India):
* in North India, ruling castes (ex: Rajput) are considered as Kshatriyas or equivalent to Kshatriyas by those so called scholars without pb
* in South India, ruling castes are considered at best 'Kshatriya claiming' castes and at worst Shudras/Sat Shudras (good Shudras). And these so called scholars never fail to mention that there is no Kshatriya like caste in South India and to support their claim, they appeal to these arguments: as so called Dravidians they cannot apply to ksatriya, they were not recognised by the Brahmins, they did not follow the rules as prescribed by the Dharmashastra (wearing of the red sacred thread, etc.)... Whereas there is no historical proof of that (no historical texts written by different scholars which asserts that)... This is a Bristish propaganda supported by some Brahmins for political reasons. I just wanted to highlight this fact with this ref. This fact is unfortunately still topical and geatly harming the understanding of the Indian society [13] (page 321) and allows editors such as Mayasutra to come and tell senseless things like 'Kshatriya/Varna terms belongs to Aryans, they cannot be applied to South India, such caste was declared as Shudra by, during the Bristish colonial era, etc.'
Regarding your statement: "no need for much details about specific kshatriya communities/claimant communities", my position is that it is as important to mention :
* the origin of the term Kshatriya in the ancient (vedic) times (and without mentioning the contentious term 'Aryan')
* how the term Kshatriya has been theorized by ancient Hindu texts writtent by (some) Brahmins (here it is important to mention the story of Parasurama who destroyed the Kshatriya race [14] page 285)
* the mythical Kshatriya dynasties & clans mentioned in Hindu literature
* the different historical dynasties & castes who assumed the function of Kshatriyas throughout historical times and how (acceded to power through the conquest and/or the ownership of land)
There is no reason not to mention the historical ruling caste.
Rajkris (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've the source is irrelevant/not suited to this article then there is no reason to raise it here. That you see the Raj period perceptions as "British propaganda" merely demonstrates that you probably do not in fact understand the literature: 1857, scientific racism, social engineering & the development of census techniques, the development of transportation systems, the role of the gentleman-scholar, the failings of knowledge etc were all significant to the Raj worldview, which differed from that of, say, James Tod in the East India Company period. The caste system is and always has been a complex issue, even back in Vedic times: if I recall correctly, there are primary texts of ancient origin that do not agree and, as you suggest, there have always been regional variations.

Yes, we need to mention the origins of the term & its place in the Brahmin worldview. Depending on sources (and these should not be the ancient texts,, quoted directly), we might need to mention how that fitted in with the Mughal period/zamindari etc and the bhakti notions of accessibility to god. Parasurama is significant, of course, but I've never really got to grips with that bit.

"Mythical kshatriya dynasties" is where the problem comes into your plans. You will be aware, for example, that there is no agreement regarding the 36 royal races. We need to say that and because it is thus there is no point in providing a list. You'll also be aware that sanskritisation and other phenomena - many of them documented long before the Brits even turned up - mean that there have been hundreds of community claims to kshatriya status. Regions such as Bengal were particularly prone to "title-grabbing". Again, this means that compiling a list is a pointless exercise.

As with the Tamil Kshatriya article that caused so many problems a year or more ago, so to your ambitions for this one seem to be rather close to coatracking and of using an article to support an inappropriate, contentious timesink of a list that will forever attract vandals and misguided contributors. You obviously have an interest in kshatriya-related subjects and that is, of course, fine; you also seem to have a historic dislike of Brahmins, which is slightly more worrying but can be balanced by input from other people. I certainly think that it is likely we will need input from some experienced people with an interest in Hinduism, of which by far the most active is probably Redtigerxyz. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


I understand and I don't deny this. But you must also recognise that these theories were cleverly used by the Bristish elite to divide India even though they were aware that these were only hypothesis, not shared by all scholars (see for ex. Max Muller position on it:[15] page 151 ). This is clearly a political propaganda built by the Bristish in order to divide & rule India and my ref clearly tells this. It shows how caste has been politicized (caste in general and kshatriya in particular). This is grave because it had huge consequences in both India and Europe: I don't need to remind you that Aryan theory served as the base of Nazi ideology which lead to the murder of several million of people. And more generally, after the falling of the Feudal society in (western) Europe and the rise of the nation-state concept with the notion of People, the new edecutated elite (descended from non aristocratic lineage and so seeking some kind legitimacy & identity) embrassed this 'Aryan' (racial caste based) theory: havea look on this book 'Aryans, Jews, Brahmins:Theorizing Authority through Myth of Identity': [16].
To come back to the caste system, this vision built during the colonial era is still used by scholars and it is heavily damaging the understanding of the Indian society and this really pity & sad.
I have ref which tell that the ruling castes assumed, claimed Kshatriya status (see Kshatriya List topic above). Why I do not have the right to add this list of historical ruling castes supported by academical sources and with the suitable sentence ?
You (can) provide 2 arguments for this:
  • within those castes, nowadays all claiming members cannot be linked with those ancient ruling, land owning members --> My answer: very true and this must be clearly mentioned in the article related to each of these castes.
  • adding a list of castes will create an edit war --> My answer : yes but this is our duty to look after this article & prevent such wars --> My suggestion: create a section dedicated to the ruling caste who assumed , claimed Kshatriya status (mentioned by academical sources) and another section for the low castes claiming Kshatriya status without any basis (mentioned by academial sources).
By not adding the former ruling castes, you are placing them at the same level as the low castes claiming Kshatriya origin and this is not at all correct and really misleading...
You are wrong to think I dislike Brahmins, I just want to point out the fact that Brahmins dominance started from the muslim invasions and reached its peak during the British colonial era. That, there is a traditionnal opposition (as well as competition) between Brahmins & Kshatriyas and since the downfall of the later (and probably before), some Brahmins tried to get rif of the ruling class through different kind of actions, political propaganda (Parasurama story, etc.). And this dissension has been cleverly used by the British to rule India through division. Therefore, we must be aware that those texts are not only religious ones but embodies Brahmin ideology, view...
Regarding the mythical Kshatriyas dynasties & clans, I was refering to the ones mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa, Yadus, etc.) not the Rajputs & other stuffs added in the 36 clans in the link you provided above.
Rajkris (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Chapters Proposition for this Article[edit]

  1. Introduction: present (assume updates and/or corrections are needed)
  2. Etymology: present (assume updates and/or corrections are needed)
  3. Origins: present (assume updates and/or corrections are needed)
  4. Mythical Kshatriyas: talk about Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa, Yadu, etc. The different lineages & clans mentioned in ancient Hindu texts & written in academical sources
  5. Historical Kshatriyas: mention the historical ruling and land owning classes (written in academical sources) who headed, managed India (its different kingdoms & empires) and so assumed, claimed Kshatriya status
  6. Low castes claiming kshatriya status: talk about the (recent) trend concerning low castes claiming a Kshatriya status, origins and why


Rajkris (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Nagavanshi are not one of the Kshatriya Lineages[edit]

Many Historians had given only three lineages of Kshatriyas i.e. Suryavanshi,Chandravanshi or Agnivanshi.Even Britishers had accepted these three lineages and written in their books.Great Historians like K.S.Singh also explained three lineages also he had given the statements and also you can see the list of 8 communities which are of Kshatriya Varna.Remember Anthropological Survey also declared three lineages.Nagavanshi is not accepted.Only Chota Nagpur Maharaja is King.No other King existed.And also Kshatriyas will contain gotras named after saptarishis and also other great rishis.You can see the following link for communities of Kshatriya Varna "http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya".Nagavanshi Lineage is not accepted as Kshatriya Lineage and in fact those people tried to assimilate into Kshatriya Varna. Nairs,Bunts,Jats ang Gurjars are considered under Shudra Varna under the time of Britishers.So,Nagavanshi shouldn't appear on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvrs (talkcontribs) 12:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your above argument is not valid. Most importantly, you did not tell why the present refs (you have removed) are not valid ones.Rajkris (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Rajkris,the reference 13 is not at all a reliable source,it is neither written by a Great Indian Historian nor a Foreigner and it is not affiliated to Anthropological Survey of India or a Foreign University.It is written by the Local Historian of the area.Also it is a folk story.These are not reliable sources and the source doesn't say that they are Aryans,even that folk story tells that they tried to assimilate into Kshatriya Varna.

Now,coming to the reference 14, it is mentioned that "Amongst the Naga tribes, the king was the ruler as well as the religious-head of his tribe; a system in contrast to the varna system wherein four varnas are separate from each other".The source doesn't mention that they are Kshatriyas of Vedic Lineage or aryan descent.The above statement clearly declares that they are not one of the Kshatriya Lineage and they tried to assimilate into Kshatriya Varna.Then how can this lineage with unreliable sources appear in the page of Kshatriya Lineages according to Aryan Descent according to Manusmriti.

Then,coming to the reference 15,it is complete misinterpretation,it is mentioned that "nagavanshi had marital relations with rajput".It is nowhere mentioned in the source.That reference for the statement is an act of deceiving readers.It is also an unreliable source.

Hence,this Nagavanshi is just added in this page to promote that they are Kshatriyas.But,they are not accepted by the Historians,Britishers,Brahmins and even people. Finally,this Nagavanshi Lineage should be removed from this page and will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvrs (talkcontribs) 03:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments against these refs are not valid... And the way you speak about 'Aryan' shows that you are completely outdated in term of history understanding, maturity. Avoid editing or removing with those arguments else you will be banned from wikipedia.Rajkris (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

After all Who are you to ban me? Every editor has the equal right to edit the articles with reliable sources and also to challenge & delete the articles with unreliable sources. In this particular page,only three lineages were mentioned after a long time this nagavanshi is added.But no one questioned it.It is unreliable and i will definitely challenge.Then speaking about my knowledge about Aryans,what are you upto ? Then explain about each and every reference why it is reliable and also explain that source did really state those nagavanshi had marital relations with rajput??.It is complete fraud and you have provided that source.I said "sources provided are not reliable".If you can say they are reliable.You please explain them why they are reliable in the talk page. Finally,coming to your words,if you can provide a reference that Nagavanshi is one of the Kshatriya Lineage stated by a source written by Government organization like Anthropological Survey of India or a British Historian or affiliated to a foreign university like the other 3 lineages,then i will accept & i wouldn't interfere any further and also justice will be done to this article and also Nagavanshi can appear in this page. Blindly supporting the wrong statements doesn't make good enough for article.Remember if Nagavanshi still appears in this page with unreliable sources and i will definitely take up the matter to WP:RSN but i won't leave this matter. Finally,Fraud statements will always be challenged and before blaming anyone try to provide reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvrs (talkcontribs) 07:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the right to remove refs and adding others without proper justification. What you are doing is POV and so against wiki rules. If you don't agree you must signal in talk page and then report it.Rajkris (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mordern Communities should be added in this page[edit]

Like the Brahmins and Vaishyas, state wide Kshatriya castes or list of modern castes of Kshatriyas should be added in this page.Government of India listed Kshatriya castes like Rajput,Rajus etc. should be mentioned in this page.The Government listed Kshatriya Castes as stated by K.S.Singh(1935-2006),Director General of Anthropological Survey of India were totally 8 castes.They were as follows: 1.Rajput. 2.Kshatriya or Raju or Kshatriya Raju(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 3.Raghuvamsi Kshatriya(Karnataka). 4.Kshatriya(Kerala). 5.Koteyar(Tamil nadu,Karnataka). 6.Dhal Kshatriya(Bihar). 7.Aguri(West Bengal). 8.Kshatriya(Orissa & Assam).In all,total 8 communities were listed as Kshatriya Castes by Government of India by the help of Anthropological Survey of India.It was also mentioned in the book "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V,p.1853.You can see this in the following link as follows : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raghuvamsi