Talk:Kshatriya

Matrilineal Kshatriya

Is it true some of the claims are matrilineal. Can kshatriya be matrilineal. Had it been true at least one of Yadu, Puru, Ikshvaku would have been a woman.Ikon ^No-Blast 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since, nobody has chosen to answer, let me elaborate on this. There are good number of ppl., in south India who are claiming to be of Kshatriya lineage. However, from the system of theirs, as I have learnt through articles here, they are actually, proud descendants of Namboothiris, who are not kshatriya, and practiced sambandham, with Nair ladies. Should they be mentioned on this page ???? Ikon ^No-Blast 18:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In Kerala, the Nambuthiri definition is like this -

Father Nambuthiri + Mother Kshatriya = Son Kshatriya

Father Kshatriya + Mother Kshatriya = Son Non-Kshatriya (Should do Hiranyagarbha before coronation to become Kshatriya).

According to Nambuthiris, Kshatriyas are recognized only if have Brahmin (i.e Nambuthiri. Other Brahmins like Iyers and GSBs are not recognized as Brahmin by Nambuthiris) fathers.

If sambandham is not practised with Nambuthiris, then the royal family will become extinct without any descendants (happens very frequently). Axxn (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Who gave this authority to Namboothiris? How can they define anything on their own?? and also, you are wrong, in saying,

Father Kshatriya + Mother Kshatriya = Son Non-Kshatriya , this is against Hindu Faith. Infact Namboothiris propositions would be highly frowned upon in North India. Do they follow hindu scriptures???Ikon ^No-Blast 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway it answers your question about matrilineal Kshatriya. Kshatriya status can't be passed patrilineally, as son of a Maharajah is not recognized as a Kshatriya. However this does not apply to the three royal families claiming Nambuthiri matrilineal descent: Devanarayanan of Ambalappuzha, Nampiyathiri of Edappally and Nampidi of Veganadu. Other than these three, the remaining 150+ royal families in Kerala used to engage either in sambandham or in hiranyagarbha to create descendants to the throne. Axxn (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Manusmriti, the son of a Kshatriya mother with a Brahmin father is a Brahmin. But according to Arthashastra, he is a Kshatriya. The latter definition is followed in states like Kerala, West Bengal, Maharashtra.etc. Axxn (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude get ur facts rights travancore royal family does not intermarry with the the nambudiri's.they only marry with kshatriyas of the kolathiri royal family of north kerala.only certain nair clans intermarry with nambudiri's,secondly the matrilineal Bunts don't practice sambandanam at all they are traditionally endogamous like other nair clans.matrilineality is a way of succession.u are confusing matrilineality with matriarchy.hope u get a difference between the too.secondly if u want a mention of this practice in ancient india then read the mahabharata.Ulupi a nagavanshi kshatriya princess has a relation with arjuna,a kshatriya but not nagavanshi,their son brabruvahana is described as a nagavanshi kshatriya in the mahabharata.he does not claim the lineage of his father arjuna who if i am not mistaken was suryvanshi.Many historians even consider parshurama to be a nagavanshi his mother was a kshatriya married to a brahmin.intermarriage between brahmins and kshatriyas wasn't very uncommon in ancient india.there is system of identifying children born to brahmin-kshatriya couples as anuloma or viloma.if father a brahmin then he is anuloma and shld mostly likely take the occupation of his mother and if father a kshatriya then he is viloma and shld taken the occupation of his mother.there is even a story of romaharshana a brahmin born of a kshatriya father and brahmin mother,who is killed by balarama,krishna brother because of his ego.Linguisticgeek (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

and one more thing the strange practices of nambudiri have caused many historians to come out with the theory that nambudiri's might be kshatriyas who were elevated to brahmin status by parashurama.Their keen interest in rule and order is one more thing.this from the fact that they don't intermarry with any other brahmins(Tamil,Tulu and saraswat) calling them shudras and therefore polluting but show double standards when it comes to nairs,who are kshatriyas and shld be more polluting than other brahmins according to vedic law.Linguisticgeek (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One more point if u read history than Indian Emperor Ashoka wasn't considered kshatriya because he had a brahmin mother.Bindusara's children with kshatriya women were considered legitimate rulers not Ashoka,and his brother vittashoka ,the sons of a brahmin lady.so mother's lineage is as important as father's,this might not be matrilineality but the fact is there is a quote in mahabharata which says only a lioness can give birth to a lion while talking abt kshatriyas.so kshatriya men having children with non kshatriya ladies were not considered kshatriyas enough.the caste system is very complex but anyways who cares be good human beings that would be enough to be a good hinduLinguisticgeek (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right in pointing out that the Travancore Royals don't inter marry with Nambuthiris. That is because there are no Nambuthiris in Thiruvananthapuram. They intermarry with the Koil Thampurans, the highest ranking clan there. But the children does not become Kshatriya. So they do the Hiranyagarbha yagna (performed by Tamil and Konkani Brahmins), so that the royal family gets the Samanta Kshatriya status. Travancore Maharajahs and Reagents followed this tradition till Rani Setu Parvathibai decided to ignore it and intermarry with the ordinary Kshatriyas. Also, the British viceroy banned the entire process in mid 19th century, as the treasury was empty. I think the last Hiranyagarbha in Travancore was conducted in 1870. Axxn (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed, Axxn, quotes Nambothiris as if he were quoting, rigveda or bhagwad gita. It is pretty clear to me that Sambandham was nowhere like marriage, nor was it an ancient practice. Also, it was a general practice among Nair community, maybe barring few like Bunts. It gave right to Namboodiris over Nair women, but they had no liability for her to provide for food and livlihood, and scar of this practice remains as guilt among Nair women, as one talks about it here[1]. This should go into the article, what some ppl were doing to get kshatriya recognition from Brahmins. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense. Rich/Royal Nair women were arguably the most powerful people in old Kerala.

Nambuthiri anacharam rule number 26 : You must not sell women (receive money for girls given in marriage). --Jack.Able (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And ikonoblast why exactly do u mean by nair women were scarred by sambandam, nair women were the most liberated of hindu women in india.god damn don't u realise they could chose their husbands or partners from both the nair and namboodiri community.This was very much like the ancient hindu practice of swayamvar which was the trademark of a kshatriya practice.now tell me how many so called kshatriyas in india can claim of continuing this practice.seriously don't u read some of those feminist literature that glorify the practice of swayamvar.nair women both had the right to divorce though frowned upon but still and they controlled property.Linguisticgeek (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry ikonoblast but u r quoting indulekha a fictionl book,and secondly sambandanam means hypergamous unions,so certain nair women from certain clans could have multiple husbands both namboodiri and nair men.eg the cochin royal family,so certain nairs do have shared heritage with namboodiris.but the majority does not.there are 5000000 nairs and abt less than 2 lac namboodiris there wasn't a lot of blood mixing,the book indulekha was written by a nair himself who frowned upon this practice among certain nair clans.and more importantly namboodiri nair bunts and tulu brahmins all r genetically related and some have classified them as indo scythian,they trace their origins in Ahichatra in Uttar Pradesh which means the home of the serpent people.snake worship is even prevalent among both namboodiri and tulu brahmins,so thats the reason they do come under a gambit of nagavanshi even if they might not be kshatriya.and more importantly bunts are not part of the nair community they are a separate community though related.and more importantly i have quoted enough instanes to show matrilineal lineages prevalent in north india.If u read the topic Matrilineality then u wud realise most early socities were matrilineal there is a speculation that Indo - aryans also were,patrilineality by all accounts was a later practiced by all accounts of historians who study the evolution of civilization.Matilineality was preserved in the south like so many other ancient hindu practices eg most accurate vedic sanskrit chantings is done by south brahmins.purest forms of ayurveda and yoga is preserved in south india,if u read any book on hinduism then all wud say the South Indian form of Hinduism is the closest to what was practised during the vedic period.north has a lot of islamic influence even on hindu traditons and last but not the least two of the greatest hindu philosophers in the world Adi Shankara and Madhvacharya belong to Namboodiri and Tuluva Brahmins community so that shld answer ur ? which u so ignorantly asked do the namboodiris follow hindu scriptures.and frankly please read some more history books in print not the google books one it's an honest suggestion. Linguisticgeek (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ikonoblast is being hyprocrytical here. In Badrinath and Kedarnath, only Nambuthiris are allowed to do priestly functions (Since they are the only Brahmins in India who follows the true vedic rituals and requirements). They are assisted by Dimri Brahmins (who are allowed to assist as they claim partial Nambuthiri descent). Same custom is followed in Pashupathinath. At one side, people like Ikonoblast are agreeing to the superiority of Nambuthiris by giving them the sole right to conduct priestly functions in the temples and at the other hand he is questioning their authority!!!! Axxn (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Anand in Pashupatinath the Tuluva Brahmins are also allowed the current priests are tuluva brahmins from karnataka.and if iam not wrong the namboodiri brahmins of payyanur are also matrilineal like the nairs and bunts.Linguisticgeek (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Embraanthiris are considered more or less equivalent to Nambuthiri. Nambuthiris don't have untouchability with the Embraanthiris, as they do have with other foreign Brahmins like Iyers and GSBs. In Pashupatinath, the rights were transfered from Nambuthiris to Embraanthiris quite recently (18th cen.) and they are still known as Rawal. Axxn (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

agree there is even a legend among Tuluva Brahmins or embrans that namboodiri converted themselves from embrans to namboodiri by performing hiranyagarbha i read it on the shivalli brahmin website but i don't think the namboodiris would agree on that one considering their snobbish behaviour.and i think in trivandrum's padmanabha temple embrans serve as temple priests once i had been there heard the priests blabbering about something in Tulu and then realised he is not a namboodiri Linguisticgeek (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be true. Since there are no namboothiris in TVM. So Embraanthiris did the functions of Namboothiris. Axxn (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sakas/Scythians were matrilineal, and they were mentioned in the Vedas as Kshatriyas. The Naga clans either interbred, or were originally a sub group of the sakas. In todays modern day they are primaraly located in Kerala and Tulu Nadu, specifically the Bunts/Nairs. Both have preserved the matrilineal customs. Genetic tests have shown the link between the Scythians and the Bunts, Nairs, and Jats. Also, do not confuse all Nairs to have Scythian origins, only the higher up clans. And some have suggested that these Nairs and the Namboothiris actually share the same origins, meaning that the Nambuthiris are quite possibly Nagas too.

Also, questioning the orthodoxness of the Namboothiris is ridiculous. Qoute Edgar thurston, "Castes and Tribes of South India" on the Nambuthiri brahmans, book 5 page 157: He is perhaps, as his measurements seem to prove, the truest Aryan in Southern India, and not only physically, but in his customs, habits, and ceremonies, which are so welded into him that forsake them he cannot if he would.--Jack.Able (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack Able, Please provide references for these claims:

1) The Sakas/Scythians were matrilineal, and they were mentioned in the Vedas as Kshatriyas.
Please provide which verses of the rig, sama, yajur and atharva mention this. Please read the Atharva veda verse 3.4.2 which mentions that a leader of a tribe was elected. Regarding rigvedic tribes, kindly read Encyclopaedia Britannica (walter rust) page 180 to 182.

Sakas were matrilineal : Link to Google Books

Sakas/Scythians, mentioned in the Manusmriti in Chapter 10, verse 43 and 44 as degenerated Kshatriyas Manusmriti X/43-44.

The google book link mentions "vestiges of a matrilineal system". However, its the Kshatriya claims that am asking for. Manusmrithi is not part of vedas. Manusmrithi is a dharmashastra. Kindly provide references from the Vedas about Sakas being Kshatriyas.

2) Genetic tests have shown the link between the Scythians and the Bunts, Nairs, and Jats.
Please write which papers mention this ::or provide links to the same.

See journal by Raman Menon, K. "The Scythian Origin of the Nairs", Malabar Quarterly Review, Vol. I, No. 2, June 1902 and Ram Swarup Joon on the "History of Jats". Also see: Indo-Scythians#Descendants_of_the_Indo-Scythians

I asked for papers on genetic tests, not claims or speculations made by historians / historical works.

3) Also, do not confuse all Nairs to have Scythian origins, only the higher up clans. And some have suggested that these Nairs and the Namboothiris actually share the same origins, meaning that the Nambuthiris are quite possibly Nagas too.
Kindly provide references for all of this.

See the previous reference. And if you are soooo interested in the Nair hierachy, please read it yourself on their page. As for the connection between Namboothiris and Nairs, I used the word "possibly".--Jack.Able (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong references. If you want to claim that Nairs are degraded scythian kshatriyas (based on Manusmrithi or whichever dharmashastra), kindly provide references to prove that Nairs as a community existed when the dharmashastras were written. And if you wish to claim that Nairs are of Nagavanshi descent, kindly provide which document exactly mentions that "Nair" community are Nagavanshis. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

What you mean by "wrong references"? The Scythian Origin of the Nairs is a journal article. It is further mentioned in Census of India, 1901, Volume 1‎ - Page 131. And Nagavanshi origin of Nairs and Bunts is also widely documented. Examples are Downfall of Hindu India (Page:278) By Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, New light thrown on the history of India: the historical Naga kings of India By Narayan Gopal Tavakar, History of the Jats by Ram Swarup Joon and Uttar Pradesh ke Madhyakalin Jatvansh aur Rajya by Kishori Lal Fauzdar. Axxn (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack.Able claimed stuff based on "genetic tests" and provided historical works as references. Hence, my quote on "wrong references". Census of India accepted stuff based on claims and adoption of rituals, and is no authentication for claims made by communities in colonial India (see case of arya vysyas). And neither are "historical" books confirmation for self-serving caste claims (like those written by Joon and Fauzdar).

Sorry for missing out on the DNA genetic tests "stuff". Here it is : Pillai Nair Menon DNA Project. If you ask for even more reference, it means you lack knowledge and do not deserve to be in this discussion.

It is concluded that the majority of Nairs are of R1a type M17 and M172s. This is just to show in this discussion the Nair heritage as Indo-Scythians, but i do not believe it can be included in the page as reference.

As for historical Nagavansh reference, please do not be lazy. References have already been provided and discussed. Also, I have never heard of a historian named "No Illusion". You have absolutely no authority to discard so many direct references by multiple books/journals as "wrong". If you wish to disprove the Nairs/Bunts as Nagas, go ahead and submit your research to a journal. Good luck with disproving mythology.--Jack.Able (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat with a small change:
1) If you want to claim that Nairs are degraded scythian kshatriyas (based on Manusmrithi or whichever dharmashastra), kindly provide references to prove that Nairs as a community existed when the dharmashastras were written.
2) If you wish to claim that Nairs are of Nagavanshi descent, kindly provide which ancient document specifically mentions that "Nair" community are Nagavanshis.
Thankyou. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

This is agreed all over India. No need for a separate discussion for Brahmins in Kshatriya article. Axxn (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Khatri: Kshatriya claim is very controversial

Some user is portraying Khatri as Vaishya without any sources. Stop this, else provide enough sources. 122.177.232.141 (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources to consider for this debate. I first saw it on a message board but checked the sources before posting here. Sources are genuine. Link to online version of book is also given for verification.

Origin of Khatris

The source is a book published in 1904 called 'Kshatriyas and would-be kshatriyas' by Chedi Singh Varma, an Allahabad High Court Barrister, who offers a very good insight on the issues of Khatris, a merchant and trading caste of Punjab. The following comes on page 62 of this book:

Quote:

"In Behar", says Dr. Buchanan, "one-half of the Khatris are goldsmiths". In Mysore there is a caste of weavers called Khatris; there are also Khatri weavers in Gujerat. Mr Kitts says :- "The Khatris are traders in Punjab, and silk-weavers when we find them in Bomday. The Census Report of 1891 classifies as weavers the Khatris of Berar , Baroda, Bombay and Hyderabad. The Punjabi Khatris , however, make no mention whatver of their Gujerati brethren, who in 1891 numbered 67000; nor is any explanation found as to how they took the occupation of weaving.

Page 59 says following:

Quote:

Mr. Risley has the following on the origin of Khatris:- "It seems to me that the internal organization of the caste furnishes almost conclusive proof that they are descended from neither Brahmans nor Kshatriyas, and that the theory connecting them with the latter tribe rests on no firmer foundation than a resemblance of name, which for all we know may wholly be accidental...If then it is at all necessary to connect Khatris with the ancient four-fold system of castes, the only group to whuch we can affiliate them is the Vaishyas" (The Tribes and Castes of Bengal", 1891, Chapter on Khatris).

The same book says the following about Khatris on page 60:

Quote:

"Pandit Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, M.A, D. L., President of the College of Pandits, Nadia, says of the Khatris:-" "Some authorities take them to be as the ******rd [sic] caste Kshatri, spoken of by Manu as the offspring of a Sudra father by a Kshatriya mother. The people of ths country include the Kshettries (Khatris) among the Baniya castes , and do not admit that they have the same position as the military Rajputs. The Kshettries themselves claim to be Kshatriyas, and observe the religious rites and duties prescribed by the Shastras for the military castes. But the majority of them live either by trade or by service such as clerks and accountants...."

Book reference:

Kshatriyas and would-be kshatriyas: a consideration of the claims of certain ... By Kumar Cheda Singh Varma, Allahabad, 1904

http://books.google.com/books?id=SFUoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq='Kshatriyas+and+would-be+kshatriyas'&source=bl&ots=PnFmbKr0Ac&sig=oM7Zq01-15Dhtli2cQ6O3YqwVPA&hl=en&ei=OA56S-2sEcaM8AaI6oT0CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

--130.101.152.43 (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nagvamshi

Too many Gotra as Noms. Please clean up. Besides multiple name of same community. Also can some one throw some light on their origin. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See the archives. Axxn (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not address the problem. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Throwing light on Gotras -- Gotras are a system of unbroken patrilineal lineage, as defined by Panini. However, DNA analysis has failed to attest it, and historians give absolutely no importance to it, except for deriving clues for scythic origin, as in the case of Jats. According to hindu faith, there are 8 principal gotras named after 7 ancient rishis & one Kashyap. However, in modern societies, we find numerous gotras in addition to these 8. There are reasons for it. Firstly, ppl., created more gotras to prevent inbreeding, when they get too many ppl of same gotra, in surrounding. Second, we have historical records, where Brahmins used to change the gotra of people in a religious ceremony. So, Gotra does not speak about anything. I just wonder why they are listed there. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree gotras don't speak of anything.gotra system is does not have value.one more thing certain bunts and nairs claim kashyapa gotra(called bari or illum in tulu and malyalam) calling him the father of all nagas.Linguisticgeek (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Kayaspa origin is not proven. 115.113.97.137 (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vanniyar

Two editors (Axxn & Rajkris) are busy rv, an anonymous editors listing the vanniyar here. Please stop, and follow the process. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vanniyar case has already been discussed. Please see archive. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed marks plastered on verifiable citations provided

Some editor has plastered citation needed marks against citations provided in this article ???.
Intothefire (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more precise ? Thanks. Rajkris (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)