Talk:Tamil Kshatriya

Muthuraja as Kshatriya

I don't understand the use of the word "high ranking" in context of caste, are castes really ranked. It's merely to make the user feel good. And it doesn't comply with Wikipedia standards. Some cleanup necessary. --115.184.86.117 (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Muthurajah - Stop Vandalism

Some people here are trying to make believe that Muthutrajah are kshatriyas which is not at all the case: [1], page 121: "The Muthuraja, who are mainly agricultural workers...", "The Vagri and the Muthuraja (...) both officially classed as MBC". Please stop your vandalism. Rajkris (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Muthurajah - counter view

Please note , as mentioned earlier Kshariya Jats & Rajputs are also agricultural workers. Agriculture has been the primary occupation of Kshatriyas. It will be a misconception & far fetched to believe all Kshatriyas are Zaminadars, actually many of them are agriculural labourers.

Please have a very careful look on definition of Kshatriya & Rajput given by Encylopaedia Britannica (one of the most reliable English source in the world): [2] & [3]. Agriculture (that is tilling land) is the primary occupation of Shudras and NOT Kshatriyas!... Note also that (nowadays) most of Jats are not kshatriyas and all Rajputs are not kshatriyas.Rajkris (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kongu & Chozhia Vellalar

These casts are traditionnally peasant casts who till the lands with their hands. This way of life has nothing to do Aristocraty.They are BC castes [4]. Rajkris (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

::In your refs it is not told that Sozia or Kongu are Kshatriya or Aristocratic castes, so you are writing things with fake refs.Rajkris (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Another ref: [5] page 86 "The Chozhia Vellalas (...) are believed to constitute the truly indigenous peasantry of the Chola country"Rajkris (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I got a chance to take a look at the references, and they don't seem to have anything to do with this page at all. It's possible that Konguboy included the wrong page number, but I don't see reference to Kshatriya, or, for that matter, to the Oddiar whom the added info refers to. As such, I concur that the information should not be included. However, please note that this does not justify the edit warring conducted by either side to include or exclude the information. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

traditionally kongu vellalar were forward caste(huge caste with 214 clans )

From a Forward Caste, the Kongu Vellala Gounders and 14 sub-castes became Backward Caste in 1975 following a representation to the Government.[6],we made huge rally in coimbatore in 1970's to demand government to make as educationally backward caste Kongu Vellala Gounders and Sozhia Vellala who had all along been included in the list of 'Forward Classes' were included in the list of "backward classes" [7] Since most of the rural areas didn't have any schools and the missionary schools were slowly becoming the order of the day, the non-converting caste like Gounder were largely let off from modern education from the start of the 20th century. The Gounders were educationally lagging behind other communities who benifited enormously from missionaries who were running their own community banks and schools. It took another couple of decades for the revival of the Gounders in the educational sector after the community was accorded as an educationally backward class. population statics in 1960's Among the inhabitants of this region(Kongu Nadu the Population of Gaunder group Numbered around 80,00,000 (eighty lakhs ) around 1960 and the rest are about 45,00,000.(Kongu Nadu).[8] while in forward caste our caste name was kongu vellala gounder and droped gounder in caste name become kongu vellala as backward caste, recently only kongu vellala gounders in kerala where demoted to backward class from forward caste Porulur Poosan Kaviyarasu Gounder (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Vēļāļar of the Tamil country (the descendants of the Vēļir) have retained the honorific till this day in their names (c.f kaņţar, kavuņţan and 'gouņder' (the last two from Ka.gauda<ganda)" in

Mahadevan, Iravatham (1970). "Dravidian Parallels in Proto-Indian Script". Journal of Tamil Studies (International Association of Tamil Research) 2 (1): 157–276. [9] i can give u more and from peer reviewed journals , inscription , archelogy note etc.. Porulur Poosan Kaviyarasu Gounder (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To Kongu Kaviyarasu Gounder why in this doc [10] it is mentionned in page 3 of pdf: "In the social scale the Kongu Vellala Gounders are placed first among the non Brahmins, eventhough in the ritual hierarchy they are ranked below the Naidus and Vellalas of other regions" ? Rajkris (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with Rajkris again. You're right, Kong Kaviyarasu Gounder, that the first source says that the Vellala Gounders and the Sozhia Vellala are forward castes who were listed in the backwards caste. What I don't understand is what that has to do with this article. This article is about the Tamil Kshatriya group. As a side note, your second source does not meet our guidelines for reliable sources, so it's irrelevant. Kongu, is it possible that you're just trying to add the information to the wrong article? If what you want to add is about a different group (i.e., not the Tamil Kshatriya), then you need to add it somewhere else. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

to Qwyrxian , i am not going to add any content in Tamil Kshatriya article , i am just replying to his(Rajkris) statements in the talk page under his(Rajkris) topic of kongu vellalar . just answering to his question. whether i can reply to his questions , which had posted above by Rajkris Porulur Poosan Kaviyarasu Gounder (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New thread

Even the NCERT text book refers to Muthuraja as rulers of Kaveri Delta before the Cholas. Few Sub castes of Muthuraja are Forward Caste & few others sub castes are listed as OBC, however both Forward Caste & Backward Muthuraja are both Kshatriyas. In today's context even the Landowning castes in Tamil Nadu are listed as backward due to political reasons, this includes most Mudaliars & Pillais. Rajkris has not bothered to look at NCERT reference attached in one of my edits.

Muthuraja are Kshatriyas,Even Kshatriya Lodh Rajputs in North are designated as OBC(Shivraj Singh Chauhan the MP chief ministers is an OBC Rajput).Most of the Vellars are also designated as OBC except for a very small group of Vellalars. OBC is not a Varna Categorisation. Lord Krishna belonged to OBC Yadav community.Jats are OBC Kshatriyas in some states,in other states they are fighting for OBC status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajananand456 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, NCERT is a book made by Indian gov, it is not a scholar written book. I have provided proper refs below telling that this caste is a peasant origin caste, involved land tilling activities and are ranked in the Most Backward Castes (MBC) by the gov so as to help them to rise in the society because they don't have any children education tradition contrary to proper high castes who are ranke by the gov as Forward Castes (FC). Concerning Vellalars, scholars consider that only the high ranking subcastes (that is less than 50% of nowasdays Vellalars) are the scions of the ancient Tamil rulers whereas the others have peasant background origins. That is what I mentionned. It is same case for Rajput. Nowadays many people call themselves Rajput but most of them have nothing to do with the ancient northwest indian rulers. Concerning nowadays Yadvav, they have nothing to do with the historical Yadu Kshatriyas. Same for Jats, etc. These are the positions of scholars. Rajkris (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand any of this. That's mainly because you're both just making statements without any support. We cannot use this page to argue about the issues in the article--all it can be used is to discuss sources. Please provide exact sources for what you say. However, Rajkris, government books are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia; if sources disagree, then we will provide what both sources say, and explicitly state that there is disagreement. So, both of you, give me your sources and I will help mediate this dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a more specific question: what is your reliable source that "Muthuraja are Kshatriyas"? Without that information, there's no way to add the paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The source mentionned by this user is this one [11], in this source, the following info is mentionned "A minor chiefly family known as the Muttaraiyar held power in the Kaveri delta" (page 22 or 7 of the pdf)... In any case this doc tells that the actual caste that call themselves Muthuraja comes from this family... The actual Mutharaja is a peasant caste (see above my ref). Here are some others [12] and this [13] ("The dominant caste being the muturajah who were serving originally the Zamindars"). You should know that there is a trend among peasant/labor castes all over India to take the name of some ancient aristocratic clans and/or invent fake noble past (this is the case of vanniyar, nadar, yadav and many many others).Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it still matters, but 1) That source still says nothing about the Tamil Kshatriya, and 2) it's not a reliable source anyway, because it appears to be a high school textbook. High school textbooks are never accepted as reliable sources, because they are well-known, in all countries, to be out-of-date, propagandistic, and inaccurate. Even college textbooks are questionable, with only the best quality ones being accepted as RS (and then mostly in the sciences, although it's a case by case basis). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

From CarTick's talk page

If you make another attack on the intellectual abilities of an entire (race? tribe? clan? I don't know the right classification), like you did at in this diff at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya, I will request that you be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What?? I can't believe this. CarTick is referring to the "stupidity" of the "casteists" there. (i agree with his statement completely). No way that can be taken an attack an entire race/tribe/clan. Terming it as "racist" is beyond unfair. Please take a look at the statement again. Does saying "some racists are stupid" mean one is a racist automatically?. CarTick is one of the few people in wiki who attempts to clean up after relentless casteist pov pushers. He has been attacked by members of different castes (through possible offwiki canvassing) before for cleaning up caste articles. Qwryxian, please withdraw this warning. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC

Maybe we're interpreting that remark differently, but I read CarTick claiming that anyone in a certain group (i.e., the alleged group of Tamil Kshatriyans) is stupid, and that they're trying to invent a false history to make themselves look better. Now, I have exactly zero opinions about the underlying matter (of which caste affiliations are legitimate and which are not). I do know that describing a group of people who claim a particular identity, whether or not that identity has a historical basis, as "stupid", is unacceptable. Looking at the rest of CarTick's talk apge, it does look to me like CarTick generally does good work; maybe the frustration of dealing with POV pushers made CarTick respond inappropriately.

Perhaps I was too strong to call this an only warning. I do still believe that CarTick needs to not make any more such attacks, and that CarTick needs to be sure to remain civil even in the face of POV pushing. Furthermore, CarTick needs to explain on Talk:Tamil Kshatriya what verified reason he has for asserting that those people do not exist, given that there are sources on the page (that is, to justify his maintenance templates) in a more civil and full fashion. I'll point out I've also removed highly speculative and seemingly false info from that article; what's there now is much milder than what has been there in the past. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks soda for responding to this. i will respond later tonight. --CarTick (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

you sound like a reasonable guy except for the part you are adamant you dont want to understand what i clearly meant. I am not going to re-explain it to you but just mention was was recently reminded to me by RegentsPark in another talk page. Everything you say and understand and admit you understand and pretend you dont understand is read and evaluated by a bunch of people who are watching that page. wikipedia, unlike the local caste association, is populated by mostly intelligent people and my page is watched by over 40 of such men. so, it is your call.

so, why dont we start with a a couple of questions 1) what in your opinion makes a claim of Kshatriya status by a certain caste legitimate and who has the authoity to grant that legitimacy? 2)as you dont seem to find any problem with the article, i assume you have access to all the sources mentioned and verified the claims yourself. so, could you please explain how the first sentence "Tamil Kshatriyas are a group of Hindus belonging to the Kshatriya caste who spoke the Tamil language and ruled much of the present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala during the first millenum. Large parts of the present day Sri Lanka were also ruled by Tamil Kshatriyas" fits with the article title Tamil Kshatriya? in other words, i am requesting you to provide me the exact quote in the reference to which the sentence is referenced to. 3) if the kings who ruled present day TN and KE were called Kshatriyas, there should be preponderance of reliable sources that verify that claim. why only one? --CarTick (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't understand what you meant. In fact, as a post-modernist, I don't even believe it's possible to know what someone "meant"--all I can know about any given piece of text is how I interpret it, based upon the multiple discourse communities of which I am a part. For me, that sentence read as an obvious, bad faith attack on a group of people. My apologies if it was not; maybe in the future, you may be able to avoid misunderstand by not assigned the label of "stupidity" to an entire group of people (even if you believe those people don't even really have the right to call themselves a group).

As for all of the issue, I actually have no opinion at all. Literally, none. I'm not Indian, never been to India, and have no academic knowledge of it. I have no access to any sources that are not online (I don't have access to an English language library). My whole involvement with that page, actually, has been to remove even more extreme claims, what I assume are what you call "casteist" claims. I have gathered, in the last several months, that there is a desire among a very large number of tribes/castes/sects (I don't even know what the distinction is) to claim a high status, either by current achievements, or, more often, by tracing their lineage to some event or other group of people several hundred to thousand years ago. Am I correct in that this is the problem you were referring to? This had happened before on Tamil Kshatriya; take a look, for instance, at this version. In that case, I dealt with an edit war (ending up with 2 people temporarily blocked), and, since the sources didn't seem to have any connection at all with the Tamil Kshatriya, kept what appeared to be false information out.

Sorry, I know I'm wandering far afield here, but I'm trying to provide context for my involvement there, and what I do or don't know. Maybe we can continue this on the article talk page, but are you asserting that the Tamil Kshatriya is not actually a real group, or that the group isn't as prominent as it claims, or that the claims are wrong? If that's the case--if the sources don't actually support the existence of this group--then it's an NPOV problem, but rather that the article needs to be deleted. I'll probably have time to look at that article more closely tomorrow or the day after. If you can more specifically express your concerns on the talk page (that is, explain why you think those templates belong), then I will do my best to try to help. Maybe I'll User: Sitush to take a look: I've worked with him before, and he does extraordinary work in bringing articles like this into line--he's especially good at sorting out which sources are reliable and which are just puffed up exaggerations based on one line of a thousand year old mythic poem.

At the risk of just going on to long, I'd like to apologize again if I came on two strong. In part, I was reacting to past problems at that and similar pages, with people trading insults regularly. I hope you can understand why others might view your comments as extreme, and I hope we can work together on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i called "casteists" stupid. it is a term used to refer to the extremists in any caste group, not all its members. i believe your reaction was in good faith and so i will let it slide. will explain the problem of the article in its talk page. --CarTick (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

see Varna (Hinduism). while caste system is prevalent across the entire India, the classification of all the castes into these broad categories doesnt exist in southern india especially in the state of Tamil Nadu except Brahmins. majority of Tamils dont even know what these words Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras mean. it is only these casteists that strive to call themselves as Kshatriyas with a contrived belief that calling themselves different will somehow make them one, while the rest of the folks dont really care. in short, the biggest problem with this article is it is about something that doesnt exist. claims to Kshatriya status can be covered in the main article. --CarTick (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

here is a case where Nadars claiming Kshatriya status long time ago

Shanars (another name for Nadars) ....many have put forward the claim to be considered Kshatriyas, and at least 24,000 of them appear [i.e., gave their caste to the census enumerator] as Kshatriyas in the caste table. To the learned commissioner, this was "of course, absurd as there is no such thing as a Dravidian Kshatriya"...

--CarTick (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been going on for many months, probably many years now. Nadar-Dalit lobby of Cartick, Mayan and Sodabottle is hell bent to push POV in order to hide their own inferiority complex. This is getting more and more ridiculous. In Hinduism, each and every caste is divided in to the five varnas (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra and Dalit (Outcaste)). Every basic tenet of Hinduism mentions about this. Nadar caste is classified as Outcaste, i.e the 5th varna. Cartick claims that the 2nd to 4th varnas are absent in TN and only the 1st and 5th exist. This is wrong. Varna is based on occupation. 1st, i.e Brahmins comprises of Iyer, Iyengar.etc in TN. 2nd is comprised of ruling and soldier castes. In TN, that will correspond to the few Maratha and Rajput families which immigrated from the North as well as the top sections of Vellalar and Thevar who ruled the land and provided men to the armies. 3rd is the merchant castes. In TN that covers most of the Chettiars, Saurashtris, Vellalars.etc. 4th is the peasant and artisan caste. This consists of castes like Vanniyars. 5th, the untouchable castes, as can be seen from the reference Cartick put above, is comprised of castes which others treated as untouchable till the mid-20th century. It comprises of castes like Nadar, Pallar and Paraiyar.

I'd like to once again point out that, at the same time CarTick is lashing out at the "Casteists", 90% of his serious edits are caste-related and aimed at whitewashing the Nadar caste history and pushing POV on the related articles. Ajatshatru1 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article

Okay, based on CarTick's concerns, I took a look at the article. After looking into the references, I'm quite concerned. First, neither of the first two references seem to contain the word "Kshatriya"; that makes me worry about the accuracy of the claim that this group exists (what I think CarTick was saying). However, sometimes the searches on Google Books don't turn up everything; Rajkris, since I think you're the one defending those references and/or the article itself, could you please provide quotations from the book (here on talk, not in the article) that show that the people the book is talking about are Kshatriya? For now, I marked the refs as failing verification.

Second, I marked the Ancient Period reference as dubious. That one I can actually, see, but it's 1) clearly a footnote, and 2) a 1951 copy of something that appears to be much older, and most importantly, 3) Just the word of one Dutch (Tamil by birth) Captain. That's hardly a reliable enough source to support the claim in the article. If I had more context for the article, we might be able to say something, but I think maybe it should go.

CarTick, can I get clarification from you what you think should be done with this article? If I am guessing correctly, you think any relevant information here should be merged into Kshatriya, right? At the moment, I'm tempted to agree. Heck, even if we clean up those references, I'm still tempted to agree, unless we can find clear, reliable sources that state that there was a distinct group of people from Tamil that were Kshatriya and who considered their "local" group to be a distinct group from other Kshatriya. If not, then this article sounds to me like saying something like "Californian African-Americans" or "Berlin Doctors", which, while it is an acceptable descriptor, and maybe even a category, is not a stand-alone article. So, I guess my question to Rajkris is: what evidence do you have that this group has a clear, distinct identity within the wider Kshatriya caste? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

you clearly understood my concerns. Kshatriyas in north india have been historically the ones involved in fighting wars and ruling the country. what the editors here are trying to do is the following. 1) they extend that knowledge and apply it in south india to call all the old tamil kings as Kshatriyas. 2) they use unreliable oral knowledge, dubious casteist publications and websites and all sorts of original research to arrive to the conclusion that some of the castes in south india are descendants of these ruling families, thus kshatriyas as well. in summary, the article can not survive without serious original academic research. it is actually less legitimate than Californian African-Americans and Berlin-doctors, rather more in line with European Kshatriyas and American Kshatriyas. i wouldnt mind getting more opinions from more reasonable editors like Sitush and i recommend redirecting it to Kshatriyas. --CarTick (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just left a message on Sitush's talk page. I'd also like to hear from Rajkris, given that he's the main editor of this article (not saying that gives xyr opinion more weight, just that I expect xe has some useful insight into the sources and intention). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Message received. I'll do some digging but will not change anything in the article without commenting on this talk page first (except perhaps formatting the existing cites to be more meaningful). Give me a day or so. Hope this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, i suggest all of you to read very carefully the definition of kshatriya given by Encyclopaedia Britannica: [14]; in this definition (and contrary to CarTick claim), kshatriya is not restricted to north India but cover the whole India!... Then concerning the Tamil rulers, kings, they claimed to be Kshatriysa and were recognised as such; here are some references:
1) [15] Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India: "The ruling (Tamil) kings were admitted into the Kshatriya varna" page 203
2)[16] The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago: "The Harivamsa (...) places the Pandyas and Cholas among the Kshatriya" page 50
3)[17] Jewish communities in exotic places: "The monarchs of the region, a Kshatriya dynasty known as the Cheras..." page 233
4)[18] The History and culture of the Indian people volume 1: "Pandya, Chola and Kerala dynasties in the south claimed descent from the Lunar Turvasus" (that is Kshatriya) page 318
As a conclusion: the explanations and refs I have given show very clearly that the word Kshatriya is not at all restricted to north India but can also be (and has been) applied properly to South Indian rulers and so Tamil kings, rulers. Therefore, the Tamil Kshatriya is not at all exaggerated and consequently, there is no reason to remove this article (just a little rewriting is needed). To finish, I would like to precise one more thing: I think that CarTick belongs to the group of people who separate India in 2 parts: north India (the so called Aryan) & south India (the so called Dravidan). This vision, separation is not supported by historical evidence (except the language). User CarTick should know that since at least 3000 years (and the migration of Velirs tribes into south India), South India is clearly connected to north India and belongs without any doubt to the Hindu culture. He should also know that one of the most ancient God worshipped by the Tamils was Indra, the Aryan & Kshatriya God by excellence ([19] page 148). Rajkris (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Straight off the hoof, I can tell you that the Britannica article is insufficient. Brtannica regularly appears on the Reliable Source Noticeboard, for a variety of reasons. In this instance, not only is it a tertiary source but the specific article referred to has neither references nor an attributed author. This is usually deemed to be not acceptable at RSN, even though the work as a whole is respected.

I am not passing judgment on the WP article here right now. I am merely pointing out that there will need to be much more support than the Britannica article provides. I'll go through your other sources later. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that only Britannica is not enough but one cannot remove it. What has been written is a summary of scholars opinion and before being published, this Britannica article has been approved by the comity.Rajkris (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to a point. Ultimately what counts are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not Britannica's. WP generally does not lend much weight to tertiary sources, particularly if they are not attributed etc. Secondary sources are the goal, perhaps supported by tertiary. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Secondary sources are the goal" --> Yes. But if most proper scholars would have asserted that the notion of Kshatriya is restricted to north India, no doubt that Britannica would have mentionned it... This is not the case...Rajkris (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, your thought processes there are WP:SYNTHESIS, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"First, neither of the first two references seem to contain the word "Kshatriya" - Entirely wrong. See Ref1 and Ref 2. 203.75.23.20 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether they do or do not contain the word, the version you have supplied is not suitable. Snippet views of sources simply are not acceptable because there is no context. I'll see if I can find a full version of them, either online or in a library. For the sake of clarity, I do understand the concept of assuming good faith on Wikipedia but I am afraid these Indian caste articles are subject to so much antagonism (often of a nature that seems entirely bemusing to a non-involved reader) that I prefer more or less to discard the idea in these instances and work right back to the documentation. While consensus is A Good Thing, it has to be consensus based on reliable sources that are verifiable, and not on little nuggets of information which could possibly have been misconstrued. No offence intended, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are not fair with what this IP has found; eventhough it is a partial view, it is very clearly written: "the Chieftains who founded the Pandya, Chola and Chera were called Kshatriyas" & "The Cholas were Tamil kshatriyas". Of course a more careful, a full check is needed for validation.Rajkris (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

... and a full check is what I said I would do. If it turns out that it cannot be done then that is just tough, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont have access to the first, third and fourth reference. here is the full context from the 2nd reference by Rajkris, The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago Par V. Kanakasabhai.

The three tamil tribes Maranmar, Thirayar and Vanavar founded respectively the Tamil kingdoms subsequently known as the Pandya, Chola and Chera kingdoms

The above sentence in the book is quoted to a text from Prof. H. H. Wilson's Historical sketch of the pandyan kingdom. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol III, Art IX. p.199. here is the text.

The puranic authors have however tried to conceal this fact by asserting that the Pandya, Chola and Chera were descendents of the Aryan King. "The Harivamsa and Agni purana make Pandya, Chola, Kerala and Kola great gradnsons of Dushyanta of the line of Puru, and founders of the regal dynasties named after them. The descendents of Dushyanta however as specified in the Vishnu purana do not include these personages, and their insertion seems to have been the work of the more recent authorities. The Harivamsa with no little inconsitency places the Pandyas and Cholas among the Kshatriya tribes degraded by Sagara. The Padma Purana has a similar addition to those similar tribes in the Ramayana."

--CarTick (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've actually reviewed "The Tamils 1800 Years Ago" for other articles and my opinion then was that it was generally not a great source for anything other than pulp paper. However, I will revisit it & read the relevant chapter. The bit you quote appears to be discussing the ancient texts - Sangam etc - and as such would not rank very highly in my estimation. Modern scholars consider them to be hopelessly unreliable in their detail, however attractive they may be as literature. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

agree with you. pls take your time. that is an entirely different but important issue, reliability. chera, chola and pandya kings are extraordinarily well known and well researched kings in southern india. if these kings indeed are Kshatriyas, there should be preponderence of sources, not just books by publishers known for fact-checking but also peer-reviewed articles. some random book written by a random guy isnt good enough. --CarTick (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Rajkris - your reference above, #1 - Encyclopedia of Dalits. Can you provide a proper Google Books reference please. The version you give links to a list of various volumes/editions of this work and a quick glance through is not showing up the sentence you refer to on the page that you refer to, I presume that I keep clicking on the wrong editions/volumes. If you actually go to p 203 of whichever it is and copy/paste the link here then all will be ok. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this on google books [20] page 239. I have found some other sources, I will provide them in the coming hours and/or WE.Rajkris (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

please copy and paste the specific quote from the reference. --CarTick (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see it now and it is as Rajkris says above, "The ruling kings were admitted into the Kshatriya caste and, in some cases, certain princes were integrated into the Brahmin community itself". The problem with this is that further down the page the author says (in agreeing with Ayengar) that " ... the Brahmans naturally tried to introduce their socio-religious organisation into the Tamil Society. But a religious oligarch and a social democracy could not very well mix with each other. Hence the Brahmanas did not succeed in arranging the people of Southern India as members of the four varnas as they did in Northern India."

So, what we have here is an initial statement about the ruling class, which does not specify which ruling class or where, and then a later statement which seems to be saying that attempts to impose the varna system were unsuccessful. The entire page, and indeed those before and after it, are extremely ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comment to my above - is admitting the ruling kings, whoever they were, quite the same as there being a Kshatriya caste in Tamil Nadu? If the incoming Brahmins assimilated a few kings then that would be quite a normal diplomatic event. It does not in itself seem to me to indicate any particular notability or even significance with regard to the caste in TN as opposed to elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont clearly understand what admitting a few kings into Kshatriya status mean? i still dont understand the full context. but, i tend to agree with Ayengar's assessment. the source you said is not reliable enough that i quoted above seems to state exactly opposite of what Rajkris seems to claim. --CarTick (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTicktold that the notion of kshatriya cannot be applied to south india, tamilnadu. I have provided refs which tell that tamil kings claimed to be kshatriyas and were recognised as such. Therefore the notion of Tamil Kshatriya does make a sense. I have found other refs & will provide them before the end of the week.Rajkris (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a general note to both of you: it is perfectly ok for an article to present two points of view. What I am hoping to determine is whether in fact there are two points of view and, if so, how to present them in a balanced manner. If, on the other hand, one or other of the POVs is tenuous then we move into the area of whether or not the article should stand alone or be merged. There is no rush: this is not, for example, a copyvio situation where something needs to be removed promptly. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i am perfectly fine with an idea of presenting two points of view. but we should be careful not to give too much significance to minority view points and WP:Fringe theories. i am going to accept whatever decision you are going to make whether i will like it or not. --CarTick (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While sorting out Kaniyar Panicker I have come across this from Edgar Thurston. I'm not a wonderful fan of the guy as (a) it is old stuff, (b) much of it is tertiary and (c) he can be very confusing ... but p. 199 says, in his typically vague way, that "The Kaniyans are said to keep at a distance of twenty-four feet from a Brahman or Kshatriya ..." Hm. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• here is another one. it goes.

"The penetration of north indian culture into the dravidian south began in the second half of the first millenium before Christ. It took place mostly in a peaceful manner. The usurpation of the Pallavas can be looked upon as an exception as they appeared "foreign" to the Tamils because of their coming from the North. The triumphal march of emperor Samudragupta (about A.D 360) was another exception without, however, brining any political changes. The cultural infilitration which took place in a completely non-violent manner did not affect the languages of the dravidians. rather, it procured for them a new intellectual and spiritual world of ideas, thus raising them to a higher level of civilisation. They kept strictly to their languages while Sanskrit was only adopted for religious and literary purposes. The complicated caste system of North was taken over insofar as the Brahmins, the real promoters and protectors of the new culture, united in a special caste, whereas all others remained "non-Brahmins". Ofcourse, they also gradually formed subcastes of their own. They had, however, no genuine warrior caste, as the warlike groups (Bedas, Kurish, Makal and Nairs) did not unite. For this reason, we do not find ""Tamil-Kshatriyas"

--CarTick (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• From History of mediæval Hindu India by Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya:

"What a great source of strength and happiness to the country when the Rajputs did not look down upon the Khatris or the Marathas or both upon the Bengal and Madras Kshatriyas!

• From The Madras Presidency with Mysore, Coorg and the Associated States By Edgar Thurston: (p.133)

"It has been said that there are, in South India, possibly a few representatives (Rajputs) of the old Kshatriya caste, but the bulk of those who claim to belong thereto are pure Dravidians. The Rajas of Jeypore (named after the celebrated town in N.India) trace their pedigree back through more than thirty generations to one Kanakasena of the solar race of Kshatriyas. The Maharaja of Mysore belongs to the Arasu caste of Kshatriyas. And there is said to be an old Sanskrit verse, which describes eight classes of Kshatriyas as occupying Kerala from very early times, namely Bhupala or Maharaja, such as those of Travancore and Cochin.

• From Rethinking India's oral and classical epics:

"It is noted, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, that 'Parasurama is said to have slain all the Kshatriyas seven times over but 80,000 persons have returned themselves as such in this Presidency alone'"

• Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints by Vidya Dehejia p.160:

"KO-CHENGA CHOLA Caste: Kshatriya; Occupation: crowned monarch; Home town: not known; Saint's day: Masi 25 (March 9); Iconography: top-knot, or crown; palms joined; Historicity: historical figure"

• Optional Subject Indian History Medieval India p.33:

"Those who fought valiantly were adorned with the title of Kshatriya Sikhamani"

• Rājarājeśvaram, the pinnacle of Chola art by Balasubrahmanyam Venkataraman:

"Tiruvalangadu Copper Plates: "he, versed in the dharma of Kshattra (Kshatriya), did not desire the kingdom for himself"

• Early Chola art, Part 1 by S. R. Balasubrahmanyam p.214:

"Takkolam came to be known as Kshatriya Sikhamani- puram in the days of Rajaraja I"

• Art and culture of Tamil Nadu by Irāmaccantiran̲ Nākacāmi, R. Nagaswamy:

"It is said that when Prasurama was annihilating the Kshatriya race the then Chola king of Kaveripattinam, Kandan, entrusted the care of the city to Kakandan, a son of a ganika, and retired to forest"

"Tradition of vedic ancestry is not mentioned in the Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the 6th Century AD. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the Kshatriya honorific Varman, to their names. This is another trait which is not noticed in the early Sangam period. But the Pallavas, who appear in the Tamil land by the end of the third century, mentions both these traditions."

203.75.23.20 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Google books and scholar search

Google book searches

1. "Rajput Kshatriya": 329 results
2. "Maratha Kshatriya": 161 results
3. "Tamil Kshatriya": 10 results

Google scholar search

1. "Rajput Kshatriya":58 results
2. "Maratha kshatriya": 23 results
3. "Tamil Kshatriya": 1 result-- this is a copy of a wikipedia article.--CarTick (talk)- 11:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of the ten books that show up for "Tamil Kshatriya", three has the word in the snippet or limited view and the other 7 doesnt. i dont know why they show up in the search at all. dont understand google search well. i am copying and pasting whatever snippet view i can see from the three books.

1. The first one is a book about Nadars calling themselves kshatriyas see here
2. snippet view from the second "One of the most striking differences between caste in North and South India is the absence, or so it seems, in South India of original Tamil Kshatriya and Vaisya classes. This may be due to the fact that the scheme of the four ..."
3. snippet view from the thitd "These several pointers in their totality make it plausible that the thirty-two "kings," whom Duttagamini had to vanquish after he overcame Elara, were the residue of the Tamil Kshatriya nobles who lingered on in South Ceylon" --CarTick (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some other sources for Tamil Kshatriya

A History of Tinnevelly by Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12 [21]:
"... 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 by Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156 [22]:
"In the Tamil works we read that the Pandyas and Cholas claimed their ancestry from the Aryan kings of the north... The Tamil kings were elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas... "

Essays on Indian history and culture by H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy page 33 [23]:
"It is quite significant that the brahmins themselves are prepared to recognisd the Tamil chiefs in the Kshatriya category of the Varna order,..."

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112 [24]:
"They (Brahmins) equated the Tamil chiefs to the Kshatriyas and connected them with the Aryab puranic heroes through various devices"

The courts of pre-colonial South India: material culture and kingship by Jennifer Howes page 25 [25]:
"... Dumont eloquently describes how south indian society is hierarchically structured according to the caste system; this four-tiered system places brahmins as the highest-ranking members of society, followed by kshatriya..."

All the references I have given since the beginning of this discussion show:
1° Old Hindu texts considered Tamil kings, chieftains as Kshatriyas
2° Tamil kings (& more generally south indian chieftains) claimed to be Kshatriyas
3° Tamil kings were recognised as such by the religious authorities

Rajkris (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of sources

What I suggest that we do is continue to add sources to the section above over the next few days & then I'll go through them in this section and create a numbered list for ease of referring to them in discussion. I did pretty much the same thing at Paravar, although as it happens there was not much discussion following my review there. Is this acceptable to people? Obviously, I welcome any discussion that does follow. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks to you and everyone for trying to untangle this. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

sounds good. i will be absent for a large chunk of next week. if we postpone the discussion to the following week, that would be convenient for me. --CarTick (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)