Talk:Kshatriya

Hi Every one Dravidas are mentioned as Kshatriyas the same is quoted in the article as well and hence the entire 97% plus people should be Kshatriyas?, there is no Kshatriya or Vaishya castes like in North India forming 30-50% of the population. Even some the Bramhin castes of south India are Dravidian looking and culturally identical with the rest. Though I completely agree that the Raju community is quite affluent and land owning as well as are not covered under any Reservations policy they are by looks and physical characteristic's and customs as black skinned as their Dravidian brothers. Look at the Rajus's of Satyam or Ram Gopal Verma they dont look any similar to the Caucasian featured Rajputs or Jats having origins in Central Asia. Also it is a Known fact that even in the History books the Andhra ruling dynasties were Reddy's, Kakatiya's, Velamas , Nizams etc and there was not even ONE RAJU FAMILY THAT EVER RULED ANDHRA PRADESH. REQUEST ANY ONE TO PROVIDE ONE GENUINE RAJU FAMILY THAT WAS A RULING DYNASTY IN ANDHRA PRADESH HISTORY. PLEASE DONT QUOTE ANY FICTITIOUS AND UNREFERENCED IDEAS OF RAJUS RULING ANDHRA PRADESH.(Agreed Alluri Sita Rama Raju was a freedom fighter - my deep respects, but not a heriditary ruling dynasty?) no Doubt 95% and above people are covered under reservation policy either SC or ST or OBC, BC etc..., —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.130.223 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Markandeya Purana says Purshuram killed all Kshatriyas except Abhiras.

Markandeya Purana says Purshuram killed all Kshatriyas except Abhiras. Then what are all these castes mentioned here?

Ahirs/Yadavs are real Kshatriyas

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

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

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

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

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

The Vayu purana, Part 1-page-296

Edit request from 117.202.129.241, 4 April 2011

Agnivanshi includes Vanniyar kula Kshatriya.

117.202.129.241 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see any mention of this on the Vanniyar page, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.80.77.89, 14 April 2011

The history of caste system in India has been changed from time to time with the prosporous group always in the top. The division of work later changed to caste system. Through out the history the kshatriyas (Jats, Rajputs, khandayats) were the higher caste. They divided the responsibilities to different group in society, slowly which changed into class system and then caste system. After Arabs/Muslim invasion of India the kshytriyas slowly started losing their kingdoms and their power. After losing power most of them started getting poor and concentrated on cultivation as the other option. At this time one of the poorest and downtrodden class continued to fight against the invadors through their writing. They are the so called brahmins. Except kshytriyas all others were considered as the lowest class before Arabs invasion. After Muslim rule over India the britishers ruled over India. This was the time when Brahmins got more importace as Britisher gave importance on education. For last three hundred years those so called Brahmins have depicted them in their writings as the higher caste. Many of the Brahmins and Kshytriyas are also among dalits as they didn't give importance on education. The history of three hundred years of Brahmins dominance is again changing and the caste system is changing to class system i.e. rich and poor.It is happening because of education among all group of people. However, some tradition still existing as it was in history; feeding the poor as beleived in hinduism. Through out the history the priests were fed as one of the poorest and downtrodden group. Now even after becoming a prosperous group because of importance of education, the people invite Brahmins and feed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.77.89 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

kshatriyas

hi there are so many castes in india who claim to be kshatriyas but there are very few castes who still today write kshatriya in with their caste or sub caste.can i know if these people are the origional kshatriyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.80.92 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• A/C to indian history[Ancient indian history by kc shrivastava]Aryas devided them into 4 varnas[brahmin,kshatriyas,vaish,sudras].there are so many theories about it.kshatriys were a farmer and keep pet animals........................] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.49.86 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New section about castes which claim Ksatriya?

References such as this one[1] and many others have some extremely interesting discussion about various castes (Kurmi, Kayastha, etc) which have claimed Kshatriya status in the late 19th and early 20th century, despite being generally classified as Shudra. Anyone also think this would be some great material to add? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a better source. Can be downloaded and read here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.178.103 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rajput, Jat, Gujar, and Ahir from Encyclopedia Britannica

"The Rajputs’ origins seem to date from a great breakup of Indian society in northern and northwestern India under the impact of the Hephthalites (White Huns) and associated tribes from the mid-5th century ce onward. Following the breakup of the Gupta empire (late 6th century), invading groups were probably integrated within the existing society, with the present pattern of northwestern Indian society being the result. Tribal leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Sudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs." [2] Rajkris (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, the cite you give seems to indicate the exact opposite: that Jats, Gujars, and Ahirs are Shudra. The text says that the nobles became labeled "Kshatriya", while their followers went on to become Shudras, and then it lists Jats, Gujars, and Ahirs as those Shudras. I'm not saying it's a definitive decision, just noting that I think the quote gives the opposite of what you're reading it as. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if Rajkris is saying that the cite proves that they were Shudra or proves that they were not. In either event, Britannica is not a suitable source and he has been told this before by umpteen people and in the talk pages of umpteen articles. Honestly, Rajkris, just delete the thing from your Favourites/Bookmarks list if you cannot otherwise stop yourself from quoting it on Wikipedia. It might be the best printed encyclopedia in the world but it will still never fit with Wikipedia policies and unless you can get those policies changed then you are wasting your time and, more importantly, everyone else's as well. The only thing it is good for is if it cites a source itself, you can find that original source & it that original sources complies with WP policies/guidelines. This is why the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is ok to use here. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Never told that Ahirs, Gujars & Jat are Kshatriyas... On the contrary...Rajkris (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Britannica may not fit Wikipedia criterion but it remains a good indicator.Rajkris (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but no, it is not a good indicator. This is one of those weird Wikipedia things & I do understand that it is weird. Basically, if it doesn't fit the policies etc here then it is good for nothing. That may be daft, but it is also true. This is not a perfect project & it is issues such as this that create so many discussions. If you think it is wrong then the options are (a) try to get the policies etc changed; (b) live with them; (c) go somewhere else. But citing it over and over again, even in talk pages, is not going to achieve anything other than more wasted keystrokes. It is a bit like being a journalist on a significant newspaper: all such newspapers have style guides, and the journalists have to use those style guides regardless of whether they like them or not. The only difference is that the journalist gets paid and we do not. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing to merge Tamil Kshatriya into this article. The issue is fairly complex, and has been addressed in quite a bit of detail already at Talk: Tamil Kshatriya. The quick summary is that a number of us are of the opinion that no reliable sources demonstrate that while there may have been some Kshatriya living in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, their numbers were small, and they were not originally Kshatriya (since Southern India originally used a non-Brahmanic organizational system). Most importantly, though, even if there was a group of Kshatriya who spoke Tamil, there is no evidence at all (that has been presented so far and withstood scrutiny) that shows that this group either thought of itself or is thought of by scholars as a distinct group from other Kshatriya. By analogy, while Wikipedia certainly can and does have an article on automobile salespeople, and an article on German people, there neither is nor can there be an article titled German automobile salesperson, because the intersection of those two groups holds no particular unique identity. Unless people can demonstrate that there is a distinct group called "Tamil Kshatriya" that has some sort of characteristics that distinguish it from other Kshtriya, there should be no article titled "Tamil Kshatriya". As such, we should merge any useful information from that article into this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Support merge - as one who has been heavily involved in the discussions at Talk: Tamil Kshatriya (& has probably read more of the sources for both sides of the debate than anyone else!) - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not support merge. A number of us do not share your POV!... I need some time. I will tell my reason on Tamil Kshatriya talk. We gave you time, so i ask you to gave us time.Rajkris (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, please provide your reasons here. Merge discussions need to be centralized into a single place so that discussion continuity is maintained. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My conclusion concerns Tamil Kshatriya wiki article, so I will post it there.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - Agree with RajKris. I have a feeling that Sitush is not having sufficient knowledge in this subject to give a fair insight in to the issue. Axxn (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So tell everyone what I am missing. Be constructive, as Rajkris intends to be. Your comment is ridiculous without some sort of substance and, as such, would usually be ignored by a closing admin if this were, say, an AfD. I know exactly why you are picking on me here, but perhaps you would care to tell everyone else. Or wander off to Metapedia along with Shannon1488. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You really seems to have a problem with me. It is not that I am picking on you, it is just vice-versa. I don't personally know Shannon (I don't even know what his real name is). I have made my points clear. I am not being rude. To me the points noted by RajKris seemed valid, and your replies were unhelpful. Also, whenever I post something, I have noticed you getting really upset. Is it because you think you cannot intimidate me like you intimidate some of the inexperienced users? Axxn (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Axxn, your comments above do nothing to answer whether or not a merge is appropriate. We have examined dozens of sources, and not a single one of them is "both"inserted later to correct error 1) reliable and 2) supports the existence of a distinct group of people called "Tamil Kshatriya". Do you have some sources that were not raised before? Or were sources previously misinterpreted? If this were a formal discussion (which I will make it, if we can't get consensus from this informal approach) a closing admin would discount your rationale because you can't just say "This is the right decision because Editor X doesn't know what they are talking about"--that's called an ad hominem attack, and has no value in judging what should actually be done. I fully admit that I may well be missing something, that maybe somehow sources have been missed or mis-read; if so, you or Rajkris or anyone is more than free to point out where that is the case, provide alternate evidence, etc. In other words, I don't care whether the result of this merge discussion is the merging of that article to this one, or if it is to improve that article to the point where it meets Wikipedia standards for verification and reliable sources, but one of the two must happen. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"None of them is reliable" --> This is pure POV!!!...Rajkris (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rajkris, that's my typo. I forgot to put "but" in front of #1. That is, we have reliable sources, and we have unreliable sources that state that there is a Tamil Kshatriya group, but we don't have any sources that are both reliable and state that TK is a distinct group. Or, actually, even more precisely, we don't have reliable secondary sources that state that TK is a distinct group (the primary sources or quotes of primary sources of ancient texts generally don't meet our sourcing requirements in this regard). My apologies--I did not mean to say that none of the sources are reliable. But, interestingly, several of the reliable sources are exactly the ones that state that TK is not a distinct group--particularly the Indian university text that Manorathan brought up near the end. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge - in the absence of reliable scholarly secondary sources that unambiguously state that there were "Tamil Kshatriya", what we have left are the claims of various groups of people in Tamil Nadu that they are "Kshatriya". And such claims could be covered in this article--Sodabottle (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge -Sources put forward by RajKris and other users clearly shows that Tamil Kshatriyas existed. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Rajkris has yet to put forward his sources - he's had a few issues and things are a little delayed. The sources put forward by CarTick and Manorathan demonstrate the merge argument, as do some others. Have you actually read the discussion or just piled on here? - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In case if you are not blind, you will be able to see the sources here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)