Talk:Yadava

please remove non elite word from yadav articles because who is elite or non elite is not decided by you. Those people who proud of his work is always elite. So please sir remove it.

Prod

Sorry Abhiras are not Yadavas in the Mahabharata. THey are described as the tribe that kidnapped the Vrishni and Andhaka women and looted the remnants of the Yadavas after their internecine strife that wiped out all their warriors during their journey to Indraprastha. If Abhiras were really Yadavas why would they prey on their own kinsmen. I have tagged prod. Kindly either redirect to yadav or move the material there. Yadav(cast), would be offshooted to a proper namespace. You should have readers in your mind before creating such an article. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yadava is a Sanskrit word and In Sanskrit (written in any script, including Devanagari), if a lone consonant is written without any following vowel, it is given a halanta/virāma diacritic below (example: प्). If it not there, it is to pronounced with vowel "a" after it. The citations mentioned in this article also used Yadava, not Yadav. Not a single logic is provided why the article should be either deleted or shifted to Yadav. It is simply unacceptable as Yadav is a Hindi word and it can not be used to describe the ancient Yadavas. Please first discuss in the talk page why a Sanskrit word should be replaced by a Hindi word.

Joy1963^Talk 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I am surprised. Joy is giving such lame excuses for maintaining this article. I won't discuss with you whether it is Yadav or yadava, in sanskrit, because AFAIK, it is same. In english both terms are used interchangeably, and you are just creating problem for readers who are yet not familiar with what the term is and likely to be confused between yadav and yadava. Also. whether in sanskrit or in Hindi it is always written without halanta. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for your reply. What I could understand from your reply that the only reason behind your proposal for deletion of this article is the possible confusion between Yadava and Yadav by the readers, But, a reference has been made at the top of this article to Yadav (disambiguation) page and Yadav (disambiguation) page very clearly has removed all possibilities of confusion. A similar reference is also there in Yadav article, directing the readers to Yadav (disambiguation) page. Even at the end of the lead paragraph, it is clearly mentioned, "A number of communities and royal dynasties of ancient, medieval and modern Indian subcontinent, claiming their descents from the ancient Yadava clans and mythical Yadava personalities also describe themselves as the Yadavas (or Yadavs)," which I think leaves no room for confusion. A small point I like to mention again. In Hindi because of Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages "यादव" is pronuonced as Yadav, not Yadava unlike Sanskrit and whenever any work in English mentioned about the ancient Indian people, it always used Yadava, not Yadav. Even J. N. Singh Yadav's work is titled "Yādavas Through The Ages", not Yadavs. At the end, the point raised by you seems to be an irrelevant one to me. Thank you again.

Joy1963^Talk 05:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The same author dr Jn singh yadav a famous yadav historian says yadavs is same as yadav so why new article?Raosaab7 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to answer the leading sentence of this discussion about Mahabharata that why did Abhira tribe kidnap or loot the Vrishni and Andhaka. As far as I or anyone else can easily understand that Mahabharata is the story of bloody fight between brothers and relatives. Brother killed brother (Arjuna killed Karna or Arjuna killed Duryodhana), A pupil kills his teacher (Arjuna -> Drona). In Mahabharata war only blood related people are seen to fight and kill each other. Then how can one say that Abhiras are not part of Yadavas just for the reason that they attacked andhakas/Vrishnis. That too the episode is part of so called Musala Parv where All Yadavas are seen to fight each other and kill each other. So at least in case of Mahabharata it is simply baseless to say that Abhira are not Yadava because they attacked Andhaka/Vrishni (the Yadava).--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

All these confusion is caused by the British written books, who didn’t have the slightest knowledge about our culture and history In accordance with the long standing colonial tradition of denigrating Hindu deities, ignoring glaring evidence, about how Krishna was a 'tribal' deity, later appropriated by Brahmins to preserve their ever weakening authority. These colonial masters has not only distorted our history to suit their purpose but also made their slaves psychologically And they knew creating conflicting statement would result in disharmony

Utkarsh nagwa (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Abhiras themselves are Yadavas so why new article

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=xm2ATbagEYPirAf-8szDBw&ct=result&id=fltuAAAAMAAJ&dq=chudasama+were+abhiras&q=yadavas

• As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence in any ancient Indian literature that ancient Yadava people were anyway related to the Abhiras. Even the reference mentioned by you is about the castes of Bombay, not about the ancient people. It is quite true that like a number of other communities in South Asia, the Abhiras or the Ahirs also claim themselves as Yadavas or Yadavs and that very fact is mentioned in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, which follows the policy of NPOV, I think you will appreciate that if Abhira and Yadava become a single article, it will be a POV and not supported by facts. If you find any reference in any ancient Indian literature (Hindu, Buddhist or Jain or any secular text), where Abhiras are mentioned as a Yadava clan, you are welcome to incorporate the same in the article with proper citation. Thanks.

Joy1963^Talk 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• abhira has yaduvanshi classification link-The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India-page-22

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ri7pgHOQC8UC&pg=PA21&dq=ahirs+of+gujarat&hl=en&ei=rS2MTbuHHsf4rQfOx-XSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20of%20gujarat&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) If you have any doubt that abhiras later called ahirs have a branch called Yaduvanshi Ahirs and yes chudasama a clan of rajputs were caled abhiras and ahir ranas.Raosaab7 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) "Is there any answer to Raosaab7 "38.101.155.250 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Joy1963 In which place or book it is written that Ahir was not Yadav. Do not write history by yourself. The Yadavas are a dynasty consisting mainly of four groups. You will find evidence in the Puranas - Vishnu, Harivamsa, Padma Purana, Shakti Sangam Tantra etc. Thank you N8 09:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yadava and Yadav article creating confusion?

If it is yadavas then what is Yadavs ?Raosaab7 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yadav is a clan of Yadava (descendants of Yadu). These clans are also descendants of Yadava like Saini, Bhati, Jadeja etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So why indian govt and constitution accepts all ahirs be it be yaduvanshi , nandvanshi or gwalvanshi to be yadavas ?.

Then why are ahirs called yadavs and why not bhati, jadeja and saini ever used Yadav as last name ?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Many kings started there own Dynasties like Vrishni, Bhoja etc. and there descendants are using there name instead of calling themselves Yadu vanshi (descendants of Yadu). --¢ℓαяк (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yadava are Yadavs ?

Yadava personalities also describe themselves as the Yadavas (or later Yadavs or Jadhavs).[5][6]

This is what i copied from main article. If i am not wrong then this means Yadavas and Yadavs are same thing. Yadav article says yadavs are shudras then how come these glorified people who were once kings and rulers became shudras?38.101.155.250 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no question of yadav being Sudra.If you take four varna ( bhramin, kshatriya, vaishav, shurda)in hindu.Rather Yadav are always been in Kshatriya.It is showing the complete lack of Indian caste system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D murari (talk • contribs) 06:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs are group of peasant- pastrol communities so they comes in shudras. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Shudras also have their chiefs/kings.for example adivasis were also having their kings#rani durgawati. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:DeokalimuskabadWhere is Yadav Shudra written? N8 09:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge articles Yadav , Ahir and Yadava

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposal has been withdrawn and there is otherwise no consensus for it. While there are quite a few editors supporting a merge after the proposal was withdrawn, many of those arguments do not have reference to the sources presented indicating that there is not substantial enough overlap between the topics to warrant a merge in accordance with WP:MERGE. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Proposal to merge articles Yadav , Ahir and Yadava

Based on these sources given below the term Yadav, Ahir and Yadava are used synonymously so it is proposed that they be merged into one article YADAVA. All contents of Ahir and Yadav will move to YADAVA.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India by MSA RAO.

Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Impacted articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahirs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadava — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Yadav and Yadava should be combined, but Ahir should be separate. Yadavs did not exist in the Gangetic Plain before 1900. The term was adopted by the some among the former Ahir, Gwalas, and Gopis (herders and milkmen) as a part of a program of upward social mobility. Subsequently a golden age was invented in which they, a non-elite caste, had now magically become kshatriya. The Yadav page needs to explicitly state that and all its history should be post-1900. Here are some sources:

• Pinch, William R. (1996). Peasants and monks in British India. University of California Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-520-20061-6. Retrieved 4 October 2011. Quote: "Gopis, Goalas, and Ahirs, who would by early 1900s begin referring to themselves as Yadav kshatriyas, had long sought and attained (after 1898) recruitment as soldiers in the British Indian army, particularly in the Western Gangetic Plain."
• Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 387. ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Retrieved 4 October 2011. Quote: Yadav: North Indian caste title signifying kinship with the Hindu pastoral hero Krishna; now used in preference to Ahir.
• There are a bunch of pages in Jaffrelot that address this, but I'm too tired to quote them (and it would likely be a copyright infringement if I do). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

msa raos book can be taken as a good source and ahir, yadav and yadava can be combined. please read msa raos book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Two reliable academic sources one by MSA Rao and other by T Padmaja is provided above which clearly mentions Ahir as Yadavs long before 18 or 19th century.

Rao has also stated that ancient Yadav dynasty and Ahir are one and the same. MSA Rao book must be given due weightage.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

and then "Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Khándesh"

Page 578 yadav or ahir is used synonymously

This book was printed in 1880 by government central by the goverment. The book mentions about a chief Asa the ahir also known as yadav. This is before the 19th century.

People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 By K. S. Singh published by government of India

It states Ahir and yadav are used interchangeably

Please consider these for article merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&pg=PA44&dq=ahir+YADAV&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahir%20YADAV&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have indented some of the comments above as things were getting confusing. I would encourage the IPs to register: merge discussions involving IPs tend to hit problems regarding judgement of consensus. I am not suggesting that any of the above IPs are socks but such activity is quite common on Indian caste articles & it does tend to make life difficult for all concerned.

Where would Abhira fit into this proposal? Some of the above comments seem actually to be using alleged Abhira/Ahir synonymity as at least a partial basis for their position. If there is any doubt then the articles should not be merged: better not to conflate and thereby create potential misinformation. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the merge because of the reasons listed here (with sources). TLDR: (1) A number of castes claiming descent from the ancient Yadavas started doing so in the 1920s. (2) While Ahirs themselves believe that Ahir = Yadav, there are other communities which claim that Ahirs are just one of the several Yadav castes. utcursch | talk 09:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge because:

• support the "oppose" reasons given by Utcursch and, where appropriate, by Fowler&fowler
• the sourced section Yadav#Sanskritisation explains the creation of a history
• sources such as Jaffrelot, which are already used in Yadav, clearly demonstrate that they have considered the opinions of Rao.
• arguments that the British lumped various groups together at Ahir etc in their censuses are somewhat poor as a basis for conflating the groups noted here: the British methods were generally skewed and this has been commented on by countless modern writers, eg in this. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So UTCURSCH is basically saying that AHIR are the not the only YADAVS but other communties fall under YADAVS too but then why is that the article YADAV only mentions about AHIR. It should also mention about various other communities under YADAV. Bases on UTCURSCH comments the article YADAV needs correction. Also MSA Rao is a source which cannot be ignored. The article YADAV needs correction based on MSA RAos book. In academic world he is a premier historian/scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article here? Yadav does mention Rao and does mention communities other than the Ahirs. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think SITUSH the point here is article YADAV needs some correction based on Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India by MSA RAO. That is the whole point of this discussion. If you feel we dont have to merge it then dont merge it. but core issue is "why is work of so many reputed scholars ignored". kindly look into it. Just a few sentence correction based on MSA Rao book is being expected. The article YADAV is not really neutral. So many books have been provided as reference which mentions about AHIR kings ,,, AHIR and YADAV being synonyms. MSA Rao should be given due weightage ( you had mentioned that ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about the merger proposal, not about possible improvements to Yadav, which is an aspect that has been discussed ad infinitum at Talk:Yadav. Forum shopping when you do not "get your way" in one place is not usually a good idea. You appear now not to have a particular opinion one way or the other about the actual merger proposal, despite being the proposer. This is therefore a waste of everyone's time and I wonder if it would be best for you to formally withdraw the proposal. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

formally withdraw the proposal

Thanks everyone for the comments. I formally remove my proposal to merge the articles ahir/yadav/yadava. Sitush can you help me out with the formalities. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That can be done, if we get the agreement of User:64.105.168.2 (who supported your proposal) and no other person objects. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

many many sources use ahir,yadav and yadava interchangeingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

MSA Raos book can definitely be used as a source to merge AHIR/YADAV/YADAVA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

JanetteDoe has made available pages from the MS Rao book at Talk:Yadav#Pages_from_Rao. You've been quoting the sentence "evidence exists for equating the Ahirs with the Yadavs" out-of-context to prove your point. The book clearly states "Yadav is a category of allied castes", and lists Ahir as one of these castes. utcursch | talk 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A general notice: I have referred this discussion for review at WP:AN, bearing in mind the formal withdrawal above. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean by outofcontext. MSA Rao clearly states that Ahir/yadav/yadava are one and the same. He has mentioned clearly that evidence exists that yadava dynasties are Ahir dynasties. The article needs to be merged. Whats going on. Ahir, yadav and yadava are always used interchangeably. merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

By reading the discussion from users. It is clear that yadav and yadava there is no difference. numerous proofs/source in discussion of Yadav. Merge the articles YADAV/AHIR/YADAVA. how many articles for the same thing. now its all becoming a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is plan simple fact that Yadava/Yadav no difference as no difference in krishn/krishna or Ram/Rama. It means there is no discussion needed at all. As far as yadav and ahir is concerned it has been used interchangeably. For the mater of fact, when krishna killed Kaliyanag (one demon shape snake) by naked feet that time this term coined ahir(ahi+ir i.e. "ahi" means snake and "ir" means stamping by naked feet i.e. fearless ) for yadavs.Hence, there is no need to divide the yadav page and making it ambiguous.

In particular in north side (in particular in Bihar and UP) there is four sub caste(called as kories) of Yadav are krishnauth, Majroth,Goriya, gawala.As all most some other caste caste have their own sub caste(kories) like in Brahmins but at least there is no debate on their being on brahmins.In summary,What I mean these pages needs to be merged.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is their any relation to Yadava and Kapu caste ?

Is their any relation to Yadava and Kapu caste ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.105 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

His entourage was attacked by bandits. And why exactly are these bandits equated with Abhirs? Now all along the author seems to be arguing that the Abhirs were Vrishnis, then why would Vrishnis attack their own women? As usual the reader is given no proof in this regard, except for a statement from the pulpit.

Utkarsh nagwa (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No evidence as to abhirs looted women

In accordance with the long standing colonial tradition of denigrating Hindu deities, Scroll's recent article on Krishna indulges in wild speculation, ignoring glaring evidence, about how Krishna was a 'tribal' deity, later appropriated by Brahmins to preserve their ever weakening authority. These colonial masters has not only distorted our history to suit their purpose but also made their slaves psychologically And they knew creating conflicting statement would result in disharmony Utkarsh nagwa (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing of article central description.

Dear administrator, the central description of article "ancient Indian Kshatriya" should be changed to ancient hindu tribes. As their ancestral king was cursed by his father that he will no longer carry the family lineage/kingdom.So, they are just a Indian tribes. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing someone from the state does not change anyone's character.  Whether a lion lives in a forest or in a city, it is a lion. N8  09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Old and primary sources

Why is this article using very old translations of primary sources? It shouldn't be using any - we should be working off reliable, modern secondary sources. I am inclined to gut it. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Only primary and old sources are true. Modern sources which are being written today are not considered to be true. They are with hostility. Both old and new sources should be used.N8 09:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not how it works. In fact, it is exactly the opposite - see WP:HISTRS and WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush Sir, I would like to make some argument. In the Padma, Vishnu Purana, Lord Vishnu himself has said that he will be born in the Yadava dynasty of Gwalas and will kill the wicked. Even in the Rig Veda, Maharaj Yadu and his brother Turvasu were called Gwala as a servant of cows. It is mentioned in the Shakti Sangam Tantra that the descendants of King Ahuk are called Ahir (Gwala). It is also mentioned in Harivans and Bhagavata Purana. Ahir is not a caste but a title given to Maharaj Yadu. Then it is said that they robbed women of Vrishni and Andhak dynasty. Why would anyone rob women of their own lineage? Why would the cowherds rob their own women? Clearly, it has been sabotaged in modern India. Made to discredit. If it is assumed that they looted. Arjun used the word 'Loota'. This should also be true, he protected women from Arjuna. When Arjuna was kidnapping and taking Subhadra, all the Yadavas wanted to kill Arjuna including Balarama but he could not do so because of Lord Krishna. This must have been the reason that when Arjuna was taking the women, he thought that he was kidnapping and taking them and he attacked Arjuna and protected the women. Arjuna lost to them, so must have used the word loot. One more thing, when Arjuna defeated the Narayani army in battle, he was proud that he defeated with his power. Lord Krishna promised Indra that he will protect Arjuna as long as he stays on earth. That is why Lord Krishna did this to break Arjuna's pride. It is all written. Now the question comes that the condition you have spoken to see us. According to the condition that any scholar or source of high news which according to Wikipedia, his article can be taken as reliable source of Wikipedia article. He never wrote that Ahir robbed the woman. So why is it written in some Wikipedia articles that Ahir looted? Two sources are telling about A and B, so shall we use them to indicate C? Thank You N8 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is your interpretation of the primary sources that leads you down a path of uncertainty and confusion. Those ancient texts were compiled over centuries, exist in many forms and were influenced by the needs of the time (an old but more recent example would be Kalhana, who inevitably had to write to please his royal masters). This is why we should always use modern academic interpretations. We are also not permitted on Wikipedia to make our own judgements regarding which version is "right" - that is what WP:NPOV is for, and if we have various reliable sources saying different things then we should show all of those different opinions. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush Sir, By writing Rama in English to Lord Rama of Hindi, Lord Rama of Hindi language and English language does not separate, he is the same. Similarly, by writing Yadav or Yadva, both will not be separated. Sir I agree that this is about the ancient Yadavas, not about modern Yadavas. but instead you should use Yaduvansh as the main title and not Yadava. Thank You N8 10:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely you said right, if there will be different opinions, then you will show but it does not happen. The 'selective option' is adopted. N8 10:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir, what I have argued is not primarily mine based on the original article, it is from the scholars.Thank you N8 10:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be from scholars but we're showing very old primary texts and very old scholars. Academic thoughts tend to change over time, sometimes because certain things become more popular areas of study but often because the criteria used for study has tightened up. As an exmaple, this is why we do not use Raj era sources in caste articles - they're hopelessly "amateur" compared to modern sources. (And as an example of the problem relating to primary texts being used by us, consider the northern and southern recensions of the Mahabharata - which do we choose? why are they different? and so on)

I don't do a lot of work on ancient empires/dynasties etc here on Wikipedia but I think Utcursch does a fair bit so perhaps they will have something to say here. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Here the source of the same scholars are being shown who have mostly worked on economic and educational parameters or researched on a particular subject, it is also true that economic criteria and occupation determine the class of any one, but the ancient caste category cannot be changed, and according to modern criteria, the entire particular caste cannot be placed in the class decided in modern times. According to this criteria, they try to prove that you are modern, no relation to the ancient. You take Tulsi Ji's Ramcharitmanas, he says in one place that in the whole world, apart from Ahir, there is no pure clean heart of anyone, then he tells Villain in one place. There has been a lot of sabotage in middle and modern history. Thank you very much sir for answering our questions. N8 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That is why I said that very ancient and modern sources (present ) whose original research is based on very ancient history should be used. N8 12:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)