Talk:Kshatriya

Chandravanshi Kshatriyas

The smrithis of Manu, Vishnu, Apasthamba and Gautama mention the profession of cattle-tending as a Vaishya occupation. How are Yadavs claiming to be Kshatriyas? This article and that of Lunar_Dynasty needs to be cleaned up. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

You are mistaken, cattle tending is not the principal occupation of Yadav/Ahir. Get the facts first before wildly concluding anything. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone Please insert Ahir/Yadav[1], in Chandravanshi category.I think, ref., is convincing enough. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would rather suggest create a Yaduvanshi division, because they appear to be different all the time. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Agro-pastoral communities are generally considered to have produced many kings. Some claimed to be suryavanshi, some claimed to be chandravanshi. Some linked themselves up with existing warrior clans to gain legitimacy (case in point is that of Shivaji's Sisodia connection), and some adopted the practice of yagnopavitham (like the malayala kshatriya of kerala and kayastha of bengal) to claim kshatriya status. One cannot go by one or two inscriptions or sources alone. Further research needs to be done, esp wrt origins, before concluding something. Let there be further discussion with comparison of sources from several historical works on this. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

See WP:NOR, also go through archives of different pages like this one, Rajput, Yadav, Ahir, Maratha, Jat etc., and suggest something keeping in view wikipedia policy. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Am not a frequent wiki user. Let those who have already contributed to wiki please pool together to decide how to shape the article. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Also, if agro pastoral communities produced kings who were scythic/shudra/vysya etc., who were ruling all the time then what the so called kshatriya were doing. Give a thought to it. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Also note that Vatsa (linked to Srivatsa, Kanva), born in the chandravanshi lunar dynasty, was called a Shudra-putra (Panchavimsha Brahman 14.66).

Other rishis born in the so-called lunar dynasty line were Kanva, Jamadagni, Parashurama, Vishwamitra, Atri, Bharadwaja, Garga and Mudgal. And Dhanvantri is sometimes considered a king, and sometimes a rishi.

Vedas mention only rajanya for warriors and do not mention the term kshatriya (except for the purusha sukta). The term kshatriya came into being only from the dharmashastra period. Can anyone point out if there is any community today which can be called vedic kshatriyas, vedic vaishyas, or vedic shudras, as communities that existed since vedic times?

There is nothing called kshatriya or shudra as castes really. It is doubtful if varna can be linked to caste (occupation). Most communities in india did dual roles, such as doubling as peasant-militias (farmers / cattle-herds and warriors) or as merchant-warriors (merchants and warriors). Capable men were promoted all the way from cavalry to military commanders some of whom later established mini kingdoms and grew big.

Each time a warrior group seized power, kings consolidated their legitimacy to rule by linking themselves up with existing warrior clans (and/or marrying into them). And brahmins did the puranic sort of linking up accounts for them with claims of 'kshatriya' status. If one group of brahmins did not oblige, another group was used. People also changed occupations, and new occupations too were created over time, so what happens to jaati? Let there be a detached academic discussion on all this from all contributors. Let the articles be factual. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

I've disabled the request for now. A very specific request is needed, so that we know exactly what you are proposing to change. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See the previous comment. Brian Jason Drake 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Please insert Ahir/Yadav[2], in Chandravanshi category. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I did not request for edit protect. The user Ikon did. But please clarify - is the article edit protect currently? And does it mean that no one can edit it? Who are the people who can edit it then? Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Mayasutra

They know who did it. Please, don't confuse them again. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

?? What confusing? I did not ask for edit protect (why shd i) and am now asking is the article edit protect currently - what's the confusion there? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Request not specific enough. Please tell us which exact text should be inserted where exactly. Controversial edits need consensus first.  Sandstein  22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Laloo Prasad Yadav & Mulayalam Singh Yadav, Kshatriyas ? Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref he gave claims that traditional duty of an abhira who was a Sudra lay in rearing cattle. How can this be interpreted to give Kshatriya status to Ahirs and Gujjars who make up 20% of the population of India? Almost one-third of the population of states like UP, Bihar and Rajastan belongs to this category and the ruling clans were Bhumihar and Thakur (in rare cases even Jat). I have never heard of any Ahir or Gujjar king. 122.177.181.210 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dutiful Warrior section

The intent of this section appears to be to provide information on Kshatriya duties within the vedic caste system. As is, it is written in a non-encyclopedic style and provides little relevant information that is not stated elsewhere more clearly. I think the section needs to be removed or else rewritten in an entirely different format. However I'd like to hear arguments from other interested editors before I remove it again. Black Platypus (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You have done some good job on this page yesterday, but removing 'Dutiful Warrior' chapter was a clearly a mistake. This chapter is here to outline the importance of the kshatriyas caste in ancient India through references from old Hindu texts; I still have to add some more references(at least one more). Indeed, contrary to what you have written in the first lines of this wiki page (another mistake), initially kshatriyas used to occupy the very first rank. All the old Hindu texts (both religious and non religious) glorify them, it is the caste which the most glorified. This chapter is here to underline this. Maybe the name of the chapter should be changed, maybe its place should be changed, maybe it should be merged with another chapter, but its content must not be removed. ThanksRajkris (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kshatriya wikipedia page is not a place for original research

As it is mentioned above, wikipedia is not made for original research!...Some people are adding informations without serious reference. It is particularly true concerning caste membership!...When I say proper reference, I mean a serious reference like a book written by an independant scholar and where the caste is clearly mentioned as a noble, ruling class (kshatriya). Every castes which claim kshatriya status must provide very serious references, it is the only way to prevent vandals, impostors from adding false informations on this page!...Rajkris (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This page needs o be rv back to a saner version.However, you must agree this page deals with a highly controversial topics and reference would be competing and contradictory in nature, so discussion is a better solution. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The actual Kshatriya wiki page is globally ok except for Kshatriya lineage chapter. But Some people are working to clean it. Soon it will be ok (hope in less than 6 months). I repeat it again, castes which claim kshatriya rank must prove it (scientific/historical proof), there is no other way. Those who cannot have no right to mention their caste as a kshatirya caste. If there are some controversies, discussion will be open, else no. But we must not forget one thing: discussion is made of words and with words we can tell everything and its contrary, but it is not the case with science!...Rajkris (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with classification like Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi etc., and relating them to present day communities. Suryavanshi lists Badgujar (a Gujjar & rajput clan). Should we assume lord Rama was a Gujjar???? Ikon ^No-Blast 19:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. We have to do something to correct this. No one can prove its connection to these legendary lineage. If you have any suggestion, please give us. I'll give mine soon.Rajkris (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Start removing entries for which references are not there. Axxn (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We must go step by step. First, we must remove all those who cannot give proper citations and then rewrite the Kshatriya Lineage chapter in a proper way. I'm working on it; i'm going to open a chapter in the talk page where i will ask to give proper citations to castes which claim kshatriya rank, then i will add 'citation needed' to each castes without proper citations and after 2 weeks i will start removing castes without good references.Rajkris (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Khatris

Indeed the Kshatriyas are the purest of Aryans. their colour like all Aryans ranges from light to brown.

The Kshatriyas have nothing in common with the Khatris, a merchant caste.

I would totally agree, The Punjabi Khatri a merchant caste has nothing to do with the Warriors the Kshatriyas. Even our Gotras, looks, structure and values are different. Shri Gaj Singh would never allow a member of his family to marry a Khatri. Besides a Khatri are a fine caste and only marry in Lallas (Khatris).They are rich and proud as well.

Khatris will marry anyone. A lot of Khatri women are married to Dalit, Muslim and Bania boys.(Example look at the case of Udit Raj).

Not to be confused with the Punjabi Khatri a merchantile caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note should be taken of the fact that the great caste of Khatri (the merchants) have nothing to do with the Kshatriya (warrior and kings).''''

Khatris are descended from Rajput women (Out castes) who married Sudra men. Punjabi Rajputs even as late as 1950s refused to have their food along with Khatris. Khatris does not have any Kshatriya lineage. The only true Kshatriyas in Punjab are Punjabi Rajputs. Even Jats do have some Kshatriya heritage. But Khatris have none.122.177.198.50 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jats are not Kshatriya by any definition. They don't have any martial tradition. 115.113.97.137 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of the Jat clans are having Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi or Nagavanshi origins. Jats were the rulers of many princely states and well known for their martial tradition. As far as I know, no reliable sources has classified Jats as Sudra. So the best classification possible is Kshatriya. If we count only the ultra-orthodox Brahminic definition, then only the Rajputs will be Kshatriyas in India. Others like Marathas, Jats, Gorkhas will be non-Kshatriya. The Brahminic definition of Kshatriya differs from place to place and this indeed creates controversy. One clan, which is recognized as Kshatriya in one place will be recognized as Sudra in another place. For example, Goud Saraswat Brahmins were counted as Sudras in Karnataka and Kerala. That doesn't makes them Sudra. According to Brahmins of Kerala, all other castes among Hindus (including other Brahmins) are Sudras. So we should look in to the original varna accorded to them historically. If a clan is descended from Kshatriyas, then it should be classified as Kshatriya.122.177.192.32 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All the castes who can prove clearly, without any doubt that were a noble caste that ruled (part) of Bharat and gave their blood to defend this wonderful land & its great culture/civilisation can honestly claim kshatriya rank and must be recognised as such by others!... If Jats can prove that, they must be considered as kshatriyas by the others, same for Kathris and everybody else... No need to have a brahmanical approval!... For Brahmins, we're all Shudras, they're the only high caste and therefore the only ones who can govern Aryavarta. It's a Brahmin plot to divise us, we must not fall in their trap!...Please do not despise each other.90.46.110.243 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Chhetri" in colloquial Nepali

I added this near the top of the article where linguistic derivation in Hindi and Sanskrit are discussed, but didn't know now to formalize it in devanagari etc. Some help here would be appreciated. Although "Kshatriya" is certainly understood by everyone who is literate, it's simplified to "Chhetri" in everyday speech.

Nuances of meaning should also be discussed in the Nepalese context. Khas peoples in far western Nepal often belong to the Thakuri sub-caste, notably the Shah family that unified the country and ruled it until recently. Nepalese Chhetris often originated in marriages between Brahman men and indigenous peoples such as (Kham) Magars, so it is more of a synthetic caste in Nepal than it might be in India.

Also some of Nepal's "martial tribes" claim Chhetri status on the basis of their long history of soldiering (a tradition that probably was well developed before the Shahs took advantage of it to unify the country, then the British exploited it by recruiting Gurkha mercenaries). Also the martial tribes had their own independent kingdoms before unification under the Shah. LADave (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Vanniyars" (Vanniyakula,Agneya/Agnikula,Vahnikula Kshatriya) are (or) not the real Kshatriyas

Vanniyars are not at all Kshatriyas, they're a low, backward class. They were confered the MBC (Most Backward Class) status in TamilNadu. How can they claim Kshatriya status without any historical proof. They are just vandalizing Kshatriya wikipedia page. Kshatriyas were Kings, Nobles/Landlords, Army chieftains... Vanniyar is a community which constitutes around 30 percent of the whole tamil population. It would mean that 30% of tamils have noble origins ??!!... What a nonsense!!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.213.126 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read history thoroughly my friend. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.72.70 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vanniyars are a labour caste = shudras. Vanniyars (which is not even a caste but a community of castes) constitute around 30 percent of the whole tamil population. It would mean that 30% of tamils have noble origins ??!!... this is joke!!... Noble caste doesn't account for than 5 to 10% of a (feudal) society, it is true everywhere in the world. Many of them converted to christianity (that's another sign of their low caste status). See these links:

My DEAR FRIENDS - YOU SAY IN THE ARTICLE THAT DRAVIDIANS ARE KSHATRIYAS THEN YOU SAY RAJUS ARE KSHATRIYAS THEN YOU REBUKE OTHER DRAVIDIAN CASTES SAYING THAT THE LINEAGE SHOULD CONTINUE THEN RAJUS LIKE MANY DRAVIDIAN CASTES CLAIM KSHATRIYA STATUS AND CLAIM DESCENT FROM SUN OR MOON (CHANDRAVANSHI OR SURYAVANSHI) BUT DRAVIDIANS CLAIM DESCENT FROM EARTH (BHOOMIVANSHI) RAJUS CLAIM TO BE DECENDANT FROM ALL RULING CASTES IN SOUTH AND ALSO CLAIM IN THE ARTICLE TITLED RAJU ON WIKIPEDIA THAT THEY ARE ALSO RAJPUTS OF THE NORTH WITH NO RAJPUTS ACCEPTING THEM AS SUCH. WHY THIS HYPOCRACY? THERE IS NO WHERE IN EVEN ANDHRA HISTORY WHERE A DYNASTY WAS MADE OF RULING RAJU DYNASTY, THERE WERE DYNASTY LIKE VELAMAS,REDDY,ETC THEN YOU SHOULD GIVE THESE CASTES KSHATRIYA STATUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.135.215 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FRIENDS_of_UP/message/1544

http://books.google.com/books?id=ppbkEJAEVCIC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=vanniyars+low+caste&source=bl&ots=_34TaHb8RK&sig=cSKxSvpc3HkgdToO7YjA1z4d-RM&hl=en&ei=VwsdS8DiGdrOjAf21PiKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=vanniyars%20low%20caste&f=false

The everyday politics of labour: working lives in India's informal economy By Geert de Neve page 77.

Kshatriya wikipedia page must be protected to prevent vanniyars vandals to edit it.

Kshatriyas do not account for more than 5 to 10% of the whole indian population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.96.182 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

122.167.72.70, I know history of Bharat & Tamils much better than you. If you look at Tamil history very carefully, you will come to only one (scientific) conclusion: the 30% (or more) Vanniyars are a labour caste that is shudra... That's why most of Vanniyars still remain uneducated & received the MBC status, they're not able to succeed on their own like a normal high/forward caste. 90.46.96.182 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

by the way 122.167.72.70, don't call me friend, i will never agree to be the friend of vandals, impostors. If you continue your vandalism, i will inform wiki admin of vanniyars vandal acts in different wikipedia pages like the one where you wrote pandya/chola/chera were vanniyars!!!...90.46.96.182 (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Vanniyars were never classified as Kshatriya. I have never seen any historic texts relating them with Kshatriyas. To be a Kshatriya, the ethnic group should have some Kshatriya origin or a martial / aristocratic / ruling history in which Brahmins did the coronation function. Vanniyars don't have any of them.122.177.192.32 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP 59.92.135.215, first of all, do not confuse the words 'dravida' and 'dravidian'; the first one was the name of an unknown caste, clan mentioned in old hindu texts, the second one is used nowadays to designate people from south india (according to your play on words, all south indians, from Brahmins to Dalits are kshatryas!)... Second, castes which can prove with proper references that they were a noble/ruling caste (like books written by serious, independant scholars adn where the are clearly described as a noble/ruling caste) can honestly claim kshatriya status and add their name in this wikipedia page. But this is not the case of Vanniyars. So please, do not disturb this wikipedia page, some people are working hard to maintain it in a proper way. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear contributors please read Vanniyar Puranam - based on one of the 18 Puranams written in Sanskrit & subsequant research works by Archeologists.

First you should learn how to use wikipedia properly, you have forgotten to sign it. Then (from what i have read), you're mixing mythology/legend with history. What I have read (but i don't if it is true) belongs to mythology. Then, it seems to me that your mind is quite confused: you first talk about sanskrit, agni (...) then you tell about dravidian glory, aryan invasion and other stupidities. You seem to forget that the word Kshatriya is very close to the word Arya (Aryan) which means noble (see the kshatriya wiki page). I have read number of books about history of India and Tamils, written by both indians (tamils & non tamils) and non indians. None of them mention your caste as a high, noble, ruling caste. I have friends from tamilnadu and when i ask them about vanniyars, they tell that it is a 'very low caste'. There is a nice link in this wiki page which sends you to an interesting article written by an independant (not like your archeologist who belongs to your community) and which tells clearly about the history (and not the mythology!)of the people called vanniyars. The only people who consider Vanniyars as a kshatriya caste are the vanniyars themselves. Neither the others castes nor independant scholars consider them as a noble caste. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanniyar Puranam / Story

It is understood that this Vanniyar Puranam / Mythological Story was written at Madurai Tamil Sangam during Pandiya King Sundara Pandian’s regime by Saiva Shri Veera Pillai as a translation from Sanskrit ‘Agni / Agneya Puranam’ which is one of the 18 Puranams written in Sanskrit. The puranam / story is…

‘Vilvalan’ & ‘Vatapi’ were Asura brothers born to ‘Dhurvasar’-a saint & ‘Kajomuki’- younger sister of ‘Sura Padman’ - an Asura later killed by Lord Murugan.

Vilvalan & Vatapi played mischief’s with ‘Agasthier’ - saint which resulted in swallowing and digestion of Vilvalan by Agasthier. The left out Vatapi prayed Lord Shiva and attained further strength and started ruling ‘Rathina Puri’ situated in the middle of southern sea. Vatapi married ‘Chokka kanni’ daughter of ‘Mayan’ – Deva’s Viswakarma. The Asura Guru ‘Sukhracharuyar’ supported him with Asura battalion. As expected, he started torturing all the Devas which ‘Naradhar’ noticed and complained to Lord Shiva. Saint ‘Sambu’ maharishi also started ‘Yagnam’ on Shiva to safeguard Devas. Then Lord Shiva came over there and a drop of sweat from his third eye dropped in the yagnam which created the first “Rudhra / Veera Vanniyan’ with his horse, weapons & crown.

Then Lord Shiva & Matha Parvathi asked Devendran to offer his second daughter “Mandhira Maalai’-younger sister of ‘Deivayanai’ wife of Lord Murugan, for the marriage of Rudhra Vaaniyan. Upon mutual acceptance & Horoscope matching, marriage between Rudhra Vaaniyan & Mandhira Maalai was solemnized and become parents for four Sons. They were named as “Krishna Vanniyan, Brahma Vanniyan, Sambu Vanniyan & Agni Vanniyan. These four boys were getting the entire warrior training from Lord Murugan – their Uncle. Subsequantly, they were married to the Four daughters of ‘Kandha(Susheela)’saint, namely-Indhrani, Narani, Sundhari & Sumangali.

Then, as per the advice of Lord Shiva, they moved towards south along with their soldiers created by Lord Shiva to fight Vatapi – Asuran and reached the ‘Durga Parameshwari Amman’ Temple in south. The Rudhra Vanniyan & his four sons requested Durgai Amman to help them in combating Vatapi which she accepted and came along with them with her ‘Boodha’ battalion. While they are crossing the Sea, the sea gave way to them by moving the water away in both sides and reoccupied itself. However, one pet dog of Vanniyars could not cross the Sea and returned home.

After reaching Rathina puri, Rudhra Vanniyan sent Naradhar as mediator which failed and resulted in full-fledged War between Vanniyars & Vatapi Asuran. The ‘Kali Amman’ Asura’s family God was also helping the Asuras in the War. The Fighting was intensive and finally Vatapi was killed by Rudhra Vanniyan. Subsequently, all the Asuras were killed including women. But, finally, Four Asura Women (as per the arrangement of Sukrachariyar – Asura Guru, to protect Asura Kulam) came out in Human form and the Vanniyars did not kill them and took them along with them to home.

After the War, the entire battalion reached back the shore and the Durga Goddess stayed at her Temple at south and Vanniyars after worship returned home. At their surprise, it was noticed that all the four daughter-in-laws of Rudhra Vanniyan already died by jumping into Fire pots after seeing one of their dogs is returning home alone which indicates that all the Vanniyars have died in the War. This event was also due to a ‘Sabam’ by Sukrachariyar to all the four sisters, since these brides were once denied to him by their Father – Kandha Saint.

After that all the Four Sons had ‘Kandharva Vivah’ with the Four Women brought by them (supposed to be Asura Women but in Human Form) and started living with them. Then Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu have allocated ‘Sambu region’ to First Rudhra /Veera Vannian, upto north of ‘Palar’ to Brhama Vanniyan, upto ‘Pennaiyar’ to Krishna Vanniyan, up to north of Kaveri to Sambu Vanniyan & Western side of East coast to Agni Vanniyan for their Ruling.

After that the First Rudhra Vanniyan had another son named ‘Chandra sekara maharajan’ and became their heir for sambu region & then both First Rudhra Veera Vanniyan and his wife Mandhira Maalai left to Devalogam at the invitation of Lord Devendran.

It is understood that their descendents are spread all over India & neighboring countries. It may also be noticed that the descendants of the above Vanniyars viz Agnikula Kshatriya / Vanniyakula Kshatriya / Vahnikula Kshatriya – the Warrior community are predominantly available in Rajastan, Gujarat, West Bengal, Andhra, Kannada, Kerala, Tamilnadu etc. and their main deity is Goddess Durga/Baghavathy/Maiamman etc. in different names in different parts of India & neighboring countries according to local practice. However, there are no interlinks between them since they were weakened by subsequent Rulers.

There are Two Books available to narrate the Vanniyar story. The First book narrates the Vanniyar Puranam / Mythological Story originated from Sanskrit Literature and the second book is a research work by an Archelogist providing Historical references about their kingdom in different parts of India & neighboring countries.

1) ‘Veera Vanniyar Kathai’ by Durgadoss S.K.Swamy

    Published by : Prema Prasuram, 59, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
    Phone : 044 - 24833180 / 24800325

2) ‘Vanniyar’ by Nadana Kasinathan, Archeologist

    Published by : Manivasar Pathippagam, 31, Singer st., Parry’s, Chennai – 108.
    Phone : 044 - 24357832 / 25361039 
    Website : www.manivasagarpathippagam.com
    ( Branches are available in Chidambaram – Ph – 230069, Madurai- Ph- 2622853,        
    Coimbatore – Ph- 2397155, Salem-Ph- 3207722 & Trichy-Ph- 270645) 

Further, it is understood that the Vanniyars are the normal soldiers and the Vanniyakula Kshatriyas are the Kings Ruled & secured the common public, which merged over a period as Vanniyars. Also, it is due to the invasion of various communities like Aryans/Mughals/British etc. overpowering the native Dravidians, all those Rulers & warriors became farmers & poor and are classified as a most backward class in the society. It is the fact that the Vanniyar’s agricultural products were not adequately priced even now and education was denied to them which resulted in poverty and illiteracy due to which they become an unprivileged community.

The Glory of Dravidians / Tamils & Vanniyars is yet to be understood by its own community youths which will be achieved in due course & will emerge as a Literate, Economically advanced community very soon and preserve their Glory.

First, you should learn how to use wikipedia properly, you have forgotten to sign it. Then (from what I have read), you're mixing mythology/legend with history. What you have mentioned (but I don't know if it is true) belongs to mythology. Then, it seems to me that your mind is quite confused: you first talk about Sanskrit, Agni (...), then you tell about Dravidian glory, Aryan invasion and other stupidities. You seem to forget that the word Kshatriya is very close to the word Arya (Aryan) which means Noble (see the kshatriya wiki page). I have read number of books about history of India and Tamils, written by both Indians (Tamils & non Tamils) and non Indians, none of them mention your caste as a high, noble, ruling caste. I have friends from Tamilnadu and when I ask them about vanniyars, they tell it is a 'very low caste'. There is a nice link in the above chapter which sends you to an interesting article written by an independant (not like your archeologist who belongs to your community) scholar and which tells clearly about the history (and not the mythology!) of the people called vanniyars. The only people who consider vanniyars as a Kshatriya caste are the Vanniyars themselves. Neither the others castes nor independant scholars consider them as a noble caste. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Avoid talking in the name of Tamils. This topic is about Vanniyars (vandals) and not Tamil people. We all know about the glory of Tamil culture and its great contribution to the Indian culture. You must also understand that Kshatriya wiki page is not made for self glorification but only to inform people around the world about the Kshatriya caste in an objective way. There is nothing shameful to be a Sudra, especially in a democratic society; look at western people, more than 85% of them were Sudras but it has not prevented (some of) them from doing (very) well. You must also understand that in feudal societies, majority was governed by minority; for example, in European countries, Kshatriyas (Kings & Nobles) did not account for more than 5% of the whole society. Even if the initial meaning of Kshatriya was 'warrior', Kshatriya quickly start designating only Kings & Nobles (ministers, army chiefs, Landlords...) and not the simple soldier (infantryman, footsoldier...) who was a Sudra; it is really important to know this.Rajkris (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

These Vanniar guys are just vandalizing the article every 2 hours or so, pushing POV information. Biased sources published by Vanniars themselves, like "Veera Vanniyar Kathai" can't be taken as valid refs. Vanniyars were never a martial race or an aristocratic one. They were a peasant community who were classiified as Sudras and looked down upon by other upper caste communities. Even intermediate castes like Thevars used to avoid eating food together with Vanniyars. If you want to include Vanniyars here as a Kshatriya clan, then provide valid lineages like Suryavanshi or Agnivanshi from a respected source. 122.177.200.146 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thevars / Mukkulathor

When it is written citation needed, it does not mean putting a link which sends you to another wikipedia page written without any proper citation, references!... It simply means adding serious references, like a book written by a scholar!!!...90.46.216.136 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nagavanshi and the Naga People

I have noticed that some people descending from the Nagavanshi in this article are mongoloid groups (The Balinese 'satrias' and the Balamon/Cham people). How are they connected to Jats, Bunts and Nairs? These three groups are Indo-Scythians with Aryan features. Even in the Vedas the Nagas called themselves 'Arya' (see indepth article of Nagavanshi, which could also be wrong. I dont know). Anyway, there is something wrong here.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cham Kingdom (Cham are those people who immigrated to Vietnam from South India) was ruled by Nagavanshis and the Balamon are descended from them. Same is applicable to the Kingdom of Bali (Kwavi, the sacred language of Bali is similar to Sanskrit and most of the princes have Naga origin rather than Mongoloid origins). All the surviving Balinese Kshatriyas trace their ancestry to Dewa Agung, a Naga prince. 122.177.194.163 (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cham People/Balamon look nothing like the Nagavansh. They are closely related to the Austronesian(mongoloid) peoples. Im removing the entry. Please provide citations to put it back.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KSHATRIYA LINEAGE CHAPTER: PLEASE GIVE PROPER REFERENCES

In order to maintain the quality of this wikipedia page, to protect the reputation of wikipedia and also the kshatriya caste around the world, to prevent vandals/impostors from adding false informations, all the castes which claim Kshatriya status must provide (very) serious references. By this I mean: they should provide scientific/historical proofs mentioned in books written by independant schcolars and in which the caste is clearly described as noble, ruling caste. All the castes which can prove, without any doubt, that they were a noble caste that ruled (part of) Bharat, gave their blood to defend this great land and the Arya Dharma (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) can add their name in this chapter. Others have absolutely no right to put their name in this chapter! Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Refs added for Nagvanshi. Sources:

• Nagas, the ancient rulers of India: their origin and history By Naval Viyogi (For all clans)
• Downfall of Hindu India By Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya. (For Nairs)
• Kishori Lal Faujdar: Uttar Pradesh ke Madhyakalin Jatvansh aur Rajya, Jat Samaj, Monthly Magazine, Agra, September-October 1999 (For Jat Clans)
• The origin of Saivism and its history in the Tamil land By K. R. Subramanian, K. R. Subramanian (M.A.) (For Nairs)
• History of the Jats By Ram Sarup Joon (For Jat Clans)
• History of ancient India By Rama Shankar Tripathi (For Karkotaka) - Axxn (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rajkris, Since you have put a citation needed tag on Ror in the Suryavanshi lineage section, I had initially proposed a citation from the Puranas but you rejected saying that this is not proper history. So, I've brought in a book reference now that I would like to add to the page. Not able to do that currently as the page is protected. The details of the book are as follows -- Title "Ror: Badgujar, Indo- Gangetic Plain, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Suryavansha, Harishchandra", Editors "Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, John McBrewster", Publisher "Alphascript Publishing, 2009", ISBN 6130071205, 9786130071202, Length 108 pages. Kindly build consensus and add this change to the page. Thanks for your time. Regards 112.110.210.11 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.210.11 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi... please provide the exact quote as in the book stating Ror to be Suryavanshi. Also, please provide the page number. Axxn (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Axxn! I have not been able to get hold of that book till now. But there is a different reference that I would like to provide now. On page 7 of his book "Rorwansh ka gauravshaali lupt itihaas" (Published by Ajay Graphics, Shivpuri (M.P.) in 2003), the author Sugan Chand (M.A. History) says, "Surya Vansh ki Kshatriya jaatiyon mein ek Ror jaati hai, jo ki sankhya mein thodi hote huye bhi Bharat mein prachalit atma-sammaanit jaatiyon mein apna gauravshaali, ujjawal sthaan rakhti hai". Translating into English, the author has said that one of the Surya Vanshi Kshatriya castes is called Ror, which even though less in number has historically occupied a respectable place amongst the respectable castes prevalent in India. Following that he goes on to list the descent of the Ror starting from Sri Ram on the same page. Please build consensus on this and kindly remove the citation needed tag. Regards Rorkadian (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The page is currently locked and can't be edited. I will add the ref once it is unlocked. Axxn (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Axxn, I'll really appreciate that. Thanks and regards Rorkadian (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nair

Hi, i tried shortening the Nair clans because they are really the same people, just with different hierarchy. If we list them all here, it will spoil the page like the other vanshis. Technically speaking, almost all Nairs which make up the Malayala Kshatriya are Naga. By rank, these are Samanthan Kshatriyas (Varmas and Rajahs), Samanthan Nairs (Kaimal, Nambiars, Thampis), Kiryathil Nair, Illathu Nair, and Swaroopathil Nair, and Itasseri Nairs(?? These are also Nairs). I think thats about it, the rest of the Nairs are actually assimilated Vellalas and Maravars from Tamil Nadu.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with your classification. First of all, Samantha Kshatriyas and Samanthan Nairs are artificial divisions created by the ruling elite. They were not among the original subcastes. Most of the above said two clans evolved out of Kiryathil Nair and Illathu Nair from 17th century onwards (Also, some of them are claiming Chandravanshi and Suryavanshi origin, like the Royals of Cochin although they were originally Nagvanshis). Itasseri Nair was assmimilated in to the Nair population during 19th century, and there for not an original Nagavanshi Nair clan. Can't write "Nair" here (since it includes Tamilpadakkar and Padamangalakkar). At the same time Kishori Lal Faujdar lists "Nambiar", "Nair" and "Kiryathil Nair" as Nagvanshi clans. Other sources, most of them written during 18th century or before that, lists "Nair" as Nagvanshi. But Nair of 18th century (Kiryathil / Illathu / Swaroopathil) is different from Nair of the 21st century. Samantha Kshatriyas and Samanthan Nairs are seldom mentioned in historical texts, since they are insignificant artificial divisions with minuscle populations formed recently. So it will be better to list 4 clans: (1) Samantans (Samanthan Kshatriyas and Samanthan Nairs) (2) Kiryathil (They includes Nambiar) (3) Illathu and (4)Swaroopathil or a single one as "Nair". Axxn (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did mention that they are really the same people. The ruling elite changed their Nair surnames into those such as Varma, Kaimal, and Thampi. However, they still trace their roots to the Kiryathils and Illathus, who were the original landowners. The Nambiars are different, they are originally interbred with Nambuthiri with Kiryathils. Because of that they identify themselves as Samanthans and they still intermarry Nambuthiri.

To cut the long story short (literally), instead of putting all sub-subcastes Varma, Kaimal, Pillai, Nambiar etc, just put Samantha Kshatriya and Samanthan Nair. Saves readers from getting a headache, and if they are interested they can click the Nagavanshi link for more details. Either that or you could spoil the page and put every Samanthan clan under sun. Since I'm not sure about Ittaseri Nairs either, you can remove them.

As for survanshi and chandravanshi claims by some Samantha Kshatriyas, they are not verifiable. If anyone can provide citations, it would be great. Else they fall under the Nagavansh group.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was going to omit Samanthans all together. For Cochin claims, see this and this. Biased source written by an anti-Nair Ezhava, but still contains some valid info. Axxn (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The references are just claims. In fact even in both books it states that their history is murky, meaning that the Solar/Lunar heritage is not verifiable. Secondly, there is no history of permanent take overs by Solar/Lunar Kshatriyas in Kerala. How did they suddenly spring into existence when the original landlords were the Kiryathils and the Illathus? The Samanthans are Nairs, in fact most of them today acknowledge this except the Cochin elites to name a few. It was an old power game, and is no longer relevant today. And most importantly, they still worship snakes just like the rest.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Worshiping of serpent gods can't be a criteria for determining Nagvanshis. Even the Thiyya of Malabar has adopted the snake worship from the Nambiars. Might be part of the power game, since Cochin Rajah (Solar Kshatriya) claimed superiority over Travancore Rajah (Lunar Kshatriya) due to his Suryavanshi origin. Axxn (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the page is fine now.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Axxn (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

'Kshatriya descriptions and references throughout Indian history ' chapter

Hello. Can anyone help me to find a sentence in the Bagavad Gita; in one of the page, Krishna tells Arjuna a sentence like this: fear, doubt are unfit of an aryan. ThanksRajkris (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As far a I remember 700 verses of Bhagwat Gita, don't have the term Arya. Someone may correct me if I am wrong. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kshatriya Issue

I request all editors on this page to refrain making any attempt to link with mythical personalities and lineages like that of lord Rama & Krishna. Upper section is full of such claims, please clean them. No mention of Rajput, jat etc., should be made there. Please, also bear in mind Mahabharata caegorically denies existence of any Yaduvanshi after Mahabharata, so every community that is claiming is a claim only and should be treated as such. As per historians historicity of Krishna is itself debatable. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mahabharata no where says Yaduvanshis ended after Mahabharata. Check MBh. 1.13.49, 65 and Visnu Purana (Chapter 5). See the following reference. After Dwaraka was submerged Yadavas moved to Punjab and Afghanistan. Some dispersed in Saurashtra region. Many Maratha clans are of Yadava descent as well.

"Actually , the legend reports a westward march of the Yadus (MBh. 1.13.49, 65) from Mathura, while the route from Mathura to Dvaraka southward through a desert. This part of the Krsna legend could be brought to earth by digging at Dvaraka, but also digging at Darwaz in Afghanistan, whose name means the same thing and which is the more probable destination of refugees from Mathura..."

Introduction to the study of indian history, pp 125, D D Kosambi, Publisher: [S.l.] : Popular Prakashan, 1999

--History Sleuth (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mathura to Dwarka movement had happened, prior to Mahabharata war and so is not the part of our discussion. Also, after excavation and revelations in Dwarka, Darwaza has been ruled out now. However, findings at dwarka confirms the genuinity of MBH as an account of war, but Krishna part is still considered inserted fiction into this epic, as per Russel. Why? Because, Krisna & Balrama both does not Fought the war, and krishna is reported in rigveda itself along with Indra, marut, agni etc. He may have been an inspirational force residing in heaven by that time. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Since there's a content dispute and too much edit warring going on in the article. This is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. Please discuss your edits here on the talk page and gain consensus. Once you reach consensus I can edit the page to add or remove the relevant content. Procedure for requesting edits to the article:

1. Propose a specific change on the talk page, and get consensus for it. Don't add the editprotected template yet.
2. Once it is clear there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put "{{editprotected}}" on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation.
3. An administrator will notice the editprotected template has been added, and will respond to the request.

-SpacemanSpiff 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)