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...,

Matrilineal Kshatriya

Please take not of the fact that the Khatri a very nice merchant caste is not Kshatriyas. Also there are some Muslim Rajputs in Pakistan, but Bhuttoo and Jinnah have no Rajput link. Foreign elements to create a confusion in the Kshatriyas are planting names of non-kshatriyas as Kshatriyas. these foreigners are naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.155 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

In Kerala, the Nambuthiri definition is like this -

Father Nambuthiri + Mother Kshatriya = Son Kshatriya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Able, Please provide references for these claims:

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

Sakas were matrilineal : Link to Google Books

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

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

Jack.Able: Buy and read the book. You will understand why it is called "vestiges". Some clans became patrillineal, others kept the matrilineal system. Historians such as John Wilson claimed that the Anglo-Saxon race descended from certain Scythian tribes. If you look at English royalty, you can see "vestiges" of it, as in they practice Queens regnant. The current incumbent is her majesty Elizabeth the 2nd. But this is waaaay out of topic.

Mayasutra: Am not interested in matrilineal or patrilineal. Several communities and tribes of the austro-asiatic and tibeto-burman linguistic groups are matrilineal. Am asking for references from the Vedas about Sakas being Kshatriya as you have claimed.

Jack.Able: As for the Vedas vs Manusmriti, honestly I couldnt care less about the difference. They all belong to one same category in history : Mythology written in Ancient Sanskrit. See the full article on Indo-Scythians in Indian literature.--Jack.Able (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mayasutra: It is better that you contribute about things you care from the academic pov. No point making an article flippant. And no, Manusmrithi is not mythology in ancient Sanskrit.

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

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

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

See below.--Jack.Able (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayasutra: Which genetist has confirmed that R1a is indo-scythian? Guess you are aware that R1a occurs in several indian 'low-castes' and tribes like Chenchus, Saharias, Pallars, etc. And the Pillai Nair Menon DNA Project you quote has just 15 individuals registered on the project, of which 5 are R1a. Instead of providing such "references", it wud be great if you can provide proper references from scientific journals. Btw, am one of the first indians who got a full sequencing done and am a participant in a handful of such projects. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

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

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

Khatri: Kshatriya claim is very controversial

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

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

Origin of Khatris

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

Quote:

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

Page 59 says following:

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Book reference:

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

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

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

To tell the truth, only the self proclaimed "Khatris" say they are Kshatriya. Both Brahmins and Rajputs consider them as Sudra and refuse to eat besides them. Being a merchant community does not makes theym Vaishya. Khatris are Sudras. 116.74.15.88 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Only some higher class Brahmins (like Gaurs) refuse to eat with Khatris. Saraswat Brahmins, who act as priests for the Khatri community accept both food and water from them. However, outside Punjab, the status of Khatri is very low. They rank equivalent to Jat in Kangra and other parts of Himachal, and rank even lower in Gujarat and other parts. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... if you go by the Brahmin classification, then anyone who can bribe out a Brahmin can become a Kshatriya. In that sense, Khatris can be Kshatriya. But Manusmriti states that they are Chandala (even below Sudra and Antyaja). The original Manusmriti classification can be seen here (Page xix). Khatri is an illegitimate offspring of a Kshatriya mother with a Sudra father. Manusmriti describes him as "most degraded of all mortals". Manu further states that he is not permitted to perform rites for his forefathers. But as I have said earlier, money can change everything. 143.205.176.60 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to attck any community. Chandala mentioned in Manusmriti is not the same as Khatri. Khatri caste came in to existence quite recently. Some people related the term "Kshatri" in order to slander the community.Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nagvamshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kasyapa is said to be the father of both Devas & Asuras, only mothers were different. This gotra is very common throughout India, and does not proove or disprove anything. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kshatriya lineage vs Original Kshatriya status

So many people are writing about the so called "Kshatriya descent" of Jats, Marathas, Gorkhas.etc. But in Hinduism, only the Rajputs are recognized as true Kshatriyas. Every other claim of being Kshatriya is contentious or fabricated.

Kayasths - Kayasths claim to belong to the Kshatriya varna, but most of the Brahmins consider them to be Sudra. During the later half of the 19th century, some prominent Kayasths filed a petition in the Calcutta high court to get Kayasth declared as "Kshatriya". But after studying all the evidences and claims, the bench (which included Kayasths) ruled out that Kayasths are indeed Sudra. Even in 1916, (Case no. 20 Cal WN 901) the Calcutta court ruled again that they were Sudras. Another appeal was filed during 1926, in which the court validated intercaste marriages between Kayasths and Doms (a lower caste) on the ground that both are Sudra.

Marathas - The Marathas were considered as Sudra by the local Brahmins, and this is the reason why they refused the coronation of King Shivaji. However Shivaji brought Brahmins from Karnataka to conduct his coronation. Along with him, 96 other Maratha families (out of a total of close to half a million Maratha families at that time) were declared as "Kshatriya" by the foreign Brahmins. But the local Brahmins still refuse to consider them as Kshatriya. When Madras High court was asked to decide whether Marathas are Kshatriya or Sudra, it gave out it's opinion that the Marathas were indeed Sudra. However the top ranking Maratha clans like the 5 families (Panchkuli Maratha) and the 96 families (Shahannavkuli Maratha) still claim that they are Kshatriya.

Jats - Jats are considered as Sudra by both the Brahmins and Rajputs. It is another fact that many Jat clans were elevated to the status of Rajput during the medieval period, but even those clans deny any connection with Jats. Like wise many Rajput clans, who lost their power, were relegated to the status of Jat.

Yadavs - As historical sources claim that Yadav race got extinct many millenniums ago, Brahmins never recognize Yadavs as Kshatriya. They claim that most of the Yadavs today are descendants of Ahirs and Gujjars who just changed their surname. Madras high court in 1927 opined that the Yadavs of Mathura are Sudra, not Kshatriya.

Nair - Quite similar to Maratha. Local Brahmins never considered them to be Kshatriya although they were a martial race. Coronation ceremonies conducted by foreign Brahmins from 17th century onwards. Moreover, in Kerala, the Nambuthiri Brahmins claim that a Kshatriya should have Brahmin father and Kshatriya mother. A child born to Kshatriya parents is considered as Non-Kshatriya. During early 20th century, some Nair leaders were arrested by the local police for proclaiming themselves as Kshatriya and breaking the pula requirements. The Kerala High Court ruled that the Nairs are Kshatriya based on studies by Logan and a few other British officers, but the exact circumstances and amount of external influences exerted on the jury is questionable. Even if the British and the corrupt jury declare the Nairs as Kshatriya, the Nambuthiris refuse to recognize them as such.

Chhetri - Martial race from Nepal. Some Brahmins consider them as Kshatriya, but the majority does not.

Manipuri Kshatriya - Local Brahmins consider them to be Kshatriya, and the British courts recognized them as Kshatriya. But they are of Mongoloid race and adopted Hinduism quite recently. In any other part of India, they will be considered as non-Kshatriya.

Deb Barma of Tripura - Same as Manipuri.

Tamil clans - Vellalars claim descent from ancient Chola and Pandya kingdoms. But Brahmins does not recognize their claims. Claims by other castes are even more vague. Thevars claim Kshatriya status because they are martial. Nadars and Vanniyars claim their status from some obsolete connections and studies (none of them reliable)

Rajus - A few Brahmins whose very Bramhin claims and origins are itself in question, consider the Rajus of AP to be Kshatriya. But their claim is refuted by most of the Brahmins.

Khatris - A merchant caste claiming to be of Kshatriya varna. The Brahmins consider them as Sudra and refuses to eat with them. Even the Rajputs refuse to be associated with them.

Gujarati Kshatriya - A large number of lower castes claiming Kshatriya status. Very unreliable and vague claims like those by Nadars and Vanniyars of TN.

Balinese Kshatriya - Recognized as Kshatriya by the Balinese Brahmins. But their status will be questionable in India.

Conclusion - From all this evidence, it is clear that the Rajputs are the only Kshatriyas in India according to the Brahmanic definition. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. One precision: Rajputs were recognised as Kshatriyas only by Rajasthani Brahmins (or northwest Bharat Brahmins), not by the others; and especially those from Kerala, the Nambuthiris. For them, they are Sudras. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rajputs are recognized as Kshatriya by 99% of the Brahmins in India. Nambuthiri definition is insignificant. Nambuthiris consider even other Brahmins like Iyer and GSB as Sudra. That does not makes them Sudra. They are still Brahmin. And for further information, Rajputs are recognized as Kshatriya by every other Brahmin community, even in Karnataka and Andhra. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is so funny. A Rajput chauvanist battling for recognition. When will you Indians be free of your Brahmin influence?

From what definition is a Rajput considered Kshatriya? Also, can you please provide me references as to the number "99% of Brahmins recognize the Rajputs"?

If the Rajputs were the only Kshatriyas in the world, then what happened to the all the Kshatriya clans mentioned in Sanskrit literature? Disapperead? And also, I dont remember Krishna, Arjuna, Rama, or any of the famous Kshatriyas refered to as Rajputs, nor did they have any Rajput surname. Correct me if im wrong.--Jack.Able (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Suresh Varma claims that Nairs are "Quite similar to Maratha." What is the similarity between Maratha and Nair? Marathas were warriors as well as farmers. Around 10-20% were soldiers, while the remaining were agriculturists and such things. How can they be similar to Nairs, who were soldiers until the British conquest? This is what the historian Francois Pyrard says about Nairs in his book The Voyage: "As for the Nairs, they are all nobles and meddle with neither handicraft nor trade, nor any other exercise, but that of arms, which they always carry." Only when the British disbanded the army and the local militias did some of them shifted to other professions. Axxn (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Nairs sole occupation has been warfare for the past millennium, right before the British came. They also seem to practice an advanced form of warfare martial arts, Kalaripayat (not to mention the oldest known martial art in history, but the Nairs are not the creators). Their martial arts and sword, the Khanda was an integral symbol of their power, which they carried around at all times. On the surface, this is more Kshatriya-like than most Rajput clans. How does Mr Suresh defend against that?--Jack.Able (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a soldier does not automatically make someone Kshatriya. Kshatriya is a term used to denote the members of the Royal Family. Less than 10% of the Nairs were members of the Royal Families or aristocrats. The remaining were all common soldiers. That is the difference between a Nair and a Rajput. Rajput means "son of a King" i.e member of the Royal Family. Rajputs are not the ordinary soldiers, they are the members of the Royal Family and aristocrats. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Joshua Project as of 2009 estimates 41 million Hindu Rajputs, 18 million Muslim Rajputs and 0.8 million Sikh Rajputs, or some 60 million in total. Does this mean there are 60 million members of the Royal Family and aristocrats? The population of North India is roughly 500 million. 12% of the population are royal? This makes all of them Kshatriya?

As for only 10% of Nairs belong to the royal families; the same applies for the Rajputs. They are only Kshatriya-like. Some of them are worse off than the Nairs, in the sense that they are not warfare adept clans, others were Muslims and Sikhs. Kshatriya is a Hindu caste.--Jack.Able (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Emergence of Rajputs in 6th-7th century

the Rajput was a later development than the Kshatriya .

The Rajputs emerged around the seventh century after the Gupta empire collapsed .

The Rajputs are Hindu warriors who came into prominence in the 7th century in north western and central India

Intothefire (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The origin of Rajputs can be found here (Brahmin definition). According to Brahmins, the Rajputs arose after Parasurama (an incarnation of Vishnu) finished his extermination of Kshatriyas. The few Kshatriyas, who survived by hiding in the jungle finally came out in the open. The Brahmins questioned their Kshatriya status and labeled them "son of kings" (Rajaputra or Rajput) rather than kings. Thus the Brahmins believe that Rajputs are the sole remaining Kshatriyas. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer to User Rajkris's question - Nambuthiris believe that Kshatriyas got exterminated by Parasurama during Treta Yuga. The remaining Kshatriyas fled to forest rather than fighting, so lost their Kshatriya status. This is the reason why Nambuthiris refuse to recognize any community as Kshatriya. And for Nairs, the martial community in Kerala, they are considered to be the descendants of soldiers from the Naga Kingdom who fled to forest to escape Parasurama. They lost their varna status there. Nambuthiris do not recognize them as Kshatriya. Same reason why Rajputs are not recognized as Kshatriya by this insignificant group. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Suresh Verma

Going by your own citation, from a link you have provided above ...here s what the book

says (about this Indian group the Rajputs) from the same page as linked by you

“ By the sixth century AD there are historical indications of groups calling themselves Rajputs settled in the Indo Gangetic plain ”

From my understanding of primary Indian texts ....

• there are many communities in South Asia with a lineage far older than Rajputs with Kshatriya derivations *Next vocation is not equal to caste for example there is rich evidence on hand to show that Rajput peasants formed a significant portion of the poor farming classes in central , eastern , north and north west India .
• Ample sociological and historical scholarship provides a backdrop of a much larger assemblage of communities of people from South Asia within the Kshatriya fold .
  Intothefire (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Suresh Varma

Brilliant logical deduction. The Naga Kingdom lost their varna for fleeing, but the Rajputs remain "original kshatriya" for hiding? Please explain. There is no need for references on Rajputs being Kshatriya. Almost every martial class has reference on its Kshatriya status. Im asking for reference on the number you gave = 99% of Brahmins.

Also, I have a hard time differentiating a Rajput with a Jat. They all look the same to me. Can you please tell me why?--Jack.Able (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Varma's logic is strange. The Rajputs who married their women to Muslims and fought with them against Hindu rulers like Shivaji, Rana Pratap, etc who were defending Hinduism somehow remained Kshatriya! The authority of Brahmins that he is citing to push his prejudiced view had even declared Akbar as incarnation of Vishnu! The recognition or derecognition by Brahmins is of zilch value who themselves were totally corrupted like the Rajputs marrying their women with Muslims. Majority of Brahmins and Rajputs during Muslim era who went by those names were actually fake Brahmins and pseudo-Kshatriya in context in which these terms are defined in Indian scriptures--142.205.213.254 (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "my logic". Rajputs are recognized as Kshatriya everywhere (except in Kerala). When Shivaji conducted his coronation, his friend produced a fake lineage claim from the Sisodia Rajput clan to confirm the Kshatriya status of the Marathas. The lineage claim was studied by the Bhata Brahmins from Karnataka and Shivaji was awarded Kshatriya status along with 96 other families. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere? Not so. Not even in Rajputana, the home of Rajputs. Rana Pratap had banned marriage between Sisodias and almost all other Rajput houses of Rajputana because they served Muslims, technically "Malechas", and gave them their daughters. Thus these Rajputs were worse than Shudras because as per Manu a Shudra is still of higher ritual status than a Malecha. This is the reason these Rajputs were considered polluted by Sisodias. Read up Tod a little bit. So drop this "everywhere" argument right away because it is patently false. Each caste invokes a ritual framework according to its convenience. Rajputs, who were polluted according to other castes, do according to their own. It does not mean its universally accepted as would have others believe. Whats next in line, even Ranghars are kshatriyas? Some of them retained Brahmin priests right upto British era. Most of these Brahmins were thugs and would do anything for their patron for a fee, like declaring a Muslim emperor incarnation of Visnu.--142.205.213.254 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact that you do not understand both of our arguments shows your flawed logical reasoning. Let me put it clearly so that you can take it in:

• I (apparently so do other wikipedians) dispute your statement which goes without any proof that Rajputs are the only Kshatriyas in the whole universe.
• I also dispute your attempt to discard other groups as losing their varna, just because they flee in another direction from Parashurama's wrath.
• To top it all, your argument is on the basis of mythology. It doesnt, and will never hold any ground.--Jack.Able (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence to prove that the claims put forward by Suresh Varma here are not supported by historians

Suresh Varma is busy in pointing out that Kshatriyas as a race became extinct during the Treta Yuga. This is just pure propaganda pushed forward by Brahmins to divide and rule the non-Brahmin bulk. This orthodox Brahmin view is supported by very few historians. I can point out a fine evidence here (from The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society), in which the author argues:

"The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras."

Suresh Varma is brainwashed by Brahmin ideology and still believes that Kshatriyas are extinct. Please read a few history books to see what the historians have to say about this.

Also see these sources:

• Comprehensive Dictionary of the World, Volume 5, Part 1
• Identity and Genesis of Caste System in India
• The Hindoos
• The west of England miscellany
• Chhatrapati Shivaji
• India, an historical sketch
• Chips from a German Workshop: Essays on mythology, traditions, and customs

Reply expected from Suresh Varma. Axxn (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Brahmins, all Kshatriyas have been exterminated by Parasurama (the champion, hero of the Brahmins). According to scholars, this kind of Brahmin story and the non recognition of Hindu ruling caste as Kshatriyas by Brahmins was only part of the political game between the priests caste and the ruling caste. Brahmins did not recognise the Hindu ruling castes as proper Kshatriyas in order to hold an absolute control over the Hindu society. They did not want to relive their ancient position (in those times, they were only the servants of the ancient Kshatriyas lineage (Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa,...)), by giving them too much importance. In the ancient times, the Indian/Hindu society was completely dominated by the Kshatriyas; parasuram story illustrates brahmins attempt to liberate themselves from this jail. The British power supported this Brahmin POV to avoid the revival of the Indian/Hindu nobility, ruling class. For them Brahmins were not a threat, they were a pacific, servile vegetarian caste ([2]). It is not accident that most of the freedom fighters were non Brahmins, many were Kshatriyas, especially among those who were in favour of military action against the British (see Subash Chandra Bose). Brahmins acceeded to dominance within the Hindu society only after Muslim & British conquest.Rajkris (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is futile to argue with a person like Suresh Verma, archives are full both here & Rajput page regarding their kshatriya status. In future such individuals should only be directed to the archive. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He has also raised question on the basis of food and water parity. He should better know, Koris of North, Kurmis of UP & Bihar, and several other caste won't accept water from the hands of a brahmin. In fact this issue had erupted during census and on the basis of it, Rajput ranked below, Brahmins, Yadavas & Kayasthas. Because of these anomalies, it was not taken into account for ascertaining the caste hierarchy in British Census. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is pure Brahmin propaganda to claim that Parshuram annihilated the entire Kshatriya race. The Ramayan clearly gives a short account of an encounter between Parshuram and Laxman after Sri Ram had won the Swayamvar. In that episode, the way Laxman riles Parshuram again and again, even telling him at one point of time that Raghuvanshi Kshatriyas were not afraid of fighting with even something as eventual as death, there are signs of the Brahmins' lie. It is clear that Parshuram did not inspire the kind of fear that the annihilator of a race could have inspired. So, I subscribe to the view that Parshuram could never cause any harm whatsoever, so much as even touched the Kshatriyas, in any place beyond the present-day Konkan and North Karnataka - South Maharashtra region. In fact, by the time you reach the Malwa area moving slightly north of Maharashtra, there are Pauranic accounts of Parshuram running from the grip of one Senapati Ruru, a general of the famous Sahasrarjun. There is a need to separate fact from fiction in this case. Parshuram may have caused considerable harm to the Kshatriya race in a limited geographical area but in other parts of India Kshatriyas reigned supreme, as shown by the Swayamvar episode as well where Parshuram went claiming that he will kill whoever had harmed the Shiv Dhanush. But once he reached there and saw powerful Kshatriya boys, Ram and Laxman, he was put in place. In fact, Tulsidas claims that he even sang praises of Rama to appease Him. Clearly shows who was the boss even in the so-called Parshuram Era. 112.79.192.240 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Point two, the Brahmins never decided on caste status. It was the kings and Rajanya who conferred caste status and at times made Kshatriyas into Shudra and Brahmins into Vaishyas. Case in point is the revenge reeked by Raghuvansh on Haihayas after re-claiming Ayodhya and in the second part, the account of conferring landholdings on the ancestors of Tyagis by Janmejaya. After this episode, Tyagis gave up Brahmin jobs and became farmers. It was Rajas and Rajanya who could carry out such operations. The Brahmins had no authority whatsoever to challenge the King's writ. Thanks and regards, 112.79.192.240 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... if Brahmins claim that no Kshatriya or Vaishya currently exists as per the vedic sense, then I claim that no Brahmin exists now as per the vedic sense. Brahmins, the so called "priestly class" are a completely useless and coward community as can be seen from the history. They will do anything for money, as can be seen from the elevation of Muslim kings to divine status and the recent support Mayawati received from the Brahmins. Kshatriya.Knight (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Chief Rajput lineages are Kshatriyas

Rajputs were rituallistically recognized as legitimate Kshatriyas (dwijas) by Vedic-Brahmins in recognition for their support of Vedic-Brahmins to preserve the Vedic religion from onslaught of Budhism. Although present Rajputs were not originally part of the Vedic-Kshatriyas lineages , Rajputs were provoted to Kshatriya status with Brahminical recognition with blending of their genealogies to older Kshatriya lineages using the Agnikula myth by sanction of Vedic-culture. After attaining ritualistic sanction as Kshatriya, Rajput lineages solidified their political hold on Rajputanana and gradually severed their dependence on Agnikula myth. However in the effort of social mobility , certain pastoral agrarian communities , managed to enter into the Rajput fold as lower ritual ranking Rajputs. You may read a detailed chapter in the link below.

http://books.google.de/books?id=z6eR2CX_zbsC&pg=PA176&dq=Rajput++kshatriya+abu&lr=&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Rajput%20%20kshatriya%20abu&f=false

--Sanam001 (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.. So you are the one who decides who is a Kshatriya and who is not. This is discussed in detail here and your views are neither supported by the historians nor by the wiki users here (See the talk archives first). If you want to label all the castes other than Rajput as Sudra, then find a better reason. Axxn (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who cares whether they are recognized by Brahmins or not. Brahmins can decide on who is a Brahmin or not. For others, they don't have any right to do so. Many of the martial castes like Marathas, Nairs, Jats and Gorkhas were labelled by Brahmins as Shudra. But that does not make thhem Shudra. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Referenced content from reliable sources deleted from this article

Intothefire (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

raju kshatriyas

Raju is a Telugu variation of the Sanskrit word Raj and Raja[1] meaning King, Prince or Lord.[2] Rajus (Rajulu in Telugu) is used to refer to a prominent and influential Telugu Kshatriya Caste in Andhra Pradesh.[3][4][5] Kshatriya Rajus are said to be descendents of ancient Royal dynasties like Eastern Chalukyas, Chalukya-Cholas, Vishnukundina, Gajapati, Chagi, Paricheda and Kota Vamsa.[6][7][8]

Over the centuries they have been called by various alternative names that signified their military status. During the British Raj they were known as Ratsas[9] and Rajavars, which means of or belonging to the caste of Ratsawars[10] (Raja Caste),[11] using the title of Raju. They are around 1.2 percent of the Telugu population,[12] concentrated mainly in the Coastal Andhra region with pockets in the Rayalaseema, North Arcot and Rajapalayam of Tamil Nadu, Bellary of Karnataka and Ganjam of Orissa. In last few decades significant population of Rajus have migrated and settled in US and UK.

Rajus use Raju or Varma in the Andhra regions and Deo in the Orissa regions as an agnomen for their last name. Varma in Sanskrit means Armor, Protection[13][14] and Deo in Sanskrit means God or Lord. In Telugu tradition the family name is written first followed by the given name and then the caste title. For example Alluri Sita Rama Raju, a prominent freedom fighter in the mid 19th century, is interpreted as Sita Ram of the Alluri family and Raju for Kshatriya caste. Similarly name of Penmatsa Ram Gopal Varma, a prominent Bollywood and Tollywood movie director-producer, is interpreted as Ram Gopal of the Penmatsa family and Varma for Kshatriya. There have been varying accounts about the origins of the Raju community. Some include them among the military tribes of Rajput descent.

Regarding this community Edgar Thurston in his seven volume Castes and Tribes of Southern India writes...The Maharajas of Vizianagaram (noclaim to be Kshatriyas from the Rajputana and the leaders of the people of gotrams said to have come to the Northern Circars centuries ago. It is noted in connection with the battle of Padmanabham(in present Visakhapatnam district) in 1794 AD that Rajputs formed a rampart round the corpse of Vijay Rama Raju. Padmanabham will long be remembered as the Flodden of the Rajputs of Vizianagaram...[15]as a class they are the handsomest and best developed men in the country and differ so much in feature and build from other Hindus that they may usually be distinguished at a glance...they are mostly Vaishnavites, and their priests are Brahmans...Rajus of course assume the sacred thread, and are very proud and particular in their conduct. Brahmanical rites of Punya Havachanam (Purification), Jata Karma (Birth ceremony), Nama Karanam (Naming ceremony), Chaulam (Tonsure), and Upanayanam (Thread ceremony) are performed...at weddings the Kasi Yatra (Mock flight to Benares) is performed...at their wedding they worship a sword, which is a ceremony usually denoting a soldier caste...they use a wrist string made of cotton and wool, the combination peculiar to Kshatriyas, to tie the wrists of the happy couple...[16]in some villages, Rajus seem to object to the construction of a pial, or raised platform, in front of their houses. The pial is the lounging place where visitors are received by day.[17]

Historically South Indian royal families of Kshatriyas (Rajus) had marital relationship with Central and North Indian royal families, like Rajas of Vizianagaram, Salur and Kurupam had marital relationships with the Rajputana royal families.[18] and bramins are no gods to say who are kshatriyas and who are not well kshatriyas are superior than bramins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.125.85 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what are you trying to say? Give some references. I'll give you one here:

"None of these people, except possibly the Nairs of Kerala and the Rajus of Andhra, have been viewed by some as Kshatriya."

Taken from here. Anyway.. give some more refs. Cheers. Axxn (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rajus/Varma if they perform the function of a dwija and are invested with a sacred thread - they are definitely Kshatriya and legitimately recognized so, where as the nayar claim is pretentious and propagated by a few on web and bologosheres. The objective of the above user is simply to drag the users in this platform towards the nair article page where a dispute exists.Sanam001 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually no one here supports your Brahminical POV. Also, there is no content dispute in Nair page. Edit wars (always started by User Sanam) is a serious problem though. Axxn (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

: First of all, one should be clear that Brahmins used kshatriya class for their benefits. One needs to read the history of kshatriya to whom Gautam Buddha and Mahavir Jain belongs. One can easily see that the Maurya community in which the Ashoka was born and who was ardent follower of Buddha, were defamed as Shudra, even though the Maurya coomunity belongs to Ishavaku clan of Ayodhaya. Today the Maurya caste are placed in OBC and are known as Koeri in UP and Bihar. It is widely beleived in northern India, especially Gorakhpur and adjoining district that Brahmins did conspiracy by declaring Buddha as 9th incarnation of Vishnu. The kshatriya following Buddhism (Sainthwar) and Brahmins following Buddhism (Bhumihar) merged in Brahminical style of living after this incident. This declaration as 9th incarnation of vishnu is assumed to be near to 12th century. However both Sainthwar and Bhumihar were placed below the vedic kshatriya and Vedic Brahmins. Jain community remained away from all this. Brahmins were never respected in Gana of Malla, Shakya, Lichchhavis, Koliya and Maurya who were descendents of Ishavaku clan as they considered themselves being superior than Brahmin. Later with the rise of Rajputana in 8th century and subsequent migration towards eastern India, Brahmins declared them as true Kshtriyas while Malla, Shakya, Koliya, Maurya were termed as Vratya kshatriya or Shudra. Being Kshatriya, sometimes it looks frustrating when we see Brahmins worshipping Rama, Krishana but saying that Brahmins belongs to highest in varna. All kshatriyas must read the Buddhist period history. Their eyes will open. We are not living in Hindu religion but it is Brahmin religion.(Bisenmalla (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Status of Thevar community as kshatriya

Thevars are having the strong proves to claim that they are Kshatriyas. If you see the history from 2000 years back, they have the strong ethics and brave moments to prove that they are kshatriys. I don't know why they still not recognized as kshatriyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.231.199 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)