Talk:Kachhwaha

Another article turned to shyt by Sitush and gang

Look how they malign and question this known group of Rajputs as peasants and question their known heritage. The reason for this is due to the far right extremist Hindus trying to outcaste those people who had matrimonial alliances with muslims. It is disgusting that they are allowed to bring their biogotry to this site. --82.39.142.147 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

How Kachapgatha is related to kachawaha.Holywarrior 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Kachwaha and Kushwaha are same castes.But many people confugse in just.Kushwaha were sub clan like kachchwaha,kachwaha,Nathawar and Rajawat.

202.88.211.197 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the names may be similar, it is academically and historically accepted that the Kacchapaghata and the modern day Kachawahas are one and the same. In this regard it is perhaps desirable that a separate article be created for the Kushawas that are Suryavanshi , in order that the issue may be clarified. I also think it is quite unnecessary to use both pronunciations of Kachwahas/Kushwahas in the article since an explanation has already been given in the Early history segment. Regards Maharaj Devraj 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes kachawaha and Kushwaha are the same.Regarding Kushwaha, Kachawahas are also called "kurm".In Many books they are addressed as kurm.The name Kurm comes from the son of last Kushwaha king of Ayodhya "Sumitra". Sumitra had two sons Vishwajit and Kurm. Emperer Mahapadmanand of Nanda dynasty included Ayodhya in his empire and Kushwahas were forced to leave it.

It is well known that names of caste or clan or person usually comes from famous or important persons.Or they come from the place of living.

16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)~~ Kushwaha caste (also called Kashi Kushwaha) has been in existance for thousands of years. It is most populous near Varanasi (kashi), and surrounding parts. An illustrious line of kings decending from Ikshvaku (Kush, son SriRama) has ruled here since times immemorial. A line of kings of India from shishunag dynasty onwards upto Chandragupta moriya and ending upto Brhdratha moriya belonged to this dynasty. How Rajputs, who came into existence since mughal period and are born from agnivansh ( fire altar) fit into kushwaha it is not understandable. 202.88.211.197 (talk)

You are a very good historian having all the facts with "may be or might be approach". Just remember one thing , Lord Ram had two sons Luv and Kush and Kachawahas are the descendents of "Kush" for this only reason they use to get identified by one of their name 'Kushwah", which was accepted but less popular in Kshatriyas , but were used by some of the kachawahas of UP and MP . Due to having majority of Kachies and Kories living under their authority who got independent after kachwahas loose their power from many regions of MP , UP and nearby region, they start using their names to get social recognition. If you check the current Data , the maximum mass of Kachies who copy the name Kushwaha belongs to those regions only which got ruled by Kachwahas(Original Kushwah) earlier. This is the same approach that kids generally use to copy their dream superheroes like Superman , Spider man or many more. So kindly do not get confuse and let the correct history come to the front.Siddhapratap (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A slightly late reply. Firstly there are two facts which you may have taken as misunderstandings maan. Firstly while it is true that the term Rajput may have been generalised during the early ascention of the Mughal periods, but that is by no means the initial period in which the the term Rajput (as a caste or social section) was first registered in the terminologies of South Asian history. In contrast to your understanding, the term Rajput, although being the general terminology used to difine the Kshatriya caste of North India following the fall of the Gupta Empire, never implied that all the Rajput clans were of the same descent. Infact, the legends of the origins of the Rajput clans, rather makes clear explanatory cases for themselves. While many of the Rajput clans, claimed their ancestry from the mighty horsemen from the north west, it should be noted that the Kachawas claimed descent from areas in Central India, closely associated with places such as Gwalior in Madhayapradesh or Narwar, not far from the borders of Rajsasthan or Rohtas in Bihar, not to menstion Kushinara, the abode of Kusha. It may be interesting to check the facts, my friend.Maharaj Devraj (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate Page: Kachwaha vs Kushwaha

Dear , For past many days Wikipedia is showing irrelevant information for kachwaha . Kindly note that the kshatriya's clans were not known by one or two names , there where many names or synonyms used for them. Because of being descendent from Kush (2nd son of lord Ram) Kachwahas usually known as Kushwah , but the name got stolen or copied by many Schedule Tribes and Castes of India in order to get Social recognition. Kachwaha and Kushwah word is same but the second is being copied by many other masses of India . This is a regular practice in India to copy surnames of other prominent races to gain recognition, there are other Kshatriya clans as well who are getting copied by many other masses . Ex.: Chauhans getting copied by Charmkars and Rathores are getting copied by Telies and many more. But this should not degrade the honor of any clan who put every effort to make his Nation , Culture and Race to be ahead of everything else.

ear , For past many days Wikipedia is showing irrelevant information for kachwaha . Kindly note that the kshatriya's clans were not known by one or two names , there where many names or synonyms used for them. Because of being descendent from Kush (2nd son of lord Ram) Kachwahas usually known as Kushwah , but the name got stolen or copied by many Schedule Tribes and Castes of India in order to get Social recognition. Kachwaha and Kushwah word is same but the second is being copied by many other masses of India . This is a regular practice in India to copy surnames of other prominent races to gain recognition, there are other Kshatriya clans as well who are getting copied by many other masses . Ex.: Chauhans getting copied by Charmkars and Rathores are getting copied by Telies and many more. But this should not degrade the honor of any clan who put every effort to make his Nation , Culture and Race to be ahead of everything else.

There is nothing like "Suryavanshi Kurmi" . Kurmis are entierly different then Kurms which is the other name of Kachwahas . Do not try to mix up by having similar pronunciationSiddhapratap (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is already a separate entry for Kushwaha in wiki. It is fairly clear that these are two different groups. While Kushwaha can generally be fitted into Kshatriya varna on account of their history and agriculturist pursuits, they have never been classified as Rajput like Kachwaha or kashyapaghata. Furthermore, Kushwaha have a fair amount of linkage to Buddhism and Jainism on account of Moriya empire. This linkage is not to be found in kachwaha. Let there be two different pages for these two groups and may they both live in harmony. peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.198.145 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

kachwaha and kushwaha are same they are belong to kush (the son of lord sri ram)

Kachhwahas and kushwah are the same but for past 100 years many schedule casts has stolen the name of kachhwahas or kushwah in order to get social identity . the same is being done with chauhans , Rathore or many other noble rajputs Siddhapratap (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing without proper knowledge is a part of professionals sitting in UK or US Siddhapratap (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rajputs always awarded with many name by historians , this is the only reason why this confusion is arising Siddhapratap (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhapratap (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 

You really should have started a new thread because you are replying to something that is very old. However, since you ask, we have had this discussions before somewhere and until someone comes up with reliable sources that state the two to be synonymous, they are going to be treated as separate. In fact, they may well still be treated as separate even if such sources exist because there are plenty of reliable sources that do consider them to be different - we'd just mention the other opinion in both articles.

While I am well aware that sanskritisation and other forms of uplift attempts go on, nothing relating to how these subjects are presented has anything to do with the nationality of contributors to Wikipedia. We work off sources, period. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Siddhapratap is absolutely correct. Please try to understand, Sarthik Singh Rajawat (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is a difference between kachhvaha rajput and kachhi shakya mourya caste .rajput is a name of community comprises of recently ruled clans and kachhvaha rajput is a clan who ruled no of states like amer (jaipur) narbar morena etc and kachhi koeri mourya shakya is a community who basically belonged to farming and believed that they where ancient kshatriya and descendnds of kusha (son of lord ram) , shakyamuni gautam buddha and maurya empire because they all follows the same vansh I.e. suryavansh . As all know rajput is a community who claimed to be kshatriya and this word is used after 7 th century and comprises no of clans who ruled in today's rajasthan region in this community chauhan ,pratihar ,solanki and parmar clan claimed that they are originated from a agni kund and are agni vanshi kshatriya but this is a theory to hide the fact that they are the descendent's of shak ,hurn,and kushan who comes india after 4th century and lived in india and adopted hindu dharm and then to make ourself acceptable to that time and with time this ruling community formed a group with the ruling kshtriyas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavan singh patel (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Rajput is a community who claimed of kshatriya status not a synonym of kshatriya there are no of castes who fall in obc category and believed to be kshatriya and I want clear that kachhvaha rajput marry in other rajput because rajput is a community and kachhi koeri marry in mourya shakya vice versa because they are another community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavan singh patel (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

who said you kachwaha has no link with jainism dude please visit gwalior kachwaha fort and check statue of mahavira who promote the jainism, disgusting rajawat, rajawat are just subclan of kachwaha and nothing else ... who didnt know about kachwaha kachwaha involved in agriculture and also connection with kachhi and jainism jaipur oldest name was jainara some people called it jains gadd can you explain this im belong to kachwaha village from mp check on the google we doesnt have any college and any facility from govt in kachwaha village there are few hom towns kachwaha live with kachhi no other caste live in kachwaha village except kachwaha and kachi all are dwij even kachhi are dwij too dont spread wrong history about kachwaha i m also supporter of jainism and for kind your information in jainism dalit and shudra % is zero a big zero jainism belong to upper caste this is true kachhis are prmoting jainism even so many kachhis practicing jainism how can you defined this thing you can not ignore maihar malwa katni kachwaha .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.150.215 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Clean up

This article has for some time now been tagged for maintenance regarding various issues. I recently inserted various specific citation requests etc where there were already some citations provided for a section. However, the completely unsourced sections have been simply removed as a part of what will probably be a fairly extensive clean up.

Of course, anyone is welcome to reinstate those sections provided that they do so with citations of reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kachwaha

For past many days Wikipedia is showing irrelevant information for kachwaha . Kindly note that the kshatriya's clans were not known by one or two names , there where many names or synonyms used for them. Because of being descendent from Kush (2nd son of lord Ram) Kachwahas usually known as Kushwah , but the name got stolen or copied by many Schedule Tribes and Castes of India in order to get Social recognition. Kachwaha and Kushwah word is same but the second is being copied by many other masses of India . This is a regular practice in India to copy surnames of other prominent races to gain recognition, there are other Kshatriya clans as well who are getting copied by many other masses . Ex.: Chauhans getting copied by Charmkars and Rathores are getting copied by Telies and many more. But this should not degrade the honor of any clan who put every effort to make his Nation , Culture and Race to be ahead of everything else.

There is nothing like "Suryavanshi Kurmi" . Kurmis are entierly different then Kurms which is the other name of Kachwahas . Do not try to mix up by having similar pronunciation.Siddhapratap (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support what you are saying? Flat Out let's discuss it 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The principle of co-opting/assimilating names is common and formed a part of the sanskritisation process: Indian society has a peculiar obsession with "rank" and castes etc come and go as a consequence of both fission and fusion. However, for any individual group we do require reliable sources relating to the situation of that group - we cannot just take your word for it because that would be original research. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

dude kurmi caste belong to maratha samrat shivaji rao, scindia belong to kurmi caste, sardar balabh bhai patel belong to kurmi caste most imp thing kurmi was ruler of gwalior, ruler caste was scindia kurmi belong to raghuwanshi community who wrote their surname choudhary raghuwanshi patel scindia patidar etc fuck your self

Repeated removals of sourced content

People keep removing sourced content from this article. As a general rule, they are removing statements associated with William Pinch and/or Christophe Jaffrelot. Although not the only two writers on the subject, those two are contemporary academics and Pinch in particular is probably the person who has studied and written of the community in the most detail.

I am open to suggestions regarding other sources that might contradict or support what the existing ones say. However, the repeated and usually unexplained removal of sourced material just because you do not like it must stop. Useful policy pages for reference include those concerning verifiability, reliable sources, neutrality and that Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Kacchapaghatas

We have an entire section concerning ancient history that appears to be based on the premise that the Kacchapaghatas are the Kachwahas. The source is respectable & got some rave reviews in academic journals - Willis, Michael D. (1997). Temples of Gopakṣetra: a regional history of architecture and sculpture in Central India, AD 600-900. British Museum Press. ISBN 9780714114774.. However, I can only see a snippet view and from that I can see nothing that connects the Kacchapaghatas to the Kachwahas.

Om Gupta does mention the connection (some sort of Sanskrit root) and much more that is at odds with contemporary academic thought but we cannot use him because it is a tertiary source that does not itself give any sources and, worse, it is published by Gyan. Quite simply, we don't accept Gyan stuff, as explained at User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. We also cannot accept anything directly from Encyclopaedia Indica because that is known to contain vast amounts of copyright violation, poor synthesis and poor research (we could use stuff mentioned in EI if we can find the original from which EI got its information, if that original is reliable).

I am aware that there was a debate about the connection, which seems to have its origin in something published in 1834 by a British gentleman-scholar, but do we have anything reliable and recent? I can find this but it points out that James Tod (hopelessly unreliable) was involved and that there isn't "any really trustworthy evidence" to substantiate the connection.

If nothing decent turns up then I fear this section will have to go & a separate article concerning the Kacchapaghatas should be created. Sources for the new article could include this, this and this, none of which mention Kachwaha. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Some questions related to this article

I have raised some valid questions related to this article in the form of edit summaries of the article.

First of all we have to be clear in this article that Kachwaha is a Rajput clan or a separate caste group. Another possibility is that it is a Rajput clan but a Kushwaha caste group of same name also exists. As we can see the case of Khatri and Khatri clan. Both have same names, but they are different. Khatri is a caste and Khatri clan is a Jat clan. But the good thing about that case is that we have separate articles for both. I also suggest a separate article for Kacchapaghata, as suggested in the previous discussion by Sitush, if we can't clarify the things here.

My point regarding Kachwaha is that just because one or two sources refer Kachwaha as a Kushwaha sub-group, we can't ignore other hundreds of sources which refer Kachwaha as a ruling Rajput clan. The daughter of same clan got married to Akbar and she is still remembered as the first "Rajput bride" of Mughals. -Owsert (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you. Please read the article properly - it already notes the Rajput claim - and also read, for starters, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD etc. If you want to give examples of your sources from modern academic literature then feel free to list them here but don't screw up a well-sourced article just to suit your now very evident POV regarding Rajput issues. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Alleging valid edits in good faith as POV pushing is not good. Will you please highlight in which sentence the article notes Rajput claim? This article is confusing because of its confusing lead, which doesn't seem to be sourced anywhere. The article refers Kachwaha as a Kushwaha caste group. Then we need source to state that the ruling dynasties of Jaipur and Alwar belong to the same caste group and not Rajput (as popular belief). If we can't clarifty the things here, then I am with you for creation of a new article Kacchapaghata. -Owsert (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Have you read the things I pointed out to you? For example, WP:LEAD explains why citations are not usually required in lead sections. There is an entire section in the article devoted to the rulers of Jaipur, who considered themselves to be Raijput; there are other sections that explain the wider 20th-century claim to that status. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, let me correct you, it was not just Jaipur rulers who considered themselves Rajput. Other Rajputs and Mughals who made marital relations with Jaipur state also considered themselves Rajput.

Let me try to convey my point. It an be said that in India, the caste system is maintained only and only by marital relations. If today, I start saying that I am a Rajput, then it has no meaning until and unless, I get Rajput status by the Rajput society. And I get Rajput status by Rajput society if some other Rajput family makes marital relation with me.

In case of Jaipur rulers, all the sources present in the article describe them as Rajput. None of the sources says that they considered themselves Rajput or they claim to be Rajput.

Similarly I can't find a source from the article saying that Kachwahas started claiming for being a Rajput clan. You don't need to claim for what you are.

What I get from reading the entire article and sources is that most of the article refers Kachwaha as a Kushwaha group. But the ruling states with same name definitely don't belong to this caste group mentioned. The original name of the ruling Rajput clan may be 'Kacchapaghata'. Thats why I repeated your proposal of creating Kacchapaghata to get out of this confusion. And you have got some good sources for this article creation as well. -Owsert (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your last paragraph defies the reliable sources. most of the rest does also, although some of it is outright original research. For example, please can you quote a couple of paragraphs from pages 91-92 of the cited William Pinch source that demonstrates your opinion. Can you even see that source? - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Proposer blocked as pov-pushing sock - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: procedural close. Proposer blocked as a sockpuppet. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Kachwaha → Kachwaha (caste group) – As I have already given my reasons at User talk:Sitush, the present version of the article is confusing between two distinct communities with same names. One is a Kushwaha caste group and the other one is a Rajput clan. It becomes quite misguiding due to this confusion. The introduction of the article is definitely not as per the references. For removing such confusion, I have created Kachwaha (clan) to describe the Rajput clan and want to move this article to Kachwaha (caste group) to describe the Kushwaha caste group. Owsert (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Can you please explain properly why it is you think that there are two distinct groups here. Don't just copy/paste from my talk page because much of that really did not make sense to me. It would be better for you to provide sources to demonstrate your point here, complete with page numbers etc. And beware of original research, especial synthesis. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rajput clan or a different caste group

Kachwaha has always been a well-established Rajput clan since the beginning of Rajput history. But I dont know from where, does these lines come to this article: The Kachwaha are a caste group with origins in India. Traditionally they were peasants involved in agriculture but in the 20th century they began to make claims of being a Rajput clan. Some families within the caste did rule a number of kingdoms and princely states, such as Alwar, Amber (later called Jaipur) and Maihar.

Which sources say that they were not Rajputs and they started claiming that in 20th century? The bride of the famous Jodha-Akbar couple comes from Kachwaha family of Amber. None of the historians have ever questioned the Rajput status of Kachwaha. -TalgoKL (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You should read the cited sources. We really do not care what the community itself may believe, only what reliable sources state. Pinch, Jaffrelot etc are, of course, eminently reliable and I have no idea why you are saying that "None of the historians have ever questioned the Rajput status of Kachwaha." because it is obviously incorrect because the sources are right there in the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You talk about sources. Oh come on! There can be errors in any source and also in what you consider most reliable sources. You name one-two such source and I can name tens of such sources which says Kachwaha is an undisputed Rajput clan and infact one of the oldest ruling Rajput clans. Have a look at what Britannica says :

The Rajputs regard themselves as descendants or members of the Kshatriya (warrior ruling) class, but they actually vary greatly in status, from princely lineages, such as the Guhilot and Kachwaha, to simple cultivators. (link) -TalgoKL (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your link to Britannica does not invalidate what we say already, eg: the lead section mentions that Some families within the caste did rule a number of kingdoms. Britannica is not as good as source as "proper" academics published by "proper" academic presses but, in any event, we are following the system outlined at WP:NPOV and Britannica does not disagree - it makes no mention of when they began to be associated with the word Rajput and thus does not contradict us. It is, of course, also a passing mention. - Sitush (talk)

As it doesnt support your version, Britanica becomes less reliable now. Btw Britanica definitely rejects your version as it describes Kachwaha as a Rajput clan, not a caste group which started claiming Rajput status in 20th century as claimed by your version. "20th century" seems nothing but an imaginary date as Amber state was established by quite earlier by Kachwaha Rajputs in 10th century. -TalgoKL (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sitush has a serious mental issue , go consult a doctor. Kachwahas are purely Rajput. Sarthik Singh Rajawat (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

kachwaha are involved in agriculture like kachhi even kachhwaha are subcaste of kachhi

if you come into the mp there are so many villages of kachhwaha-kachhi caste both are completely involved in agriculture nd doing intermarry. rajawat ji you are talking about only rajasthan ... but you forget the one thing there is huge population of kachwaha who involved in agriculture dude.. how can you described them as rajput, you can call them as a kshatriya not rajput bcoz each and every person are not belong to royal family dude, so many kachwaha living their life as farmer. and farming is traditional culture of india thats the reason rajput can not digiested this thing but thing is very clear dude if you saw any kachwaha kingdom before 6 century no..! there was some powerful people who joined the rajpuatan culture but dude what about maharashtra bihar up nepal bengal odissa haryana punjab kachwaha ... even mp too in mp there was two kingdom trace of kachwaha first maihar second narwar and all place arw getting piece ..

dude be practical indian govt and also british govt clearly said kachwaha kachhi belong to agriculture but after than they was categorized them as a kshatriya.

kachwaha kachhi involved in movement of sanskritization who claim that they belong to kshatriya varna even brahmin and other caste supported them why ?

both are wearing scared threat why ?

bcoz they are rajput dude you are wrong kachwaha is not rajput in every state of india, kachhi having kutch tradition so many people claim that they was ruling in kachhi pakistan

do you here about kadva patel from gujarat they belong to kutch of gujrat and kachhi pakistan now days they involved in business and agriculture kadwa patel kushwah knows as vaisya varna but also they are claim to be kusha dynasty and kushwah community even lewa patel are same as kurmi raghuwanshi claim to be lava dynasty

lewa patel and kadva patel similar like kachhi kachhwaha and kurmi raghuwanshi both community belong to general category kadva patel doing intermarry with kachhi ???

check jeevansath.com

even kachwaha kachhi too but all these are not claim to be rajput .. except rajasthan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.195.9 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read my first reply in this thread and note the information at WP:V. We cannot accept your original research. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong and less information.

Kushwah are also Kachawa rajputs but you don't mansioned it. Yogendra Pratap Archaeologist (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS. And we do say The Kachwaha are sometimes referred to as Kushwaha, so I am unsure of the point you are making. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)