Talk:Kshatriya/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. 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: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. 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)

There are far too many books and too much information. Please let this be a collective effort. Let users decide how to plan this article (what are the various sections, info that each shd contain, where are spin-offs necessary, etc). Depending on what one reads, info can come across both ways -- Sudasa (dasyu clans), the rigvedic king and his lot defeated the Yadus (lunar dynasty), Nagas, etc in the rigved battle of ten kings. Sudasa and his allies considered Yadus and their allies as anarya (or not-arya). However, some historians considered the Yadus as aryas, and they described Sudasa and his allies as anaraya and enemies of the vedic tribes. Rishis branched off from all of these clans. It wud be a good idea for the article to depict both versions. Kindly discuss to take this further. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

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)

Did you mean these Bhumihars [3].Ikon ^No-Blast 06:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

have never heard of any Ahir or Gujjar king -- Hello, Don't you think it is not the right place to say You are uneducated.Ikon ^No-Blast 06:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref is for inscription only, the interpretation of Shudrabhira as Abhira the shudra is wrong, because it has been established that it is actually Shudra and Abhira, who are two distinct tribes. Your argument is not valid. Also, see Ahir kings. Ikon ^No-Blast 05:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference is of the inscription of an abhira king whic reads "Ornament of Lunar Kshatrya clan Smvamsa". Also, if you guys are so concerned about these Thakurs, Bhumihars, can you establish their claim. Ikon ^No-Blast 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK , write them as Shudra-Kshatriya Ikon ^No-Blast 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikon, Wud the rishis from the lunar dynasty be 'non-vedic' Shudra-brahmins then? Please (hopefully ) let there be a collective effort with input from other users before amending the article. To begin with, the article can mention works of historians who have detailed the development of various castes, starting with first the vedic varna system of the vedic period, and then the varna-jati system of the dharmashastra period. Please let me know what you think about it. Will list out the reference books with page numbers by early next week. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

There is a lot of confusion regarding Shudra. Rigveda, does not mention this word. Yes, we know, there were Shudra and Abhiras dwelling on two different sides of saraswati. These shudras were not shudra verna, as their description shows but were regarded at par with vedic kshatriya and brahmanas.Ikon ^No-Blast 05:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Read this page 18[4].Ikon ^No-Blast 06:25, 1 February 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)

• Do not add the Alphascript Publishing reference: this company only reprints Wikipedia articles, so the book would be a circular reference. Fences&Windows 14:19, 3 February 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)

It should get unprotected ASAP. Protection for such a long time w/ a flawed version, is unfair. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff should provide the rationale for continued protection. It looks like protection of certain POV. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Given the prolonged edit-war prior to protection and the lack of evidence of consensus building (see also: here and here), I am hesitant to unprotect now. However, based on this request, I will unprotect the page, but if any edit-warring resumes, I will protect it again. Please build consensus on content that needs to be added or removed through use of this talk page. –SpacemanSpiff 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Evidences of absence of consesus you have given, is actually evidence of Trolling, which seems like they do have patronage from you. Kindly stop encouraging, ppl. who are abusing their editing privilege. You can never have consensus with such elements. Ikon ^No-Blast 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The evidence is comments to the effect from two other admins, as the linked diffs show. –SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Admins pointed to absence of specific request, which was actually spoiled by further commentary. Mayasutra, perhaps thought I am trying to get the page protected, actually he desputes the page protection itself, not the request, which means he is disputing You, not me. Ikon ^No-Blast 05:45, 3 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)

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)

Brahmana as Carpenter, menial to king etc

Dear Kshatriya brothers,

No doubt Brahmana divided kshatriya for their benefit and this division was intense after Buddha and Jain period, the two kshatriyas having large impact on Indian society. Brahmanas claim that they are superior, however Buddhist and Jain text throw diffirent light. They were priest, farmers, carpenters, Hunters and even did menial jobs...However, they were sharp enough to divide kshatriya and then ruling the entire India without giving their blood..read this http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8-TxcO9dfrcC&pg=PA239&dq=the+brahmanas+of+this+period+may+be+divided&client=firefox-a&cd=2#v=onepage&q=the%20brahmanas%20of%20this%20period%20may%20be%20divided&f=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.109.218 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Haiheya

I have removed Haiheya being tagged as Rajput, because Haiheya, also known as ahiheya, are an offshoot of Chedi Dynasty, of Abhira-Trikuta-Kalachudi-Chedi Era and are of abhira ancestry. These people never joined the Rajput banwagon.Ikon ^No-Blast 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajputs are Shudra

It is extremely painful to see that Talk page and article are not related. If I continue to see Rajput spam on this page i would start shifting them to Shudra page, because after so much discussion, it is more than clear that Rajputs are Shudra/mlechha and can't be called Kshatriya. Ikon ^No-Blast 03:10, 18 October 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.

Dude u r speaking really bullshit . 96 out of half a million maratha families ??? dude at current age marathas have about 2-3 million families .. How come they had 0.5 million 350 years ago . You are a really a dumbass .If you have little or no knowledge of what 96 kuli maratha is , then stop bulshitting ..

Can a shudra become powerful than uppercast ?? No right , thats logical ..Then how come marathas are so strong ?? Dont u remember ur ancestors begged at our doresteps to earn bread and butter ..

You dont have guts dude . I am sure u will delete my message as soon as u see it ..

I dont want u begger brahmins to call us kshatriyas ( because i know u wont like to accept this fact ) We marathas are real kshatriyas .. We have rules maharashtra ,are ruling maharashtra and will rule maharashtra for 1000 years .

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.

blah My views: Dear sir, the above mentioned information about the realtion between The JAT People and Rajputs is false. The JAT People and Rajputs are distinct ethnic groups; and obviously The JAT Clans have nothing to do with those Rajputs Clans who lost their power . On the basis of historical facts, the presence of The JAT People can be traced to MILLENNIUMS ago. Now-a-days, The JAT People are sometimes even termed as true representatives of the Vedic Culture. Please respect this fact. I humbly request You to please a have look at the information that I am sharing with You below (my intension is not to hurt the feelings of any person; but is purely to put true facts in front of the readers of Wikipedia):

The name JAT, originates with the jñātisaṃgha (ज्ञातिसंघ).

The Linguistic and Religious Etymology about the origin of the word, 'Jat' is that it finds mention in most ancient Indian literature like Mahabharata and Rig Veda. Jat historian Thakur Deshraj writes that the word Jat is derived from sanskrit word jñāta (ज्ञात). This later on changed to Jat in prakrart language. Panini's Mention of Astadhyayi in the form of shloka as जट झट सङ्घाते or “Jat Jhat Sanghate” confirms it. Deshraj mentions that Krishna formed a federation of Vrishni and Andhaka clans which was known as jñātisaṃgha (ज्ञातिसंघ). Shanti Parva Mahabharata Book XII Chapter 82 gives details about this sangha.

   धन्यं यशस्यम आयुष्यं सवपक्षॊथ्भावनं शुभम 
   ज्ञातीनाम अविनाशः सयाथ यदा कृष्ण तदा कुरु Mahabharata (XII.82.27) 
   dhanyaṃ yaśasyam āyuṣyaṃ svapakṣodbhāvanaṃ śubham 
   jñātīnām avināśaḥ syād yathā kṛṣṇa tathā kuru Mahabharata (XII.82.27) 

   माधवाः कुकुरा भॊजाः सर्वे चान्धकवृष्णयः (Andhaka+Vrishni) 
   तवय्य आसक्ता महाबाहॊ लॊका लॊकेश्वराश च ये Mahabharata (XII.82.29) 
   mādhavāḥ kukurā bhojāḥ sarve cāndhakavṛṣṇayaḥ 
   tvayy āsaktā mahābāho lokā lokeśvarāś ca ye Mahabharata (XII.82.29) 

Bhim Singh Dahiya has enlisted over sixty clans those are named in the Rig Veda.

The famous Sanskrit scholar Panini (traditionally dated 520-460 BCE, with estimates ranging from the 7th to 4th centuries BCE) has mentioned in his Sanskrit grammar known as Astadhyayi in the form of shloka as जट झट सङ्घाते or “Jat Jhat Sanghate” . This means that the terms 'Jat' and 'democratic federation' are synonymous.

And, nobody can question the shlokas mentioned above, as they are from a source which is of the very high importance for the followers of Hinduism. May LORD KRISHNA bless You. And please, now I am looking forward to a change in Your thoughts about The JAT People. I am always here to co-operate with You, till we can discuss facts in a civilized manner. Thank You! Abstruce (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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 ([5]). 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)