Talk:Kshatriya/Discussion Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The term KSHATRIYA does not represents the Origin of any Hindu Caste; in fact, it represents the Caste Status

Dear Sir, I think it is worth mentioning here that the term KSHATRIYA represents the Status of the Hindu Castes as per The Hindu Varna system; and does not represents the Origin of any Caste in particular. Abstruce (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The JAT Regiment

The Jat Regiment is an infantry regiment of the Indian Army, it is one of the longest serving and most decorated regiments of the Indian Army[1]. The regiment has won 19 battle honours between 1839 to 1947[2] and post independence 5 battle honours, eight Mahavir Chakra, eight Kirti Chakra, 32 Shaurya Chakras, 39 Vir Chakras and 170 Sena medals[3]. The motto of the regiment is Sangathan Wa Veerta which truly signifies a spirit of unity and valour. The battle cry, adopted in 1955 is Jat Balwan, Jai Bhagwan meaning that the Jat is Powerful, Victory be to God. So, I would like to add The JAT Regiment on the page. Abstruce (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's worth mentioning here about the Class Composition of The JAT Regiment. The Jat Regiment's class composition is 100% Jats from Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh except for 3 Battalions whose ethnic make-up is as follows:

  • 12th : All India All Class
  • 15th : The AJGAR Battalion recruiting Ahirs, Jats, Gujars and Rajputs the classes with a common heritage. This was done as an experimental measure to test whether the mixing of these inter-linked classes could lead to fulfillment of the dream of a section of the politico-bureaucratic hierarchy; a mixed Army. This perception is shared by some of the Army’s top brass also.
  • 20th : One of the Vaidya Battalions. Raised as an unthinking measure by Gen. Vaidya the then Army Chief after the events of 1984 with a mixed class composition of Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, and Marathas[4]. Abstruce (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gujjar and jats are sudras not kshatriya

Gujjar and jats are sudras not kshatriya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.141.10 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Abhiras were the only Kshatriyas left.

The Kshatriya religion was propounded by Krishna,[5][6][7] and no reference was found before him.[8] We only find Rajnya as the term alternatively used for it (Bhagwad Gita is a reduced form of hidden knowledge— Gope —which has its root in Shiva). Later on, many Kshatriyas were founded on the philosophy of yadavanshis, as revealed in the Bhagavad Gita.[7] [9]According to Markandeya Purana,all the Kshatriyas were killed in a holocaust led by Parsuram.Only the Abhiras survived by escaping into the craters between mountains.The sage Markandeya remarked that "all Kshatriyas have been killed but Abhiras have survived; they will surely rule the earth in Kaliyauga.[10][11]

None of the sources you are using are reliable. The Om Gupta book is sourced from Wikipedia. —SpacemanSpiff 07:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are doubting Markandeya Purana ?

If MAURYA (are Kushwaha Son of Kusha) are Suryavanshi Khatriya then KURMI (Brothers as son of Luva) are also Suryavanshi Khatriya

Dear all,

It is being mentioned that Maurya are Suryanshi Kshatriya. We all know, that Mauryas were Kushwaha by caste and that means descendant of Kusha (son of Sree Rama). Then why and with which logic Kurmis are left from this Suryavanshi list of Kshatriya, as again, we all know that they are descendent of Luva (another son of Sree Rama).

Please, if you make article, then do it logically and correct.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avskking (talkcontribs) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dravidas

Hi Every one Dravidas are mentioned as Kshatriyas the same is quoted in the article as well and hence the entire 97% plus people should be Kshatriyas?, there is no Kshatriya or Vaishya castes like in North India forming 30-50% of the population. Even some the Bramhin castes of south India are Dravidian looking and culturally identical with the rest. Though I completely agree that the Raju community is quite affluent and land owning as well as are not covered under any Reservations policy they are by looks and physical characteristic's and customs as black skinned as their Dravidian brothers. Look at the Rajus's of Satyam or Ram Gopal Verma they dont look any similar to the Caucasian featured Rajputs or Jats having origins in Central Asia. Also it is a Known fact that even in the History books the Andhra ruling dynasties were Reddy's, Kakatiya's, Velamas , Nizams etc and there was not even ONE RAJU FAMILY THAT EVER RULED ANDHRA PRADESH. REQUEST ANY ONE TO PROVIDE ONE GENUINE RAJU FAMILY THAT WAS A RULING DYNASTY IN ANDHRA PRADESH HISTORY. PLEASE DONT QUOTE ANY FICTITIOUS AND UNREFERENCED IDEAS OF RAJUS RULING ANDHRA PRADESH.(Agreed Alluri Sita Rama Raju was a freedom fighter - my deep respects, but not a heriditary ruling dynasty?) no Doubt 95% and above people are covered under reservation policy either SC or ST or OBC, BC etc..., —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.130.223 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.202.129.241, 4 April 2011

Agnivanshi includes Vanniyar kula Kshatriya.

117.202.129.241 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see any mention of this on the Vanniyar page, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.80.77.89, 14 April 2011

The history of caste system in India has been changed from time to time with the prosporous group always in the top. The division of work later changed to caste system. Through out the history the kshatriyas (Jats, Rajputs, khandayats) were the higher caste. They divided the responsibilities to different group in society, slowly which changed into class system and then caste system. After Arabs/Muslim invasion of India the kshytriyas slowly started losing their kingdoms and their power. After losing power most of them started getting poor and concentrated on cultivation as the other option. At this time one of the poorest and downtrodden class continued to fight against the invadors through their writing. They are the so called brahmins. Except kshytriyas all others were considered as the lowest class before Arabs invasion. After Muslim rule over India the britishers ruled over India. This was the time when Brahmins got more importace as Britisher gave importance on education. For last three hundred years those so called Brahmins have depicted them in their writings as the higher caste. Many of the Brahmins and Kshytriyas are also among dalits as they didn't give importance on education. The history of three hundred years of Brahmins dominance is again changing and the caste system is changing to class system i.e. rich and poor.It is happening because of education among all group of people. However, some tradition still existing as it was in history; feeding the poor as beleived in hinduism. Through out the history the priests were fed as one of the poorest and downtrodden group. Now even after becoming a prosperous group because of importance of education, the people invite Brahmins and feed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.77.89 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

kshatriyas

hi there are so many castes in india who claim to be kshatriyas but there are very few castes who still today write kshatriya in with their caste or sub caste.can i know if these people are the origional kshatriyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.80.92 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • A/C to indian history[Ancient indian history by kc shrivastava]Aryas devided them into 4 varnas[brahmin,kshatriyas,vaish,sudras].there are so many theories about it.kshatriys were a farmer and keep pet animals........................] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.49.86 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New section about castes which claim Ksatriya?

References such as this one[2] and many others have some extremely interesting discussion about various castes (Kurmi, Kayastha, etc) which have claimed Kshatriya status in the late 19th and early 20th century, despite being generally classified as Shudra. Anyone also think this would be some great material to add? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a better source. Can be downloaded and read here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.178.103 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Markandeya Purana says Purshuram killed all Kshatriyas except Abhiras.

Markandeya Purana says Purshuram killed all Kshatriyas except Abhiras. Then what are all these castes mentioned here???

I think you did not understand that 22 Times Purshuram "Try" to Kill Kshatriyas but he did not get success in killing all Kshatriya(He failed to kill all Kshatriya from a whole earth) (Source: I was read this in History book and Its a true because of Also I see this on TV, History books, etc..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunnusingh (talkcontribs) 06:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya lineage - Edit Request

As I know in a "Chandravanshi" 'Baghel' are Higher class in Kshatriya Cast.

Here is valid list.

1. Baghel 2. Katoch 3. Rathore

This Wikipedia is a really provide a crap information.. you must be need to fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.49.66 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajput, Jat, Gujar, and Ahir from Encyclopedia Britannica

"The Rajputs’ origins seem to date from a great breakup of Indian society in northern and northwestern India under the impact of the Hephthalites (White Huns) and associated tribes from the mid-5th century ce onward. Following the breakup of the Gupta empire (late 6th century), invading groups were probably integrated within the existing society, with the present pattern of northwestern Indian society being the result. Tribal leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Sudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs." [3] Rajkris (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, the cite you give seems to indicate the exact opposite: that Jats, Gujars, and Ahirs are Shudra. The text says that the nobles became labeled "Kshatriya", while their followers went on to become Shudras, and then it lists Jats, Gujars, and Ahirs as those Shudras. I'm not saying it's a definitive decision, just noting that I think the quote gives the opposite of what you're reading it as. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if Rajkris is saying that the cite proves that they were Shudra or proves that they were not. In either event, Britannica is not a suitable source and he has been told this before by umpteen people and in the talk pages of umpteen articles. Honestly, Rajkris, just delete the thing from your Favourites/Bookmarks list if you cannot otherwise stop yourself from quoting it on Wikipedia. It might be the best printed encyclopedia in the world but it will still never fit with Wikipedia policies and unless you can get those policies changed then you are wasting your time and, more importantly, everyone else's as well. The only thing it is good for is if it cites a source itself, you can find that original source & it that original sources complies with WP policies/guidelines. This is why the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is ok to use here. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Never told that Ahirs, Gujars & Jat are Kshatriyas... On the contrary...Rajkris (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Britannica may not fit Wikipedia criterion but it remains a good indicator.Rajkris (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but no, it is not a good indicator. This is one of those weird Wikipedia things & I do understand that it is weird. Basically, if it doesn't fit the policies etc here then it is good for nothing. That may be daft, but it is also true. This is not a perfect project & it is issues such as this that create so many discussions. If you think it is wrong then the options are (a) try to get the policies etc changed; (b) live with them; (c) go somewhere else. But citing it over and over again, even in talk pages, is not going to achieve anything other than more wasted keystrokes. It is a bit like being a journalist on a significant newspaper: all such newspapers have style guides, and the journalists have to use those style guides regardless of whether they like them or not. The only difference is that the journalist gets paid and we do not. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
situish,matthew vantis@ on one hand u r sayin ahir,jat,gujjars are shudra and yet you have included them in kshatriya clan in this very wikipedia...aint this funny???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkumar900 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 

Sikh are Sikh or Kshatriya?

Hello,

Sikh are Sikh or Kshatriya? There is any proof that Sikh are Kshatriya? How?(How they can hold 2 different cast?)


Note: I am Student of History(12th - Arts with History) so I just want to clear this because of I never read about Sikh Kshatriya and Tamil Kshatriya but After I read Wikipedia I am totally confused.. :(

Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.49.66 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the place to ask--talk pages only exist to help editors improve pages. You can try WP:Reference Desk, and they may be able to help if there is information in Wikipedia somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, I am not asking for a information... there is any proof that Sikh are Kshatriyas??(Any reliable source to prove this? If not then why someone add this on Kshatriya page?) Kunnusingh (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC) [12]

Do you think you can change history by providing a fake information in Wikipedia? [13]

According to Sikhism we are are not accept Caste System so how we are Kshatriya?

Where in the article does it say that Sikh are Kshatriya? As far as I can tell, the word "Sikh" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

JATS as Chandravanshi?

jats never refered as kshtriya in varna system.the 2 sources among three mentioned are not reliable because they have no relevance in indian history.they are written by jats historian themselves without any historical bases.moreover jats have been classified as shudra.this should be removed.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1. A social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PA254&dq=jats+sudra&hl=en&ei=6LArToOOBYXsrQef05GyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwB))

2.Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective By Ekta Singh,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3fsEbl9k0yMC&pg=PA37&dq=jats+sudra&hl=en&ei=6LArToOOBYXsrQef05GyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=jats))

3.State, nation and ethnicity in contemporary South Asia By Ishtiaq Ahmed,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=czSm7cmhgA0C&pg=PA115&dq=jats+sudra&hl=en&ei=XbMrTsHmM8SmrAfMvpWyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBTgU#v=onepage))

There are so many sources on jats as sudra on gbooks i find it strange nobody objected it.kshtriya is ancient concept and when chandravansh evolved in indian society jats even dont have presence in india.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue of reliability is currently being pursued elsewhere. Bhim Singh Dahiya has all the appearances of being a fringe theorist. In the event that some sort of decision emerges then anything connected to him will likely be either removed or dramatically watered down. I must say, however, that your targeting of these issues across multiple articles is a little unusual and I am struggling to keep up with you! Things may take some time to resolve as I suspect that the same applies to others. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sir,I am not targeting any one.as ragistered contributor on wikipedia it is my duty to make articles as clean as possible. while i was just going through various caste article i found this historical blunder there.so i have mentioned a few sources.now a days i am reading about all castes related to indian suncontinent.I am 100% clear on this topic that jats never called kshtriya in indian history forget about chandravansh.they themselves claim this which has no relevance on wikipedia.Bhim Singh Dahiya is himself a jat historian,not at all relaible on such issues.I can provide hundreads of sourcs which clearly mention their varna status.
I think we have very less space for debate on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talkcontribs) 13:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, "targeting" was not intended in the way that I think you have taken it. Your comments are welcome; your sources even more so! It is just that some of the "regulars" are perhaps struggling a bit for time right now due to issues elsewhere. I certainly am, but I will happily look at sources etc. You may want to take a look at Tamil Kshatriya, which is subject to a merge discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
OK Sir,I will study the entire topic of Tamil Kshtriya and than present on talk page.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


As no one coming against my sources on jats i am excluding them because of unreliable and very few sources and the sources against there claim is very powerful and numerious.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

hey bill i agree with u,the article is completely a mess ...claming jats and gujjars as chandravanshi,survavanshi infact any kind of kshatriyas is absolutely truly wrong and baseless,the source are not at all reliable...the author is from the same caste...let me tell you that gujjars come in scheduled and other backward caste and jats are backward caste....i think in chandravanshi kshatryias the term which is missing is "yadavs"... i wud request @SITUISH to look in to matter and bring the correct informaation in to the picture.....thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talkcontribs) 06:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am excluding Jats from chanrvanshi kshtriya as no one coming against my point of view with proof.Bill clinton history (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

marathi rajputs

adding names of marathi rajput is theoretically wrong for example bhonsle of satara and thnajur are sisodia rajputs and not separate rajput similarly chavan and rane of maharastra are rajputs and they are same rajput just the spellings of chauhan and chavan or rana and rane or mori rajput and more but they are same..


In maharastra many castes are rajputs and they are not separate. Just like shivaji was rajput but that dont means bhonsale are different kshatriya bhonsale of satara(shivaji house) and thanjore are sisodia rajputs then why add their names similarly why add RANE marathi they are rana rajputs and not different tomorrow someone will add CHAVAN rajput but they are chauhan and not different.115.241.252.135 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

YADAVS ARE CHANDRAVANSHI KSHATRIYAS

SITUSH@ WHY YADAVS ARE NOT MENTIONED IN CHANDRAVANSHI KSHATRIYA LIST????...DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHERE CHANDRAVANSH COMES FROM??? ITS FROM KRISHNA WHO WAS A YADAV KING... The Kshatriya religion was propounded by Krishna, and no reference is found before him. We only find Rajnya as the term alternatively used for it (Bhagwad Gita is emaciated form of hidden knowledge—Gope—which has its root in Shiva). Later on, many Kshatriyas were made based on the philosophy of this religion as revealed in Bhagavad Gita.

SO DO ADD YADAVS IN THE CHANDRAVANSHI LIST.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talkcontribs) 17:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord Krishna belonged to the Vrishni clan of Yadavas and all Yadavas were not Yadav!. It was a group of peoples who were comes under Yadavas Like Bhati, Jadeja, Dhangers, Saini etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless you can provide reliable sources to support your statements then all of this means absolutely nothing here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

References

A very primitive and politically loaded article on the Kshatriyas. There is an effort to create a chaos in the Indian social system and make any one a Kshatriya. In India people are laughing at this. We can make out a true Kshatriya from a distance. Both Lord Ram and Lord Buddha were surely Kshatriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing to merge Tamil Kshatriya into this article. The issue is fairly complex, and has been addressed in quite a bit of detail already at Talk: Tamil Kshatriya. The quick summary is that a number of us are of the opinion that no reliable sources demonstrate that while there may have been some Kshatriya living in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, their numbers were small, and they were not originally Kshatriya (since Southern India originally used a non-Brahmanic organizational system). Most importantly, though, even if there was a group of Kshatriya who spoke Tamil, there is no evidence at all (that has been presented so far and withstood scrutiny) that shows that this group either thought of itself or is thought of by scholars as a distinct group from other Kshatriya. By analogy, while Wikipedia certainly can and does have an article on automobile salespeople, and an article on German people, there neither is nor can there be an article titled German automobile salesperson, because the intersection of those two groups holds no particular unique identity. Unless people can demonstrate that there is a distinct group called "Tamil Kshatriya" that has some sort of characteristics that distinguish it from other Kshtriya, there should be no article titled "Tamil Kshatriya". As such, we should merge any useful information from that article into this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Support merge - as one who has been heavily involved in the discussions at Talk: Tamil Kshatriya (& has probably read more of the sources for both sides of the debate than anyone else!) - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Do not support merge. A number of us do not share your POV!... I need some time. I will tell my reason on Tamil Kshatriya talk. We gave you time, so i ask you to gave us time.Rajkris (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Rajkris, please provide your reasons here. Merge discussions need to be centralized into a single place so that discussion continuity is maintained. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
My conclusion concerns Tamil Kshatriya wiki article, so I will post it there.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Merge - Agree with RajKris. I have a feeling that Sitush is not having sufficient knowledge in this subject to give a fair insight in to the issue. Axxn (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
So tell everyone what I am missing. Be constructive, as Rajkris intends to be. Your comment is ridiculous without some sort of substance and, as such, would usually be ignored by a closing admin if this were, say, an AfD. I know exactly why you are picking on me here, but perhaps you would care to tell everyone else. Or wander off to Metapedia along with Shannon1488. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You really seems to have a problem with me. It is not that I am picking on you, it is just vice-versa. I don't personally know Shannon (I don't even know what his real name is). I have made my points clear. I am not being rude. To me the points noted by RajKris seemed valid, and your replies were unhelpful. Also, whenever I post something, I have noticed you getting really upset. Is it because you think you cannot intimidate me like you intimidate some of the inexperienced users? Axxn (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Axxn, your comments above do nothing to answer whether or not a merge is appropriate. We have examined dozens of sources, and not a single one of them is "both"inserted later to correct error 1) reliable and 2) supports the existence of a distinct group of people called "Tamil Kshatriya". Do you have some sources that were not raised before? Or were sources previously misinterpreted? If this were a formal discussion (which I will make it, if we can't get consensus from this informal approach) a closing admin would discount your rationale because you can't just say "This is the right decision because Editor X doesn't know what they are talking about"--that's called an ad hominem attack, and has no value in judging what should actually be done. I fully admit that I may well be missing something, that maybe somehow sources have been missed or mis-read; if so, you or Rajkris or anyone is more than free to point out where that is the case, provide alternate evidence, etc. In other words, I don't care whether the result of this merge discussion is the merging of that article to this one, or if it is to improve that article to the point where it meets Wikipedia standards for verification and reliable sources, but one of the two must happen. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"None of them is reliable" --> This is pure POV!!!...Rajkris (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Rajkris, that's my typo. I forgot to put "but" in front of #1. That is, we have reliable sources, and we have unreliable sources that state that there is a Tamil Kshatriya group, but we don't have any sources that are both reliable and state that TK is a distinct group. Or, actually, even more precisely, we don't have reliable secondary sources that state that TK is a distinct group (the primary sources or quotes of primary sources of ancient texts generally don't meet our sourcing requirements in this regard). My apologies--I did not mean to say that none of the sources are reliable. But, interestingly, several of the reliable sources are exactly the ones that state that TK is not a distinct group--particularly the Indian university text that Manorathan brought up near the end. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge - in the absence of reliable scholarly secondary sources that unambiguously state that there were "Tamil Kshatriya", what we have left are the claims of various groups of people in Tamil Nadu that they are "Kshatriya". And such claims could be covered in this article--Sodabottle (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge -Sources put forward by RajKris and other users clearly shows that Tamil Kshatriyas existed. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh? Rajkris has yet to put forward his sources - he's had a few issues and things are a little delayed. The sources put forward by CarTick and Manorathan demonstrate the merge argument, as do some others. Have you actually read the discussion or just piled on here? - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
In case if you are not blind, you will be able to see the sources here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I know about them. I referred to the things. Rajkris accepted that he needed to come up with some more but they have not yet appeared. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Shannon1488, could you please point out which sources in that list meet both meet our guidelines as reliable secondary sources and also verify that there is a distinct group of people called "Tamil Kshatriya"? Because when I look at the detailed analysis of the contents of those sources, it doesn't look like any of them do. Merely stating "This list proves they're a separate group" isn't enough, when a detailed analysis shows that that is not, in fact, what the sources verify to our standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
To Sitush, I just told that I would provide my conclusion on the debate we are having in the Tamil Kshatriya talk page. I may provide 1 or 2 refs but it will not change your position. I also asked you some time because as I work, I'm very busy. You told no pb, to take my time because you took your time to analyse all the refs given. But what I can see now is an unilateral move to merge the Tamil Kshatriya article with Kshatriya... Many of us do not agree at all with your conclusion and your opinion to merge. I still have to provide my conclusion.Rajkris (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Rajkris, I think you're misunderstanding what this is. This isn't a "unilateral move to merge". Rather, this is a discussion started to see if there is a consensus to merge. This is like an RfC-lite, as it only specifically asks people already involved in editing one of the two pages. Unless there is a very clear consensus (which I freely admit that there is not right now), the merge will not proceed based on this discussion alone. After no less than a week, but probably more like 2, if it still looks like there's no consensus, then I (or any editor) can proceed with bigger steps--either an RfC (that invites other editors who aren't currently involved to discuss the issue) or an AfD (that proposes the other article for deletion). RfC's run for up to a month; if they're really contentious, they'll be closed by an admin, who will attempt to weigh the various opinions and related policies. AfDs with any amount of contention are always closed by admins. Note that I'm not saying that I would necessarily do either (it will depend on the results of this discussion and ultimately how much effort I want to put into to this), although I can't speak for what other editors would do.
So, in short, don't stress out. All I did here, literally, is propose a merge: in other words, I added tags saying "one or more editors think a merge is a good idea, so what do other people think"? You've got plenty of time to add your analysis, provide more sources, whatever. I just felt that it would be nice to get more opinions from editors here (on Kshatriya, who might not be watching Tamil Kshatriya). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked Rajkris what sort of time-line he's looking at to provide input, and he said he will try to get his comments posted by the end of July. I indicated that that's fine by me, but, either way, some time in August I would likely move on to the next step (RfC, probably). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Bad Idea; keep them separate. --81.149.240.168 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? You need to provide some sort of reason otherwise your comment carries no weight. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


Suport Merger . In Traditional view of south indian history we have only two varna in south Brahman and Shudra only.but this view is based on religeous and some irrational Brahminical texts.if there is no tamil kshtriya in south than how Tamil kingdoms established from Sangam Age.Chola , Chera,Pandya kingdoms is very well known kingdoms in south india and have continous presence till muslim invasion in Tamil Kingdoms.
After spread of Brahminism in south around first century AD We have references that kings giving huge donation to Brahman and temple.we archeological evidences in tamil areas of chola kingdoms.
this article is on whole kashtriyas of india and not only for north indian kshtriyas.south indian kshtriyas should also find their place.this make article complete.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Support. This is a general article on Kshatriya, it will be proper to include all Kshatriya. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris added his analysis a few days ago (I must have missed it) at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya#CONCLUSION FROM RAJKRIS. I responded there; others may want to have a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SatheeshKumarKandasamy, 18 August 2011

Under the title "Kshatriya lineage" in the topic "Agnivanshi", I would like to add Vanniyar(Agnikula kshatriya), a Shatriya clan who were the descendents of Agnivanshi( Source: Agni Puranam and also see Agnivansha, section: The Agnikunda legend). Thanks.

SatheeshKumarKandasamy (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that the Puranas are not in themselves acceptable for citations because they are primary sources. This unfortunately also means that they need removing from Agnivansha. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why gujjar are not included in Kshatriya and suryavanshi ?

Can I ask why gujjars are not mentioned in Kashatriya and suryavanshi. They are mentioned in the main section of Suryavanshi but you not mentioned them in suryavanshi part and even that 10 clans are not listed in Suryavansha wikipedia.Can I ask why there is difference in same thing at two different wikipedia pages ?

A man from Matrix (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there sources on the other page that verify that Gujjars are Kshatriya? If so, they could be included here. If not, the other page should be changed to remove the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The article referred to only says that some Gujars believe themselves to be kshatriya, and the source provided is not a particularly good one. These claims are, of course, numerous: it sometimes seems as if every caste/community in the country has such claims. The Suryvansha article needs some work doing on it but, alas, I am spread myself too thinly as it is right now. Hopefully someone else can jump in there and tidy things up a little. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of cited content

Hi Sitush
Please do not selectively delete cited content unless you deem it absolutely necessary and have taken correlated steps to maintain legitimacy of your stated reasons to maintain balance
This is what the article looked like on 16 July 2011
Then you make three major deletions on the 15th of August and provide your reasons for deletion viz:

15 August 2011 remove list: there is a main article relating to Chandravanshi

15 August 2011 remove list: there is a main article relating to Suryavanshi


You removed citations relating to several groups within Chandravanshi and Suryavanshi stating remove list: there is a main article

  • a) Firstly neither of these two articles contained from before a listing of some of these groups you removed .
  • b) Secondly after removing citations from secondary sources in this article , you did not add these citations to the articles you had purportedly pointed to stating ....remove list: there is a main article
  • c) Third and most importantly your retention and deletion of information regarding groups retained in the article is selective

Perhaps this was an oversight . Apprecite that you are working to improve this article , please continue doing so but restore these deletions into the article .
Cheers Intothefire (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall wanting to check something or another, then forgetting to come back to this article. Mea culpa. I'll delete the other lists later, where an appropriate main article exists. If you want to include any refs etc in those articles then feel free. I will not be looking at them for the foreseeable future because I really, really do not want to get involved right now in what will probably be yet more poorly written/poorly cited articles. Having the content both in this article and in the main articles is needless duplication. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You have removed ancient ruling lineages, castes without any discussion. Most of them were well referenced (if i don't make any mistake)... I have managed to remove fake ones (such as yadavs, vanniyar, kurmis gujjars etc.) some time ago...Rajkris (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion isn't needed ahead of time when making changes compliant with policy and guidelines. Editors, of course, can object and revert afterward. However, if there is a main article on a subject, then this article should only contain a small (one to three paragraph, depending on how critical it is to this subject) summary of that other article. That's the whole point behind having separate articles when we have enough information to verify the other article's notability. Also, without looking at every single edit Sitush made in detail on 15 August, quite a lot of it was not sourced (many of the statements had had cite needed tags for over 18 months), or was sourced to primary sources, like ancient religious texts (which are not reliable for information of this type). Now, if there is specific verified information that you think was removed that shouldn't have been, please either raise the point here or re-add it; should the citation not be legitimate, we can always pull it out again. Aditionally, if there is information in the article currently that is not well verified, feel free to remove that as well. Note that in every single case, the question must always be "what do reliable sources say about this subject" not "what do I think about this subject". Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian
By and large agree with the import of your above comment ....but not in its entirety .
  • I do personally believe that all content contributed into articles must be from secondary sources ( largely at least), verifiable , reliable , in English (or translations in English) and with complete publication details .
  • Very often , content on pages has evolved due to a lot of discussions , disputes and consensus and good work by various editors . Then someone comes along deletes content and references heedlessly . A while later a responsible editor comes along and begins a clean up and summarily chucks out content what she sees as extraneous .Article now looks nice and neat but its now devoid of previous content , or presents a completely new picture .
  • But its tantamount to throwing the baby out with the the bathwater .
  • Deletion specially of referenced content should be avoided unless and until it has been expansively handled . The history section and discussion should be carefully studied before hand .
  • Lastly your point about what do reliable sources say about this subject" not what do I think about this subject . Off course my friend that s the way . The question is the Object and the observer , and Wikipedia pages enable a 360 degree observation , so deletion and clean up require consideration .
  • CheersIntothefire (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Fixed your indents - hope you do not mind. The information is still available in the article history. As stated above, feel free to insert any relevant bits into the appropriate articles. I did "carefully consider", which is precisely why I forgot to continue the cleanup process, ie: I needed to check something. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced content challenge

Given how contentious the caste issue is, all of our material must be scrupulously sourced. As such, consider this an official "challenge" of all of the unsourced info in this article. Most of it has only been marked as needing a citation since August; as such, I'm not going to do anything yet. However, in about 1 month from now (end of September, beginning of October), I will remove anything that is unsourced and attempt to consolidate what is left. That gives y'all a month to verify what is currently here; as you attempt to do so, please keep in mind our reliable sources guidelines. If you're not sure if something is a reliable source, bring it to the talk page and we can reach a consensus (we can also ask at the reliable sourced noticeboard if we can't come to a consensus ourselves). In the meantime, I don't think that anyone should be removing any of the unsourced info out of deference to the time it takes to do research; however, like I just did a few minutes ago, I will revert more additions of unsourced info, as there is no need to make the problem any worse. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Restart merger discussion

The previous merger got stalled while Rajkris compiled evidence. Rajkris has now had over 2 months to compile that evidence, but has been unable to do so due to real life reasons. What xe has provided so far does not change my opinion, at least, nor, as far as I know, Sitush's. Furthermore, the previous discussion was tainted in part by the involvement of a now-blocked sockmaster. As such, I would like to restart the merger discussion. If you recall the rationale for merger was that there is no evidence in reliable sources that there is a separate group of people with their own customs/leaders/social structure/etc. called the Tamil Kshatriya. There is evidence that there may have been people in Tamil Nadu who claimed Kshatriya status, though the validity of those claims is uncertain; more importantly, even if those claims are valid and well-sourced, still they don't establish that the group is separate from the rest of the Kshatriya to require a separate article. So, I would like to again cull opinions to see if there is a consensus to merge the information from Tamil Kshatriya into this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add my last comments (I have finished writing them, just need a final check) by tonight or tomorrow and will submit them for rfc, etc. Rajkris (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Support merger - I could pick apart the analysis presented by Rajkris in the section that follows this but have already examined in detail a large number of proposed sources from both "sides" of the debate at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya. The sources below (where not in fact the same as previously examined) tend to cover the same ground, with the most obvious issue being that of synthesis. Some people may consider the outcome to be unfortunate, but we are bound by the community's policies and guidelines. Numerous contributors raised numerous sources, sometimes in a fairly vehement manner, in their attempts to demonstrate that a separate article could be justified. Initially open-minded, and with the explicit acceptance by all parties then involved that they would abide by my assessment, I came to the conclusion that there was insufficient reliable verification. One of those parties was Rajkris, whom I now think is probably flogging a dead horse. Without wishing to seem offensive, I do understand the passion but sometimes it gets in the way of logic. There simply is not enough to justify a separate article and, indeed, the current state of Tamil Kshatriya reflects this. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merger for the reasons given below. To sum up:
1)This term is used by some scholars to designate Tamil rulers
2)Hindu texts consider Tamil rulers as Ksahtriya
3)Tamil rulers identified themselves as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, the caste of rulers in the Hindu/Indian society.
Concerning Sitush assertion that there are number of scholars who claim that the word kshatriya cannot be applied to tamil society, my anwer is:
- using sources which tell that the Tamil society was different from the traditionnal varna model to imply that kshatriya cannot be used for tamil rulers is wrong.
- concerning scholars which tell clearly that one cannot use the word Kshatriya for Tamil rulers, i want to know on which basis they are asserting such a thing ???... Because in my refs, scholars tell that there are historical,archeological sources which tell that ... My opinion is these scholars assert such thing based on their political ideology rather than historical facts and therefore they are not reliable scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SOME REFS WHICH I WANT TO SUBMIT FOR TAMIL KSHATRIYA

Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.

Sources which tell that Hindu texts, sources considered Tamil kings as Kshatriyas
  • Political and general history of the District of Tinnevelly in the ...Par Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12 [4]
"... in the Hari vamsa and several Puranas in which Pandya, Kerala, Kola and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida or of Dashyanta the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the Lunar line of Kshatriya"
  • Hindu culture in ancient India Par Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156 [5]
"The Harivamsa and the Puranas relate that the kings of South India Pandya, Chola and Kerala were the descendants of Yayati, the Aryan king of the North." page 155

These sources may be too old and/or not reliable enough but they all tell exactly the same thing: hindu texts considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas... Therefore, a deeper analysis should be taken on this point...


Sources which tell that after 'Aryanisation' of the Tamil society, Tamil rulers started identifying themselves as Kshatriyas, the varna of rulers within the Hindu society and adopted traditions, practices which were related to this varna
  • History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 1 page 377 [6]
"We similary find the Cholas of the south call themselves solar kshatriyas in inscriptions..."
  • History of agriculture in India, up to c. 1200 A.D. by Vinod Chandra Srivastava,Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy, and Culture [7]
"... due to the impact of the Brahmanic order of society, chiefly, groups who were originally tribal and agrarian started changing their descent, relating themselves either with Suryavamsa (Solar line) or Chandravamsa (Lunar line), as the Kshatriya caste of nothern India."
  • Art and culture of Tamilnadu by Sundeep Prakashan, 1980 [8]
"... tradition of Vedic ancestry is not mentionned in Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the sith century A.D. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the kshatriya honorific Varman to their names." page 2.
Sources which tell that Hindu religious authority considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriya
  • Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112 [9]
  • "The Brahmins who entered the field as adventurous immigrants from the north, soon became the advisors and confidants of the chiefs. They equated the Tamil chiefs to the kshatriyas..."
Other sources mentionning, talking about Tamil Kshatriya, Kshatriya varna, etc.
  • The background of Maratha renaissance in the 17th century by Narayan Keshav Behere [10]
"... and the Chols who were purely Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 60
"The Cholas were Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 69
  • Penumbral visions: making polities in early modern South India Par Sanjay Subrahmanyam [11]
"Further south, in the Chola country, one gathers that the varna status of rulers did continue to be a preoccupation; some of them are known to have performed the hiranyagarbha ceremony, by which they were inserted into a large womb-like gold vessel, and subsequentely emerged 'reborn', and declared to possess kshatriya status." page 229
  • Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints [12]
"Ko-Chenga Chola, Caste: kshatriya" page 160, "Nedumaran, Caste: kshatriya" page 165, "Charaman, Caste: kshatriya" page 178

Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...

'To Sum Up

I have privided different refs which tell:

  • Tamil rulers are considered as Kshatriyas in Hindu literatture sources
  • Tamil rulers used this word for themselves
  • Tamil Brahmins considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas
  • Different scholars used the term Tamil Kshatriya

As you can see, there are so much refs dealing with Tamil speaking Kshatriyas... How can one tells that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designate Tamil nobles ???...

Sitush has rejected these refs by appleling to the following arguments:

  • Old source
  • Non reliable source
  • Snippet view

I don't agree with his position because:

  • Old book does not mean (always) wrong
  • it is not because a book is considered not reliable that everything is wrong in it
  • snippet view mention clearly Tamil Kshatriya and thefore need futher enquiry before taking any action

Sitush also argues that there are numbers of book which tell that there is no Tamil Kshatriya. I want to know on which basis these scholars assert that there is no such as Tamil Kshatriya whereas there are historical & archeological sources which assert the contrary ???... My opinion & answer concerning these scholars is: They assert this based on their idiology & political opinion instead of using scientific evidences & therefore they are not reliable scholars and so should not be used... Tamil Kshatriya is a term used to designate Tamil Nobles, Rulers and I support the existence of a dedicated article (but linked to the main article Kshatriya for this term. Can anyone tell me how to submit my refs to rfc & other stuffs ?... Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the formatting here per discussion on your talk and mine. Will review details later. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Rajkris, I believe that you are really, honestly, fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. Your references may prove that there were Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu. Which one of those references indicates that the Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu are separate, distinct, or otherwise different from other Kshatriya? I know that Sitush has been arguing that there may not ever have been any Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu, but that's distinct from my argument, which is that unless you can show that there is an actual group called "Tamil Kshatriya", we cannot have an article on them. This is exactly the same as we cannot have an article called Indian bankers or Chinese car salesmen. Of course, there are bankers in India, which no one would deny, just as there are car salesmen in China. But we wouldn't write those articles, because there is no group called "Indian bankers". We do have an article on the field Banking in Switzerland, but not about a group of people. Please, what is your evidence that the Tamil Kshatriya are different enough from other Kshatriya that they deserve a separate article rather than just being incorporated into Kshatriya? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed

Dear Sitosh, I have noticed that you removed a referenced argument from the main article. Please justify your move. Any legitimately referenced research should be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by River10 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pandit Gangabhat

I have just reverted an edit here. As I understand things, and in common with other groups during the sanskritisation process, it was the decision of Pandit Gangabhat that underpinned the Maratha claim to kshatriya status. Is this incorrect? Various communities approached various pandits, but it was the genealogies produced by those individuals that mattered (and it has always been a matter of curiosity to me re: how many people they may have approached before they found one who supported them!) - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit has now been reinstated by the original contributor. I would be grateful to see the full text relating to this citation and this one. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Pandit Gangabhatt presented the family tree of Shivaji (Bhosle).

But the other 95 Maratha clans claim themselves of being Rajput descent as well and not on the view of Ganga bhatt. On behalf of which Pandits, they claim thats a different point.

Example : Holkars claim that their ancestors belonged to the royal house of Udaipur Rajputs. [13] Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And here is the full citation of this Holkar related content : [14]. See the very first search result. The content is from that book only which I have presented as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talkcontribs) 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see it - snippet view only. Can you see the entire thing? - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondly various communities claim themselves as Kshatriyas on various grounds. Some claim that on the behalf of Pandits, and some on others. Its not mandatory to mention on what grounds they claim so. Even in the case of other castes mentioned in the "Others" section, the names of Pandits are not mentioned. So in case of Marathas also, the name of Pandits who presented family trees of varoius clans need not to be mentioned.

@ Sitush

See [15] for full citation of Holkar related content. See the first search result. Ashish-Sharma-Dilli (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you may have missed my message of 14:00 above. The source is only available to me in snippet view (and, as happened a couple of days ago, I am not sure that a book on coinage really hits the mark anyway). - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Gujjar are not kshatriya this is mislead -wrong"

"vedic origin " "Gujjar are not kshatriya this is not in any veda. gurjjar, gujar, goojar are never be rajput. this is 100% wrong article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.178.44 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section for now. My reasoning is that the sources (eg: a book on costume) are poor, that there was an element of copyright violation in there, and that some of it was pure synthesis (the sentence trying somehow to infer that the Mihir name means that they must be kshatriya). I know that the position of Gurjars has been disputed on a few articles but cannot recall which ones. In any event, there is no harm in us thrashing out the pros and cons for there inclusion in this one. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

I believe under the 'Khatriya Lineage" section we should list Punjabi Khatri's as representing kshatriyas of the Punjab region.

Raja4811 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Are Punjabi thought of as a distinct, separate group? Do they have customs or behaviors that are different from those of other Kshatriyas? If so, could you point to some reliable sources that discuss this distinction? If there is some evidence that "Punjabi Kshatriyas" are distinct and different from other "Kshatriyas" then inclusion would be appropriate. But, for example, we don't have an article about Business owners in Punjab, because there isn't any specific reason to single out that group as "special". The key is that you'll need to provide sources that explain this distinction. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the Kshatriya Lineage section lists several categories of regional Kshatriyas, the listing is obviously incomplete as it leaves out a very important regional section, i.e. Punjabi Kshatriyas. Locally they have long and historically been calling themselves 'Khatris often referred as Punjabi Khatris. Any Northern India sunday newspaper typically carries matrimonials listing Punjabi khatris separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja4811 (talkcontribs) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of this article is a mess. That is no reason to make it still more messy. Qwyrxian is correct: find some sources to distinguish your point. AS for what is there, well, it may not be for much longer as I have been tempted to wield my axe widely and vigourously. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Maurya, kushwaha and shakya clans are also kshatriyas

according to history and other sources there clans were also a Kshatriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.179.194 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support those claims. "History" is too vague. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pleaase make changes: Chera, Chola Pandys are belongs to Mukkulathor community who is a Kshatriya of Tamilnadu. Vellalars are higercast agriculturist community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moovendhan (talkcontribs) 21:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thurston, Edgar; K. Rangachari (1909). Castes and Tribes of Southern India Volume I - A and B. Madras: Government Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moovendhan (talkcontribs) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sitush will recall for certain, but I don't think Thurston is considered reliable for this type of information. I may, though, be confusing him with another author. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The main problem with Thurston's nine-volume Caste & Tribes series originates from the fact that it is mostly a synopsis of the thoughts recorded by earlier commentators, often from many decades earlier. Thurston generally passes no comment upon those thoughts, although (unlike the much more recent series by the Anthropological Survey of India) he does usually attribute them. It is well-known that British Raj sources have numerous issues relating to amateurism, veracity, social engineering and even scientific racism, not to forget a distinct assumption (often contradictory) of good faith in recording the opinions of various social groups who were hell-bent on manipulating their position in society. This process has been described as Sanskritisation. Furthermore, much of the work of Thurston, H. H. Risley and similar people was intended to supplement the classification methods adopted for the decennial census exercises. Since those methods changed substantially from one decade to the next, and since even those who oversaw them - such as Denzil Ibbetson - admitted that they were massively flawed, the entire scenario becomes a nightmare.

I think that our basis has to be whether or not Thurston is generally cited by modern writers on the subject and, to the best of my knowledge, he is not. A secondary consideration would be if we could use the "X noted that A considered themselves to be ..." formula. However, this formula does not work well in the sphere of Indian castes precisely because of the tendency for self-promotion etc. We need more recent sourced, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, a read of Kushwaha#Classification gives a decent example of the problems here. Disclaimer: I have worked long and hard to keep the pov-pushers in check at that and related articles, mostly connected with the related Kurmi and Yadav communities. These issues have been taken to WP:DRN etc before now and consensus has always been in my favour, to the best of my recollection. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Gujjars are Kshatriyas

I added Gujjars to kshatriyas and also added enough references to support the inclusion. I simply want to state that things can't go in good faith if someone is bent over doing something blindly. I request the senior contributors to please go through cited references before removing some content because we can't think of a good source of information if we go on removing from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author 91 (talkcontribs) 14:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Telling Gujjars are Kshatriyas is the same as telling Indians or English are Kshatriyas. Gujjars is the name of people, not caste. And most of them have converted to Islam.Rajkris (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
see this ref [16]: "Tribal leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Sudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs".Rajkris (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
one can mention that Gujjars nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas but writting that whole Gujjars are Kshatriyas or have Kshatriya origin is wrong.Rajkris (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to argue further on this but this attitude of yours would seriously lead to edit wars because being a contributor your responsibility is to check if the content added is valid or not. I am sorry to say this but you shouldn't bring your own invalid or biased logic in order to decide in matters such as these. You ,by authority, have removed the content and someone would definitely add it again and it may continue to God knows till when. If you seriously think that your point that only leaders were the only kshatriyas and followers were not then may I use your words as: "People serving our defense forces belong to kshatriya and everyone else to some other varna." That is not true for sure because it has nothing to do with being a king or follower, it is all about caste of the follower. Even if you say that Gurjar nobles were accepted as kshatriyas, why weren't nobles from other castes? Please go through the history properly once before acting because your actions surely do hurt sentiments.

And about conversion to Islam, I know varnas do not apply in Islam but obviously here we are talking about those religions to whom varna system was applicable at that time.Author 91 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked your refs and they do not support what you wrote.Rajkris (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Author91, varna issues are notoriously contentious on Wikipedia. And, for what it is worth, Rajkris has been on what they probably still think is the "wrong end" of some kshatriya claims. They argued long and hard for retention of an article concerning kshatriyas but failed. Given that background, I think that their points here carry a reasonable amount of weight. Furthermore, there have been similar discussions at Gurjar etc from which it is evident that the situation is at best confusing.

To be honest, I am less than happy with the current situation in this article. The section heading at least in theory allows mention of any community that self-identifies as kshatriya and - for those of us who have some experience of these issues - that probably amounts to abou 70% of all castes, primarily because of crappy British Raj ethnology and sanskritisation. It is a farce and I would much rather that the bar was raised. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with Rajkris completely and respecting what Situshhas written above, I am again adding some content with the "other" references I have checked and got cross checked. One thing I want to clear is that we're not here to judge things on our "personal" knowledge. If someone is citing enough references that go with the claims, then we can't apply our own thinking to judge but should try to judge using references. I hope the newer references would help Rajkris and Sitush allow my edit to stay. Thank you. Author 91 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
At this stage, it would be best to continue discussion rather than further edit the article. The point is clearly controversial and there is nothing to stop you listing your sources for review here. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, I had edited the article before noticing your message here. No offences, but I don't think it would be a good idea to revert my last edit since the references I have provided are more than enough. Can we let that edit stay because of lack of clear reason to revert it and discuss things here if you have any to say about it.- Author 91 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It would be a good time because we do have a convention and that is described in the bold, revert, discuss essay. Btw, no way are H. A. Rose or a Christian advocacy group reliable sources for any kshatriya claim by any community. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would the religion of a historian or a researcher determine if he/she is a reliable source of information on Indian history. And as far as conventions are concerned, I don't think conventions were being followed earlier. I am open to discussion here but I still believe that removal of content without a VALID reason is a solution to this conflict. -Author 91 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I am going to revert you per consensus regarding reliability of British Raj sources, WP:BRD and the dubious nature of non-expert Christian advocacy groups. Feel free to continue discussion but insertion of contested statements in an article when discussion is ongoing is never preferable to omission of the same. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I note, by the way, that your most recent edits appear to be copy/pastes from other articles. You cannot do this without providing attribution, eg: "X copied from article Y". I'd be grateful if you could let us know which articles you used to assemble those snippets. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For ease of discussion, I list your most recently cited sources below.
  1. The Gujur Rajasthani of South Asia, Bethany World Prayer Center, 1997, archived from the original on 2007-03-15, retrieved 2007-05-31 
  1. Rose, Horace Arthur (1990), Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Asian Educational Services, p. 300, ISBN 81-206-0505-5  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  1. Jamanadas, K., "Rajput Period Was Dark Age Of India", Decline And Fall Of Buddhism: A tragedy in Ancient India, New Delhi: Bluemoon Books, retrieved 2007-05-31 
  1. Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna (1989), Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, Asian Educational Services, p. 64, ISBN 81-206-0457-1 
  1. University of Kerala, Dept. of History (1963), Journal of Indian history, Volume 41, Dept. of History, University of Kerala,Original from the University of California, p. 765, Gurjara-Prathiranvaya, of the Rajor inscription, which was incised more than a hundred years later than Bhoja's Gwalior prasasti, nearly fifty years later than the works of the poet rajasekhara.  - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, on this specific issue, here is how I see it. The Gurjars/Gujjars are claimed to have historically originated from a specific region. Very significant numbers moved elsewhere way back in time, and many of them apparently no longer even subscribed to Hinduism, let alone the varna concept. Of those who remained, their status seems to me to be akin to, say, the Celts: a loose tribal grouping based on regional origins. I acknowledge that the same could be applied to most of the 4000+ castes that are recognised in India but for reasons that are not clear to me, the Gurjars seem never to be classified as a caste. Since the varna concept is inherently one that is based on and simultaneously defines caste, the connection in this instance has to be slim-to-none.

If we add into this mix the fact that reliable sources at best only ever indicate a certain few people of Gurjar origin as being constituent members of the kshatriya varna then it is apparent (imo) that to make a broad-brush statement is inherently misleading. Furthermore, it is my understanding that those who claim Gurjar origin also claim descent/membership of various castes. That is, not all Gurjars are members of the same caste - the thing that is most intrinsically related to varna status. As a consequence, it is a nonsense to claim that Gurjars were brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas or shudras: they were all of these. They commonality lies in what nowadays would most usually be described as a nationality. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)