Talk:Rajus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Important

This article appears to be nothing more than a fluff piece on a specific caste, with very little verifiable research.If this article isn't fixed, I may suggest it as an Article for Deletion.

[edit] Comment

1. It is certain that Raju community had an exalted past. But, that does not justify to give an account of Andhra dynasties starting from Ikshvakus to Chola/Chalukyas and link up with them. Is there any hard proof/evidence for such all encompassing and sweeping claims. Thurston said that Rajus were not real Kshatriyas of Aryan lineage. Ponder over this!!
2. Rajus claiming that they were descendants of Madhav Varma, chalukyas, kota vamsa, and Parichedas have been told for centuries. these legends have been repeated by thurston and other references.

Kota kings who ruled Dharanikota were Kammas. Their descendents belong to the section Called 'Kota Kammas'. They have surnames such as Kota, Sagineni etc. Please correct yourself.

wheather they are true or not is debateable. But i wonder how these legends came about? if you go with thurstons statement, then how did families from different castes like reddy, kapu, velama, and kamma come up with a common history of thier origins? Did thousands of families sit down together at some secret meeting to hatch a plan to fool all the other communities about their origins? Thurston wrote during the colonial era when the british promoted the aryan invasion and subjugation theory to justify their presence. According to them all north indians were descendents of aryans and all the south indians were dravidians. This theory is being proved to be false and is being replaced by the aryan migration and assimilation theory. The Ikshvakus did rule in andhra, there are proclamations in the vedas to this effect, so what happened to these families? Did they become Kapus? Maybe, but the aryan presence in south india is also being proved by the genetic studies that have been recently done. it basically states that all indians are a mix of aryan and dravidian including south indians. of note it showed that brahmans, rajus and komatis have more aryan genes than do the kammas, kapus, and reddys do. It basically shows that these communites are say a 40/60 mix while the others are something like 25/75. The difference is small but significant. Also historians have shown that the number of kshatirya families in andhra was always small and some married non kshatriyas. Its interesting to note that they still make a small amount of the population. we might be able to misinterpret ancient writings but it is difficult to misinterpret genetics. If however you believe that we are all kapus, kammas, or reddys fine, nothing wrong with that they are accomplished communities also. Think about this, rajputs and marathas claim to be kshatriya but researchers like todd claim that they are actually not linked to the ancient kshatriyas and may acutally be hunas and sudras so rajus claiming to kshatriyas and linking themselves to 3 or four dynasties which our ancient texts list as kshatriya rulers should not be any harder to believe as kammas saying that they are descendents of Khambojas, Reddys being rashtrakutas, mudirajs claiming to be kalachuris, salivahanas being descendents of satavahans and kapus being the progenitors of all the castes and rulers of all andhra for 2,000 years.

1. yes its true thurston felt rajus might not be connected to the aryan kshatriyas. but his rational is that a true kshatriya does not eat meat. if this is his main argument about what makes a true kshatriya then there is no such thing as a true kshatriya in all of india. Rajputs, khatris, jats and marathas eat meat also. but he did mention that they are truly kshatriyas in the military sense. in fact he states that they might be the military section of the reddy, velma, kamma, and kapu castes. This still makes them the ruling elite section of these communities doesn't it? so if the satvahanas, chalukyas, kakatiyas etc were actually kapus or kammas or reddys or whatever then by logic they are the direct descendents of these ruling families that branched out and became regarded as kshatriyas. so in essence they were dravidians that became aryanized or aryans that became dravidianized, either way they were warriors and rulers.--Andhra 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2. We know we are kshatriyas but other people need to make up their mind about who rajus are. Thurston says we aren't indo aryans but scientists say we are. When two of our politicians try to get on reserved tickets as sudras the courts say that we can't because we are kshatriyas. no one denies our history of being rulers and warriors though.
3. The point is that no one denies the glorious past of Andhra Raju community. You are only cautioned that you may not link Andhra Rajus to all hundred and one dynaties that ruled Telugu land. You got to be logical and rational in your claims.
4. The article does not say that rajus are directly linked to all the dynasties of ancient india. It is not rajus that claim this. The link to chalukyas, gajapathis, eastern ganga and iskshavakus was mentioned by v. ramachandra rao, the link to matsya and vishnukundinas was made by thurston, the link to vijayanagar was made by robert sewell, the link to kakatiya was made by cynthia talbot, and the link to the reddy dynasty was made by suvarna reddy. all these sources were mentioned. There are only a few dynasties that the rajus are directly linked to. most of the others, the community was indirectly linked to as fuedatory leaders and as generals and soldiers during their reign. I did not know there were 101 dynasties that ruled AP. If you could provide a list of all 101 than we can investigate to see their relationship with this community. please bear in mind that all the information that is provided in this article was thouroghly researched and varified by searching through hundreds of historical books and documents. Much of the information was gained reading through ancient inscriptions made on temple walls and stone inscriptions. It is only logical that a community thats role in the caste system is to be warriors and rulers, would always play some sort of function during all of the dynasties even if they were not directly ruling. so i don't see how you would find it irrational to mention their presence during each dynasty. the reason each dynasty was mentioned is to give a chronological account of the development of the Andhra community in general and the specific role of the raju community during these eras. The only reason that the raju communities history is well documented is that temple priests and historians generally concentrate on the role of the ruling society more than they do the labor and farming community.
5. There is no doubt that rajus is an affluent community but as the article says that the term "raju" is a recent one and because it has importance in denoting the whole community then there should be some information on its origin without which the credibility of the claim that rajus are kshatriyas is debatable