Talk:Kshatriya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kshatriya article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject_India 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...
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Archived Pages

[edit] Ahir/Abhir link

Though the problem cited by Sashi is unfounded, still I wd like to forward him a proper research work on how Abhir becomes Ahir.Infact I have yet to come across any credible source which denies it.All notable Historians like H.A. Rose agrees and has not expressed even slightest doubt that Abhira are Ahirs (even the one sashi provides), so trying to distinguish the two is mischievous too.citation is Here. Ikon |no-blast 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

REPLY> I am happy that we are moving forward and learning. Please provide the details of the author of the reference that you have linked in your response where Abhirs are called Ahirs. I checked it and the place where it is mentioned, no reference is provided, only the author says that it is. The credibility of the reference rests on the authors identity and the publication where it is published, both are necessary.
I personally am open to the two being the same or different. If they are different, then we have something, and if they are the same, then also we need to discuss the approximate period of Abhirs coming to India and the period of Krishna's life. Both should match for Abhirs to be related to Krishna. Other wise the relationship can happen only if Krishna is proved to be borne after Abhir arrival. I am assuming that this information is available with the people who assume the relatiohsip between Krishna and current Ahirs and have put it here.Shashis 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)shashis
Rather I wd be happy if you proove them being different,till now I haven't found any citation to that effect, yes (and let me inform you) there are ppl who thinks Moslims called them, coz the term finds place in Moslim and christian scriptures too.However,references of Abhira in Hindu scriptures is most ancient one, and they were cowherds indeed.Yet, I must say their origin is not clear whether they originated in India or came from outside.Anthropologicaly they are also among scythic ppl but with most aryan features, Todd takes care calling them scythic with additional word even,adding they must have been a very ancient wave with the amount of aryan content in them.  Ikon |no-blast 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is this editor

One editor anonymously has done this edit [1],I can guess it but does he has courage to own it on Talk page!!!!!!!!!!!!!.Let us see.  Ikon |no-blast 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over Yadavs

It is a smart idea to dodge an argument by putting the responsibility of proving something on someone else. Let me expalin, I am not saying let us put Yadavs on this page, IKON or whoever has put it here is doing this without evidence. So let him or another who supports this inclusion prove it, I have presented my arguments and numerous references that suggest Yadavs are not Kshatriyas. I do not want to get lost and waste mytime on minor peripheral issues. In fact, I believe that at this time Ikon is not even sure what he is talking about. I want to focus on the real issue: Should Yadavs be included as Kshatriyas? Interestingly, while here ikon is arguing that Ahirs and Abhirs are the same and considering Ahirs and Yadavs as one group, on my talk page (see shashis discvussion page), he is suggesting that Yadav and Ahirs might be different. UNTIL SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED, YADAVS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF KSHATRIYA GROUP. I am waiting for a proper response with published credible references, not just same opinions. I want to keep Yadavs here, just show us some evidence. It is unfortunate that IKON is again trying to bully an editor. This type of act of his is what prompted me to enter this forum. Please refrain from this. Anyone reading our arguments is likely to agree with my presentation becasue I do not have a bias (at least I try not to have one to the best of my abilities), I have presented evidence, and I have given all the time for others to contradict me. No one has come forward so far. So what do you expect, it might be time to make changes. If someone goes ahead and makes changes, please respond to the changes using evidence, and do not revert back. IF YOU WANT TO REVERT TO THE OLD PAGE, THEN SHOW EVIDENCE supporting WHAT IS THERE ON THE PAGE. This is a fair way of moving forward. I do not have time at the moment to make careful changes, and I will wait until I have some free time. Meanwhile, others are welcome to contribute. Shashis 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

So you have proved that you don't want to improve, next time onwards I will slap you with warnings which may lead to formal bans. The friend of yours that 59.94... or 59.95.... IP is a very well known Troll and has vandalised pages in past , his deeds and his avatars are well recorded, I will simply ask you not to join him.What I had posted on your page was nothing but facts . Look below for clarifications.

1) Abhira and Yadava had been different is well recorded and accepted,I just told you Abhir= Ahir and Yadava= Abhir + Yadav = Ahir ok.I just showed you even Abhira were Kshatriya. 2) It is you who has failed to proove your point till now and has been almost testing the patience of the community with your rants. 3) If you are concerned about non kshatriya entries here, You must first delete Rajputs which looks dirty now for the loads of facts against them.  Ikon |no-blast 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

> REPLY> I don't care who the editor is, and neither do I want to join anyone. I do not like the way you address issues. For example, to the editor in question, you challenge unnecessarily about courage etc. Maybe the person is new and does not know the procedures. You can just revert the changes and repectfully ask the editor to discuss them first. Al least provide some more information and some proper warning. Remember that you have been wrong before, in my case where you had assumed I was somebody else and were very rude. Try to learn from your mistakes. Further, you have again behaved rudely with me. Please read your response to me and you will understand. I am not bothered about any act of yours. Please go ahead and "slap a warning" or whatever you want. It might be fun! In fact I look forward to an outside neutral intervention. That will save all of us time. Like I have said before, I am new here and do not know the procedure to have some sort of arbitration. I can learn, but I do not have time and inclination for it at the moment. If you believe that I am not arguing correctly and creating problems, then why don't you have something like a mediation? You know a lot about Wikipedia and it might save all of us time. You always talk about warnings, notice, Wikipedia policies etc, why not use your knowledge to save all of us some time? If a neutral authority agrees with your point of view, I will happily accept it here. How about it? Are you afraid? Let a neutral authority test both our claims. If my references are wrong, or if they have been mis-represented by me as you have claimed in your earlier posts, then I will withdraw from Wikipedia, otherwise you accept to withdraw. It is a challenge. Are you willing to accept it? I don't think so. I defnitely invite all readers to check the references that I have provided, they are open to the public. At least a reading will expose the games Ikon is playing. Regarding Rajputs and others being Kshatriyas, that is not what we have been discussing. If some group of people (no matter who they are) cannot be supported by evidence as being Kshatriyas, then they should not be here, for the sake of presenting right information. I am all for it. For that start a separate discussion. Here we are talking about Yadavs. Don't try to confuse issues again.Shashis 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)shashis
I think I have presented enf. proofs on this page, regarding Yadava being Kshatriya and Rajputs being Mlechha (sometime upgraded to shudra as concession), it is you who is afraid of loosing your position and have been playing game of sort.When I presented you the only surviving account on destruction of hindu temples (the Muslim Chronicles), you readily say these are doubtful because the next page was almost a nightmare for you. It talked about how captive muslims became Rajputs, like Shekhawat, the word itself means --- the incoming Sheikhs.You till now have not presented any credible source, it was I who told you Yadavas were called shudra in British census (perhaps you didn't know that either). I feel you don't have any expertise in any field and talks what fools and fanatics talk on any issue they take up.I do have the exact copy of Jafferlots citation and that wd proove how you misrepresent facts. Jaferlot just comments on post census scenario and nothing more than that, you selectively quoted him to obscure the tone . Your other sources are not credible, though authors are of obscure credibility, they don't support your claims whatever. Ikon |no-blast 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY> No matter how much noise you make. It is obvious that you do not want any neutral and qualified person to check our postings. I wonder why? Clearly we disagree. Both of us claim that we are playing games. I know you are and I am not. Your games are a reason why I am here. They are both entertaining and annoying at the same time. Keep them up! As a proof of your games, I have urged everyone again and again to check the history of our discussion starting at the Yadav discussion page, my discussion page, and then here. Your games will be obvious. I have said again and again, it does not matter to me what everyone else (like Rajputs etc) is. Let us focus on what we have been discussing. I have yet to see any credible reference provided by you in support of your claims. If you have an exact copy of something that proves I am lying as you suggest, why don't you accept my challenge? Let us ask/request for arbitration by someone who can check references and judge their quality. By the way, why don't you answer directly instead of dodging questions? SEND US YOUR REFERENCES THAT SAY YADAVs ARE KSHATRIYAS. I HAVE PRESENTED MANY REFERENCES, AND CAN PROVIDE MANY MORE THAT SAY YADAVS ARE NOT KSHATRIYAS, AND MANY SAY THEY ARE SHUDRAS. ALL THESE ARE REFERENCES FROM PUBLISHED JOURNAL ARTICLES BY WORLD RENOWNED PROFESSORS, AND NOT SOME POLITICALLY INSPIRED FEELINGS OF AN UNKNOWN PERSON. By the way, do not flatter yourself about the british census stuff. Most people who read about these issues are aware of it. There are many sources, including the census that say the shudra stuff. You are just not aware of them. I have pointed a few, but you want to ignore them. The census was not done in a vacuum. The Imperial gazette of the british government in India also says similar things. For those who might be new to this discussion, here is some simple support for my claim that can be verified quickly. The governemnt of India does not consider Yadavs/Ahirs as Kshatriyas. The Mandal commission only considered castes that were not Brahmins or Kshatriyas when doing their research. It was made explicit and can be easily verified (check the Mandal report or the published references that I have provided earlier in this discussion thread). The second, even simpler way to verify the lies of Ikon is to check the Yadav page version of about 3 months back. It had Vijayanagar kings listed as Yadavs. Interestingly, at that time the site for Vijayanagar kings themselves said that they were so and so (not Yadavs, had no connection to Yadavs) and provided research support for it. Even after a long discussion on this issue Ikon did not agree with the proof I had provided (so far still hasn't conceded ground). He kept on insisting that these Kings were Yadavs. However, look at the site of Yadavs now, from the list of ancient kings, the vijayanagar king's names have been removed (please verify), and many more have been added. The problem is, you work to provide proof that the information is wrong, he/she fights and resists and then even if things are corrected, he/she or others insert many more falsehoods. This is a problem that Wikipedia has to deal with. I think this is temporary. Sooner or later Wikipedia will realize the issue and allow only that content to be presented which has research support. To save time, you can just read the entire thread of our discussion where I have provided details with references. Ikon: Answer a simple question: If you are sincere about presenting right information on Wikipedia, why are you resisting so much on this issue despite so many credible references provided by me? You are trying to twist arguments, lie about postings, bully others, talk about unrelated issues (Rajputs etc) just to keep this false information on Wikipedia. Do you have some personal stake in this issue? It surprises and amuses me all the more. Regarding Rajputs, you will not be able to change the parameters of our argument with me. Please go ahead and start a new discussion on that issue. I don't care. If they are what you say, so be it. If they are not, then we will know. However, the key is to present good arguments and credible reference support. Good Luck! Shashis 16:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

Shasi's rants are now shifted to vijaynagar empire !!!! I don't know how it is related to present issue here. He again refers those records which directly or indirectly produces the same debunked census records.Perhaps Sashi is not even aware of what Risley, Crook and H A Rose (all British Royal Society anthropologists) and treated as authority on Indian caste System, says about this census record.Infact I have gone thru article by them (available on JSTOR) and they are even reluctant to use dubious caste designation, nor do they approve of the census records,explicitly saying these designations are not clear and hinders further research but are compelled to use it because of popularity of usage only.He again and again produces same Mandal commission reports which are based on Bristish Census Records, and No fresh research work.Point to be noted here, census were made free for all after sometimes and any body cd claim anything.So ppl who remained shudra in later census was by choice not compulsion. One can say why??? but reproducing same wd be far from truth, when we have loads of fact to the contrary. Ikon |no-blast 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY> So let us understand, the entire Yadav community, as you say, by choice claims shudra status (for whatever reasons), we know that the governement of India does not consider them Kshatriyas, the current well accepted Kshatriyas do not consider them Kshatriyas, the British did not consider them Kshatriyas, so many researchers (some of them cited by me) in their published documents do the consider them Kshatriyas, there is no published journal articles that we know of that considers them Kshatriyas, there is no reliable reference linking current Yadavs/Ahirs to Krishna who was a Kshatriya, there is no reference linking Yadavs/ahirs of today to any ancient Kshatriya dynasty, and yet brave Ikon fights on !!!!! (only yadav name is similar to yadu and decendents but that means nothing as other communities with stronger links to yadu claim the same, and in any case just names mean nothing, we have same names in may castes). Maybe you are right and I am missing something, pray explain O learned one :) Shashis 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

1)Govt of India does not recognise ANYONE as Kshatriya.2) No reseracher till now has shown any expresses interest in Kshatriya/Shudra stuff,3)Most reliable and authentic source is Mahabharata which recognises Yadava Abhira, Surasena and Many others as Kshatriya.Infact it was the clan name which exposed Rajput's myths as Kshatriya well recorded as Mlechha in scripture, yet Sashi fights on !!!!!!!  Ikon |no-blast 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS:----> Other communities with links to Yadu. Apart from Yadavas, no other community has any link to Yadu.There are some Rajputs whose roots are more close to sakas and the fact that they arosed from fire makes them same lot as other suryavanshi and chandravanshi arising from fire --- which actually means taking the clan name of illustrious dynasties. Is there any link which connects them with contemporary yadavs.Infact none Ikon |no-blast 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us keep focused on the discussion of Yadavs and why they should be included as Kshatriyas. If we include many issues, then we will never reach conclusion. You are welcome to start another thread about Rajputs, please go ahead. Do not attempt to include everything here so that we lose sight of the main point, if that is not your objective. It is not mine. Regarding status of different caste groups, you say that no one has studied it. This is factually incorrect. Please read the articles that I have referred earlier, there are many more. There is a book called "Hindu Castes and Tribes" that describes in details all the castes and tribes. There are others. Since you have access to Jstor, go ahead and check that to start with. Second, you say that Yadavs are the only ones linked with Yadu. Factually incorrect. No one has ever shown any link between the CURRENT Yadavs and the historical Yadu. This is the heart of the issue. The current day Yadavs have claimed links with the historical Yadu ONLY on the basis of name similarity. I will not go in circles, we have discussed this issue earlier on the Yadav discussion page. There are many communities with similar names, it says nothing about them being the same. I would be happy to accept Yadavs as Kshatriyas if you can provide reference (credible, research based) linking current Yadavs to Yadu. There is none to the best of my knowledge. There have been many rulers claiming links to acient Yadavas (all over India), the current Yadavs have no links to any of them. Please show it if there is. A lot of these things were symbolic. A claim of one or the other group as being a Yadava might have been symbolic (to link themselves with well regarded ancient dynasty and thus suggest that they possess similar virtues), there is always a possibility of this. Just as there is a possibility of the some of the groups among current Yadavs being linked to Yadu. However, such a possibility is alwasy there for all people. Remember Lucy? Not only the current day yadavs, even other groups within the OBC category claim links with Krishna and they have no obvious links with current Yadavs. Please read the references that I had provided earlier. I am simply suggesting that we should keep on this site what can be supported by credible reference. This is nothing against or for any group, this is a universal statement. It can only improve the quality of information on Wikipedia. Do you have anything against that? If not, the please present your references and do not make wild claims about things. If you cannot provide a reference, then let us agree on some issues. I do not believe that you have any reference because if you had any, you would have provided them on the Yadav page. I have discussed the quality or credibility of each reference on the Yadav page in the discussion there. Let us avoid making this a coffee table discussion.Shashis 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)shashis
Come to the point.Seems like sashi has many issues whirling around in his stomach, the most important one is Rajputs NOT being considered Kshatriya.Secondly,he has not provided any proof still counts them numerous!!!!! His so called proofs are full of flaws all being duly exposed, still his rants continues.I do not want to take up this Vijayanagar Empire controversy for now for I was not involved there even, though I do blv they were Yadava King. Sashi again and again shifts discussion on OBC classification ---- which has nothing to do with varna stuff. Directly or indirectly this guy tries to show Rajputs as Kshatriya, though the fact that they are not even remotely related to any kshatriya has been well exposed many times.Sashi has no explanation to till presented contradictions still he continues to bank on those articles.This attitude is not acceptable. Ikon |no-blast 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chhetri = Kshatriya

In colloquial Nepali, "Kshatriya" becomes "Chhetri".

Nepal also presents an interesting problem because indigenous Tibeto-Burman tribes such as Magars and Gurungs have conspicuous martial traditions and are disproportionately represented in Nepal's army and as mercenaries in the Indian and British armies. Yet they seem to be disproportionately underrepresented in government outside the military sphere. They are warriors but not rulers.

Some of these non-aryans claim Chhetri status and claim to have adopted this caste's dietary restrictions, e.g. not eating pork, beef, buffalo or perhaps even chicken. Some even wear sacred threads.

This runs counter to orthodox Hinduism in which aryans pretty much have a monopoly on the upper half of the pecking order. It's an interesting and dynamic phenomenon, quite different from the notion that caste is a static thing. And I hope someone from Nepal or anyone else with additional information will flesh this out so it can be added to the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.26.121 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Present Kings of nepal are Guhilot dynasty of Rajputs.Ancient rulers of Nepal Abhira called Abhira Gupta who were later replaced by Kiraits of mongoloid origin.Present kings status is only honorary  Ikon |no-blast 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/s/h/Talk%7EKshatriya_725e.html"