Talk:Rajus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...


Contents

[edit] Yenkata Shetty

  1. note: I don’t have to use different user names I am proud of my name as Yenkat SETTY and secondly don’t blame me for vandals without even trying 2 know the truth. If I were a vandal I would not be on this page and wasting my time correcting you my Black Dravidian people. If u read our sacred VASAVVAMMA puranamulu U will find that VASAVI blesses the Black Race. NALUPU VASAVAMMA MECCHU TELUPU KOOTHI KODA MECHHADU RA. (For you Rajus or Aryan posers just bcoz some of you married some white women sometime hasn’t changed you into white I am translating the Telugu verse, question urself Why we have this among ourselves) Black is of regards to mother VASAVAMMA, even an ape doesn’t like white. All of the RAJU community is Black WITH OUR PROUD BROAD noses just bcoz u have some exceptions U can’t separate urself from us Proud Black Dravidians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenkata setty (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Hi APhistory why do you put words in another’s mouth edit my discussion to suit your fictitious Raju community claim to Kshatriya status as well call Vasavi as fiction and story. Stop editing putting your words in others discussion deleting others discussion seeing that only your absurd and fake views remain in the site constitute vandalism, hatred, debauchery, cowardice. Pls mend ur ways.
  3. Hi APhistory, kavya srinivasan, oblu and others, why can't u just focus on the points raised instead of getting personal:
  4. who decides who is a Kshatriya?
  5. MANU SMRITI categorically claims there are no KSHATRIYAS or VIASHYAs in KALIYUGA, only the evil MLECHHAS claim that status
  6. WHY does the article sophistically show all the details regarding KSHATRIYAS but cleverly omits the verses that there aren’t any KSHATRIYAS in Kaliyuga:
  7. also thorough reading of Sanskrit puranams gives that Arya ends with Arya varta (above Vindhyas, not including south India). Why does the article omit this and all the similar claims of different SC, ST and OBC communities claiming the same Kshatriya status?
  8. I am registered with the census as a Komati because my parents as have their forefathers were all Komatis, people can accept me or reject me but facts remain of my lineage ab initio even if I want to change that I can’t, sadly I am born with a caste and I have to die with the same.
  9. Focus on showing empirical evidence linking the Raju community with ancient Kshatriyas everybody knows what Kshatriya is, there is a separate article on the same. Show either linguistic, cultural, ethnic/racial proof of the same not just links or references of ancient Kshatriyas which has nothing to do with RAJU community. WE are all black Dravidians that we should be proud of, no need of fiction?
  10. The article best deserves deletion as it gives extremely good details of the Kshatriyas, ancient details of kings and queens of different quarters of the world following different cultures and religions and links towards the same, but not even a shred of EMPERICAL evidence linking the Dravidian RAJU community to ancient Vedic Kshatriyas of Arya varta.
  11. those who are concerned with evolution linking apes to human kind there are similarities. I would give u people much credence and admit the same either evolution or the initial Adam and eve If u can link the same.
  • What?


[edit] Emperical information

What the hell are you talking about? Obviously you are ignorant about Komati and Rajus specifically and about south India-India in general. Try read these articles and tell me who is giving false information, I don't know if you are a Telugu or not but you obviously don't know anything about Andhra society. Don't make demands about what should be deleted and what shouldn't be without knowing something, otherwise you’re just vandalizing and you should be the one deleted!!

[edit] Subdivision origin

  1. Another reason for groupism came from the profession followed by the different groups. As people changed professions, they also had to change names to reflect those professions. However they needed to differentiate themselves from people who were already using those professional names. So as people took up farming they had to call themselves Vellala. However since other groups were using Vellala as title, different groups with additional names were created. Thus were created the various groups of Vellala.Lathead 9:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • interesting but what does this have to do with Rajus?--Aphistory1 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Rajus community? If it is less than 20%, aren't they anti-social?
  • People marry within a social group because they like the customs and traditions that they grew up with and would like to marry someone with the same appreciation. This doesn't make them antisocial or bigoted; it's just a choice they make to continue their traditions. What makes someone bigoted or antisocial is if they purposely suppress or intimidate others for their own benefits. There is not a great deal of oppression from Rajus.--71.123.127.194 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  1. It is certain that Raju community had an exalted past. But, that does not justify giving an account of Andhra dynasties starting from Ikshvaku 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!!
  • Since when do we need a Christian European to coronate us as Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras? As far as hard proof, check the referrences. It is clear that Vishnukundinas, Kotas, Pericchedas, Sagis, and Vijayanagar were Raju ancestors. The Chalukyas and Haihayas still need further research, although it is interesting to note that Surnames like Solanki and Chola existe amongst Rajus. There is no link to Kakatiyas other then a marriage.
  • Rajus claiming that they were descendants of Madhava Varma, Chalukyas, Kota vamsa, and Pericheda have been told for centuries. These legends have been repeated by Thurston and other references.
  1. 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.
  • Brother Kota Kings that were mentioned in this article existed even before the Kamma Caste even originated they can be traced back to the Telugu Cholas. During the 9th Century.Kota Kings were from Raju, Bramhin and Kapu Castes... So don’t get excited... and there are Kota Balijas are referred to as Madurai and Tanjavore Nayaks and the rulers of Penukonda...
  • The funny thing about Kammas claiming to be Kota kings is that even their own historians state that the Gotra of the Kota kings was Dhananjaya. There is no Dhananjaya gotra in Kammas. So how can you argue that They were Kammas?
  • I wonder how these legends came about? If you go with Thurston’s statement, then how did families from different castes like Reddy, Kapu, Velama, and Kamma come up with a common history of their 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 proved to be false. 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. 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. The difference is small but significant. Also historians have shown that the number of Kshatriya families in Andhra was always small and some married non Kshatriyas. It’s 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 actually 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 Aryan Khambojas, Reddys being Rashtrakutas kings, Mudirajs claiming to be Kalachuri, Salivahanas being descendents of Satavahanas and Kapus being the progenitors of all the castes and rulers of all Andhra for 2,000 years.
  • Thurston felt Rajus might not be connected to the Vedic Kshatriyas; 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)
  • 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.
  1. 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 dynasties that ruled Telugu land. You got to be logical and rational in your claims.
  • 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, Gajapathi, 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 feudatory 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. Much of the information was gained reading through ancient inscriptions made on temple walls and stone inscriptions. It is only logical that a community that’s 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 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.
  1. There is no doubt that Rajus are 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–– A small addition. Somewhere above it is mentioned that Rajus, Brahmins and Komatis have a slightly more Aryan genes. Not sure if this is verifiable. There are some articles that say Brahmins have a lot of Aryan genes (here Aryan usually becomes central Asian genes). Komatis, except for their brahminical traditions like the sacred thread, probably have the least of Aryan genes. Take a few Komatis randomly; u would not come across many fair skinned people. (In fact I have seen many fair skinned Reddys and Kammas). About Rajus, I have seen fair and dark skin. As again, the most probably theory is that a section of Rajus might have migrated from north, but many Rajus were originally other castes like Yadava and Kapus etc. who by virtue of their being associated with kingdoms were exalted to Kshatriyas. But this must have happened in the past a long time back. That still makes them people with a royal lineage. But it is also true that a large percentage of kingdoms in Andhra and Karnataka had non Kshatriya kings. The Yadava, Reddys, (Wodeyars of Mysore are also Yadava), and even Krishna Deva Raya is supposed to be a Kuruba (shepherd). Even from a population point of view, it is not possible for a cast of 1.2 % to rule a large area as Andhra. There must have been other castes, which were associated with ruling kingdoms. If I were to make an assessment of castes, I would definitely say Rajus, Reddys, Velamas, Kammas, Kapus, Yadava; Kurubas all have some lineage to royal kingdoms. None of these castes can singlehandedly lay claim to being associated with ruling clans, and claim that other castes are lower than them.
  • You make valid points, but certain points like the gene theory, genetics is a proven science and valid otherwise the study would not be published. Genetics are used to prove paternity and used in criminal cases. Another point is that the origin of Krishna Deva Raya is still debated. What most people think is that his father was certainly a Kshatriya King and his mother was a concubine. His son in laws were Kshatriyas as attested by the fact their descendants are still alive and are Zamindars of Anegondi. They state they belong to the Raju caste. Finally it doesn't take a large population to controll a territory. There is only one King. It wasn't like it is today where you need to get votes. You were born a King and nobody questioned your authority. Muslims were a minority but still ruled over Hindus. The British population was only a few hundred thousand yet they ruled over 300 million Indians.
  1. Shivaji was not a Rajput/Kshatriya, but does it make him any less glorious. I would rate him as the most successful and true Kshatriya by practice. This whole business of claiming to be superior because one belongs to a caste seems more related to emotional depravity than anything backed by historical evidence. This applies to all castes. This is my humble theory, but is obviously open to dispute.
  2. It is not clear what a high caste Kshatriya means and what is low caste Kshatriya means before claiming that Shivaji is low caste Kshatriya. The other point is most of the Raju community in Andhra seems to be complicated, people who belong to atreya gotra claim to be descendants of suryavanshi but history says that they are Chandravanshi. Also the article doesn't talk about Rajus who have no reservations (forward caste) and Rajus who have reservations (backward caste).
  • Comment on the Commentary on Shivaji: Speaking of emotional depravity look who is talking. If you think to be glorious you don't have to be of a certain high caste, which is true and I agree, why are you showing the 'emotional depravity' yourself by branding him a Kshatriya. You could simply accept what shivaji's caste is and acknowledge his glory as well. You are actually insulting him and showing your inability to comprehend by equating him to a Kshatriya because he was glorious. All those who were glorious don't have to Kshatriyas. By thinking so you are the one showing least intellectual depth. Thanks - Dinesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.43.219 (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Where is the True story: This article is neither accurate nor decently comprehensive. There are around ten or more castes in AP which claim to be Kshatriya but are not so by either history or by profession. This is clearly recorded by national authorities on castes of AP. For example, the caste Agnikula Kshatriya is actually a fisherman caste. They claim to be Rajus. In fact they even have reservations or at least in the Rayalaseema area are fighting for the same. Author better take note and make necessary corrections so that the article is complete. Why hide reality and cook up own theories and stories like the whole gene theories above. Most of it is unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Thanks. -Dinesh.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.43.219 (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If an attempt was made to talk about the other castes that claim to be Kshatriyas (Raju) they would probably get upset if someone not from their community tried to edit it or wrote about them in a fashion that they don't like in this article so no attempt will be made to discuss them, but you are free to read their articles. This article can only concentrate on the specific telugu speaking Raju community.
  • As far as facts, there are plenty of citations, you can varify them at your leisure.
  • Genetic studies are based on science and are valid, otherwise they would not be published. So this is not a cooked up myth. Rajus are a mixed breed and came from various backgrounds, it is not trying to present them as superior. The achievements are real and documented, so if you don't agree with them, simple paste any relevant info onto the discussion page and the article can be updated, but don't keep saying there are no facts when there have been over 100 citations and references made from texts.--71.123.127.194 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As stated earlier, this article is about Telugu speaking Rajus, who are not BC, ST, SC, and have no reservations, not about every caste that claims to be a Raju or Kshatriya. It is difficult enough to get verifyable information about ones own caste without having to be responsible for writing about all castes. If you are interested in Vanniyars (agnikula Kshatriya), Boyar etc.. you may read their article at your leisure. Thanks--Aphistory1 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)