![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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 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:
Gujjar and jats are sudras not kshatriya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.141.10 ( talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
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]
So you are doubting Markandeya Purana ?
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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 (
talk •
contribs)
14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Bad Idea; keep them separate. --
81.149.240.168 (
talk)
21:54, 15 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.
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...
Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...
I have privided different refs which tell:
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:
I don't agree with his position because:
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 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)
"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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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 ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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 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:
Gujjar and jats are sudras not kshatriya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.141.10 ( talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
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]
So you are doubting Markandeya Purana ?
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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 (
talk •
contribs)
14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Bad Idea; keep them separate. --
81.149.240.168 (
talk)
21:54, 15 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.
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...
Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...
I have privided different refs which tell:
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:
I don't agree with his position because:
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 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)
"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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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 ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)