Talk:Andhra Ikshvaku

India Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in November 2018.

Jainism Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Comment

It is absolutely a baseless claim to say that the present day Rajus of Andhra Pradesh were descendents of ancient Ikshvakus. One has to substantiate claims with hard evidences.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.227.228 (talk) 09:30, November 14, 2011‎

Reply

I hope this is very old comment added by someone. This is a pretty strange question by the person who himself laid a claim of Khamboja theory of Kamma (although a shudra caste) origin, his claim was simply based on One historians writing that Kunbhi, Kamma sound similar to Khamboja so ther might be link. Though himself only says Kamma comes from buddhist word Karma (which means Khamboja theory is scrap).

coming to Rajus, Rajus was/is used as reference to Andhra Kshatriyas since medieval time. They do hav several inscriptions since Chalukya period thats around 6-7 centuries CE (som of these inscriptions also link to ancient dynasties who ruled before them). Andhra Ikshvakus r said to b the first Kshatriya kingdom in Andhra region. This is well accepted by all historian n puranas like Vayu, matsya do indicate this. If Andhra Ikshvakus ruled around 2-3 century then wher did they go after that did they became shudras, this can never happen as Andhra Ikshvakus inscription tell they followed brahminic codes strongly, n we do hav inscriptions related to other Andhra Kshatriyas clans like Vishnukundins n Eastern chalukya dynasty since 5-6 centuries CE. Also many historians ascribed/linked Kshatriya Rajus to Andhra Ikshvakus (even som of ther centuries old folklore do support them), while mentioning that they cannot be linked before to Andhra Ikshvaku dynasty in andhra like Satavahanas, Marathas.

So this is not a baseless claim as its supported by multiple factors like Kshatriya, puranas, folklores of ancient Kshatriya rulers and several historians who have written so.

Suggestion

Some wiki authors r getting confused with Ikshvaku and Andhra Ikshvakus, and writing Ikshvakus instead of Andhra Ikshvakus. Request not to cause confusion and to maintain clarity by mentioning Andhra Ikshavakus if they meant southern dynasty.

Indianprithvi (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Why not quote a few lines from inscriptions to verify claims such as the connex between Ikshvakus and present rajus? Which text do you have that supports your opinion? It is strange to see that such claims pop up everywhere right after scholars began to write about their findings. It just seems that the modern prasasti writers do not even read the old prasastis from inscriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.154.64 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring/content dispute

Please discuss proposed changes here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]