Talk:Kshatriya/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Interesting Ref Regarding Caste Perception & Construction During Colonial Era

India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot from page 151 [1]:

This process (caste ethnicisation) was partly shaped by Europenan ideas, as propagated by the missionaries and the British schools. While castes have always been perceived in India as a kin groups, the racial dimension that caste tended to acquire in the nineteenth century derived from European interpretations of Indian society.

Susan Bayly points out that 'many pre independence ethnogaphers' from Britain 'portrayed India as a composite social landscape in which only certain peoples, those of superior "Aryan" blood, had evolved historically in ways which left them "shackled" by a hierarchical, Brahmanically - defined ideology of "caste". At the same time large numbers of other Indians - those identified in varying racial terms as Dravidians, as members of "servile" classes, aborigines, wild tribes, and those of so-called "mixed" racial origins - were portrayed as being ethnologically distinct from this so-called Aryan population, and were not all thought to belong to a ranked Brahminical caste order.' In addition to the ethnographers, the British administration imbibed these Orientalist categories and propagated them in society. In 1886, the Governor of Madras, Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his address to graduates of the university of Madras emphatically declared: 'You are of pure Dravidian race. I should like to see the pre-Sanskrit element amongst you asserting itself rather more.' Gradually, Non-Brahmins and Dravidianism coincided and the low castes looked at themselves as forming an ethnic category."

"In other words, colonial ethnography was largely responsible for merging caste and race, and more precisely for equating the 'Aryans' with the upper castes and the Dravidians with lowest orders of the Indian society. This perception prepared the ground for the interpretation of castes"in ethnic terms outside the 'Aryavarta', the northern region where the Brahmanical pattern was supposed to have taken root. Indeed, this ethnicisation process was more prominent in western and southern India than in the North."

Rajkris (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking for such a ref since a long time. It clearly tells how the caste notion, perception has been shaped during the colonial era by the missionaries and British administration. Unfortunately, (deliberately or undeliberately,) this view is still topical to number of scholars who are dealing with Caste (in India). This is harming a lot the understanding of the caste system, the Indian society and India in general. I will detailed this asap.Rajkris (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing new about this. It is well-documented but contentious. And it has very little to do with this article. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it has to do with that article in a way (I will explain). What do you mean by 'It is well document but contentious' ? Rajkris (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Read our articles on Caste, Caste system in India etc. And those are where the detail of the various debates should be. This article is simple: define the kshatriya varna and its role in Indian society. No need for loads of generalised commentary about the wider varna/caste issues, no need for much details about specific kshatriya communities/claimant communities. Don't let's try to make more of this article than should be the case, as happened with that coatracked Tamil kshatriya effort.

I've reformatted your quotation, btw: it is probably a copyright violation anyway but bolding it was certainly eyewatering. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this ref is a better use for the above article you mentioned. I do not intend at all to use it as ref in this article but just enlightening (in this talk page) the following fact, trend: number of scholars (including Indians, mostly Brahmins) use the classical caste, varna hierarchy (priests are called Brahmins, rulers are callled Kshatriyas, merchants are Vaisyas, servants & peasant labour are called Shudras) to describe the North Indian society without any question eventhough reality was far more complex ([2] page 130 & [3] page 72).

But when it comes to South Indian society, they consider that the classical 4 order cannot be applied and they treat at best as Brahmin/Non Brahmin society and at worst Brahmin/Shudra society... This kind of 'mistake' is just amazing & appalling !... From my POV, I do believe it is more a kind of double game in order to divide the Indian society (British colonial era legacy!)... Now let's come to the Kshatriya caste (topic of thi article) & see how the ruling castes are perceived according to the region they come from (North or South India):

* in North India, ruling castes (ex: Rajput) are considered as Kshatriyas or equivalent to Kshatriyas by those so called scholars without pb

* in South India, ruling castes are considered at best 'Kshatriya claiming' castes and at worst Shudras/Sat Shudras (good Shudras). And these so called scholars never fail to mention that there is no Kshatriya like caste in South India and to support their claim, they appeal to these arguments: as so called Dravidians they cannot apply to ksatriya, they were not recognised by the Brahmins, they did not follow the rules as prescribed by the Dharmashastra (wearing of the red sacred thread, etc.)... Whereas there is no historical proof of that (no historical texts written by different scholars which asserts that)... This is a Bristish propaganda supported by some Brahmins for political reasons. I just wanted to highlight this fact with this ref. This fact is unfortunately still topical and geatly harming the understanding of the Indian society [4] (page 321) and allows editors such as Mayasutra to come and tell senseless things like 'Kshatriya/Varna terms belongs to Aryans, they cannot be applied to South India, such caste was declared as Shudra by, during the Bristish colonial era, etc.'

Regarding your statement: "no need for much details about specific kshatriya communities/claimant communities", my position is that it is as important to mention :

* the origin of the term Kshatriya in the ancient (vedic) times (and without mentioning the contentious term 'Aryan')

* how the term Kshatriya has been theorized by ancient Hindu texts writtent by (some) Brahmins (here it is important to mention the story of Parasurama who destroyed the Kshatriya race [5] page 285)

* the mythical Kshatriya dynasties & clans mentioned in Hindu literature

* the different historical dynasties & castes who assumed the function of Kshatriyas throughout historical times and how (acceded to power through the conquest and/or the ownership of land)

There is no reason not to mention the historical ruling caste.

Rajkris (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've the source is irrelevant/not suited to this article then there is no reason to raise it here. That you see the Raj period perceptions as "British propaganda" merely demonstrates that you probably do not in fact understand the literature: 1857, scientific racism, social engineering & the development of census techniques, the development of transportation systems, the role of the gentleman-scholar, the failings of knowledge etc were all significant to the Raj worldview, which differed from that of, say, James Tod in the East India Company period. The caste system is and always has been a complex issue, even back in Vedic times: if I recall correctly, there are primary texts of ancient origin that do not agree and, as you suggest, there have always been regional variations.

Yes, we need to mention the origins of the term & its place in the Brahmin worldview. Depending on sources (and these should not be the ancient texts,, quoted directly), we might need to mention how that fitted in with the Mughal period/zamindari etc and the bhakti notions of accessibility to god. Parasurama is significant, of course, but I've never really got to grips with that bit.

"Mythical kshatriya dynasties" is where the problem comes into your plans. You will be aware, for example, that there is no agreement regarding the 36 royal races. We need to say that and because it is thus there is no point in providing a list. You'll also be aware that sanskritisation and other phenomena - many of them documented long before the Brits even turned up - mean that there have been hundreds of community claims to kshatriya status. Regions such as Bengal were particularly prone to "title-grabbing". Again, this means that compiling a list is a pointless exercise.

As with the Tamil Kshatriya article that caused so many problems a year or more ago, so to your ambitions for this one seem to be rather close to coatracking and of using an article to support an inappropriate, contentious timesink of a list that will forever attract vandals and misguided contributors. You obviously have an interest in kshatriya-related subjects and that is, of course, fine; you also seem to have a historic dislike of Brahmins, which is slightly more worrying but can be balanced by input from other people. I certainly think that it is likely we will need input from some experienced people with an interest in Hinduism, of which by far the most active is probably Redtigerxyz. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand and I don't deny this. But you must also recognise that these theories were cleverly used by the Bristish elite to divide India even though they were aware that these were only hypothesis, not shared by all scholars (see for ex. Max Muller position on it:[6] page 151 ). This is clearly a political propaganda built by the Bristish in order to divide & rule India and my ref clearly tells this. It shows how caste has been politicized (caste in general and kshatriya in particular). This is grave because it had huge consequences in both India and Europe: I don't need to remind you that Aryan theory served as the base of Nazi ideology which lead to the murder of several million of people. And more generally, after the falling of the Feudal society in (western) Europe and the rise of the nation-state concept with the notion of People, the new edecutated elite (descended from non aristocratic lineage and so seeking some kind legitimacy & identity) embrassed this 'Aryan' (racial caste based) theory: havea look on this book 'Aryans, Jews, Brahmins:Theorizing Authority through Myth of Identity': [7].

To come back to the caste system, this vision built during the colonial era is still used by scholars and it is heavily damaging the understanding of the Indian society and this really pity & sad.

I have ref which tell that the ruling castes assumed, claimed Kshatriya status (see Kshatriya List topic above). Why I do not have the right to add this list of historical ruling castes supported by academical sources and with the suitable sentence ?

You (can) provide 2 arguments for this:

• within those castes, nowadays all claiming members cannot be linked with those ancient ruling, land owning members --> My answer: very true and this must be clearly mentioned in the article related to each of these castes.
• adding a list of castes will create an edit war --> My answer : yes but this is our duty to look after this article & prevent such wars --> My suggestion: create a section dedicated to the ruling caste who assumed , claimed Kshatriya status (mentioned by academical sources) and another section for the low castes claiming Kshatriya status without any basis (mentioned by academial sources).
  

By not adding the former ruling castes, you are placing them at the same level as the low castes claiming Kshatriya origin and this is not at all correct and really misleading...

You are wrong to think I dislike Brahmins, I just want to point out the fact that Brahmins dominance started from the muslim invasions and reached its peak during the British colonial era. That, there is a traditionnal opposition (as well as competition) between Brahmins & Kshatriyas and since the downfall of the later (and probably before), some Brahmins tried to get rif of the ruling class through different kind of actions, political propaganda (Parasurama story, etc.). And this dissension has been cleverly used by the British to rule India through division. Therefore, we must be aware that those texts are not only religious ones but embodies Brahmin ideology, view...

Regarding the mythical Kshatriyas dynasties & clans, I was refering to the ones mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa, Yadus, etc.) not the Rajputs & other stuffs added in the 36 clans in the link you provided above.

Rajkris (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Chapters Proposition for this Article

1. Introduction: present (assume updates and/or corrections are needed)
2. Etymology: present (assume updates and/or corrections are needed)
3. Origins: present (assume updates and/or corrections are needed)
4. Mythical Kshatriyas: talk about Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa, Yadu, etc. The different lineages & clans mentioned in ancient Hindu texts & written in academical sources
5. Historical Kshatriyas: mention the historical ruling and land owning classes (written in academical sources) who headed, managed India (its different kingdoms & empires) and so assumed, claimed Kshatriya status
6. Low castes claiming kshatriya status: talk about the (recent) trend concerning low castes claiming a Kshatriya status, origins and why

Rajkris (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nagavanshi are not one of the Kshatriya Lineages

Many Historians had given only three lineages of Kshatriyas i.e. Suryavanshi,Chandravanshi or Agnivanshi.Even Britishers had accepted these three lineages and written in their books.Great Historians like K.S.Singh also explained three lineages also he had given the statements and also you can see the list of 8 communities which are of Kshatriya Varna.Remember Anthropological Survey also declared three lineages.Nagavanshi is not accepted.Only Chota Nagpur Maharaja is King.No other King existed.And also Kshatriyas will contain gotras named after saptarishis and also other great rishis.You can see the following link for communities of Kshatriya Varna "http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya".Nagavanshi Lineage is not accepted as Kshatriya Lineage and in fact those people tried to assimilate into Kshatriya Varna. Nairs,Bunts,Jats ang Gurjars are considered under Shudra Varna under the time of Britishers.So,Nagavanshi shouldn't appear on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvrs (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your above argument is not valid. Most importantly, you did not tell why the present refs (you have removed) are not valid ones.Rajkris (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Rajkris,the reference 13 is not at all a reliable source,it is neither written by a Great Indian Historian nor a Foreigner and it is not affiliated to Anthropological Survey of India or a Foreign University.It is written by the Local Historian of the area.Also it is a folk story.These are not reliable sources and the source doesn't say that they are Aryans,even that folk story tells that they tried to assimilate into Kshatriya Varna.

Now,coming to the reference 14, it is mentioned that "Amongst the Naga tribes, the king was the ruler as well as the religious-head of his tribe; a system in contrast to the varna system wherein four varnas are separate from each other".The source doesn't mention that they are Kshatriyas of Vedic Lineage or aryan descent.The above statement clearly declares that they are not one of the Kshatriya Lineage and they tried to assimilate into Kshatriya Varna.Then how can this lineage with unreliable sources appear in the page of Kshatriya Lineages according to Aryan Descent according to Manusmriti.

Then,coming to the reference 15,it is complete misinterpretation,it is mentioned that "nagavanshi had marital relations with rajput".It is nowhere mentioned in the source.That reference for the statement is an act of deceiving readers.It is also an unreliable source.

Hence,this Nagavanshi is just added in this page to promote that they are Kshatriyas.But,they are not accepted by the Historians,Britishers,Brahmins and even people. Finally,this Nagavanshi Lineage should be removed from this page and will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvrs (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments against these refs are not valid... And the way you speak about 'Aryan' shows that you are completely outdated in term of history understanding, maturity. Avoid editing or removing with those arguments else you will be banned from wikipedia.Rajkris (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

After all Who are you to ban me? Every editor has the equal right to edit the articles with reliable sources and also to challenge & delete the articles with unreliable sources. In this particular page,only three lineages were mentioned after a long time this nagavanshi is added.But no one questioned it.It is unreliable and i will definitely challenge.Then speaking about my knowledge about Aryans,what are you upto ? Then explain about each and every reference why it is reliable and also explain that source did really state those nagavanshi had marital relations with rajput??.It is complete fraud and you have provided that source.I said "sources provided are not reliable".If you can say they are reliable.You please explain them why they are reliable in the talk page. Finally,coming to your words,if you can provide a reference that Nagavanshi is one of the Kshatriya Lineage stated by a source written by Government organization like Anthropological Survey of India or a British Historian or affiliated to a foreign university like the other 3 lineages,then i will accept & i wouldn't interfere any further and also justice will be done to this article and also Nagavanshi can appear in this page. Blindly supporting the wrong statements doesn't make good enough for article.Remember if Nagavanshi still appears in this page with unreliable sources and i will definitely take up the matter to WP:RSN but i won't leave this matter. Finally,Fraud statements will always be challenged and before blaming anyone try to provide reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shvrs (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the right to remove refs and adding others without proper justification. What you are doing is POV and so against wiki rules. If you don't agree you must signal in talk page and then report it.Rajkris (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Kshatriya List

I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me and, it would seem, the person who comments in the thread below this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [8]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.

Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you undid the archiving here. This discussion isn't going on. The quote you have in boldface doesn't say that Rajput were Kshatriya; in fact, it very clearly lines them up as being not the same, because it refers to them as two distinct classes and places them in parallel. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [9]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I am involved in too many articles with disputed content at present and my brain hurts. Rajkris, can this be stayed for (say) a week or so? Obviously, if others want to respond then that is perfectly ok but I really need a bit of time right now. You can ping me on my talk page to remind me in a week. Sorry about this but I've got a lot going on both on and off Wikipedia and am not even keeping up with fixing the obvious problematic changes to articles that show up on my watchlist, let alone many of the talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No pb. No hurry.Rajkris (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This topic is still open. In order to update it & make it more clear, I am listing below the different refs I found. For your reminder, this topic has been opened after the removal of the list of former ruling castes; please see my first reply on this topic above which explain why I'm completely against this removal.

1. The Caste System of Northern India by Sir Edward Blunt, page 26 [10]: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'"
   
2. Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [11]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya."
3. Structure and Change in Indian Society by Milton B. Singer,Bernard S. Cohn, page 190 [12]: "Opportunities for seizing political power were more likely to be available to the leaders of dominant castes, and even tribes, than to others. This is why in South India dominant peasant castes such as the Marathas, Reddis, Vellalas, Nayars and Coorgs have been able to claim Kshatriyas status... Historically, the Kshatriya varna was recruited from a wide variety of castes all of which has one attribute in common that is, the possession of political power."
4. The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India by Christopher John Fuller, page 19 [13]:"... so that many kings historically proclaimed as Kshatriyas irrespective of their birth. In the varna hierarchy (as the Purusha sukta makes plain) and in Brahmanical ideology (as set out in dharmashastra texts), kshatriya kings are inferior to Brahmans... In the countryside, locally dominant castes enjoying prepondarant control over the land fequently identify themselves as Kshatriyas... The members of non-Brahman dominant castes tend to be ambivalent about Brahman claims to preeminence; usually they are not denied openly, but nor is made too much of them. A royal military model of status ranking is instead given prominence, and landholders demand and commonly receive due deference from their subordinates, often clients bound by political and economic ties."
5. Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man by Eugenia Vanina, pages 128 to 140 [14]:"To sum up, the caste system has been a complex, multi-layered institutionn changing through many centuries and, it is important to add, not only temporarly but spatially.(...) And even in the 'classical Hindu' period (...) this hierarchy was far from rigid and eternally fixed structure imagined by the Orientalists. (...) The elite of agricultural and pastoral castes, traditionally identified as shudras, would rise to the level of petty and medium feudal lords, shun physical labour, acquire military skills and warrior mentality and begin to claim kshatriya status."
6. India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot from page 151 [15]:

"This process (caste ethnicisation) was partly shaped by Europenan ideas, as propagated by the missionaries and the British schools. While castes have always been perceived in India as a kin groups, the racial dimension that caste tended to acquire in the nineteenth century derived from European interpretations of Indian society."

"Susan Bayly points out that 'many pre independence ethnogaphers' from Britain 'portrayed India as a composite social landscape in which only certain peoples, those of superior "Aryan" blood, had evolved historically in ways which left them "shackled" by a hierarchical, Brahmanically - defined ideology of "caste". At the same time large numbers of other Indians - those identified in varying racial terms as Dravidians, as members of "servile" classes, aborigines, wild tribes, and those of so-called "mixed" racial origins - were portrayed as being ethnologically distinct from this so-called Aryan population, and were not all thought to belong to a ranked Brahminical caste order.' In addition to the ethnographers, the British administration imbibed these Orientalist categories and propagated them in society. In 1886, the Governor of Madras, Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his address to graduates of the university of Madras emphatically declared: 'You are of pure Dravidian race. I should like to see the pre-Sanskrit element amongst you asserting itself rather more.' Gradually, Non-Brahmins and Dravidianism coincided and the low castes looked at themselves as forming an ethnic category."

"In other words, colonial ethnography was largely responsible for merging caste and race, and more precisely for equating the 'Aryans' with the upper castes and the Dravidians with lowest orders of the Indian society. This perception prepared the ground for the interpretation of castes"in ethnic terms outside the 'Aryavarta', the northern region where the Brahmanical pattern was supposed to have taken root. Indeed, this ethnicisation process was more prominent in western and southern India than in the North."

1. Casting Kings : Bards and Indian Modernity: Bards and Indian Modernity By Jeffrey G. Snodgrass Associate Professor of Anthropology Colorado State University, page 55 [16]: "The varna scheme described by ancient Hindu texts provides for an idealized society. These texts thus help us to understand how Brahmins, or at least Brahmin authors of certain religious texts, thought society should be organized. However these texts provide little evidence of how ancient Indian society actually was organized."

Based on the above refs, what one can tell is: understanding of Caste System in general and the notion of Kshatriya in paticular is based on British colonial & Christian missionaries POV, ideology. This POV traces its roots to ancient Hindu texts written by (some) Brahmins but those texts are theorical ones and do not correspond to historical reality. Regarding Khatriya, in reality, the ruling castes of the Hindu society assumed the function of Kshatriyas. This is how we must define & write the Kshatriya wiki article. Making Kshatriya dependent on the definition given by ancien Hindu texts (written by some Brahmins) is highly misleading & breaking wiki neutrality... But (of course) one must mention it. Ex of how we should, could write to core article of Kshatriya: ... In ancient Hindu texts Kshatriya was defined as... Legendary Kshatriyas were:.... In reality, the Kshatriya varna included the various castes which through the control of land (through military conquest, etc.), undertook the function of rulership & military power. These castes are: Rajputs, Kayasthas, Marathas, Rajus, Reddys, Vellalars, Nairs.

Rajkris (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion still open.Rajkris (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverting of edits

"WE do not use such old sources" - Apparently WHOEVER REMOVED the important sources that were given for the historical analytical background for the development of the intricate caste system seems to overlook the fact that these indologists laid the foundation for studying ancient Vedic literature and their insights certainly have value when discussing the theological genesis and evolution of caste. When studying something like the early ideas behind the caste system these primary sources and analyses by mainstream scholars must be incorporated. Therefore I suggest that the sources and edits I made concerning the historical relevance of the terms Kshatriya and the Purusha cult(aka the main ideological cult behind the caste system) be reintroduced.Grathmy (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

Kshatriya society India

1. Rajput Vans It is very interesting for the current generation to know that your family stream goes back to one Rajput Raja - Lord Emperor. A Rajput vansha tree begins with one of the 36 Rajvansha. Renouned research scholars of our community Late Dr. Indradev Singh Nikumbh and Thakur Ishwarsingh Madadh had published Kshatriya Bhaskar and Rajput Vanshawali after studying different materials on Rajput Vansha. They also included valuable informations by one english scholar Col. Tod. Here we are giving a brief summary of popular vanshas. You can try to search history of your forefathers and to relate your family with appropriate Rajput King.

2.Suryavansha

Badgujar Kshatriya: Gothra - Vashishtha. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Kalika. From the vansha of Ramchandraji. Branches - Sikarwar, Khadal, Batela, Raghav, Chopra, Bafna etc.

Gyatvanshi Kshatriya: Tirthankar Mahavir was Rajput Kshatriya and belongs to this vansha. He later formed Jain Dharma.

Gour, Goud Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Yajurved. Devi - Mahakali. Ishta - Hridradev. From the vansha of Lord Raja Jayadrata, Sinhaditya, Laxmanaditya also belongs to this vansha. States - Ajmer, Takshasheela, Awadh, Gohati, Shivgarh. Branches - Amethiya Kshatriya . Total 5 branches. Existed from 1290.

Raikwar Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Yajurved. King Suval, Shakuni belongs to this vansha. States - Raikagarh near Jammu, Ramnagar, Rampur, Mathura etc. Named Raikwar as they belongs to Raikgarh. This is a branch of Rathor.

Sikarwar Kshatriya: Shikharwal, Sakarwar are the same. Gothra - Bhardwaj. Kuldevi - Durga. Devata - Vishnu. This is a branch of Badgujar. Many kings belongs to this vansha. State - Shikarwar (City). Branches - Kadoliya, Saraswar etc.

Dixit Kshatriya: Dikhit. Gothra - Kashyap. Ved - Samved. Devi - Durga (Chandi). King Durgbhav belongs to this vansha. Samtat Vikramaditya has given them the title of Dixit as they belongs to Dikhitana. Being from the vansha of Raja Durgbhav the are called Durgvanshi. King Udaybhan, Banwarisingh, Gaibarshah also belongs to this vansha. Branches - Durgvanshi, Kinwar. States - Nevnatangarh, Umri, Phulwariya. Dixit surname also comes under Bhumihar caste which is different.

Gohil Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Banamata. Kuldev - Mahadev. Branches - Vajasniya. This is a branch of Gahlod vansh. Maharaja Gohil founded a state at the basin of Luni river which includes 350 villeges with capital Khergarh. State - Sourashtra, Kathiyawarh, Gohilwarh, Bhavnagar, Sihor, Palitana etc. Grahadatta was the first king from Gohin vansha. Great king Shiladitya also belongs to this vansha. This vansha existed from 703. This is a branch of Gahlod.

Suryavanshi Kshatriya: These are Suryavanshi Kshatriya and their kul is also Suryavanshi. Gothra - Bhardwaj, Kashyap, Savanya. Guru - Vashishtha. Ved - Yajurved. King Akaldev, Tilakdev etc. belongs to this vansha. States - Shrinagar and Garhwal.

Singhel Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Kali. State - Sinhalgarh. Being from Sinhalgarh they are called Singhel. Branches - Chhokar, Jadeja, Jaiswal, Khagar, Kharbad. Sub-Branch - Jadoun.

Thakur Kshatriya: Thakur - Thakurai Kshatriya are Suryavanshi. Thakur is their Kul also. Notice: Thakur is not our caste, our caste is Rajput Kshartiya. Thakur is a title given to Rajput Kshatriya. There is also a different caste called thakur.

Nimivanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Vashishtha. Ved - Yajurved, Gothra - Kashyap. Ved - Samved. This vansha is named after Nimi, son of Maharaja Ishwaku. Branch - Nimodi kshatriya.

Sisodiya Kshatriya (Branch of Gahlod) : Rana Vansha Being from Sisoda village they are called Sisodiya. This is a third branch of historical Gahlod Rajputs. They have same Gothra, Ved, Kuldevi and Isht dev as for Gahlod Vansha. The great heroes from history like Maharana Pratap, Chhatrapati Shivaji belongs to Sisodiya Vansha. State - Udaypur. Ranawat, Chundawat, Sangawat, Meghawat, Jagawat, Shaktawat, Kanhawat etc are included. This is just like Chundawat is a son of Chunda, Shaktawat is a son of Shaktisingh. In Sanskrit, meaning of "wat" is son. The name of Kul begins with the name of Rajput King. The Rajput king who fighted in a battlefield (Ran) has given a title Rana and those who fought greatly were awared with a title Maharana.

Kachhwah Kshatriya: (Kushwah). Gothra - Goutam, Vashishtha, Manavya, Baharspatya. Kuldevi - Durga. Isht - Ramchandraji. From the vansha of Kusha. Famous king Prithviraj belongs to this vansha. They have 21 branches - Narwar, Gwalior, Drawakunda, Majkotiya, Jasrotiya, Jammuwal, Dhar etc. Semi-branches are Shekhawat, Dudhawat, Ratnawat, Rajwat, Bakawat, Pahadi Suryavanshi, Naruka, Jamuwal, Gudwar, Rai Malot, Mounas Kaushik, Manhas, Minhas etc. State - Rohtasgarh, Amer, Jaipur, Amethi, Karmati, Fort of Gwalior. Kings from this vansh are Sumitra, Suryasen, Sawai Jaishingh etc. Their state existed from 1503 to (Sawai Jaisingh) 1930. There are also many branches and sub-branches of this vansha.

Rathor Kshatriya: Gothra - Goutam, Kashyap, Shandilya. Ved - Samved, Yajurved. Devi - Pankhani (Vindhyavasini). Isht - Ramchandraji. Kings belongs to this vansh are Raav Bika (14650, King Jaichand, Veer Durgadas Rathor, Veer Amarsingh Rathor etc. States - Idar, Jodhpur, Marwad, Bikaner, Kishangarh, Kannouj. Having 24 branches and many sub-branches like - Chandawat, Champawat, Jaitawat, Jhabua, Kumpawat, Kailwarh, Raikwarh, Surwarh, Jayas, Kanoujia, Bikawat, Dangi, Kotecha, Kupawat, Jodhawat etc.

Nikumbha Kshatriya: Gotra - Vashishtha, Bhardwaj. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Kalika. Nikumbha, Sagar, Bhagirath etc. were the kings from this vansha. States - Mandalgarh, Fort of Alwar etc. Branch - Kathariya.

Shrinet Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Samved. Kuldevi - Chandrika. This is a branch of Nikumbha. Kings from this vansha are Dirghabahu, Bahusuket, Shakun Dev etc. State - Kapilvastu, Shrinagar etc. Narouni Kshatriya is one of its branch. Being originated from Shrinagar they are called Shrinet.

Nagvanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap, Shunak. Isht Dev - Nag Devta. Raja Ashwasen, Ritusen belong to this vansha. State - Mathura, Marwad, Kashmir, Chhota Nagpur. Branches - Taank, Katoch, Takshak etc.

Bais Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Kuldevi - Kalika. Ved - Yajurved. Isht Dev - Shivji. First king from this vansha was Harshawardhan. Other kings are Trilokchand, Vikramchand, Kartikchand, Ramchandra, Adharchandra, Narwardhan, Rajyawardhan etc. States - Baiswada, Pratishthanpur etc. Branches - Trilokchandi, Kotbahar, Rawat, Pratishthanpuri, Dodiya, Chandosiya, Kumbhi, Narwariya etc. Being originated from Baiswada they are called Bais.

Bisen Kshatriya: Gothra - Parashar, Bhardwaj, Shandilya, Atri, Vatsya. Ved - Samved. Kuldevi - Durga. Kings from this vansha are Mayurbhatt, Birsen. Vansh Bisen obtain its name from Raja Birsen. States - Bisenvatika, Gorakhpur, Mankapur, Pratapgarh. Branches - Donwar, Bambwar, Bamtola.

Goutam Kshatriya: Gothra - Goutam. Ved - Yajurved. Devi - Durga. Isht Dev - Ramchandraji. This is the vansh who destroyed Shakya Dynesty. Branches - Kandawar, Antoyya, Rawat, Maurya, Goniha. Lord Goutam Buddha was born in this vansha, then after he founded Boudha Dhamma. Mahapurush Dhumraj also belongs to this Vansha. Note: Bhoomihar community also has a caste Goutam which is different.

Raghuvanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap, Vashishtha. Ved - Yajurved. This vansha is named after Suryavanshi King Raghu who was born in the 54th generation of King Ishwaku. Raja Raghu was a great warrior, he conqured in all the directions and when he returned to his capital he performed Vishwajeet Yagya and donate all his wealth to the Bramhins. He defeated Kings of Suhadra desh, Bang desh, Basins of Ganga river. He marched towards north by defeating the kings of Durdul and Malay mountains. He destroyed the Hoon Kshatriyas and expanded his regime upto kailash. The history of Raghuwansh is very famous.

Rawat Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Chandika. Vethhar is their place of orgin. This is a branch of Bais, and according to Kshatriya Bhaskar this is also a branch of Goutam.

Pundir Kshatriya: Gothra - Pulutsya. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Dahima. Veer Pundhir was the first king from this vansha. This vansha was very popular during the regime of Prithviraj Chouhan. Kulwal, Kanpuriya and Dhakad are its branches. Pundhir is Suryawanshi Kshatriya, Hrishivanshiya. This is a branch of Dahima Kshatriya. Lahore was their state. Being from the vansha of Punchrik they called Pundhir. Their ansistors ruled on Telangana (Andhra) and their territory was Jasmor. The world famous Shakhumbari Devi Fair is organised in this state. This temple is situeated in the terrains of Shivalik Temple.

Other Suryawanshi Kul Amethiya kshatriya from Amethi, Gohil, Kaktiya, Udmatiya, Madiyar, Chumiyal, Kulwal, Donwar, Dhakar, Maurya, Kakan, Shanguvanshi, Bambobar, Cholavanshi, Pundir, Dogra, Lichhawi etc.

3. Chandravansha

Somvanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Atri. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Mahalaxmi. King Lakhansen was one of the king from this vansha. State - Pratapgarh.

Yadav Kshatriya: Gothra - Kondinya. Ved - Yajurved. Guru - Durvasa. Kuldevi - Jogeshwari. Lord Vishnu was born in this vansha. Raja Arjundev was also from this vansha. States - Dwarka, Karoli, Kathiyawara.

Bhati Kshatriya: They are also called as Somvanshi. Somvanshi belongs to the vansha of Pradyumna, elder brother of Lord Krishna. The first king from this vansha was Raja Jaisa Bhati. This brave king was the son of Baland Yadav. Raja Gajsingh, Abhaypal, Prithvipal, Maharawal, Ranjitsingh, Maharawal Shalini Vahan were also the kings from this vansha. State Jaisalmer, Sirmur, Mysore, Karoli, Jaisawat. Branches - Sirmour, Jaiswar, Sarmour, Sirmuria, Kaleria Kshatriya, Jadeja. Rawal Jaisal founded Jaisalmer. The temple, palaces of this city are build from yellow stone. Raja Rawal ruled from 1212.

Jadeja Kshatriya: At some places this vansha is also called as Chudasa. State - Gondal state, Navnagar (Gujarat).

Tanwar/Tomar Kshatriya: Gothra - Gargya. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Yogeshwari. This is a branch of Yaduvanshi. Sinharaj was the first king from this vansha who ruled from 1013. Angpal and Tungpal were also from this vansha. Tomar vansha begins from Tungpal. He was the son of king Yayati from the vansha of Puru. States - Delhi, Gwalior, Nuspur (Himachal), Paatan (Sikat). Branches - Sub Branches - Beruar, Birwar, Badwar, Katiyar, Katouch, Jinwar, Indoria Kshatriya and Tirota Kshatriya. Indoria Kshatriya has branches - Raikwar, Jaiwar.

Kalchuri Kshatriya: Kalchuriya : This is a Haihya Kshatriya Vansh. Gothra - Krishnatreya, Kashyap. Kuldevi - Durga and Vindhyavasini. Devta - Shivji. Raja Kartvirya was from this vansha. States - Ratanpur, Raipur, Koushal (M.P.) and Mahashati City. The inscription from this vansha are kept in a museum at Nagpur.

Koushik Kshatriya: Gothra - Koushik. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Yogeshwari. Devta - Shiv. Raja Koushik belongs to this vansha. State - Gorakhpur, Gopalpur.

Sengar Kshatriya: Gothra - Goutam, Shandilya. Ved - Yajurved. Devi - Vindhyavasini. River - Sengar. Kings from this vansha are Chitrarath, Dashrath, Dharmrath. States - Chedipradesh, Dakshinpradesh, Sourashtra, Malwa, Champanagari.

Chandel Kshatriya: Gothra - Chandatreya (Chandrayan), Sheshdhar, Parashar and Goutam is also found. Kuldevi - Maniyadevi. Devta - Hanumanji. Veer Shishupal, Chandrabramha (Chandravarma), Yashovarman was from this vansha. This vansha defined itself. State - Chanderi (Gwalior). Many brave kings were from this vansha. Chandel, Chanderi nagar, Khajuraho Temple, Madan Sagar of Mahoba are the glory symbols of this vansha. The mark of Hanuman was engraved on the coins of Chandel vansha.

Gaherwar Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap. Ved - Samved. Devta - Vishnu, Mahadev. State - Kashi and Kashipuri. Kashya, Dinadas, Manikchand were the kings from this vansha. Bundela is a branch of Gaherwar vansha and Bundelkhand is the state of Bundela vansha. Kherwad is the branch of Bundela.

Janwar/Janakwar Kshatriya: Gothra - Koushik. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Chandika. Research and historical inscription has proved that this vansha belongs to Maharaj Janmejay, grandson of Arjun. States - Chhaoni in Gujarat, Japaner near Nimach and Pawagarh.

Jhala Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap. Ved - Samved. Kuldevi - Durga, Mahakali. Isht - Mahadev. Veer Kundmal, Harpal, Vijaypal were from this vansha. States - Kuntalpur, Sekhrigarh, Krantigarh, Bikaner, Kathiyawarh, Jhalawarh, Limdi. When the three prince of Raja Harpal and Rani Shaktidevi were playing, an elephant lifted them. Rani Shaktidev catched them ("Jhel lena" in hindi) in her hands and from then this vansha is named Jhala.

Palwar Kshatriya: Gothra - Vayaghra. Ved - Samved. Dev - Nag. As they lived in Pali village, this vansha is named as Palawar.

Gangavanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Kanvayan. Ved - Samved. This vansha was named after Raja Gangeya. The famous Jagannath temple at Puri was build by this vansha. This vansha also has its own calender.

Biladariya Kshatriya: Gothra - Atri. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Yogeshwari. Raja Bhogpal migrated to Biladar and thereafter this vansha comes into existance.

Puruvanshi Kshatriya (Paur): Gothra - Bahryasptya. Ved - Yajurved. Devi - Durga. Devta - Shiv. Paurav (Poras) was the son of King Ila. He fought with Alexander at the basin of river Jhelum. Branch - Bhardwaj.

Khaati Kshatriya: Gothra - Atri, Bhardwaj. Kuldevi - Durga. They are the Kshatriya from Garhwal. Kursela was their state. They are Bihari Kshatriya.

Kanhvanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Samved. Kanhvansha begins from Raja Kanhsingh. The city of Kanpur is founded by them. Kaithola was their capital. Branch - Kanpuria.

Kuruvanshi Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Yajurved. Devta - Bandi. Kuruvansha begins fromm Raja Kuru and Yaduvansha begins from Raja Yadu.

Katouch Kshatriya: The fort and temple of Kangra (Himachal) was build by Katouch Kshatriya Vansha. The temple of Ambika devi is situated inside the fort. Branch - Jaswal, Guleria.

Banafar Kshatriya: Gothra - Koundilya, Kashyap. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Sharda. King Daksharaj and Bachharaj belongs to this vansha. Brave Alha and Udal were their sons also known as Malkhan and Sulkhan respectively. Pathania is their branch.

Bhardwaj Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Ved - Samved. Kuldevi - Sharda. Bhardwaj vansha begins from king Puru.

Sarniha Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj. Kuldevi - Durga. They belongs to Sarangarh and hence called as Sarniha Kshatriya. Branch - Karmwar/Karamwar.

Drahyavanshi Kshatriya: This vansha begins from Raja Drahayu, the thirt brother of Raja Yadu. Tripura was their capital. This vansha is from Bengal.

Choukatkhamb Kshatriya: This vansha found its name (Choukatkhamb) as the used to break apart the pillars (Khamb) of the Rath of enemy to defeat them. Branch - Bachhil. Note: Gargvanshi, Bachhil, Jadeja, Bundela, Jaiwar, Katiaar etc are also comes in Chandravansha.

4. Agnivansha Parmar Kshatriya: Pramar, Parmar, Pambubar. Gothra - Vashishtha. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Sinchimaay Mata, Durga in North India, Kali in Ujjain. Their ancient capital was Chandrawati, situated 4 miles away from Abu station. This vansha evolves out from the Agni Kunda of Yagya on the Abu mountain."Parajan Marithi Parmar" means "Vansha which defeats the enemy" hence it is called Parmar. Great Brave king Vikramaditya, Raja Bhoj, Shalinivahan, Gandharwasen were from this vansha. States - Malwa, Dharanagari, Dhar, Devas, Narsinghgarh, Ujjain. Samrat Vikramaditya was also recognised as a great ruler by the muslim community. According to the book Shayar ul Okul at Makab e Sultania, His glory was written on a golden plate kept at Kaba. It is also mentioned in Shayar ul Okul that Khushnuba dhoop was the giving of Vikramaditya. The entire world knows that Shivling and Kutubminar were build in Kaba by Vikramaditya. Parmar Kshatriya has 35 branches which includes Pawar, Baharia, Ujjainia, Bholpuria, Sounthia, Chawda, Sumda, Sankla, Doda, Sodha, Bharsuria, Yashoverma, Jaivarma, Arjunvarma etc. King Umravsingh, Jaiprakashsingh, Babusahabjadasingh were belongs to Ujjaini Kshatriya. The great Kunwarsingh Mahaveer was the son of Babusahabjadasingh.

Solanki Kshatriya: Gothra - Bhardwaj, Manavya, Parashar. Ved - Yajurved. Kuldevi - Kali. In South India they are also known as Chalukya or Choulukya. Kings Prithvidev, Madansingh was from this vansha. Madanakul was build by King Madansingh. King Chandradeep Narayan singh also from this vansha who build an ashram for Mahatma Gandhi on his own land. This ashram is known as Hajipur congress ashram. States - Ayodhya, Kalyan, Andhra, Paatan, Gangatat. Solanki Kshatriya has 16 branches which includes Baghela, Baghel, Solanke, Kataria, Sikharia, Sarakia, Bharsuria, Tantia etc. This vansha is existed from 1079.

Parihar Kshatriya: Gothra - Kashyap. Kuldevi - Chamunda. Isht - Lord Vishnu. The first king from this vansha was Nagbhatta. The great king Harishchandra was also from this vansha. He has two wifes, one was a Brahmin and the other was Kshatriya. States - Kathiwarh, Ayodhya, Kurukshetra to Banaras, Bundelkhand, upto Himachal. This vansha has 19 branches which includes Surawat, Chandrawat, Gajkeshar, Badkeshar, Chandrayan, Kalhansa etc. The state of Kalhansa Kshatriya was at Basti (U.P.). Many kings were born in this vansha. Chopra Kshatriya vansha is also one of its sub-branch. This vansha is existed from 894.

Chouhan Kshatriya: Gothra - Vatsa. Ved - Samved. Kuldevi - Ashipuri. Guru - Vashishtha. Isht - Mahadev. Devta - Shrikrishna. Samrat Prithviraj Chouhan, Lakha (1451) were from this vansha. States - Bundi, Kota, Sirohi, Asthir. Delhi, Ajmer, Bhadoch, Dholpur was also come under their regime. They build beautiful lakes. Samrat Prithviraj Chouhan defeated Mohammad Ghori several times and forgive him later 16 times. The coward Mohammad Ghori deceitfully arrested Prithviraj Chouhan and take out both his eyes. Like Arjun, Prithviraj Chouhan was very fluent in his verbal approach. There are many other kings also belongs to this vansha. Chouhan Kshatriya Vansha has 25 branches, sub-branches includes Hada, Khinchi, Bhadoria, Songar, Songara, Devra, Rajkumar, Sambharia, Gadharia, Bhurecha, Balecha, Tassera, Chachera, Bhawar, Bankat, Bhople etc. Chouhan vansha existed from 1067.

Hada Kshatriya: Gothra - Vatsa. Devi - Ashapuri. Guru - Vashishtha. Ved - Samved. King Maniklal was from Hada vansha. One of the famous personality from this vansha is Ramdeva. Hada Kshatriya Vansha is also popularly known as Hadouti. States - Bundi, Kota. There is a history of Brave Hada Rani. Branches - Udawat, Devra, Devre, Jaitawat, Chandrawat.

Songira Kshatriya: Gothra - Vatsa. Kuldevi - Chandi. Ved - Samved. King Kirtipal, Samarsingh, Udaysingh, Samantsingh, Kanhdev, Maldev belongs to this vansha. The fort of Jalor was captured by this vansha. The mother of Maharana Pratap was from this vansha. Branch - Bhadoria. Songira Kshatriya is a branch of Chouhan Kshatriya.

Baghel Kshatriya: Baghela/Baaghela. Gothra - Bhardwaj, Kashyap. Ved - Yajurved. Devi - Kali. This vansha derive its name from their ancistor Vyaghradev. Many brave perfonalities were born in this vansha. State - Madarv, Pandu, Pothapur, Nayagarh, Ranpura etc. This is a branch of Solanki. Branch of Baghel Kshatriya is Pawar.

Bhadoria Kshatriya: Gothra etc. are the same as that of Chouhan Kshatriya. They ruled on Bhadawar and hence named as Bhadoria. This is a branch of Songara.

Bachgoti Chouhan Kshatriya: They derived mis-spelled name from Vatsa Gotri and called themselves as Bachgoti Kshatriya. Rajkumar and Rajwar are their branches.

Khinchi Kshatriya: Gothra - Vatsa and Goutam is also found. Ved - Samved. Devi - Bhagwati. Kings Bhagwatrai, Gugalsingh and Jaisingh were from this vansha. Khinchipur was their state. Raja Bhagwatrai has translated 7 stories of Ramayana into poems very beautifully. He has also written Hanuman Pachhisi. This is a branch of Chouhan Kshatriya.

Dogra Kshatriya: They are the natives of Kashmir. Gothra - Kashyap. States - Jammu, Balia.

Other Vansha (Kul): Negi Kshatriya, Katnaas etc. are also Agnivanshi Kshatriya. ReeRaikwar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bearing arms

I've just removed a claim that only the kshatriya could bear arms. Brahmins, such as the Chitpavan did this, and so too did Shudras, such as the Nair. The source may be otherwise reliable but it is generalising far too much on this point. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kshatriya = Rajput

I have reverted this. That Rajputs are Kshatriya is not the same as saying all Kshatriya are Rajput. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Khatri / Kshatriya

Hello. Ref to statement in intro - The Prakrit derivative of Kshatriya is "Khatri" - citing Hari Singh Nalwa, from the book "Champion of the Khalsaji". Pls check if source is acceptable / dubious. In Yagnavalkya Smriti (Ksatri) and in Manu Smriti (kṣattri / kshattri) are pratiloma progeny of Shudra fathers begotten upon Kshatriya mothers, also mentioned in a book on Khatris which seeks to distinguish between the Pali Khattiya and the Hindi word Khatri to (eventually somehow) place Khatri in the Kshatriya varna.

Inheritance cases of Khatris are argued in the "Hindu Law: as interpreted, Vol 2, 1913" (for chadar andazi see p.199). However, the classification into Kshatriyas is contentious. In the Census of India 1901 (p.101) and in the Bengal Census Report 1881, the Khatri were enumerated into Merchant classes. They revolted in the context of the Punjab Land Alienation Bill. If placed in Vaishya varna, they would be debarred from investing in land (See Platenkamp, Godina, van Bremen, p.198 - 201).

Due to the circumstance of the bill and commotion, Risley asked his enumerators to classify Khatris into Kshatriya. Platenkamp., et al, size up the issue when they argue that the census report of 1901 "emphasized the complex, heterogeneous, and fluid character of caste organization". They put forth their view that the census was "a deliberate attempt by means of the census representation to heterogenize and individualize what had until then been homogenized and collectivized".

There are several books which mention Khatris are Kshatriyas. However, owing to the collective revolt scenario, inability of the British in managing a situation emerging into civil outbreak, their classification into Kshatriyas remains a result of social pressure. The claim of Khatri being a Prakrit derivative of Kshatriya is recent and unattested in medieval scriptures / literature. Suggest deletion of the statement from the article. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Why Yadavas are not mentioned here?? Kshatriyas without Lord Krishna's Lineage? Impossible!!!

150.107.254.24 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC) The lineage of Lord Krushna Yadava is not even mentioned in the Kshatriya page is the biggest insult to us Kshatriyas.

You want the proof of Yadavas are kshatriya or not? here's the link to the book for reference.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

And heres the page where Yadavas are mentioned as Kshatriya.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=kshatriya&f=false

Now add them to this page... Really why yadavas not including in Kshatriyas? 150.107.254.24 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Korean

I do not understand this at all. Even if it is correct regarding that person's Vedic kshatriya status (!), why are we singling out one person from many others? Are we going to name every kshatriya who has an article? - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-Hindu Kshatriyas

Many historical rulers came from other castes, or were descended from non-Hindu foreign conquerors, and were either granted de facto Kshatriya status by virtue of the power they held, or they created fictionalized family histories to connect themselves to past Kshatriya rulers. For instance, the Sakas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Paradas, and so on, were foreign invaders from the northwest, but were assimilated into the Indian community as Kshatriyas.

Though the Ashtadhyayi of Panini (sutra 4.1.168-175) attests that the Kamboja and Gandhara were very important Kshatriya kingdoms of Uttarapatha during or prior to Paninian times (500 B.C.E.), they came to be regarded as Sudras for not following the teachings of the Vedas. The Manusmriti, written about 200 C.E. states that the Sakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Ionian, Indo-Greeks), Kambojas (Central Asians), Paradas (Sinkiang), Pahlavas (Persians), Kiratas (Nepal, Assam), Dravidas, Thevar (Tamil), and Daradas were originally noble Kshatriyas but were relegated to the Barbaric (Vrishala) status due to their neglect of the Brahmanas as well as due to their non-observance of the sacred Brahmanical codes (X/43-44). Anushasanaparava of the Mahabharata also views the Sakas, Kambojas and the Yavanas. in the same light. Patanjali in his Mahabhasya regards the Sakas and Yavanas as pure Sudras (II.4.10). The Vartika of the Katyayana informs us that the kings of the Sakas and the Yavanas, like those of the Kambojas, may also be addressed by their respective tribal names. The Mahabharata also associates the Sakas, Yavanas, Gandharas (Northwest India), Kambojas (Pamir-Badakshan), Pahlavas, Tusharas, Sabaras, Barbaras, Dravidas, and Boyars, and so on, and addresses them all as the barbaric tribes of Uttarapatha. The Kishkindha Kanda of the Ramayana locates the Sakas, Kambojas, Yavanas, and the Paradas in the extreme north-west beyond the Himavat (that is, Hindukush) (43/12) in the Shakadvipa, adjoining the land of Uttarakurus. The Udyogaparava of the Mahabharata (MBH 5/19/21-23) tells us that the composite army of the Kambojas, Yavanas and Sakas had participated in the Mahabharata war under the supreme command of Sudakshina Kamboja. The epic repeatedly applauds this composite army as being very fierce and wrathful. Some verses of Mahabharata also attest that the Tusharas or Tukharas were also included in the Kamboja division (for example, MBH 6.66.17-21; MBH 8.88.17). Puranic accounts attest that the Dravidas are Kshatriyas and are said to be descendants of the sons of Vishwamitra. Like the Kambojas, Sakas, Yavanas, Daradas, Khashas, and so on, the Dravidas were recorded as Kshatriyas who no longer were initiated into the sacred thread due to their neglect of the Brahmanas as well as due to their non-observance of the sacred Brahmanical codes. Nav203 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Mordern Communities should be added in this page

Like the Brahmins and Vaishyas, state wide Kshatriya castes or list of modern castes of Kshatriyas should be added in this page.Government of India listed Kshatriya castes like Rajput,Rajus etc. should be mentioned in this page.The Government listed Kshatriya Castes as stated by K.S.Singh(1935-2006),Director General of Anthropological Survey of India were totally 8 castes.They were as follows: 1.Rajput. 2.Kshatriya or Raju or Kshatriya Raju(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 3.Somavamsi Kshatriya/bhatraju (Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu & Karnataka). 4.Raghuvamsi Kshatriya(Karnataka). 5.Kshatriya(Kerala). 6.Khatri(Punjab) 7.Koteyar(Tamil nadu,Karnataka). 8.Dhal Kshatriya(Bihar). 9.Aguri(West Bengal). 10.Kshatriya(Orissa & Assam).In all,total 10 communities were listed as Kshatriya Castes by Government of India by the help of Anthropological Survey of India.It was also mentioned in the book "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V,p.1853.You can see this in the following link as follows : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Raghuvamsi

I agree Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding Citations where applicable and modifying unsourced statements.

Just adding citations where I can and making sure sentences reflect sources:

Change (add a citation and modify sentence): The administrative machinery in the Vedic India was headed by a tribal king called Rajan whose position was not hereditary.

to: The administrative machinery in the Vedic India was headed by a tribal king called Rajan whose position may or may not have been hereditary.

Change (add a citation and modify sentence): The king was elected in a tribal assembly (called Samiti) which included women.

to: The king may have been elected in a tribal assembly (called Samiti), which included women.

Change (add a citation): Some scholars consider the Purusha Sukta to be a late interpolation into the Rigveda based on the neological character of the composition, as compared to the more archaic style of the Vedic literature.

to : Some scholars consider the Purusha Sukta to be a late interpolation into the Rigveda based on the neological character of the composition, as compared to the more archaic style of the Vedic literature.

Change (add a citation) : the Purusha Sukta was supposedly composed in order to secure Vedic sanction for the heredity caste scheme.

to : the Purusha Sukta was supposedly composed in order to secure Vedic sanction for the heredity caste scheme.

I made the requested changes. But note that sources from 1957 may not reflect modern scholarship's views. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dimadick. I'll try and see if there are any recent sources as well. Also, it appears you've made a small typo in the sentence "TThe king may have been elected in a tribal assembly (called Samiti), which included women.". You've put two 'T"s by mistake. It would be great if you could fix that! Aathish S | talk | contribs 08:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rama and the ocean.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

183.83.138.230 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I dont know how this happened but great job Wikipedia and thanks for everything

 Not done: thanks! if you'd like to edit this page, feel free to activate an edit request.  melecie  t - 09:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What is Kshatriyas?

Who are kshatriyas 2409:4073:82:1169:0:0:791:70AD (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Jeenwal gotra lies in khastriya caste. Please add this in the list 117.97.240.3 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thapar dominated article is shallow and one-sided

Regarding term क्षत्रिय. The entire article is basically Thapar's and orientalist's one-sided point of view. 1. Absence of etymological and evolutionary change aspect of the term renders the discussion misleading. 2. Vedic and Shraman thoughts were fundamentally parallel streams. The Hindu (or the more modern usage Sanatan dharm) syncretization of Shraman philosophies into their Vedic-cum-mythology dharm must not subsume the meaning of term in Shraman dharm, which seems to precede Vedic dharm in India. 3. Caste have not been part of Shraman dharm, and Vedic weaponization of caste affects the meaning and usage of the term. 4. Shramans opposed caste system and priesthood or any other occupation has never been hereditary in Shraman practice and ideology. Now consider this totally misleading quote - "Even among Hindu societies they were sometimes at rivalry with the Brahmins, but they generally acknowledged the superiority of the priestly class.[15]". There were no religion, group, sects equating to "Hindu societies". Is this about Shraman rivalry? Did Shramans acknowledge the superiority of Brahmins over them? It's a stench of unbearably shallow orientalism here. Many Shraman monks were also practitioners of martial arts and so were warrior too but in defensive way. 5. Vedic tradition slowly weaponized caste system and untouchables were considered outside their dharm. There was no such concept in Shraman dharm. 6. When Shraman people say that their Arihants and Tirthankars were क्षत्रिय, it has no caste co-relation, rather it indicates the practice and profession of their family or clan. 173.71.122.243 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Rajput

Is rajput and kshatriya same? 2409:4041:E11:3448:5275:FDDD:B049:F50B (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

59.99.101.75 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

രാജാഃ , राजा: ,Rājah

Sāmarajah Sāmrajyhādhipathih

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 13:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)