User talk:Kapunadu

Reply to Kapunadu

1) Its really pity that you come by a name (Kapunadu) which sounds as if you are some "Kapu Uddarukudu" BUT in turn tries to change the very basic facts about the community and also blames others saying they are biased. FYI, I was the person who wrote about the present backward status of Kapus in the article. I would have written only things which would only glorify the community like the other community article in wiki but we have not done that what we have mentioned is unbiased content which many scholars and historians have said about the community.

When have I changed the basics of the community? Rather I made the article more understandable to someone who has no idea about caste system or telugu society.

2) If the King himself says that he is Balija putra then why are you objecting the same. We said that KDR is of Balija origin as he and scholars said so we didn't include Saluva or Tuluva Dynasty as of Kapu origin. We only mentioned how the Arravedu dynasty has marriage alliances with Kapu/Telaga or Balija kings or rulers.

Point no. 1: Just like you argue that if KDR said he is a Balija Putra, why do you object when the actual living and may I add, recognised descendants of the Aravidu dynasty claim to be Raju caste, not Kapu/Balija. You make no effort to mention or explain this. Can you name a Kapu/Balija family in Hampi, Madurai, Tanjore that is recognised by the government as descendants of these families like the Anegondi family? I would be interested to know this.
Point no. 2 it is not true that you only mention that the Aravidu dynasty had marriage alliances with Kapu/Balija rulers, what you say is that the Aravidu dynasty is from the Kota Balija caste. This is a totally different meaning.

3) Saluva dynasty is considered to be Kurubu origin and not Kshatriya. Many kings of South India have claimed Kshatriya status even though they r basically not b'cas of the exalted status as rulers. This is the case even with Madurai and Tanjore Nayak too. So you have known this fact too before saying that they are Kshatriyas.

Sangamas not Saluvas were Kurubas. There are plenty of historians including C.P. Brown who state that the Saluva, Tuluva, and Aravidu clans left inscriptions stating they were Yadava or chandravanshi Kshatriyas. The writers of these inscriptions may have been delusional but it is what they wrote. Others argue that they were not Andhras at all.

I understand that the Kshatriya classification is tenuous amongst all the claimants to this designation. The only reason I mention it is to highlight the fact even if these rulers came from humble origins, they never called themselves Balija or Kapu or Reddy or Kamma. In fact the kings that were Reddys called themselves Reddys and the ones that were Velamas called themselves that.

We keep getting stuck on what a Kshatriya is. Rather than concentrate on who is and who is not just think of it as a caste designation just like Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, Velams etc. So if I were to tell you i own 10,ooo acres of land and I am a Reddy, it would sound stupid for you to say that I actually meant that I am a Kapu, that I simple tried to exalt myself by claiming this. You are basically saying that any ruler that wanted to exalt himself would try to deny his Kapu-Balija past and call himself a Kshatriya. In essence your rational implies that these rulers were ashamed of being called Balija-Kapu. Why would I want to associate myself with someone who distanced himself from his people? These same supposed Kapu-Balija Kings kept supressing their own people.

4) Please refer Raju/Meena/Dangar/Kurubu article in Wikipedia. People who are claiming Kshatriya or Rajus are in fact given that status of Kshatriya b'cas of the services performed as warriors. Many communities claim that status doesn't mean that they are one in true sense. Meenas (ST) or Dangars (OBC) or Kurubus (BC) or Gujjars (OBC) also claim Kshatriya status. No one objects to that facts as some of kings like Sivaji or Holkars or woodeyars or hosyalas etc have origin to these communities. So now tell me who is a kshatriya? Are these present Rajus the real Kshatriyas? you should also known the fact the amount of mix in these so called Kshatriyas is more than the other varnas like ex. Sudras who are considered to be the purest as they usually inter married people of their sections throughout the ages which is not the case with the so called Kshatriyas who married just seeing the social status or claiming false Kshatriya status.

I don’t know who are real Kshatriyas, I do known that many (like you said) performed as soldiers make these false claims. You can include Kapus-Telegas-Kammas. I also know that unlike Dangars, Kurubas and Meenas, the Marathas of Maharastra, Rajputs of the North and Rajus of the South all actually had been rulers up to the 18th century and even up to Indian Independence and are still OCs.

I do know is that the from the inscriptions that are available on What’s India website as well as the translations that are provided by C.P. Brown and Colin Mackenzie, these Kings made these claims. So the challenge is to find out which modern day community do they belong to. Of the modern day communities, Kammas and Velamas have the least connection to them. Neither do they have the Gotrams or the oral traditions or even a mention of their caste in the ancient inscriptions. The Kapu-Balijas and Rajus have the most in common with these families regardless of the Varna classification. Between the two communities the thing that seems to favor a Raju connection is what the living descendants claim to be.

FYI -- WE never said that Nayak Kings are of Kshatriya origin in our articles, see the others communities articles in wiki (as mentioned above) and try to change them instead of vandalizing an unbiased and historically proven articles. John Rambo 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing is when you put in unsubstantiated and personal research statements. It is not vandalism just because you don't like the statements. That is why I tried having a discussion with you prior to my edits. Whatever statements I included or edited came with reasons and references that could be investigated. You should not sit in such a pompous position about edits. You have been making extensive edits to the Reddy article. You seem to have no problem putting in alternative points of view in an article about a caste that you do not belong to but you get upset when someone does the same for the Kapu article. I know you think I am being a pain, but I am bringing up these points because I actually want to make this article as solid as possible. I want to make it so well researched that no one can question the validity of the statements--Kapunadu (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kapunadu

Please refrain from vandalising the Kapu article...you seems to be bent up in insulting the article and kapu caste people by puting demaning and insulting coments..here in wikipedia we mention what scholars have mentioned in their books with references..its NOT a research site ...the kapu article mentions what different suthors ,social scientists and hisotrians have mentioned in thier books about kapu caste so there is nothing wrong in it...Please refrain from vandalsing the Kapu related articles from here onwardsJohn Rambo 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about being hell bent of insulting the article. You say here in wikipedia we mention what scholars have mentioned in their books with references.. what do you think i did. All these statements were in the very articles you cited, you just left out all the bad stuff, so how can you say you are giving a neutral unbiased account of the available information? Your friend even request everyone to not put anything that may make the community sound anything less than the greatest most powerful community in the land. I simple have been trying to add a bit of rationality. You and Panel1 need to grow up, no one is perfect, there should be no shame in mentioning all aspects of a community. You don't need to make it sound insulting just pertinent and i have written nothing offensive, you may find it that way but a neutral person would not. I left out aravidu because it is a known fact the modern day descendants claim to be rajus so it is inaccurate to say they are balija's. If you read the mackenzie manuscripts which you so vehemently use to justify your statements, you will find that he clearly wrote that Krishna deva raya was of a kshatriya caste. His primariy queen gave birth to a son. Krishna deva raya was the son from another woman of Balija caste. Weather she was an official second queen or a mistress he is unsure, either way when his father died, his brother was regarded as the rightful heir but some minister felt he would make a better king and there was some civil unrest untill he proved his worthiness. Because his mother was a balija he made statements that he was a balija putra {Born of a balija). His son in laws who founded the aravidu dynasty were relations of the Saluva family, who were not balija but kshatriyas, one of the wifes of these son in laws was married to a balija princes who was related to the nayaks of tanjore etc.. The actual aravidu family are of the raju caste, their descendants in hampi and anegundi marry Rajus only, they state they are rajus, so this is why i deleted them from the list, not to vandalis but to be histroically acurrate. You could include them with this caveat but not as an absolute, which is required of any encylopedic article not just a research article. some people say is not a legitimate argument, in order to get legitimacy you need to write who says it and referrence the article with page numbers. I feel bad that you think i have some sort of malicious intent, i do not, the simple fact is we indians live on fantasys without looking at the fine details, and i think this is what cause many of the communal feelings. If we could take a factual unbiased view of the data i think we could mature to accepting that our forefathers were not as caste minded as we have become and maybe we would be shamed into doing the same.--Kapunadu (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yadvas are yadu vanshi kshatriyas and vizayanagara dynasty is a mix of yadu vanshi and chandhra vanshi kshatriyas  and you are talk talking about telugu rajus are rajput kshatriyas they might have married some andhras and you are saying that they are mixed according to manu dharma a brahmin  can marry a kshatriya vaisya or shudra and kshatriya can marry vaisyas and shudras so kshatriyas are allowed to marry who ever they like if they are mixed so what brahmins also married shudras so and manu dharma also states that shudras can also be killed if they were of no use and kind of slaves and and  you said sudras are pure they are nothing but the people who are  treated as slaves and can be raped by the uppercaste if they want it also states that a shudra women who is married can also be made wife of upper castes its clearly written in manu dharma so how can shudras be pure  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.30.128 (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]