Talk:Kshatriya

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

Hey editor! Just wanted to see if you can change the photo of this page to a more of an actual Indian Warrior instead of a cartoon. It would be much appreciated as people would be able to understand the significance of kshatriyas better with an actual decent photograph. Jai Hind Dharmsanrakshak (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

change cover page picture from cartoon to actual indian kshatriya 132.147.113.197 (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

I would like to add a new section on how the Khatri caste is related to the Kshatriyas. I think that this would be a helpful addition to the article. Usingh0663 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I will be adding a section as so

Heading: Khatris and Kshatriyas

Text: According to Shyamasundara Dasa's abdasgara Lexicon, the Hindi word khatri derives from the Sanskrit word kshatriya. Philologists, according to B. N. Puri, agree that the terms "Khatri" and "Kshatriya" are synonymous. According to the grammarian Vararuchi, the Sanskrit conjunct Ksha (क्ष) becomes the Prakrit Kha (ख). This change is accepted not only in Prakrit, but in all Indian vernaculars derived from it, including Gujarati, Urdu, Gurumukhi, and Persian. The shift from Kshatriya to Khatri is consistent with Prakrit and Hindi usage. Scholars R. G. Bhandarkar and Shapurji Edulji both testify to this. According to historians W. H. McLeod and Louis Fenech, Khatri is a Punjabi word for Kshatriya. A. R. Desai and Peter Hardy both agree that Khatri is derived from Kshatriya. Despite the etymology, Hardy says that Khatri is "a mercantile class" and Desai says the Khatris were "traditionally tradesmen and government officials". According to Dr. Dharamvir Bharati, Kshatriya is pronounced Khatri in Punjabi. "Khatri appears to be unquestionably a Prakritised form of the Sanskrit word Kshatriya," write Dr. GS Mansukhani and RC Dogra. According to philologist Ralph Lilley Turner, the Punjabi word "khattrī", meaning "warrior", derives from Sanskrit "kṣatriya", whereas the Gujarati word "khātrī", meaning "a caste of Hindu weavers", derives from Sanskrit "kṣattr̥", meaning "carver, distributor".

Potential references:

Dasa, Syamasundara (1965–1975). "Hindi sabdasagara". dsal.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

Puri, Baij Nath (1988). The Khatris, a Socio-cultural Study. M.N. Publishers and Distributors. pp. 7–8.

Fenech, Louis E.; McLeod, W. H. (11 June 2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-3601-1.

Desai, A. R. (1975). State and Society in India. Popular Prakashan. pp. 539–540. ISBN 978-81-7154-013-6. Nanak was probably of a khatri jati, traditionally tradesmen and government officials in the Punjab, though the name Khatri is from the word Kshatriya. The nine Sikh gurus who came after him were certainly Khatris

Hardy; Hardy, Thomas (7 December 1972). The Muslims of British India. CUP Archive. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-09783-3.

Turner, Ralph Lilley (1985). A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. p. 189.

Dalit Chintan ka Vikas Abhishapt Chintan se Itihas (in Hindi). Vani Prakashan. p. 243. Usingh0663 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

|answered= please view the response above. Usingh0663 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This content would fit better on Khatri. This page is for the Kshatriya varna as a whole. Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the feedback. Usingh0663 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Kshatriya does not mean king, Kshatriya is a religious caste. Everyone can become a king! That's why don't associate Kshatriya jati with the word Rajanya

Sanatan dharm 103.206.177.82 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

Early Rigvedic tribal monarchy section: “The administrative machinery in the Vedic India was headed by a tribal king called Rajan whose position may or may not have been hereditary.”

In my opinion “tribal king called Rajan” makes it sound as though it was simply one guy named Rajan, not a title. I suggest this be changed to:

“tribal king called a Rajan” or “tribal king called the Rajan”.

Thank you 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:609A:DB6:DAB2:FDEC (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing Page protection

• Kshatriya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: As vandalism has been stopped, the page no longer requires protection. Nevertheless, it lacks enough information and facts about Kshatriyas. At present, there is a scarcity of content on this subject. Removing the page protection would allow editors to add more useful information. Alex Cupper (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Alugunuru Balaraju Adduri Addala Addepalli Ayyapuraju Bellamkonda Alluri Byrraju Ayanampudi Anantharaju Chiruvella Angaraju Bhupathiraju Chitraju Anjiraju Eedarapalli Balaraju Champati Dintakurthi Balaraju Gorinta Bejawada Chekuri (Sekuri) Ede Bayalraju Ganamukkala Gobburi Bhetalam Chintalapati Inampudi Betharaju Kanumuri Byrraju Dandu Jampana (Varnata) Bogaraju Kakkera Buddharaju Dantuluri (Thantaluri) Kalidindi Buttamraju Katari Chamarthi Dasaraju Kundaraju Chamarthi Kadimella Dhenuvakonda Datla (Thatla) Mudunuri Chejerila Lakamraju Dendukuri Gadiraju Muthundi (Mudundi) Chennapaya Mandapati Erraguntala Gandraju Saripalli Chennamraju Mungara Gadiraju Gokaraju Vemulavada Chevooru Namburi Ganapathiraju Gottumukkala Vemulamanda Chinnanagannagari Pathapati Godavarthi Guntimadugu Yamanamanda Chinnanarasiahgari Saidu Gurjala Gunturi Chokkaraju Sayyaparaju Gundraju Jampana (Kota) Cibyala Sirivella Immadiraju (Immalaraju) Kallepalli Daasanapu Solaraju Indukuri (Indukoori) Kammela Dakshiraju Solanki Isukapalli Kankipati Dalavayi Uppalapati Kakarlapudi Kanteti Gadi Mullapati Kutcherlapati Kasi Gouripuram Manthena (Manthana) Kopperla Govindarajulu Mulagapati Kokkerlapati Gundlapalli Muppalla Konduri Hasthi Mungapati Koppella Inkula Nadimpalli Kothapalli Jagadaabhi Nagaraju Kunaparaju Kanchiraju Pusapati (Poosapadi) Kamparaju Katri Pericherla (Pericholi) Nallaparaju Kocherla Pinnamaraju Pakalapati (Pagalapati) Konduru Potturi Patsamatla (Patchamatla) Lingaraju Rajasagi Penumatsa (Penumathsa) Medidaraju Sagi Penmatsa, Penmetsa Nandyala Sakhineti Pusampudi Nimmaraju Sagiraju Rudraraju Padmaraju Samantapudi Sagiraju Patarapalli Siravuri Sujjuri Peddiraju Vadapalli Thotakura Penugonda Vatsavai (Vathsvaya) Thirumalaraju Posaladeevi Valivarthi Uddaraju/Vuddharaju Raghava Vegesana (Vegesina) Vadlamudi Rayadurgam Vetikuri Vanapala Reddicherla Penmatsa Vegiraju Sangaraju Pakalapati Vempalli Solaraju Siruvuri (Siroovuri) Vetukuri Tipparaju

Yallamraju Ummalaraju

Nandimandalam Valavarthi

Yarakaraju Vanipanta

Aarveti Vankeraju

Saluva Veligandla

My edits

@LukeEmily: Can you describe here why are you reverting reliably sourced content [1]? Your edit summaries are not coherent enough. Dympies (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dympies:, Just as some other OBC communities have tried Sanskritisation to claim Kshatriya status, Rajputs have tried Rajputisation. I have read the Sanksrit version of Sudrakamalakara in my studies of Sanksritisation and Rajputs are explicitly asked to follow Shudra customs. No hindu scripture redefines them as something else. Are Rajputs universally accepted Kshatriyas now? Do ALL modern scholars, scriptures, other communities currently agree? Answer is NO. If they were, the word "claim" would not have been used in any source - most do use the word claim. Do you say {any human name here} claims to be a human? Secondly, even if there is small community called abc in some town xyz is accepted as Kshatriyas , adding it to this page would also need addition of opposing views, origin etc. @Ekdalian:, who might be able to explain better as to why we don't add varna infobox for any non-Brahmin community. Adding Rajputs, would not only be factually wrong but also open a can of worms, we will have to include shudra origin too. Even the Rajput claim of some communities is disputed let alone varna. There are so many examples. Did the rajputs who were mostly illiterate study vedas as per kshatriya duties ? Also, many other communities that claim Kshatriyahood and have thread ceremonies will need to be added. Lets not open the can of worms for a relatively stable page.LukeEmily (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been told this before that we cannot bother what you have read or if you are a history graduate, your OR is of zero value to us. First see, what the content says : Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it." This is supported by modern scholars. Show me if any good sources contradict it. As far as Kshatriya status is concerned, if you know any other community as close as Rajputs, do let us know. What my content implies is that unlike the other communities who were either unsuccessful or half-successful, Rajputs were most successful in claiming Kshatriya status. Some modern scholars also write that they are as successful as being regarded as very epitome of Kshatriyas in modern era. Leaving the "modern era" section empty doesn't make any sense at all. Rajputs' origins may be diverse but that isn't the topic here, it is better be discussed on Rajput page. Courtesy ping to Joshua Jonathan, the long term editor of this article. Dympies (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, LukeEmily is correct; we usually avoid such varna claims in these articles. You have yourself mentioned above, "Rajputs were most successful in claiming Kshatriya status", which implies that this is a claim, not universally accepted! Let's see what JJ says. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, Please see the Rajput page for more than 20 sources that contradict it. Hindu scriptures also contradict it. The very fact that the word "claim" is used in sources settles the point that it is not universally accepted. How can a mixed caste be universally accepted as Kshatriyas? Are Sagar Rajputs or Ravana Rajputs universally accepted as Kshatriyas? Show me a single source that says "{some universally accepted Brahmin caste} claim to be brahmins". That is because that is undisputed. Please do not add any castes to this varna page.LukeEmily (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, see The Rajputs regard themselves as descendants or members of the Kshatriya (warrior ruling) class, but they actually vary greatly in status, from princely lineages, such as the Guhilot and Kachwaha, to simple cultivators.. From here. Given more than 20+ sources on the Rajput page that show them as originated from mixture of varnas like Shudras, the sudrakamalakara referenced in oxford press calling them as Shudrasamana, can we call them undisputed Kshatriyas? Ask yourself.LukeEmily (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmily, you are subtly deviating from the topic. I am not for including varna in infobox and my content doesn't say "Rajputs are Kshatriyas" or "Rajputs have a Kshatriya origin" or even "Rajputs have Kshatriya status" but it simply says "Among castes, Rajputs were most successful in attaining Kshatriya status". This is what sources say and its essentially a fact.

Suppose we are writing a wikipedia page on a race which has not finished but we know that a particular athlete has been leading in it since the beginning. His mention obviously becomes WP:DUE. I asked you to show me contradiction but you have cited Britannica page which says their status varies from princely lineage to cultivators. How does being cultivators contradict "most successful in attaining Kshatriya status"? Can't there be cultivators in Brahmin or Kshatriya communities? And you must be aware that "Sagar Rajputs" and "Ravan Rajputs" aren't considered proper Rajputs; its highly illogical on your part to cite their examples. Dympies (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that most sources use the word claim. And the use of the word "but" in that quote means that the source is contradicting the kshatriya claim. Do you hear sources say "Chitpavans claim to be brahmins", "Deshastha brahmins claim to be brahmins". Rajputs are a mixed caste historically. No I am not aware that Ravana Rajputs are not considered Rajputs. Who decides that? Is there a universal consensus? You are proving my point by dismissing the Ravana Rajputs. Do you see how? Some castes were explicitly classified as Kshatriyas by brahmins based on Scriptures- I can assert that from my study of sanskritization. They are probably numerically small castes that most of us are not aware of or are not interested in. Technically, any caste that has a thread ceremony today and claims Kshatriya status is kshatriya as far as the society is concerned. Bengali Kayasthas, that @Ekdalian:, knows a lot about also have a thread ceremony and claim to be kshatriyas and that is now generally accepted (EkDalian correct me if I am wrong). Historically, they are a mixture of Brahmins and kshatriyas. The bigger issue is that adding a caste name here opens a can of worms for other castes to add their own as these opinions are contradictory. And many others will try to add their caste and it will be hard to justify them. Being most successful in claiming X status is not very different from being X status. So I am not deviating. So there is a contradiction among sources. Kshatriyas were supposed to study vedas, can you name a few Rajput clans who did? As far as why cultivation is concerned , please look at the official occupation of a shudra on the shudra page. See this (sorry for the syntax, I am lazy): Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist - Page 152 by Radhakumud Mookerji · 1989,Page 152 (duties of) Kshatriya were administration and war . The bow is his special attribute , as shown in a number of passages in Vedic literature. There is hardly any reference to Kshatriyas engaging in agri- culture , trade. That is why the previous quote had "but" to contradict their kshatriya claim.LukeEmily (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes LukeEmily, you are right! In fact, I have come across some reliable source (don't remember which one now) which stated something similar, like most scholars currently accept the Kshatriya status of Bengali Kayasthas. But I never even imagined that this might be added to this article! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, why I have to repeat this again and again that my content is about "most successful claim of Kshatriya status" only? You are wrongly interpreting Britannica by making extra emphasis on "but". It doesn't contradict that its none other than Rajputs who got most success in claiming Kshatriya status (compared to all other modern day communities). Who says Kshatriya essentially means princely lineage? Vedic Kshatriyas were an entire class of people who were kings as well as lowest ranking soldiers. As far as Radhakumud Mookerji's quote is concerned, you are cherry picking. You search google books and try to find a quote to contradict me and then you portray its Raj era writer as having some special authority over the subject. Can't Kshatriyas be landowners? If they have land, it will be used for agriculture. Aren't there Brahmins who engage in agriculture? Gaur Brahmins, Maithil Brahmins, Pushkarna Brahmins all engage in agriculture. Do they become non-Brahmins? Your arguments have always been weak. You were asked to bring contradictory sources but you failed to find any to refute the fact that Rajputs are most successful in claiming Kshatriya status. As far as Ravana Rajput is concerned, you simply read its definition: "The Ravana Rajputs are descendants of Rajput men and non-Rajput women, and were not originally accepted by the Rajput community as Rajputs". They are considered half Rajputs. Dympies (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Just adding the content being discussed here along with citations so that readers can have a better idea of what is being supported or opposed here :

Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it. Dympies (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

References

By discussing Ravana Rajputs, you are proving my point. There seems to be a disagreement on who is and is not part of the Rajput community let alone their varna. And more importantly, you are missing the bigger point about can of worms once we add a caste name. What is to prevent some one from adding "...despite having shudra and mixed origins and being of pastoral origins" using other sources about Rajputs? What prevents anyone from adding other castes? What prevents anyone from adding Rajputisation and quotes from it? Once you add any caste name - unless varna it absolutely undisputed (in Rajput case it is not), it opens a can of worms to mess the page on varna. It is proven by historians to be a mixed varna caste. There are sources that say Rajputs married children of concubines, tribals etc. So what makes them higher varna than the Ravana Rajput community that you are dismissing as half Rajput? Think of what else can be added(both +ve and _ve) once we add any caste name. We cannot put any disputed caste on the pedestal. I oppose any caste name here. BTW, please read traditional occupations in the shudra page and you will know why the source used the word "but" after their Kshatriya claim - and why I put emphasis on it. Of course, a Dalit can be educated too. But that does not change the fact that the Shudra community as a whole was not literate. The fact that the Rajputs were illiterate, mostly peasants and pastoral tribes who fabricated their origin does not change. From a Vedic duties point of view, Rajputs never studied vedas as a true Kshatriya is expected to and are definitely not representative of the Kshatriya varna as described on this page. This page is about the varna not about castes. Hindu texts themselves opposed the Kshatriyahood claim of Rajputs - let along modern scholars. Have those texts changed their opinions today? From general society point of view, many castes In India are kshatriya today but scholars might have different views - do any of these castes represent the Kshatriya varna as described on this page? No.LukeEmily (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Luke, why are you bringing in Ravan Rajputs again and again in this discussion? Is it really difficult to understand that because they descend from Rajput fathers and non-Rajput mothers, their social status is likely to differ from proper Rajputs?

When it comes to Kshatriya, Rajput is not like any other community. During British times, every non-Brahmin and non-Vaishya castes claimed Kshatriya status but Rajputs were not the one which had to claim anything because they were already established as Kshatriyas since medieval times. Take example of Shivaji's coronation. Initially, Brahmins refused to perform rituals for his coronation. But as soon as Pandit Gaga Bhatt presented a geneology to link his ancestors with Mewar's Rajput dynasty, his Kshatriya status got approved. Read the following two quotes:

Pradeep Barua in his The State at War in South Asia :

What made the Rajputs stand out from the rest of Indian society was not their foreign origins but their fanatical attempts to assert their Kshatriya status.

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Global Medieval Life and Culture (pg 831) :

The Rajputs considered them to be members of the ancient Kshatriya varna and were known for their fanatical attempts to assert their Kshatriya status. This assertion distinguished the Rajputs from other similar castes who migrated from outside India.

In modern times, most castes have left their traditional occupation. Military is no more an occupation which recruits people in large numbers as it used to do before. Thats the reason, some Rajputs (like Brahmins) have begun cultivation. Encyclopedia.com notes [2]:

Rajputs are hereditary soldiers and landowners, but the demand for soldiers is now limited and few Rajputs have any occupation except as landowners. While some Rajputs farm their land themselves, many own enough land so that they can hire others to perform manual labor.

Now coming to your "can of worms" point. We aren't supposed to block addition of content in an article citing maintainance issues. If the content is due (which I suppose it is), we should add it without getting overconcerned about future. As contributers, our wikipedia community is gentle enough to tackle issues like it has been doing in this page for past two decades. In future too, editors can freely add content; our community will decide if the content is due or not and then it will act accordingly.

The content I added is carefully phrased. If modern scholars have pinpointed Rajputs to be most successful claimants, they need to be presented as such. That can be the most neutral language, as we are not giving certificate to any community; we are just saying they are frontrunners, which they actually are. Dympies (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Modern scholars have also pointed to that the Kshatriya claim is completely unfounded, fake and they are a mixed varna - including Shudras as well as tribals. Modern scholars have said that they were completely unlike the Kshatriyas as described in Hindu scriptures(educated etc.). So it obvious they are not considered Kshatriya by scholars(society view may differ) nor is their claim considered valid. And modern scholars have also pointed out modern interpretation of Hindu scriptures where Rajputs have been explicitly defined as shudra mix and asked to follow the rituals of a Shudra. There is a section in the medival scripture Shudrakamalakara called "sudrasamana castes" and Rajput and some other castes are mentioned there. Can of worms is not a maintenance issue. It means, we cannot just add Rajputs , we have to add a lot more castes and information about Rajputs like shudra-kamalakara, Rajputisation - not just selective glorification. Otherwise, we will be misleading a reader by "lying by omission". There are objective and specific proofs against those subjective opinions you mention. Ravana Rajput do consider themselves as Rajput. The Rajput page cites a source that says that Rajputs have intermarried with children of concubines - and they are not talking about Ravana Rajputs there. And if you want to understand in depth about the risk that Shivaji was taking by associating with Rajputs, read Ananya Vajpeyi book on Shivaji's origin from Oxford University Press. However, he was helpless because fabrication required association with a caste that was located far away. You can read the details there. The risk was that he could have been declared shudra because he was associating himself with a Rajput caste that has been declared to be shudra in multiple hindu scriptures. Why are you ignoring all those points. BTW, I just checked the Ravana Rajput page - and some Rajput personality has written a letter saying the Ravana Rajputs and Rajputs are same - just proving that there is no agreement about Ravana Rajput also.LukeEmily (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Luke, its a serious issue that you consider adding a well-sourced content "glorification". Our motive here is not glorifying or degrading a community but to be informative to our readers. You were repeatedly asked to stick to the topic and come with some contradictory sources but you kept on asking me to read that book or another. You talk about not-so-old second line Hindu scriptures but forget the mainstream Hindu scriptures like Rigveda, Mahabharata etc. For you, Nandini Kapur is the top notch historian because of her "PHD degree" but works of JN Asopa are trash because he wrote something against your viewpoint. You seem to be too interested in the topic of "Ravan Rajputs", I advise you to improve Ravana Rajput page instead of wasting your time giving weak arguments here. I will restore the content shortly. If you have anything to add in article, you will be free to do that. If the community finds it due, it will stay, else it will be removed. Dympies (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Asopa has been dismissed by modern historians. You are wasting time. LukeEmily (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I know that but if PHD degree is the parameter, he too has it. Anyway, none of Nandini Kapur and Asopa are our concern here. Lets stick to the topic. Dympies (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You brought up Asopa. Why is Kapur not a concern? Her view is valid. Its not just the degree but also WP:HISTRS - recent historical scholarship. Rajput is an area of active research. It is not like many numerically tiny castes (like some numerically small Brahmin subcastes for example - where there is not much research interest) where new research has not happened in almost the last 50 years. Here are some quotes for you to think about. I am giving only a few as I do not want to bombard with quotes. Please focus on the highlighted part of the quote.

"Unit-14 Social structure and gender relations: c. 700-1200 CE(BHIC-132 History of India from c. 300 to 1206)". Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. p. 224. Divergent social groups got incorporated in the new socio-political fold of rajputras including Shudras. That's why the Brihaddharmapurana regardedrajputras as a mixed caste and Shudra-kamalakara equates the Rajputs with ugra, a mixed caste born of the union of a Kshatriya man and a Shudra woman

Thomas R. Metcalf (1990). Modern India: An Interpretive Anthology. Sterling Publishers. p. 90. ISBN 9788120709003. Since then every known royal family has come from a non - Kshatriya caste, including the famous Rajput dynasties of medieval India . Panikkar also points out that " the Shudras seem to have produced an unusually large number of royal families even in more recent times"

André Wink (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries. BRILL. p. 282. ISBN 0-391-04173-8. In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...

Harald Fischer-Tiné; Michael Mann (2004). Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India. Anthem Press. pp. 124–140. (summary) The Rajput clans of lower ritual status married their daughters to Rajput men of higher ritual status who had lost females due to infanticide. Thus, the Rajputs of lower ritual status had to remain unmarried or resorted to other practices like marrying widows, levirate marriages (marrying brother's widow) as well as marrying low-caste women such as Jats and Gujars or nomads. This resulted in widening the gap between Rajputs of low ritual status and Rajputs of high ritual status.[219]

If the clans are all Kshatriya, what is the issue with the ritual status being different?

J.J.L. Gommans (2003)."Here we come across the numerous networks of those so-called spurious Rajputs, such as the Ujjainiyas, Bundelas, and Baghalas"[4]

Dympies, you are confusing the opinion of society from the opinion of scholars. I will be coming up with more contradictions from scholars. Even if you look from the point of view of society, the Rajput community itself is not well defined . Some people who call themselves Rajputs (I am not talking of Marathas who claimed to be Rajputs), I am talking of communities called "x Rajput", "Y rajput etc." today are not accepted by some other Rajputs themselves. This is as per sources not my opinion. Hence, saying that Rajputs are most successful claimants by some sources is disputed since what Rajput means today is disputed by sources. Putting it in a different way, are Ravana Rajputs most successful claimants of Kshatriya varna?LukeEmily (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This comment of yours is in-line with your previous comments which are full of deviations from the topic. I clarified in my very first comment that the content under discussion pertains to "Kshatriya status" and not "Kshatriya origin" but you have time and again discussed origin. If Rajputs have upper-lower clans which decide marriages, its not our concern for this page. You should add all the important content like this on Rajput page. Here you were supposed to show contradiction which says Kshatriya status claim of Rajputs was unsuccessful or less successful (compared to any other community). And so far, you have disappointed. Dympies (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, I am disappointed in your arguments. No, I am not talking just about origin - although origin is important for a varna - or I would have thrown in a lot of quotes. The kshatriya claim was unsuccessful because the modern scholars TODAY do not agree with this claim that the Rajputs have made of being kshatriyas. TODAY They have explicitly called them fabricated. So it is unfortunate that all the efforts made by the Rajputs to take help of Charans, to fabricate their lineage have failed. The modern scholars have exposed the truth. The Raj era scholars agreed with this claim but modern research has dismissed those opinions. If we were debating this in the British era then most sources could have agreed with you. What part of this do you not understand?

The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...

Since then every known royal family has come from a non - Kshatriya caste, including the famous Rajput dynasties of medieval India ......the Shudras seem to produced an unusually large number of royal families even in more recent times

The second quote is explicitly calling the Rajputs dynasties/clans (that still exist today) as a non-Kshatriya dynasty TODAY - a modern opinion. Are the Rajputs clans which the modern quote explicitly call as non-Kshatriya TODAY not part of the Rajput community? Even earlier from a top academic source

What I perceive from the above data is a rather widespread change in the subjective perception and the attribution of rank to groups and individuals who emerged in Rajasthan and North India as local chiefs and rulers in the period after the muslim invasions(extending roughly from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). These groups were no longer considered kshatriyas and though they filled roles previously held by kshatriyas and were attributed similar functions of sustaining society and upholding the moral order, they were either groups whose original integrity were seen to have been altered or who had emerged from the lower ranks of the caste system. This change is supported by material from the Rajput chronicles themselves.

. Have rajputs of today disassociated with the clans. The Bundelas , Ravana Rajputs and Ujjainiyas are Rajputs or not? This is disputed. The varna of Ravana Rajputs is disputed as per your own statement. There is no yes/no answer. Has the opinion that Rajputs are a mixed varna caste changed today(by historians)? No. They say (and old historians did not agree with this): Rajputs have descended from Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas. This is a modern opinion and old historians did not agree. Earlier historians thought that Jats had descended from Rajputs but now it is the opposite. Rajputs themselves have accepted Bhils and Kolis as Kshatriyas in Gujrat after Independence(see Christophe Jaffrelot) and have intermarried. The above quotes you have given are obviously not reflecting the opinions of modern scholars (at best they are giving a general view as per layman). Your above statements directly contradict the source which calls all Rajput clans non-Kshatriya. Your quote that mentioned sanskritisation for other castes is the equivalent of Rajputisation for Rajputs. Was Rajputisation always full achieved? Kolff explicitly says no. Recently, {@Rasteem: added a source that says that even in the Raj era Rajputs and Jats were not considered distinct. POV pushing is showing only one side of the story. For example, you did not add the other side of the story "despite having originated from Jats, Bhils, etc., being illiterate unlike the Kshatriya varna depicted on this page, and having and having an origin in cattle-breeding pastoral communities and fabricating their origins to associate themselves with ancient Kshatriyas to make this claim , using rajputisation." You quoted The Ravana Rajputs are descendants of Rajput men and non-Rajput women, and were not originally accepted by the Rajput community as Rajputs. So they were not accepted at Rajputs earlier. Now they are accepted, does it not imply that? What about Sagar Rajputs(a Shpeherd caste of Recent times)? Are they rajputs or not? This is from the Rajput page and you can find the sources

The term "Rajput" denotes a cluster of castes,[181] clans, and lineages.[182] It is a vaguely-defined term, and there is no universal consensus on which clans make up the Rajput community.[183] In medieval Rajasthan (the historical Rajputana) and its neighbouring areas, the word Rajput came to be restricted to certain specific clans, based on patrilineal descent and intermarriages. On the other hand, the Rajput communities living in the region to the east of Rajasthan had a fluid and inclusive nature. The Rajputs of Rajasthan eventually refused to acknowledge the Rajput identity claimed by their eastern counterparts,[184] such as the Bundelas.[185] The Rajputs claim to be Kshatriyas or descendants of Kshatriyas, but their actual status varies greatly, ranging from princely lineages to common cultivators.[186]

LukeEmily (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, you have done enough research on Rajput related reliable sources. It is really difficult to understand, why you have been selective here and chosen to incorporate content, which is debated among modern scholars! If we have to add your content, we would have to add the counter views as well as per WP:NPOV, which is simply absurd since this is not the article on Rajput! LukeEmily has done a great job by providing all relevant quotes above! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Counter views dont exist for the statement - "Rajputs were most successful in attaining Kshatriya status among castes". Whatever Luke has shared with us in this thread either pertains to "non-Kshatriya origin" or simply unrelated stuff. Dympies (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want a statement saying exactly opposite of what your statement says, that would be nothing but POV pushing. Varna related statements are discussed in details in the Varna section of the concerned article. We don't cherry pick one particular statement out of the context and add the same in another article! Ekdalian (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)