Talk:Kshatriya

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)

According to some scientific studies Bengali kayasthas are native to Bengal. Then there is no way they are Kshatriyas as there was no Kshatriyas in Bengal. Some Brahmins may become Kayasthas. Timovinga (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga, please check my response on the relevant article talk page! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

And by the way, no WP:OR please like you said "According to some scientific studies....". Let's stick to what reliable sources say! Ekdalian (talk) 18:37, 17 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)

Its not cherry picking. Its a fact backed by reliable sources. Dympies (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, it is clear that there's no consensus for the content you want to add! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should we mention "Rajputs" as most successful claimants of Kshatriya status?

Following content was added by me in Kshatriya#Modern era in recent past[3], should this statement be restored :

• Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it.

Previous discussions

• Talk:Kshatriya#My_edits

Dympies (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• Support: The citations completely support the content. The opposers of content say that Rajput is just like any other community which tried to Sanskritise itself. But thats not true. When it comes to the Kshatriya concept, Rajput is not just another community. Unlike other groups whose claims to the Kshatriya status were either unsuccessful or half-successful, Rajputs were successful or "most successful", to be precise.
  It is believed that the most fanatical claims for Kshatriya status came from Rajputs which distinguishes them from the rest of Indian society. While the origin of Rajputs may be debatable or disputed, Rajputs' Kshatriya status is undisputed, according to scholars. Writers often refer to Rajputs as "the modern representatives of Kshatriya varna". In fact, some scholars have noted that the terms rajput and kshatriya have been used as synonyms historically as well as contemporarily. Mughals too acknowledged the Kshatriya status of Rajputs.

These scholarly tertiary sources establish a strong link between Kshatriya and Rajput. Considering all this, mentioning Rajput on this page and that too, in the manner proposed, should not be a big deal. Dympies (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per references provided for the content, all reliable sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support For "most successful", the candidates are: Marathas, Rajputs, Jats, and Kanbi (Patidars). Their level of success in claiming Kshatriya status was, respectively: M=debunked; R=highest; J=to a lesser extent; K=claimed, but not very successful. The envelope, please! And the winner for most successful Kshatriya claimant in a long running series is: Rajputs! Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Mathglot, Khatris have had a very long history of claiming kṣatriya-hood (at least to 1600s), much longer than Jats, Kanbis, and Marathas at least. Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have included them (esp. due to their name!), but only as middling-acceptance, because they were challenged as belonging more to Vaishya because of involvement as traders, and having had little military involvement, esp. later. We aren't talking about longer claims, but about levels of acceptance, and they wouldn't be #1 by that measure, imho. However, you are right to add them to the list. Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Adding to what Mathglot wrote above, all three groups Jats, Patidars and Marathas have attempted to lay claim to the Kshatriya identity by linking themselves with Rajputs, even muslim dynasties such as the Muzaffarids have attempted to do that as well. I see nothing wrong with including this here and also on Rajput, as the academic consensus is clear that Rajputs are the most successful claimants of Kshatriya status. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• strongly oppose - Facts: Scholars have said that multiple Hindu scriptures do not consider the Rajput as Kshatriya - they consider them mixture of shudra and kshatriya i.e. shudra varna. The Hindu scripture sudrakamalkara explicitly says that the Rajputs have to follow the rituals of a shudra. The scriptures are still the same, they have not changed in 2024, and modern scholars have explained and clarified this in the 21st century. The statement by Dympies is created using cherry picking sources. Scholars have clearly called them a mixed caste. They are proven to be a mixed varna caste mostly coming from peasant backgrounds(shudra). In Mauritius, the Rajputs are explicitly considered shudra. The Rajputs in no way represent the Kshatriya varna as described on the Kshatriya page. There is no consensus among scholars on kshatriya and Vaishya varna in Hinduism. That is the reason we do not write varna in the lead. @Ekdalian, Timovinga, and Adamantine123:, who had edited or commented on Kshatriya page as well as Rajput page. The Rajput community is not well defined. Some Rajputs do not consider Ravana Rajputs and some other Rajputs as Rajputs. So it is absurd to give a varna to a community that is not well defined. Also pinging an uninvolved editor @CharlesWain:. Dympies, you should have pinged editors who opposed you earlier. LukeEmily (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  "multiple Hindu scriptures do not consider the Rajput as Kshatriya" - Whether " "Rajaputras" are considered as Kshatriyas by some hindu scriptures or not is immaterial here. In fact, Ananya Vajpeyi, whose source you have cited before on Rajput page to claim that Dharmasastras have regarded "Rajaputras" as shudras concludes after examining such claims that "The dharmaśāstra text may try to fix the place of a jāti like 'rajaputa' somewhere low down on the varna scale, close to the ṣúdra, but the socio-historical. type 'Rājpūt' always gravitates to the kṣatriya varṇa." The word "Rajput" is analogous to Kshatriya both socially and politically today as established by scholarly sources put forward by Dympies. There is absolutely no rebuttal in your comment to the academic consensus that exists among historians and scholars about success of claim of Kshatriya status of Rajputs. In fact this RfC is not even about Rajputs being descendants of ancient Kshatriyas but whether they are regarded as Kshatriyas today or if their claims to that status is accepted, so your entire argument is essentially meaningless and full of strawmans. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @LukeEmily as far I know many other communities Sanskritized/Rajputized themselves as Rajputs, I think according to modern scholars Rajput is a mix caste that includes many varnas, but according to some they successfully established themselves as Kshatriyas. Can we write this in lead? Timovinga (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga, since there is no agreement on who is a Kshatriya or Vaisya caste, we do not mention Varna of any non-Brahmin caste in the lead.LukeEmily (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Timovinga (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, this is falsification of historical facts. Multiple sources have mentioned Rajputs as mixture of Shudra and Tribals and this proposal seems to be an attempt of caste promotion here. I would like to tag NitinMlk and Fylindfotberserk for more inputs.-Adamantine123 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Canvassing much? Why have you pinged editors that have never edited this page before[4][5]? - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  "this is falsification of historical facts" - Tens of scholarly WP:HISTRS are cited, are you saying all those scholars are falsifying history? "Multiple sources have mentioned Rajputs as mixture of Shudra and Tribals " - Which scholars? This RfC is not about their origin but rather about their acceptance into the Kshatriya Varna by academics. "this proposal seems to be an attempt of caste promotion here" - This is a baseless aspersion and you should strike it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose not for the reasons given here, but I find it subjective and unnecessary. Would support if people are willing to add other castes (including Khatris) as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  If we go on to include other castes, we will end up writing names of 100 plus caste names which claim Kshatriya status. Do we have sources calling Khatris most successful claimants, having undisputed Kshatriya status, or being used as synonym for Kshatriya since centuries? Rajput passes all these litmus tests, so singling it out to mention here makes sense. I hope you will review your opinion. Dympies (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The Rajputs do not pass the litmus test. Not only do the do not pass, they explicitly fail. Not only Hindu texts but also modern scholars have explicitly called them a mixed varna caste(mixed with Shudra) and have proved it with historical evidence. The scholars on Rajput page have clearly called out the Kshatriya claims to be fabricated. There is no agreement about who is a true vaishya or true Kshatriya today in Hinduism.LukeEmily (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a list of well-sourced entries (caste/tribe) as claimants of Kshatriya status with the Rajputs at the top. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There will be too much context to add for every caste given that there is no consensus on which castes constitute Kshatriya and Vaishya varna.LukeEmily (talk)

• Strong Oppose - Varna is a subject of dispute for most of the castes (non-Brahmins) and Rajput is not an exception! I believe, any content related to varna here (like the statement being debated) should be avoided since it represents one particular POV; many scholars consider Rajput as a mixed caste or even Shudra. Since we cannot incorporate all opinions per WP:NPOV here, it should ideally be avoided. Ekdalian (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, the proposed statement is very much a caste-POV pushing statement. Scholars have shown that Rajputs are not of Kshatriya descent. If one is referred to acceptence in traditional Hindu society of the Rajput claim to Kshatriya-hood that is definetly not evident in the phrasing and should be stated explicity. However, even that is debated among traditional pandits. See for example:

Kane notes that rigorously orthodox Brāhmaṇas cite the Purāṇas to claim there are no kṣatriyas left in Kali yuga. Despite this, he cites that other texts and people still claim the existence of the kṣatriya and vaiśya varṇas, and mentions British recognition of the Khatri and Rajput castes as being among the regenerate class (groups which are the seed for the kṣatriyas of the coming Kr̥ta age as opposed to normal śudras like Marathas).Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User:Utcursch and User:Re Packer&Tracker for input. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Read Anjana Vajpeyi 's quote I mentioned above. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I am surprised to see this much of canvassing here. Those who oppose this proposal have hardly given any good rationale. At Wikipedia, we are bound by sources. The content I am supporting here is fully backed by sources. I wish to repeat what I said in the past discussion. Do we have reliable sources which prove the content wrong? Have scholarly writers said that "Rajputs failed in claiming Kshatriya status", "Rajputs weren't the most successful claimants of Kshatriya status", or "some xyz community (other than Rajput) was most successful in claiming Kshatriya status"? If no, then its plain wrong to oppose this proposal because WP:OR is of zero value here. Dympies (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Uninvolved here and was pinged above. The sources appear to establish the fact that Rajputs are the most successful claimants of Kshatriya identity. I'm not convinced by opposing arguments they lack substance and have not refuted the claims being made.

CharlesWain (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please check the sources and quotes on the Rajput page. Despite trying to rewrite history using bards, Rajputs have not been successful in convincing those scholars - or no source would have called the Kshatriya claims "fabricated". There is no agreement as to who is a real Kshatriya in India.LukeEmily (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence. I also agree to an extent with Fylindfotberserk's comment above in this thread. CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As LukeEmily mentioned(I did not verify the sources assuming good faith) Rajputs still currently treated as Shudras by some Brahmins and others. But according to some other sources provided by Dympies Rajputs are successful in claiming the Kshatriya Varna status. So that makes the varna status of them disputed. So in my opinion we should avoid to provide the varna status of them in this page. Please note, I gave this opinion only by looking at a glance, I may be wrong also as I don't have much knowledge about them. Timovinga (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  LukeEmily has provided nothing to back his claims. Dympies 's voluminous analysis of Varna status in many scholarly sources remains unrefuted, almost every "oppose" vote is opinionated and not based in policies and guidelines and is thoroughly unsubstantiated. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, if I am not wrong, the dispute is whether they are successful in claiming the Kshatriya status or not? in that case, the origin of them might have disputed, some might have Sanskritized themselves but according to the sources there is no doubt, now they are successful in claiming the Kshatriya status. In my opinion, the accurate information is "There are many castes that claims to be Kshatriyas but only Rajputs have successfully claimed it although their origin is disputed between modern scholars, according to many they were a mix of peoples from various varnas including shudras and tribes". Timovinga (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Most scholars only ascribe pastoral and peasant origin to them. Quoting Dharmasastras to claim a supposed Shudra origin is a pointless practice as socio-political type "Rajput" gravitates to "Kshatriya" varna as acknowledged by Vajpeyi. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  But we cannot exclude them, because scholars are also used them in their interpretation. The Origin of Rajput is basically disputed historically, Brahmins became Rajputs, Shudras became Rajputs, going by the article I can see any wealthy person even from a low caste could become a Rajput by simply bribing the Brahmins. I agree with you that Rajputs are successful in claiming the Kshatriya status. I think my last comment is accurate for their historical summary, we can trim out the Shudra word and replace it with "There are many castes that claims to be Kshatriyas but only Rajputs have successfully claimed it although according to modern scholars they were a mix of peoples from various Jatis and Varnas not only Kshatriyas." Timovinga (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  "The Origin of Rajput " - As stated multiple times already. This RfC is not about their origin but their acceptance into Kshatriya varna as acknowledged by several academics. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, by my reading, that is not what the dispute is about. If numerous responders feel as you do, then in my view the Rfc is tainted and cannot reasonably be evaluated for closure, because what you think of as a reason to 'Oppose' may be what someone else thinks of as 'Support'. The Rfc uses the expression, most successful; that doesn't mean they had success, only more so than any other group. Perhaps Ptolemy had the most success proposing the geocentric theory of the Solar System (or, was it Aristotle?). Whoever it was, the geocentric theory is false; Copernicus got it right. Still, Ptolemy was the most successful proponent of geocentrism. In the scales of history (especially as viewed by historians of later centuries, or other beliefs), the Rajputs may have been rather unsuccessful in claiming K status. However, if everybody else was even more unsuccessful, then Rajputs are still the most successful claimants. That is what the Rfc question asks, and that backs up a response of 'Support', because indeed, everyone else was less successful, even if Rajputs failed to achieve it, and that's why I voted Support (along with the EB and other RSes, of course), as one can only respond to the Rfc question that was asked, not some other one that wasn't. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - "most succesfull" is not the best choice of language; "acquired" is more neutral. Also, both qualifications would need a bare explanation and contextualization. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps so, but what to do about it now, given the number of responses already? Modify it (if so, how exactly), or just let it run as is, or perhaps with a dated redaction that might at least clarify things for subsequent !votes? Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think let more responses come. Many have opposed any inclusion and I also voted for oppose. I will have more to say. Modern scholars have dismissed older claims made by bards. Rajputs do not represent the Kshatriya as described on the page. For example, did they study Vedas? They were not even literate. Modern scholars have said that Rajputs were non-Kshatriya clans (I am not talking about origin where the shudra origin is obvious - pastoral/peasant). There are also scholars that say that Kshatriya and Vaishya do not have have a consensus on which castes form them. For scriptural views, please check this also about the texts. I will add more sources on the lack of consensus for Kshatriya varna.LukeEmily (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Since Ratnahastin has referred to Vajpayee in a couple of places, I am giving full summary here. @Timovinga:.

The bottom line is that Brahmins have disagreed with the Kshatriya status, and hence the religious texts says that the Rajputs may fight like a Kshatriya but have to follow the rituals of a shudra. It also shows that the Kshatriya claim is only in political sense.

Ananya Vajpeyi discusses the Rajputs in the context of Hindu Sanskrit Dharmashastra texts and shows the dissonance between the meaning of Rajput in the practical political arena versus the literal meaning of rajaputa in Hindu religious texts and how both meanings could coexist. The Jatinirnayaprakaranama of Sudrakamalakara, an early 1600s Dharmaśāstra text written by Kamalakarabhatta for ugra or rajaputa is the projeny of a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. Vajpeyi clarifies that although ugra literally means scary or fierce, in this context the medieval writers only used this term in the context of his qualities as a warrior. Seshasakrishna's Sudracarasiromani, a text that predates Sudrakamalakara also supports this definition for a rajaputa. There is a professional and religious distinction: a rajaputa may fight, however, he has to follow the duties similar to sudras or sudrasamana. She says Ugra or rajaputa is listed as one of the six types of a sankarajati(mixed caste) given in the text, whose father's varna is higher than that of the mother, and are thus an anulomajas or "one born in accordance with the natural flow". There are five other types of anulomajas unions given by Kamalakarabhatta. Thus, as per the medieval Brahminical Dharmashastras, Rajputs are a mixed jati.

In the political context, the word meaning edges towards Kshatriya although in Hindu religious texts rajaputa is closer to Shudra. Some emigrant Brahmins may have been involved in Rajputising tribes to the Rajput status.

Despite this, Vajpayi states that, periodically, Brahmins (and some others) have characterized Rajput as self-seekers, and stated that they are not real Kshatriyas.

Other than establishing marital ties with already established Rajput families, constructing false genealogies and adopting titles such as "rana", Rajputising also involved starting the pretensions of rituals of twice-borns ( wearing sacred thread etc.).

However, one ritual that was not given much significance was the Abhisheka. When a clan leader was made king by the Mughal emperor, the Tika mark on the head of leader by the Muslim emperor confirmed his Royal status and the Hindu ritual of Abhisheka was only of secondary importance. Aurangzeb eventually stopped the custom of Tika and the custom was replaced by bowing or taslim to the Mughal emperor, who would return the salute. This possibly implies that it was still up to the Mughal emperor to ultimately give or deny the Rajput status to the clan leader.

The description of Rajputs in the Hindu Dharmashastras, self image that the Rajputs presented, and the Mughal view of the Rajputs was disparate. This incongruity, according to Vajpayi makes the Rajput identity Polyphonous.LukeEmily (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Care to explain how does any of this challenges the scholarly sources put forward by Dympies? Much less the RfC statement itself? Sure there are differences between Rajputs and Ancient Kshatriyas and both may not be referred to as the same, the consensus of historians however is clear that Rajputs have attained/acquired Kshatriya status. (Which is what this RfC about). Not a single academic source will say that Rajputs have failed at acquiring Kshatriya hood. This RfC is not about unclear origins of Rajputs. Kamalakarabhatta talks about "Rajaputa" not Rajput which Vajpeyi herself acknowledges that despite the lexical similarity between the two, both are semantically different. Rajput gravitating towards Kshatriya varna in socio-historical sense while Dharmasastras try to put "Rajaputa" in a lower place in Varna hierarchy. Lastly is Vajpeyi's chapter enough to discredit the predominant academic view on Kshatriya-hood of Rajputs as described by Dympies with his sources? No, it does not even qualify as a WP:TERTIARY source(which most of Dympies's sources are) as it is merely analysing primary works such as Dharmasastras from the 16th century! - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

are you not reading the source? Please can you request full access to it? I am not stressing the origin which all agree is peasants/tribals etc. The texts say that the ritual status of a rajput is sudrasamana i.e. like shudra. The political status gravitates towards Kshatriya. Are you saying ritual status is irrelevant to varna? In fact, ritual status defines a varna. Second Time and again brahmana and non-Rajput ksatriya interests denigrated it as a category for arrivistes, insinuating or charging that Rajputs were nothing but ersatz ksatriyas. This shows the claim has been challenged and not universally accepted. Let me ask two related questions. 1) Do you agree that there is no agreement as far as what castes form the Ksahtriya varna in India? 2) Do you agree that some scholars say no caste today belongs to Kshatriya varna?LukeEmily (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, is this RfC for discussing Ananya Vajpeyi's interpretation of some specific dharamshastras? A bunch of Brahmins don't make the entire Hindu society. Moreover, the second line Hindu dharamshastras written quite recently aren't meant to be given so much value. The mainstream Hindu texts like Vedas, Mahabharata put Rajputras (Rajputs) on a high position ie Rajanya/Kshatriyas and that has been discussed by multiple writers. We know that Rajputs are the only community whose name has been frequently used synonymously with kshatriya in past as well as present. You pointed out that they don't perform the functions of Kshatriyas. But thats not the opinion of scholars who regard Rajputs as the very epitome of Kshatriyas. The bottomline is that Kshatriyas are recognised as Kshatriyas in Hindu society like Aggarwals are recognised as Vaishyas and thats what matters as far as this RfC is concerned. Dympies (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have access to the full source and have read the concerned chapter to the end. I find your summary of it misleading. For instance, you say that Mughal emperor could confer Rajput status upon a clan leader ("This possibly implies that it was still up to the Mughal emperor to ultimately give or deny the Rajput status to the clan leader") but this is not in the source which states "this ritual was not the installation ceremony as such, but the recognition of the new king, or a confirmation of his royal status, by the Mughal emperor, who was the greater power above him....... Perhaps this indicates that Aurangzeb retained the right to confirm or deny the royal status of a Rajput designated as king." This is just one instance, and puts doubt as to whether your summary of Vajpeyi's views ( or if the summary is just your own misinterpretation) can be trusted. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, Rajputras are not the same as Rajputs as many editors have explained to you and claiming that Vedas refer to Rajputs is absurd. I have shown you two points so far in this source - irrelevant to the origin (nothing to do with origin). Based on the above source,

1)Rajputs are told to follow the rituals of Shudras as per Hindu scriptures but allowed to fight. True or False?

2)Has the book been modified or does it have a different modern interpretation?

3)Rajputs have been periodically called fake Kshatriyas by Brahmins. True or false? What do you mean - a bunch of brahmins' opinion does not matter? BTW, it says other communities have also challenged the claim.

4)I am quoting from the source. So if you don't trust my interpretation, please provide the quotes that prove me false about the varna.

5) All agree that the origin is peasant/shudra etc..but that is irrelevant here. I am not discussing the origin but reaction by other communities and religious scholars.

I am still waiting for these two general answers: 1) Do you agree that there is no agreement as far as what castes form the Kshatriyas varna in India? 2) Do you agree that some scholars say no caste today belongs to Kshatriya varna?

LukeEmily (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You are going off on tangents now with these questions (which are also unsubstantiated) to derail this RfC from its main topic. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmily, No, Rajputra and Rajput aren't different. If we go by your OR, they are different but we find them being used completely interchangeably by scholars. Dympies (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the current varna status of Rajputs are still disputed, some say they successfully claimed the K varna status, but some say the are still treated or follows the varna status of Shudras, I think we can all agree with that. Timovinga (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga, this time I will not get you away with such casual comment. Show us which modern scholars say that Rajputs are treated as Shudras? Show us full quotes. Dympies (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dympies opps! I misread it a little, ok I got your point, @LukeEmily the point is they wanted to add, despite being the disputed origin theory, Rajputs managed to claim the Kshatriyawood. If that is the case then I think they have some valid arguments. But I think we have to provide a proper context to add this information. Timovinga (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timovinga:, you did not misread. You were correct. This quote from a modern academic source Rajputs are a miscegenated jati produced from non-alike fathers and mothers of specified types. According to the Sudrakamalakara, an authoritative Sanskrit text on the dharma of sudras written by Gagabhatta’s own uncle, Kamalakarabhatta, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the progeny of a ksatriya man and a sudra woman would be an ugra, otherwise known as a rajaputa.33 Such a person does battle and is expert in wielding weapons, but he must follow the duties proper to a sudra.' In Kamalakara’s classification, being a sankarajati, or mixed group, ugras, or rajaputas are sudrasamana, as goodas (or as bad as!) sudras. [footnote]‘Ugra’ literally means ‘scary’, or ‘ferocious’. In equating the ugra and the rajaputa, medieval dharmasastra writers nodoubt intended to refer to the warlike properties of the class of person they were describing. Note that source not only talks about origin(which is irrelevant here) but discusses the rituals that a rajput caste must follow(this has nothing to do with origin). The interpretation is by a modern source. Secondly, Normal Ziegler and others have called Rajputs as non-Kshatriyas (again, nothing to do with origin). Most importantly, there is no agreement on who constitutes Ksahtriya today(as per sources). Both RatnaHastin and Dympies have ignored my simple questions.LukeEmily (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

According to some mediaeval law makers Rajputs should follow the Shudra code, right? but that doesn't mean they can't follow the Kshatriyawood in modern time. Modern sources also confirmed now they are successful in claiming the Kshatriyawood(Kshatriya status), Brahmins may not agree with them(if sources are there). Timovinga (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The medieval text has a modern interpretation. There is nothing that says the text has been discarded. Is there any other text that refutes this text? If the Peshwas(Brahmins) were ruling India today, they would enforce religious scripture opinion and this is the only opinion about their ritual status in religious books. Any caste can follow any custom today so they are free to call themselves kshatriyas. Modern academic sources also say that no kshatriyas exist and there is no agreement on who is a true ksahtriya caste today. This is in direct opposition to the narrative that Rajputs are undisputed kshtriyas. If they were undisputed, we would not have statements like The Rajputs claim to be Kshatriyas or descendants of Kshatriyas, but their actual status varies greatly, ranging from princely lineages to common cultivators. The "but" implies that the tertiary source rejects the claim.LukeEmily (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Chitpawans, Saraswats both are now regarded as Brahmins or atleast follows the Brahminical rituals although according to myths and scholarly interpretations they were low castes. Timovinga (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you find one source that Chitpavans "claim" to be brahmins? Thats because they are Brahmins. The religious texts actually support their brahminhood despite whatever origin. In Rajputs, the religious texts explicitly call them sudrasamana - like a shudra.LukeEmily (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmily please go through the origin section, Skandapurana clearly mentioned they were fishermen who transformed into Brahmins because parashuram didn't find any Brahmins near Konkan region. Timovinga (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timovinga:, they "transformed into Brahmins" supports their claim of being Brahmin. So the religious scripture supports their Brahmin claim. I am not discussing origin of any caste here. Anyway, other than the scripture I have made other points.LukeEmily (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, if Rajputs successfully claimed themselves as Kshatriyas this would not make them ritually supirior, as a normal reader by going through all the origin theories and interpretations, I will still consider them low caste who Sanskritized themselves as Kshatriyas, I think most of the readers will also think the same. This is not related to edit of RfC but this is my honest opinion as a reader. Timovinga (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.