Talk:Yadav/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
References
In the responses, I have yet to see any proper answer to my query. Regarding myself, I am new to this place and visit it infrequently to get information (after checking references) and hence my interest. My questions remain, and the information provided is not credible until references are provided. As far as Krishna being a Kshatriya is concerned, it is there in the Mahabharata. I would request any person reading it to verify this information himself/herself, no point in arguing here. Yes, I have read it several times (different publications). Regarding the current date Yadavs being descendents of Kshatriyas (or Krishna), please provide credible references for everyone here.
There were some comments about references and original research. The responses that I have received so far display a lack of understanding of research. Yes, references from original research are required everywhere. It does not mean that any person can present bad research and say it is original. No. At least to satisfy people like I, the comments/changes should be based on original research already published in top (Internationally acclaimed) academic journals. Other references could be books by prominent historians or other such researchers. Prominence measured by their stature in academic circles. If there is little or no information on an issue, then it is better to write that this issue needs more research, and wait for more research (even if it takes decades), or do it yourself and GET PUBLISHED. If you still do not understand what I mean here then please do not waste everyones time by responding or writing here.
About the comments regarding who I am and so on, they are childish. I hope that the person writing them learns to write and respond better for his/her own good, they only amuse me sometimes, mostly I ignore them. If a person is emotional about an issue, then it is unlikely that the person can provide unbiased information about that issue.
- For answers you must have proper queries, which unfortunately you don't have.Regarding Krishna being Kshatriya -- nobody is desputing it, but there are references of him being Vaishya too !!!!! Only fact which is undisputed is his being called Yadava --- Do you have questions regarding it????? Krishna being Kshatriya or anything here is not subject to question. This page is aBOUT yADAVA, the ppl , you might be aware of!!!! Regarding who you are . I have got the answer; look here. Your simple Ip check provides the answer. You are showing same attacking behaviour, and similar pattern of gaming the system which someone called user:hkelkar or user:subhash bose does. Good luck. Don't think we are all Idiots here. Ikon |no-blast 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- After going thru history you have also operated thru 206.54.214.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and vandalised this page in past for which you were specifically adressed. Ikon |no-blast 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Who are/were Kshatriya
Although I have discussed this issue at length at both this page and Talk:Kshatriya pages. The user in question above fails to understand and persistently pressing his POV on this page. Let him be very clear
| “ | Only Races are real Castes are not | ” |
. Ikon |no-blast 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article has specifically adressed all subgroups within Yadava community; I don't know of any other community page being written in such an honest way. Although questions raised by the user above is baseless , I must clarify it. the realationship between present day Yadava and old one is only that much as one generation has with its predecessor. What kind of reserach is required to proove it???
Secondly, there is misconception regarding Jewish relationship. the relationship has been well researched and no conclusions has been made in this article, only hypothesis has been presented as percieved by scholars. Yes they strongly suggests a connection and they has been published too. ref to citation, plz, it carries well known name not of the statures of creators of piltdownman or PILTDOWN HORSE(this research was done by an Indian reseracher with fake proofs)!!!! yes time now to present your citations to back your claims. For your kind information Yadava has probably more relation to ancient Jews than present Jews themselves have who are actually Mongreal offshoots (ever heard of it!!!!!) of Original Jews who became extinct some 1500 yrs ago. Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article has specifically adressed all subgroups within Yadava community; I don't know of any other community page being written in such an honest way. Although questions raised by the user above is baseless , I must clarify it. the realationship between present day Yadava and old one is only that much as one generation has with its predecessor. What kind of reserach is required to proove it???
References
Again the same old story. First, who I am is not important. It is an unscientific way of arguing. Please answer the questions/issues asked/discussed wherever they come from. Second, it is amusing to find you relating me to several other ids and then saying that you know me through the IP address. Please do not get so worked up over this. Let us all try to have a good academic debate here. I am sure these other people who you suggest are the same as I must be laughing too.
You say:
"You are showing same attacking behaviour, and similar pattern of gaming the system which someone called user:hkelkar or user:subhash bose does. Good luck. Don't think we are all Idiots here"
Well, not everyone is an idiot, and that is the reason you will not get away with false information here. Is this another example of how you arrive at your conclusions, including the ones about Yadavas? Because if it is, then to me this is a clear example of why your claims could be wrong. By your own admission, your are not an idiot because you have figured out who I am (I am ignoring the use of WE by you as this is another illegitimate attempt to gather sympathy and create a divide, since you are the only responder to my queries, please use I instead of WE).
Well what if you are wrong? Would you admit that will make you an idiot? Will you declare your identity and withdraw from ever posting on Wikipedia if you are wrong on this issue? Let us find a neutral third party, a moderator or so and disclose our identities and see if your claims are correct. If incorrect, would you publicly agree to withdraw? Please do not find conspirecies everywhere. I do not have an agenda here and I really do not wish to be drawn into these silly side issues. I just do not approve of your methods to bulldoze through an argument.
- Reply-----> What about you??? I will not allow a repeat of Kancha Ilaiah here. You seem to be too emboldened by it.What can be expected from a sockpuppeteer who changes Ip so often to post his rants again and again.You have changed at least two ids and many IPs on this same page after being replied suitably. Do you even have courtesy to learn what you don't know Ikon |no-blast 09:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
About your point of Yadava today being the descendents of Yadavas of historical times, this is just your opinion. For example, the last name Singh used by millions today was not used earlier. This does not make all these people unrelated to their communities earlier (or related to lions!). Similarly, many last names used today, such as Shah, Rai etc. were used by some communities different from the ones using them today. Using the similarity of names to assume relationship is not scientific, such an effort has to be backed by other credible evidence. The ancestors of most Yadavs of today did not use this last name. If one believes what you are saying, then the list of the famous ancestors of Yadavs of today (that the site claims) would include many Yadav last names. This is not so. Not even one name in the list has a Yadav last name. So much for your argument. There are names of several kings there. Please check the book "Handbook on Rajputs A H Bingley ISBN : 8175361662". The book lists the background of all the rulers of India during the late British period and shows their social group as per what they say and what is accepted by their society. They would be very surprised to see the claims here, and mostly only made here.
- REPLY-----> The analysis is not based on last name (see the archive again for name issue).it is based on well known clan names, which is undisputed. BTW Rai was originally Yadava Surname not BHMR who have copied it.Even Rao Tula Ram used it, These ppl are also called Ahirrao Ikon |no-blast 09:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I think I recollect this reference correctly, there is a slight possibility that this list is in another book that I have read. If this is not the right reference, I will provide one. Let us recap, they do not believe it, the society at large does not believe it, the credible historical accounts do not support it, and yet you insist!
As an example of the incorrect information presented on this site, the list of historical Yadavs includes the founder of the Vijayanagar dynasty. In Wikipedia itself, and please verify this today, the account of the founding of the Vijayanagar empire is written as follows:
"The founding of the original kingdom was based on the principality of Anegondi, based on a fortified town on the Tungabhadra river in the Deccan. In the century preceding the founding of the empire, the old kingdoms of the Deccan had been overrun by Muslim invaders from the north. From 1309, Malik Kafur reached and captured Warangal, later on reaching the Malabar kingdoms. Mubarak of Delhi reached Warangal again in 1323. Between 1334 and 1336, Muhammad Tughlaq of Delhi again overran the region, capturing Anegondi.
Many theories have been propounded about the origin of Vijayanagar empire. Well known historians from Archeological Survey of India hold their own opinions about the origin of the empire. Prof. K.A. Nilakanta Sastry[5], Dr. N. Ventakaramanayya[6] and B. Surya Narayana Rao[7] claim a Telugu origin of Harihara and Bukka Raya. The Telugu origin theory is based on works by Robert Sewell[8] and records written by Muslim writers of those times. Historians such as Dr. P.B. Desai[9], Fr. Henry Heras[10], Prof. Dr. B.A. Saletore[11], G.S. Gai[12], Prof. William Coelho[13] Dr. Suryanath U. Kamat[14] attest to the empire's Kannada origin. The Kannada origin theory is based on epigraphy (study of inscriptions, numismatics etc.) and Kannada literary works of Vijayanagar times like Kumara Rama charita, Chikkadevaraya Vamshavali and Keladinripa Vijayam.
To sum up, unless new evidence is discovered the exact origin and ancestry of Vijayanagar founders will remain a controversial matter."
Here is an example of a piece with some credible references, and it contradicts what this site presents about Yadavas. Note that not even one credible theory mentions Yadav origin! Would you like to start a discussion on the Vijayanagar site about this issue? You cannot recreate history here.
The way I see it, you have not presented any credible evidence that links Yadavs of today with Krishna or other Kshatriyas. Please see my earlier post for details of what I mean by credible evidence.
You have again tried to show a link between Yadavs and Jews, even going as far as to suggest that Jews today are not original (whatever that means) Jews. What can I say. It is embarrasing to be discussing these issues with you given the responses I have had so far. I will try not to respond until something useful comes up, or until I happen to visit this page at a later date and find something interesting. The information presented on the main page is temporary, and you will have to come up with better information to make it credible.
Some more specifics, you say:
"The article has specifically adressed all subgroups within Yadava community; I don't know of any other community page being written in such an honest way. Although questions raised by the user above is baseless , I must clarify it. the realationship between present day Yadava and old one is only that much as one generation has with its predecessor. What kind of reserach is required to proove it???"
Amusing. Questions are not baseless, your answers are. Many communities claim to descend from Sun and Moon, should their claims be accepted without question? In order to prove whether someone is a son/daughter of someone else, one can research the birth records, other government documents such as marriage registration, hospital records and so on. These were not available earlier, however, other records were. In North India, many Brahmin families kept detailed records of all the births and deaths in higher caste Hindu families. There are the British govenrment records, historical records. You would be surprised how well births and deaths were recorded earlier, particularly of the people considered as Kshatriyas. I am not asking you to go and do all this research as this might not be your primary work. However, there are many researchers who do this as their primary work, and no one has found anything to support your claims. If they have, please cite them and we can all learn something.
You say,
"Secondly, there is misconception regarding Jewish relationship. the relationship has been well researched "
Please provide some credible references.
- Reply----> Do you mean to say Stephen Knapp, Godfrey Higgins, P N Oak are not good researchers??????
you say,
"and no conclusions has been made in this article, only hypothesis has been presented as percieved by scholars."
My understanding is that we present here information that is current and most credible. Hypothesis are cheap and anyone can form them. They have little value without research. Perceptions of scholars are also not worth much. Remember, perceptions don't get published! By the way, which scholars? I do not want to discuss the hypothesis issue here any more as it is perepheral to the main discussion. Given what you are saying, it is highly likely that you do not have proper training to do research. If this is true, then please do not attempt to prove somthing that you cannot. There is a reason why people spend years learning to do scientific research before they start making claims. I cannot provide you a cookbook approach to research. There is no short cut.
you say,
"yes time now to present your citations to back your claims. For your kind information Yadava has probably more relation to ancient Jews than present Jews themselves have who are actually Mongreal offshoots (ever heard of it!!!!!) of Original Jews who became extinct some 1500 yrs ago"
Jews have been at the forefront of finding their relatives all over the world and inviting them back to settle in Israel. Needless to say that the Jewish community has produced, and continues to produce some of the best intellectuals among us. Have you wondered why, despite all their research, they have not claimed a relation to Yadavs? If they have, please show us a reference and I will stand corrected. By the way, they have claimed relations with some other people in the North-East of India.
- REPLY----> What is the point in discussing what Jews are doing and what they are on Yadav article????
| “ | Truth does not depend on how many ppl blv it | ” |
. Yes I know they have discovered many tribes who actually have no correlation to do some mineal jobs in Israel, but this issue is not pursuasive. Ikon |no-blast 09:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, what can I say, this is a great opportunity for us to present correct information for all of us. Let us not make it a joke. I hate to write a rude response to anyone. However, you baseless personal attacks need such a response. Let us all take a step back and present some serious information. I am not the one to claim that the site presents correct information. To the best of my knowledge, it presents a lot of incorrect information (that has not yet been supported by credible sources). I had suggested that if there is no credible support for some of the information presented, then let us just keep only that what we can support. You responded by being rude and insulting, without adding anything. My recommnedation still stands. If you claim that the present information on the site is correct, then the responsibility lies with you to support it with credible references. If you cannot do so, then as a responsible person you should yourself take the first step to present us with modified information that you would like to see on the site, and that you can provide references for. Any other method will not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.196.28 (talk • contribs)
To the user in question
The user who is persistently pushing his/her pov is suggested to present his own fiundings if he has any or stop putting meaningless comments here and there. it is also advisable to maintain one single account as it is clear from his/her own admission that he/she is not a new user. for further concern regarding kshatriya issue see Talk:kshatriya where rajputs claim has been nearly demolished, if he has grudge against me for that then tell it frankly. if you have issues regarding khatri claim which has equally been demolished -- sorry to say but i am no more editing there. if he has got records of kshatriya lineage maintained by brahmanas (which is rediculous) present it, it might be of geat help for reasearchers around the world and may solve many mystries, infact i am willing to buy that too are you willing, anybody would be happy to pay for such a record, provided they are genuine. where were you hiding for such a long time !!!!!!!!
- the way you adress Rajput as kshatriya I fail to trust you are a researcher. you are also offering conjectures which may sound strange to any sane person like Agnikula rajputs were Kshatriya converted to buddhism, should we assume Han were original kshatriya who were converted to Buddhism --- who on earth will accept your propositions???? or is this the kind of research you do and boast!!!!
- Finally,if you have even slight knowledge of kshatriya---brahmana feud you will get answers to most of the questions you are having.go thru abhira page well. go through ophir page too. jewish connection is not founded here only , infact it is a hot subject among researchers -- if you don't know i wonder if you are a resaercher at all. Ikon |no-blast 14:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
About Kshatriya Issue
Users who want to discuss kshatriya issue sd go to kshatriya page instead and try to find out who are kshatriya (yes go thru archive well) useless rants abt it here will NOT be entertained. Ikon |no-blast 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Caste Status of Yadavs
Its a well known fact that Francis Buchanan had given Kshatriya Status to Rajputs only, in 1883, infact he was the first person to call Rajputs as Kshatriya. Rajputs were NOT recognised as kshatriya even during Mughal era.The fact was contested by many communities during first census. The drama during coronation of Shivaji Maharaj is an important case in this point, his connection to Mewar Kings (widely misunderstood) was infact a sarcastical remark for the same kings linkage to guebras was cited in the ceremony. Marathas even had gone to the extent of calling attack on Rajputs as attack on mlechhdesh. So it is futile to rant on Rajputs caste status.During 1883 census Buchanan called Kayastha shudra and later Gaiety overruled it, but not before they remained shudra for a considerable time pd.Bhumihar petrified by kayastha fate gheraoed Buchanan everywhere giving him lavish gifts and hospitality so much that Buchanan was annoyed, they cd infact buy their caste status. The drama discontinued with Free for all censuses in future where anybody cd claim anything. The user who is suggesting caste status on these facts sd not be entertained because they were merely community game where some won and others lost.Kshatriya myth of Rajputs was soon exploded by Todd and others . Actually sufgesting Rajputs as Kshatriya among intellectual circle is something hilarious. Plz don't repeat anymore. Ikon |no-blast 10:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
References regarding Yadav from Published articles
Following are some credible references that talk about Yadavas. The readers can decide for themselves. I have discussed the merits of the references provided on the Yadava page currently earlier in my posts in the discussion section. In short, they are junk. Readers are welcome to verify. I welcome comments about these references and then we can move on to correct the information on the page. Please keep your comments to facts/research issues only and refrain from making unsupported claims. There are several other references, but these get the point across, Thanks for reading. The citations are within quotes. There are 7 references in total, all from published articles in research journals.
- 1) A New Demand for Muslim Reservations in India
Theodore P. Wright, Jr. Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 9. (Sep., 1997), pp. 852-858.
At the time of publication of this article, Prof. Theodore P. Wright, Jr. was Professor Emeritus, Political Science Department, State University of New York, Albany.
“the commission had recommended and V. P. Singh ordered the extension of 27% reservations to OBCs defined in terms of Hindu subcastes, generally of Shudra varna just above the untouchables in ritual status.” Page 855.
Please note that Yadavas are part of the OBC castes.
- Re > how do you know it just reproduces census records, and not other research articles? Have you read it. Can you provide reference of a published article that has debunked the report? Please do not confuse the reader. It is a published research article, and it is correct until you provide references in support of your point of view. FYI, only well accepted information (among researchers) is presented in any research article. Also, Mandal commission accepted the census as basis for the recommendation for reservation. Even now, all the political parties in India are using it as a justification for reservations, even the Yadav dominated parties such as the Samajwadi Party. So on the one hand, you are suggesting that Yadavs are not Sudras and they were wrongly mentioned as such in the census, on the other hand, the leaders of Yadavs are demanding and having reservation benefits on the basis that the census was correct! Who should the people believe, the Yadav leaders, the census by a neutral party, the researchers (all saying, directly or indirectly, Yadavs were Sudras), or you who is making a claim with no support whatsoever? In order to prove that Yadavs are Kshatriyas, you have to first show that they are not Sudras (as represented in many reliable sources), and secondly show that they are Kshatriyas. YOU HAVE DONE NEITHER. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- Regarding Shudra allegation there had been a challenge put on by some user, now in archive, I didn't find anyone coming for the reply or accept the challenge. Don't try to tell me how research is done, yes it requires will power and commitment to find the truth you certainly lack one of them. I give you opportunity to show the rfs from any valid scripture, the sources you cite are indeed reproduction of old census records, unreliable, which cannot even stand the test on wikipedia. I know it is not tough to do propaganda research in USA, because ppl around you are gullible to accept what you say. I know a guy Amarnath Tiwary, of Outlook magazine, who published his puerlie work regarding Indian Army's involvement in killing Kashmiris. So anything published cannot be treated as ref. And yes a simple marketing concept , when you call yourself a researcher try to behave like one even if you are faking it, for you know even products with fake brand label are branded according to their quality. I hope you will take care of that , we already have many researchers, like you, on wikipedia. Ikon |no-blast 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re > how do you know it just reproduces census records, and not other research articles? Have you read it. Can you provide reference of a published article that has debunked the report? Please do not confuse the reader. It is a published research article, and it is correct until you provide references in support of your point of view. FYI, only well accepted information (among researchers) is presented in any research article. Also, Mandal commission accepted the census as basis for the recommendation for reservation. Even now, all the political parties in India are using it as a justification for reservations, even the Yadav dominated parties such as the Samajwadi Party. So on the one hand, you are suggesting that Yadavs are not Sudras and they were wrongly mentioned as such in the census, on the other hand, the leaders of Yadavs are demanding and having reservation benefits on the basis that the census was correct! Who should the people believe, the Yadav leaders, the census by a neutral party, the researchers (all saying, directly or indirectly, Yadavs were Sudras), or you who is making a claim with no support whatsoever? In order to prove that Yadavs are Kshatriyas, you have to first show that they are not Sudras (as represented in many reliable sources), and secondly show that they are Kshatriyas. YOU HAVE DONE NEITHER. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- 2) Exploration in Caste Stereotypes
Gopal Sharan Sinha and Ramesh Chandra Sinha Social Forces, Vol. 46, No. 1. (Sep., 1967), pp. 42-47.
Authors belonged to Patna University, India, at the time of this article.
Classify Ahir as backward caste, different from Forward castes that includes Rajputs and Brahmins
- Re> sure, these terms are used for reference to express an idea more clearly. These classifications, as used, have a meaning. They are accepted everywhere, even in the research community, so we will have to accept them. Too bad if you do not like them. I agree with your view that entire castes have moved up or down in society over time, and it is possible that some the backwayd castes today might have been higher up in the ranks earlier, or vice versa. This however, does not prove your point of Yadavs being Kshatriyas. Kshatriya is a class comprising many castes.
- Re-----> Kshatriya is not a class, its a caste , who are descendants of ancient kshatriyas, you cannot make kshatriya. Mlechha were not part of it, even though they were powerful.Implanting Rajputs as kshatriya is now a well recognised fraud when ENTIRE 36 kulas lineage has been traced to mineal Mlechhas, not even a trace of kshatriya. Ikon |no-blast 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re> sure, these terms are used for reference to express an idea more clearly. These classifications, as used, have a meaning. They are accepted everywhere, even in the research community, so we will have to accept them. Too bad if you do not like them. I agree with your view that entire castes have moved up or down in society over time, and it is possible that some the backwayd castes today might have been higher up in the ranks earlier, or vice versa. This however, does not prove your point of Yadavs being Kshatriyas. Kshatriya is a class comprising many castes.
Who was Kshatriya at the beginnning of the caste system is not the right question as the caste system must have evolved over time. It could not have happened in a day where some people sit down ad decide in one day. Since the beginning does not exist, or cannot be determined, and the system is dynamic, who is a Kshatriya? We can only answer it by looking at the castes well accepted as Kshatriyas and accepting them here as such.
- Re----> Yes it may have evolved over time, but that does not suggest Rajputs as Kshatriya, when we have their established link with mlechhas (sakas, hanas etc) who OPPORTUNISTICALLY constructed a myth during islamic invasion to BLURRR their real identity. All of us know about it now. Ikon |no-blast 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
When the site suggests that the Yadavs were one of the five Panchjanyas etc, it presupposes that there were some Kshatriyas at in the very early period and then they remained as Kshatriyas, i.e. a somewhat static system. This contradicts the notion that castes can move up or down the system. There are many areas that require research, and we do not know much about the caste system today. This is precisely the reason I suggest we stick to the well accepted known information. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- 3) Is India Becoming More Democratic?
Ashutosh Varshney The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 2000), pp. 3-25.
Author was (at the time of publication) an Associate Professor of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame.
“Weighted down by tradition, lower castes do not give up their caste identities; rather, they “deconstruct” and “reinvent” caste history, deploy in politics a readily available and easily mobilized social category (“low caste”), use their number to electoral advantage, and fight prejudice and domination politically.”
- One must go thru how old was this tradition, the vision of this author may be limited to post Indpendence and may be upto british era. You have used two terms "deconstruct" and "reinvent" , which may be the personal jibes of this man from Patna University.
- Re > I have not used the terms, they are quoted from the article. I am not sure if the researcher was ever associated with Patna University, he was an Associate Professor of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame, at the time of publication of this article. Also, the terms used are scientific. So, anything that contradicts your point of view is incorrect? FYI, personal jibes without proper support do not get published in research articles. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shahsis
Rather there are proofs of such "deconstruct" and "reinvent" from so called forward caste, who have gone at lentgh discovering cock and bull story about their origin, many were recorded by Francis Buchanan " who said Kayastha origin from Chitagupta is definite farce, not found in any scriptures" similarly , Rajput origin theory is also farce proven by Gen TOdd.Brahmanas too emerged in post Buddhist era , called fourth varna in some Jain scriptures. Ikon |no-blast 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re > sure, could be. As mentioned earlier, the system was dynamic. I hold the belief that Rajput communities are a mixture of older Kshatriyas and the invaders over time. Anytime someone became powerful, he/she had to be adjusted in the system, and a logical way was to invent a pedigree. So what we are left with is a mixture, and lots of confusing stories. This however, does not negate the claim of Rajputs to belong to the Kshatriya class. In fact, this very mixture makes it inevitable that they become part of it, as per the very definition of the Kshatriya class.
- RE----> Show me that system was dynamic. Infact it was not Dynamic. Also, you are adamant on view that Rajputs are Kshatriya, all known information contradicts it. Rather it is well known that they are actually Mlechhas (the fifth varna). Kshatriya never mixed with Mlechhas, nor do they need to invent a new term RAJPUT to BLURR their real identity. Ikon |no-blast 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Such fancy stories should be taken with a pinch of salt. Even by occupational criteria, Yadavs cannot be accepted as Kshatriyas. Kshatriya class was defined based on some functions in society. There have been Yadav states, small ones, but as a community, Yadavs have overwhelmingly, and historically performed functions not associated with the Kshatriya class. This is well documented. So, you cannot show that they were Kshatriyas in earlier times, and you cannot show that they are Kshatriyas today (by occupation or some similarity), so on what basis are you adamant on turning Yadavs into Kshatriyas? Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) shashis
“In the 1980s and 1990s, a southern-style plebian politics has rocked North India. The names of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Yadav, Kanshi Ram, and Mayawati – all “vernacular” politicians who have risen from below—repeatedly make headlines. They are not united. Indeed, substantial obstacles to unity, both vertical and horizontal, remain. Vertically, though all lower castes are below the upper castes/varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas), there are serious internal differentiations and hierarchies within the lower-caste category. And horizontally, even though caste system is present all over India, each caste has only local or regional meaning, making it hard to build extralocal or extraregional alliances. Thus, horizontal mobilization tends to be primarily regional or state-specific, not nationwide.” On page 6
- Re> Amusing. I had posted these references on the Kshatriya discussion page for discussion and you removed it from there asap saying that that was not the correct page for the discussion, and here you are saying the opposite. I invite the readers to verify this. Your actions tell me that you are not seriously interested in saying anything, and are just playing games to force your fancies on everyone. If I continue to get the same feeling, I will stop discussing and start making edits with all this as proof of your lack of interest in any serious discussion. By the way, Kshatriya is not equal to Rajput, but where did you see the author saying so in my citation? Please point that out. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashi
- Re----> I had asked you to post it on Kshatriya page.you posted it at both places, when I answered it here , I rmvd it frm there, mentioning reason as edit summary(did you notice that). I just gave you benefit of doubt that you are a new user. But still like you to go thru Rajput archive, Kshatriya archive , before taking this problem generaly.Are these author GODs whose words we need to take, when we have many competing views on different pages. Ikon |no-blast 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
“Technically, the term OBC incorporates two different disadvantaged communitites—Hindu and non-Hindu. Of these, Hindu OBCs are the low castes whose traditional social and ritual status has been above the ex-Untouchable scheduled castes, but below the upper castes (figure 1). Hindu OBCs overlap mostly with the Sudra varna of traditional hierarchy, a category consisting mainly of peasants and artisans.” Page 8
- RE------>The author seems to be highly confused over caste/ class . the mostly word is dubious and cannot be implied to conclude who are included and who are excluded.The author may not be even competent to judge class against caste, it wd have been better for him if he wd have based his study on OBC and dominant caste concept rather than relating them to Kshadriya and shudra on which he does not sem to be having clarity. Ikon |no-blast 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re> You do not fail to amuse me! The author is a professor, and well recognized, and this is froma published article, that other professor review before publication. Please read the article carefully. The concepts of dominant castes and OBCs etc will become clear to you. The dominant castes are also Sudras or between sudras and vaishyas, as per the references cited, however, none of then is considred Kshatriya. Further, the the castes not considered dominant are all included in OBCs, and Yadavs are among them. All Yadavs accepted this when they supported Mandal commission report, and are still accepting this basis for reservation. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- Re---> You need to see the policies well , wikipedia is not democracy.I think you sd clear your concepts regarding OBCs and Dominant caste, they are percieved shudras ( best proof of perception is census record).We are not here to represent merely what ppl percieve or tell abt themselves.Till now you have presented ur perception in worst possible manner. The attitude may not be acceptable. Ikon |no-blast 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
“Bein mostly sudras, the OBCs have faced many social and economic disadvantages, but the fit between the two categories – OBC and Sudra—is not perfect. If one goes by the all-India classification of castes, a national level abstraction, the picture that emerges is unable to capture the many regional variations in dominance and power. Sociologists and social anthropologists construe the term Sudra to include, but the category of OBC on the whole excludes, the so-called “dominant castes”: the Jats, Reddys, Kammas, Patels, Marathas, and others. The notion of “dominant castes”was coined by M. N. Srinivas (1966) to specify those groups which, in a ritualistic or formal sense of the all India caste/varna hierarchy, have been termed sudras, but the ritualistic usage of the term is vacuous because these groups have historically been substantial landowners and rather powerful in their local or regional settings. In any realistic sense, the term Sudra can not be applied to them, nor are they typically included among the OBCs.” Page 11
- Re> Please read the article and you will get the relevance. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
Note that even the dominant caste mentioned are not mentioned as forward caste. Plus these cannot be termed as sudras and are not included in OBC category. Yadavas ARE included in OBCcategory.
- Re> Why may I ask? It is based on social and economic criteria, and has caste as its basis. The whole of India is doing that. Is Ikon... the most knowledgeable among all? Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
“… new distinctions are also getting institutionalized between upper OBCs, such as the Yadavas, and the lower OBCs, such as the Telis and Lodhas. These differences have already undermined the OBC cohesion evident at the time of the Mandal agitation on the early 1990s.” page 12
- Re> you have not provided a single proper reply so far. Should we agree with everything just because you say so? Also, you raise questions about the authors of the references, but gladly accept the junk references provided on the Yadav apge, you do have an agenda. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
“By an large, the category of OBCs is equal to the Sudras minus the dominant castes. The dominant castes in northern and western India—the Jats and Patels, for example—have in fact opposed the extension of reservations to the OBCs.” Page 17
- Re > yes, you are right, and the reason is that the status of Jats in the Hindu caste hierarchy is not clear. While some mention them as Kshatriyas, and count them among the 36 royal tribes, others are not sure. If reservations were completely political, with no social basis, why don't the brahmins and the Rajputs get them? Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Kshatriya
“The upper OBCs, such as the Yadavs, are indeed peasant proprietors and also beneficiaries of Zamindari abolition. Much like the Patels in Gujarat at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Yadavas have achieved sufficient upward mobility since the green revolution, and have used their numbers to considerable effect in a democracy. Once can indeed say that they are fast becoming a dominant caste, and will in all probability be viewed as such in the coming decades. But the lower OBCs, such as the Lodha, Pal, Mali, Teli and Maurya, are not as privileged.” Page 17.
- Re > No, dominant caste means just that, dominant caste. Some castes raise their standard over time and dominate others and are classified as such. Yadavs are not even considered as dominant caste, let alone Kshatriyas. It is only now that they have started becoming a dominant caste. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- 4) Sanscritization vs. Ethnicization in India: Changing Identities and Caste Politics before Mandal
Christophe Jaffrelot Asian Survey, Vol. 40, No. 5, Modernizing Tradition in India. (Sep.-Oct., 2000, pp. 756-766. Copyright 2000 by the Regents of the University of California/Society.
See page 762… “In North India, while caste associations took shape at an early date, they did not prepare the ground for a resilient ethnicization process but operated within the logic of Sanskritization. These shortcomings are well illustrated by three cases chosen among the Shudras and the Untouchables, respectively the Yadavs and the Chamars.
- RE----> Everyone knows shudra word was used for Yadavas in british census, and wass a classic arbitration case before Buchanan.Of course these Shudras underwent furhther neo classification like OBC and Dominant caste.BTW OBC include beduva Brahmanas of south India too. If we apply your theory then they sd be Shudra. I don't know what is the point discussing it here. Ikon |no-blast 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re> you do not say what happened to the arbitration? Please elaborate. All my arguments so far remain valid. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
The Yadav Movement: Ahirs as Kshatriyas
The “Yadav” label covers a great number of castes. The common function of all these castes was to take care of cattle as herdsmen, cowherds, and milk sellers. In practice, however, the Yadavs have been spending most of their time tilling the land. While they are spread over several regions, they are most specially concentrated in the Ganges Plain where they represent about 10% of the population. They for one of the largest castes in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh with respectively 11% and 8.7% of the population. The Yadavs reportedly descend from immigrants from Central Asia, the Abhiras, who established kingdoms in North India. From the 1930s onward, intermarriage-based fusion was made easier when North Indian Yadavs started to migrate from their villages to towns. But this ethnicization process remained largely unachieved because the Yadav movement remained imbued with the ethos of Sanskritization. The Yadavs lent themselves to such Sanskritization because they had a special relation to the Hindu religion, owing to their association with the Arya Samaj. The Arya Samaj is an association too often regarded as purely Punjabi and confined to the urban middle class. The Arya Samaj did not hesitate to mobilize lower caste people against the Brahmins, but not against the caste system. In fact, they followed the path of Sanskritization. Their campaigns were especially successful in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
- Reply----> The only notable fact is the allegation that they came from central asia, which can be contended by other sources, like Abhira has been mentioned in scriptures, the most ancient ones. How do you relate them to central asia. Yes one historian, Dhillon, working on Jat groups has presented a hypothesis Avar saka became Abhira , but it is in nascent stage.Too much should not be read from it specially when author has failed to substantiate it. Phps it applies to Abhra Jats . Ikon |no-blast 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re> And of course, you have substantiated all your arguments?!! Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shahsis
The “Aryanization” of the Yadavs. The propensity of the Yadavs toward Sanskritization is evident from their attempt at “Aryanizing” their history. The first history of the Yadavs was written by Kithal Krishna Khedekar in the late 19th century. This work was finalized by his som, R. V. Khedekar, and published in 1959 under the title The Divine Heritage of the Yadavs. The book situates the origins of the Yadavs in the Abhiras and then the ruling dynasties mentioned as Yadavas in the Mahabharatas and the Puranas. Most of these caste histories try to demonstrate that Abhiras were of Aryan origin and that Rewari is the last representative of the Abhira kingdoms.
- Re> what?!!! Where did the river come from? Is the supporting evidence on that page like the one we have on the Yadav page? In such a case, I will go there when I want to have some fun and live someone else fantasies, I am no interest in going there. Please answer my argument here. You have played this game before of sending me to Kshatriya, Rajput and other pages. I don't want to go round in circles. Thank you. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- I checked the Ahir page as well, and the same mumb jumbo. Interestingly, the discussion there cites to Yadav page references as well that are junk (please see my earlier posts where I discuss them in detail). Shashis 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
This narrative certainly aimed at giving the Yadavs an ethnic identity, but the ethnicization process was embedded in the Sanskritization logic. In contrast to the lower caste leaders of Maharashtra and South India—who tried to invent a bahujan or a Dravidian identity that presented the Shudras and Untouchables as the original inhabitants of the country against the Aryans—the Yadavs claim that they are Aryans in order to enhance their status within caste society. Thus, Yadavs, largely because of the influence of the Arya Samaj, remained imbued with the ethos of Sanskritization. It prevented them from developing an emancipatory identity like in the West or in the South.”
Further continues to write,
“The untouchables of North India were also exposed to the influence of the Arya Samaj at the turn of the 20th century. This is evident from the Jatav movement in Uttar Pradesh. Jatavs are Chamars, Untouchable leather workers, who claim descent from the Yadu race, which, allegedly, entitled them to be known as Kshatriyas like the Yadavs, and once again the Arya Samaj missions were responsible for propagating these views. They were especially successful through their schools among the sons of Agra Chamars who had become rich thanks to the Leather trade. They were drawn by the teachings of Swami Manikchand Jatavaveer (1897-1956). He was one of the founders of the Jatav Mahasabha In 1917. He was a teacher in an Arya Samaj-run school of Agra. Together with Sunderlal Sagar (1886-1952) and Swami Prabhutananda Vyas (1877-1950), they all preached moral reform, vegetarianism, teetotalism, and temperance for achieving a cleaner status. That was also the first inclination of Swami Achhutananda (1879-1933), who was to become a major Untouchable leader of the united Provinces in the 1920s-30s.”
- Reply----> Yes, Yadus had escaped into many regions after Mahabharata, and the claim may be true. But all clans around which Krishna's life revolves are found in Ahirs only, maybe some of them for some reason became jatav too.Honestly I cannot write much on this topic. Ikon |no-blast 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC Re >
- finally, a breath of fresh air. For your information, you cannot write about anything we have talked about so far. You basically have no evidence to support your fanstasies. I know I am being hash on you, but you have been extremely rude with me so far, and have played games with me by removing whatever I write and then making false allegations. I will make sure you understand the consequences of your behavior, at least once. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shahsis
- 5) The Affirmative Action Debate in India
Dharma Kumar Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Mar., 1992), pp. 290-302.
At the time of publication, the author was a Professor of Economics in the Delhi School of Economics.
Regarding the Mandal Commission report, the paper says,
“The procedure followed for the calculation of the proportion of OBCs in central government employment was even worse. The commission’s secretary wrote to central government offices asking them to state the number of OBCs employed, using two criteria. First, the employee, if Hindu, should not be a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya (the three upper castes broadly defined). Secondly—and this is crucial—the employees father or grandfather should not have studied beyond the primary level.”
In the paper, citation is provided from the Mandal report. Note that the Yadavs are ruled out as Kshatriyas, otherwise they would not be included in the OBC group.
- Re> Yes, and Yadavs accepted the census as correct when they were asked. Now what has changed? Also, the references that I have provided refer to other sources of their information as well. This is a false propaganda that the census is the only source. The census was based on other sources, and there are other sources. Please read th articles that I have refrenced, and they have many more references. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- 6)The Distribution of Selected Castes in the North Indian Plain
Joseph E. Schwartzberg Geographical Review, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Oct., 1965), pp. 477-495.
Presents the status of castes from authoritative references and shows Rajputs as Warriors and landowners (Kshatriya occupation) and Ahirs as Cowherds and cultivators.
- Reply-----> No here you are wrong for Rajputs refer Todd and refrain from relying on these journals when we have plethora of information regarding Ahirs spanning from Manushmriti to Mahabharata, and numerous other scriptures, so these conclusions ,may not be relied upon. Ikon |no-blast 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re > I have quoted the article as it says, and it is relaiable, much more than what you have presented so far, the word of a biased anonymous person. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- P.S.----> "Word of a biased anonymous person", Also mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. 221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re > I have quoted the article as it says, and it is relaiable, much more than what you have presented so far, the word of a biased anonymous person. Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
Says about the Ahirs..
“The Ahir, or Goala (go, cow; wala, person) as he is known in the eastern part of the study area, is, his name and reputation notwithstanding, more than a milkman, grazier, and breeder of cattle; he is a member of one of the largest and most widespread cultivating castes of India. ……In status they rank somewhat lower than the Kurmis and slightly higher than the Lodhs …”
- What is he here are you talking abt one person .Its amazing really I blv either you have typed something wrongly or you have intentionally misrepresented facts. first Ahir doesn't mean goala though they are part of it. goala as you put is not the right word it is gwal oK. If you want to go deeper it is derived from root word guha in sanskrit meaning hidden , cow (Gau)too is derived from same word.You sd read some scriptures rather to know about their real caste status. Ikon |no-blast 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re > it is a direct citation from the article. Where is your citation? reference? Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- 7) The Rise of the Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt
Christophe Jaffrelot The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 2000), pp. 86-108.
this article aslo talks about Yadavas and their caste status, basically the same things discussed so far. Shashis 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Shashis
- In future take care of the fact that these conclusions will not be entertained.
1)OBC = Shudra 2)Kshatriya = Rajput.And also don't copy and paste same discussion on different places it is not considered fair. Ikon |no-blast 08:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re> So now a lesson in fairness? I am new here, and you jumped on me with so many false accusations etc, and I have yet to hear an apology. The discussion concerns both Kshatriya and Yadavs as in both places this information is presented. Let all people who are interested in the two pages discuss it and we can create concensus. Do you have any issues with that? Shashis 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- You are NOT new here, earlier you have used anon. IPs to edit and vandalise this page. I can guess you are just one of those ban evading Rajput TROlls, else you sd disclose ur real ID , because I wnt to see your other sourced edits , which you boasted with this ID as ur very first edit. The discusion also involves Rajput, which has been discussed well on Kshatriya page. Yes I wnt to tag Rajput page as caste= Mlechha. Do you have any issue with that. Ikon |no-blast 08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yadav discussion references
We are moving in circles. You have again made personal allegations. They are a waste of time and do not prove your point if you have any besides the fantasy about Yadavs being Kshatriyas.
In your replies to my previous posting, I have waited for a single good reference to come forward, and you have not presented ANY. I urge the readers to verify this.
You have talked about Rajputs etc etc, and I couldn't care less who they were, on this page. This is a Yadav page, and please prove (show published research references) to me that they were Kshatriyas, otherwise we need to remove your claim on the page.
- You sd show some real reasearch work , that they were shudra, what you have presented is what we refer as misuse of citation.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I have provided very serious references from academic journals that have researched this very issue and say that Yadavs are Shudras. Let us keep is focused. Either provide equally respectable references or stop wasting time. No matter how much you say about who I am or who the Rajputs were or what is the motive behind all this. I will not be dragged into these issues. They are not what we are talking about.
- You have abused the citation to proove your POV , this is what we call POV pushing and is punishable offence.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I have said before, I wish everyone were Kshatriya, however, I believe wikipedia is a kind of social service and should provide credible information for all to learn. Credible in my mind, and so in the minds of all educated people, is information that comes from reliable sources, and published articles in research/academic journals are the most credible of all. I hope we can agree on this. I will give you some more time to come up with references.
- I wish you wd utilise your time to read some good references and learn about wikipedia policy.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I am still not sure why you don't want to present the right information on the site. Shashis 01:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)shashis
- Your references have failed to proove your claim so we can't put them up here, or at least they are out of context. Try to present them in some other article where it may be relevant. BTW holding parallel discussion at two places is indeeed against the spirit of discussion , I find you agressive and unfit for healthy discussion.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- -> Reply: Obviously we disagree on several issues. They can only be clarified when someone actually goes through the references that I have provided and checks them. I have done this. This will also prove that you have not been sincere in the discussion. You cannot question the references if you have not read them. I suspect you haven't. I have quoted directly from the papers and the quotes are self explanatory.Shashis 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)shashis