Talk:Yadav/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Yadav. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mess
This article is in a really bad shape -- a total mess. It's an ethnic propaganda piece ("unparallel example in the military history of Aryavar", for example), complete with pseudohistorical theories ("Yadav and Jews connection"). Needs serious cleanup. utcursch | talk 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Disinginious comment! Too bad Ikon |no-blast 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Another problem is that it conflates Ahirs and historical Yadavas without any credible scholarly reference. Nand Baba was not a Yadava. He was Ahir. The distinction between Ahir and Yadava is clear in Puranas, especially Bhavat Purana, although Ahirs are always spoken well off. Another weakness is that it fails to show the heterogenity and endogamy in the assortment of castes which now claim Yadava identity as part of Sanskritization .--Internet Scholar (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which Purana, Looks like You have not learnt anything beyond this internet, and your ignorance is evident from your setences. I see the article in the worst kind of mess, possibly after the edits of above duo, who have wilfully ignored entire previous discussion. ` Ikon |no-blast 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Yadav
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Yadav's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Porus Punjabi Yadava":
- From Saini: "We have assigned to the Yadus the honour of furnishing King Puru, who opposed Alexander" , History of India: (from the earliest times to the fall of the Mughal Empire) , pp 86, 91-95, Indian Press (1947),Dr. Ishwari Prashad, ASIN: B0007KEPTA
- From Porus: "We have assigned to the Yadus of Punjab the honour of furnishing King Puru, who opposed Alexander" , History of India: (from the earliest times to the fall of the Mughal Empire) , pp 86, 91-95, Indian Press (1947),Dr. Ishwari Prashad, ASIN: B0007KEPTA
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
JADHAV ARE THE RAJPUT........
JADHAV IS A RAJPUT SURNAME ............JADHAV ARE THE DESCENDER OF YADU VANSHI RAJPUT'S SAME AS BHATTI,JADON,GAUR SO PLEASE CONSIDER THE ROYAL JADHAV RAJPUT'S AS A RAJPUT CLAN IN MARATHAS,AS MARATHA IS A COMMUNITY OR ASSOCIATION OF RAJPUT ,WARRIORS,COMMONER AND KUNBI KSHATRIYAS...SO JHADHAV HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO BE CONSIDERED AS RAJPUT KSHATRIYA........... http://books.google.co.in/books?id=d8yFaNRcYcsC&pg=PA812&lpg=PA812&dq=JADHAV+RAJPUT&source=bl&ots=kqkluYZApp&sig=zkIBo3UKpvmOB0mMgpnstJO-rcU&hl=en&ei=6nEiSpKCBJKTkAXbm5D9BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lYSd-3yL9h0C&pg=PA475&lpg=PA475&dq=Khanvilkars&source=bl&ots=aClmCh04PN&sig=KA43BfJit8CPfFJXDrFxPbsHVXk&hl=en&ei=TBzOSdfmDqWK6APiwPTXAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result.--sonu 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Yadu or Lord Shri Krishna was not Rajput as the Rajput clan came in to existence in the period of 6th to the 7th century.Then why some rajputs say they are Yaduvashi's.
Yadavas are Chandravanshi kshatriya and descender of Great King Yadu son of King Yayati.Yadavs are known for bravery/morality/ When Rajput word tossed that can be concern. I am not sure may be 1009 onward and ruled smaller dynasties mainly in area of Rajsthan/MP.They fought/compromised with moguls/Britishers and retained there lands/zamindari till independence.Usually most of dynasties/kings area termed to rajputs that is 95% wrong. if that is true then there population should have been counted more than any other cast but that is no so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D murari (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no such clan name called yadav or jadhav among rajputs. Yes, there are few Jadon Rajputs, whose roots has been specifically traced to Sassanin Sakas, and are considered close to the afghani stocks, something equivalent to Pathans!!!
- Please note Yadav Jadon relation though is a possibility is too far away, to deserve a place here, at least not now.
Ikon |no-blast 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This article has lost a lot of good contents, because of possible erosion during last one and half year. Because, contributors have almost disappeared from this page and noise to signal ratio has increased. Some good wikipedian, possibly Non - Indian should take care of buried information, which is in the inetrest of wikipedia. Otherwise there are many websites which is not so noisy and would be happy treasuring, such great information. I see a bunch of editors flocking here, and changing contents in predetermined manner, leaving some misleading comments on talk page. Wikipedia need to do something for protecting good information. Sorry, I cannot remain active like I used to be some years ago. Ikon |no-blast 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Reverted to old version
This article was full of nonsense, with a lot of Rajput fiction. So, I have reverted it to a better version. Ikon |no-blast 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Besides that, a lot of anonymous, banned user edits in internediate versions. Ikon |no-blast 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Did you include your former avatar (User:Holywarrior) in this august list who got banned too? Or is he some forgotten evil twin you forgot all about? This article in its current form is pure and simple Ahir propaganda. All of the content of this article needs to be deleted and the article needs to be redirected to Ahir article. You have repeatedly deleted sourced content from both the articles (which should be one in any case) and repeatedly inserted edits which violate WP:SYN and WP:OR rules.
- Editors are requested to merge different versions, instead of reverts. I have again rv it because dec'9 version was full of off the topic subjects. Ikon No-Blast 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have rv myself to Dec'9 version, which is surely richer, but requires merger and clean up. Ikon No-Blast 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Saini Saini are not yadavs and would be rmvd from here. If anybody has concerns kindly share. Ikon No-Blast 11:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. All the groups presented on Yadav page need to be backed up by credible sources (not the Yadava or Ahir Mahasabha kinds). That said, the group that needs to be removed from this article first is that of Ahirs. They have the most preposterous claim to Yadava descent. It is a caste of cowherds which assumed Yadava name in 1920. See the references posted below :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yadav_caste#Yadava_and_Ahir_are_different.2C_not_same. There are gross violations of WP:SYN and WP:Source to claim the Ahir caste as of Yadava origin. Hope the editors will look into it and totally refurbish this article which now reads as the propaganda pamphlet of Ahir Mahasabha. The mention of Ahirs need not be of more than one or two lines as their Yadava geneaology is generally considered to be fake. All the content related to Ahirs should be in Ahir article--142.205.241.254 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
difference between yaduvanshi rajputs and ahirs
The Rajput clan came in to existence in the period of 6th to the 7th century and their ancestry can be divided in to solar or Suryavanshi, descendents of Lord Rama while the lunar or the Chandravanshi claimed their descendency from Lord Krishna. The third clan emergedthen why from agnikula or fire-born from the flames of a sacrificial Abu.then which caste Lord ram or Shri Krishna belonged to as when Lord Rama or Shri Krishna were alive there were no rajputs?.Were Ahirs or abhirs ruled India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raosaab7 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Serious cleanup needed
This article is in a horrible shape, ridden with pseudohistorical theories, extreme [[[WP:POV|POV]] in form of caste glorification, and irrelevant bits. I am going to remove all these, and the huge chunks of text about the Ahirs -- there is a separate article on Ahirs -- please don't flood this article with text that belongs to Ahir.
Also, a distinction needs to be made between the modern people calling themselves "Yadav" and all the castes and tribes claiming descent from Yadu. Just because King Porus belonged to a tribe that claimed descent from Yadu doesn't mean that this article can have a full paragraph on how Porus was a "Yadav" king. I guess a good idea would be to create an article at Yaduvanshi for things like these. utcursch | talk 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yadava and Ahir are different, not same
- ibid. : The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India, Page 205, Nandini Gooptu, Cambridge University , Press, 2001
There are many more that can be easily found on the Google Books. Some more are given below:
- ibid. :Land tenure and peasant in South Asia, Page 198, Robert Eric Frykenberg, Manohar, 1984 - Political Science -
- ibid. : Caste and race in India, Page 450, G.S. Ghurye, Popular Prakashan, 2005
- ibid: Caste and the Indian Army, Economic Weekly, 1439-1443 August 29 1964
Please post the references in the artice.
--142.205.241.254 (talk)
The books are very recently (2001,2005,1964) published and have no authority over subject matter. The oldest like which flatten out the propagated theories behind Sanscritization. The more authenticated records are available from the British census of 1881. Which most of the books are willing to ignore, to justify there propaganda. With changing time, such false attempts will only blacklist such authors entire career and writings. Also everybody knows that state awards are no more fair and are used as tool to validate false theories suiting the powerful parties, who wont shame to doctor with the history for short/long term political gains.
But as at the end it is always 'Truth Trumps'. so good-luck for all falsity.
Raj the one (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The above claims about the difference between Yadavs and Ahir are incorrect, as the statements are based on most recently published books. These propaganda books like "The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India, 2001,2005" are written for certain implantation of falsity, based on which dubious anti-social and political elements are trying to rewrite the history which never existed in reality.
Such false books kept under-wrapped for ages and then surfaces at most suitable time to justify the actions and opportunities as available. The best example of such fake books with no authority what-so-ever is Manusmriti, which was circulated as authenticated code of hindu law, when Britisher try to understand the local culture. As no one ever read the book, it was doctored time to time to ensure the suitability for morons few to seek political and economical control over society.
Such claims try to prove that every one except Brahmins, living in India is either foreigner or slaves from yesteryears. We have dubious and religious books filled will uni-direction writing that all Kshatriya were exterminated 21-times by Brahmin lord who is so-called-immortal. All the others are either fallen Kshatriya or out-castes.
These are the means constantly tried since fall of King Ashoka, sometime to subdue Buddha, other time to content small time kings by proving that scriptures, which no common man even read and modified by physically lazy alm-seeking brahmins to ensure the constant flow of alms without justifications.
Sometimes these alm-seeker are willing to equate King with Lord on earth, without shame to ensure the food-supply at home. Same alm-seeker will try to subdue the king, one king start looking at the bigger picture to larger benefits of subjects.
These people at different platforms claims different varients like,
- All Kshatriya were killed
- All Yadavs were killed post mahabharat,
- All Ahirs were foreigners,
- Gwalas were traders, same as Ahir, not same as Ahir
- Ahir Vs Abhira
- Ahir Vs Aheer
- Yadavs survived, Ahirs taken Yadavs properties.
- Yadavs were not given kingdom by his father Yayati and hence no more blue blood.
- All the Rajput kings claiming link with Yadav kings are fine, but not the caste like Yadav, Bhatia claiming the link with Yadav.
- Those books qualify as WP:RS sources. The book may have been published recently but they all cite historical sources going back to 1920s. You are not allowed to dissect or question cited sources. No original research or synthesis is permitted on Wikipedia. Please do not make long disruptive posts. Thanks.--142.205.241.254 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yadavs were called as ahirs during British era census [1]. The cited source is from British era and certainly more authentic then the recently published propaganda books. If you still want to be ignorant for the same, mediator needs to be included for the discussion. No amount of falsity, propaganda books and false wikipedia doctoring can subdue the truth.
- Please login with you user id, hiding your identity behind the IP address wont do any good to your writing.. Come to your senses. Raj the one (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahirs and yadavs are ancient warrior castes and not rajputs?
Yadu was the eldest son of Yayati (father of Yadavs). It is written in the Vishnu Puran that he did not inherit his father's throne. He, therefore, retired towards Punjab and Iran. He had five sons out of whom Except Satjit and Krishna, three remained childless. Satjit had three sons Bibai (Biveya), Hai (Heya) whose descendants are Jats of 'Heer' gotra and Ahai (Aheya) who founded the Ahir community.
proof:- History of the Jats, Rohtak, India (1938, 1967)
Rajputs and huns tribe and they never used "Yadav" as last name or surname ever in indian history.So Rajput's clam they "yadav" use to be thier last name is completely incorrect and untrue.
ahirs and yadavs are one and the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.132.133 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
AJGAR:- Ahir,Jat ,Gujjar and Rajputs and all ancient foreing nomads and all same.
The Sisodia’s were of Scythian origin and historians derive their name from Sassanian, just as Jat derives from Gatae, Ahir from Avar, Gujar from Khazar, Thakur from Tukharian. The Scythian or Saka tribes were the last pre-Islamic migrants into India. Some entered the plains through the Bolan Pass, and settled in Rajasthan which is why some Rajput, Gujar and Jat clans such as Pawar, Chauhan, Rathi, Sial etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.132.133 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This article should be merged with Ahir article
This article is a fit case for WP:TNT. There is nothing in it except caste propaganda of Ahir Mahasabha. Following references (all qualifying WP:RS) prove that what is now known as Yadav caste is same as Ahirs who changed their caste name to Yadav in 1924. The classical Yadava term of Puranas already has a dedicated article as Yaduvanshi. Prior to 1924 only a small section of Ahir caste was identified with Yaduvanshi and Ahirs never used the surname Yadava as part of their names and were generally known as Ahir only. Now they claim , as does this misleading article, that every single Ahir or Gawli under the sun was a Yadava. Check the following reference to confirm:
- A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West, Volume 3 , pages 4-6, Horace Arthur Rose, Denzil Ibbetson (Sir)), Edward Douglas Maclagan (Sir)), New Delhi ; Madras : Asian Educational Services, ©1990.
Other references proving the identity of Ahir and Yadava in post 1920 context:
"One of the most politically active active among the Shudra castes was the ahirs or yadavs. In 1922, an ahir conference was held in Lucknow, followed by another ahir mahotsav (festival) in Allahabad in 1923, where a provincial mahasabha was inaugurated, with the new name of Yadav Mahasabha"
- ibid. : The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India, Page 205, Nandini Gooptu, Cambridge University , Press, 2001
There are many more that can be easily found on the Google Books. Some more are given below:
- ibid. :Land tenure and peasant in South Asia, Page 198, Robert Eric Frykenberg, Manohar, 1984 - Political Science -
- ibid. : Caste and race in India, Page 450, G.S. Ghurye, Popular Prakashan, 2005
- ibid: Caste and the Indian Army, Economic Weekly, 1439-1443 August 29 1964
--142.205.241.254 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Rajputs were never called yadavs and Ahir/Abhirs tribe /Yadavs are ancient warriors and same
From thousands of years and in all religious books and many well known historians have mentioned that Ahirs or ancient Abhira tribe and Yadavas are same people and they comes under Chandravanshi Kshatriyas.
However due to lot of increase in casteism today Rajputs and some jats wants to show and describe Yadavs/Ahirs and Gujjars as low class people.And many times write some weird remarks on this wiki page.
Fact is Rajputs are ancient hun tribes and were never mentioned in Historic religious or vedic books.The word Raja-putra in some vedic books which Today rajputs say and corelate that raja-putra means rajputs in vedic books is wrong as Raja-Putra in sanskrit and hindi means "Raja as King and Putra as son ."Kings- son" can be any person from any caste or tribe.
Jats were considered shudras in hinduism by bhramins however the great Sikh guru converted them to sikhism and improved their social status.And since then they became above Ahir/Yadav and Gujjar which left behind.
Rajput word came into existance in 6 bc .Their status were raised by bhramans of that era who used to protect them and donate money and in return bhramins gave them top status. Jats ,ahirs/Yadavs and Gujjars were considered shudras by bhramins as they were against Bhramins.
Rajputs were Huns tribe ,Jats were Getae tribe , Ahir/ Abhira ar Yadavs were Avar tribe people, and Gujjars were great Khazar tribe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.129.35 (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The references above prove that Ahir and Yadav are not same in historical context. Ahir is not chandravanshi nor kshatriya. It is a shudra caste engaged in animal husbandry..--74.198.148.73 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)--74.198.148.73 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation
I think the entire point of creating a disambiguation page at Yadav was to distinguish between the various castes/ethnic groups that claim descent from Yadu. This article was supposed to be about the caste in North India. But now, it has been turned into a vague, messy piece. To a reader unfamiliar with the topic, it would appear that there is a single "Yadav" caste, with sub-divisions such as Konar, Maniyani, Jadhavs, Sainis etc., which is wrong. utcursch | talk 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Disambiguation is not the solution to the problem you want to solve. In the historical context Yadav was always a caste. Because yadav history is roughly 5000 years old if not more, it is bound to be a challenging task. Ikon No-Blast 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, really? The "Yadav caste" has existed for 5000 years? Please find a source for that claim. The term "Yadava" has been used and is used by tens of disparate groups that claim descent from Yadu. Just because they all called themselves "Yadava"/"Yaduvanshi"/"Yadav" doesn't mean that they all belonged to a single caste that today forms the vote bank of Lalu Prasad Yadav and other politicians of Bihar.
- You can see this [1], which says, "Some Historians have tried to connect Abhiras with those Alpine People whose remains have been found along with Dravidians and Aryans in graves of Harappa ". Harappa civilization is assumed to be 5000 yrs old, and location matches with description of Shudra-Abhira kingdom of sarasvati valley, described in Hindu Scriptures. i hope you have no doubt Abhira are present day Ahirs, if not anything else. Ikon No-Blast 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, really? The "Yadav caste" has existed for 5000 years? Please find a source for that claim. The term "Yadava" has been used and is used by tens of disparate groups that claim descent from Yadu. Just because they all called themselves "Yadava"/"Yaduvanshi"/"Yadav" doesn't mean that they all belonged to a single caste that today forms the vote bank of Lalu Prasad Yadav and other politicians of Bihar.
- This article should be either about the Yaduvanshi lineage, covering all the castes that claim to be the descendants of Yadu. Or, it should be about the Yadav caste of North India/Nepal, with exclusion of dynasties and groups like the Wodeyars, the Pandyans, Konars etc.
- At present, this article just looks like a badly written ethnic glorification piece, with no defined scope, and full of synthesis and original research. utcursch | talk 20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, this book explains how the term Yadav, to denote the Ahirs, gaine dcurrency during the 20th century. Certainly deserves a mention in the article. utcursch | talk 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does deserve a mention. However, you should know, Ahir has been equated to yadav by Historians, indologists like Russel, Bhandarkar..... You should know every single known "Yadava Kingdom", has been traced to abhira ancestry. The article too talks about abhira king tranforming into Yadava kings, earlier to 8th century. Where are your claims???? try to learn something instead of trolling hereIkon No-Blast 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, you should know, you cannot list any community on your own, you have to show that some scholar talks about it in context of Yadav topic, and there are only two communities that qualifies, they are Yadav(Ahir) and Jadaun and none else Ikon No-Blast 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does deserve a mention. However, you should know, Ahir has been equated to yadav by Historians, indologists like Russel, Bhandarkar..... You should know every single known "Yadava Kingdom", has been traced to abhira ancestry. The article too talks about abhira king tranforming into Yadava kings, earlier to 8th century. Where are your claims???? try to learn something instead of trolling hereIkon No-Blast 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh, that's exactly my point. If Ahirs and Jadaun are the only two communities that (according to you) can be classified as Yadavas, then why the hell does this article talk about Konar, Maniyani, Wodeyars etc.?
- What I'm trying to say is that this article should be only about the Yadav/Ahir caste of North India/Nepal, and not unrelated groups that claim descent from Krishna/Yadu. There are tens of ethnic groups in India that claimed/claim descent from Krishna/Yadu, including several middle kingdoms. This article should either exclude them, and this excluded content should be put somewhere else (for example, at Yaduvanshi). utcursch | talk 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are researchers who devote full time on such topic, we should only tell who say what and nothing else. Ikon No-Blast 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, you should not forget Yaduvanshi, by this proper name belongs to only one community and they are Ahirs(and this is not the discovery of 19th, 20th century, you would find them in British census too), so you may end up with similar situation there too. Hence, it is not a good idea to make a separate page with that title which ends up becoming the same article. Ikon No-Blast 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since the move from Yadav to Yadav caste was undiscussed, I've moved this article back to its original title. Any disagreements can be discussed. utcursch | talk 08:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, for restoring the page. This page should only talk about referenced scholarly works w/o listing any community unless they appear in cited material. We can create a Yadav caste page too, because we need an article to refer to people who are called Yadav in newspapers and different articles. Yaduvanshi should redirect here and Yadu page should be immediately cleaned without mentioning any community name. Same should be done with other such pages. Ikon No-Blast 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Yaduvanshi Ahirs claims descent from Yadubvanshi Rajputs" is a highly mischevous assertion, as there is no history of such a claim, and all scholars think Yaduvanshi Rajputs are Yaduvanshi Ahirs. It should be removed ASAP.Ikon No-Blast 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no point in having pages like Yaduvanshi Ahirs, Gwalvanshi etc., because it simply replicates the information. similarly Page like Ahir clans is POVish. Ikon No-Blast 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Yaduvanshi Ahirs claims descent from Yadubvanshi Rajputs" is a highly mischevous assertion, as there is no history of such a claim, and all scholars think Yaduvanshi Rajputs are Yaduvanshi Ahirs. It should be removed ASAP.Ikon No-Blast 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, for restoring the page. This page should only talk about referenced scholarly works w/o listing any community unless they appear in cited material. We can create a Yadav caste page too, because we need an article to refer to people who are called Yadav in newspapers and different articles. Yaduvanshi should redirect here and Yadu page should be immediately cleaned without mentioning any community name. Same should be done with other such pages. Ikon No-Blast 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
yaduvanshi ahirs claim origin from yadu with proof so dont delete
Ahirs have yaduvanshi's clan and claim to be rajput origin:-
Yaduvanshi ahirs with rajput origin
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=typmTffGFMitrAf22YXbCg&ct=result&id=6uMhAQAAIAAJ&dq=jadubanshi+ahirs&q=ahirs http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&pg=PA182&dq=jadubanshi+ahirs&hl=en&ei=typmTffGFMitrAf22YXbCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=jadubanshi&f=false
By H A Rose
William crooke
Sir Herbert Hope Risley
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=mixmTaqENIOurAe_m9naCg&ct=result&id=wqeBAAAAMAAJ&dq=jadubanshi+ahirs&q=jadu Lucia Michelutti
Anthropological Survey of India
India. Office of the Registrar General http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=dC5mTc_bGMnlrAemme3aCg&ct=result&id=yWaaAAAAIAAJ&dq=yaduvanshi++ahirs&q=yaduvanshi+ Rajasthan [district Gazetteers http://books.google.co.in/books?id=z4YbAAAAIAAJ&q=yaduvanshi++ahirs&dq=yaduvanshi++ahirs&hl=en&ei=5S5mTfWtHovMrQei4eXaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATgU
University of Oxford. Institute of Social Anthropology, Research Centre on Social and Economic Development in Asia
By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=PA86&dq=jadubansi++ahirs&hl=en&ei=vi9mTZieAsj5rAfytNjaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=jadubansi%20%20&f=false
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=PA86&dq=jadubansi++ahirs&hl=en&ei=vi9mTZieAsj5rAfytNjaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Read this carefully: Mr.Sherring says, "Ahir says they are the children of Krishna Themselves and ahers are the children of krisna's cowhers".[2] Nowhere, it mentions Rajput connection.Ikon No-Blast 10:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Claim of Ahirs to be descendants of ancient Yadavas is highly controversial and needs careful examination
Please note that Ahir claim from ancient Yadavas is very controversial. First of all the present day ahirs who are mainly cowherds can be connected with ancient Abhiras only in a very loose nominal sense. Secondly, Abhira is no where treated same as Yadavas in any of Hindu scriptures. Prior to 300 AD there is no evidence of association of Abhira with Yadavas. English ethnologist Russell blew this myth in British era but these ahir spin doctors continue to blow smoke using loose conjectures and baseless assertions as historical facts. Here is what Russell wrote after examining all the claims:
"If the Abhiras had really been the descendants of the cowherds (Gopas) whose hero was Krishna, the name of the rival god Siva would never have formed components of the names of the Abhiras, whom we find mentioned in inscriptions. Hence the conclusion may be safely be drawn that the Abhiras were by no means connected with Krishna and his cowherds even as late as about A.D. 300, to which date the first of the two inscriptions mentioned above are assigned...Precisely the same conclusion is pointed to be the contents of the Harivanshi and Bhagwat Purana. The upbringing of Krishna among the cowherds and his flirtations with the milkmaids are again and again mentioned in these works, but the word Abhira does not ooccur even in the connection. The only words we find used are Gopa, Gopi and Vraja. This is indeed remarkable. For the descriptions of the removal of Krishna as an infant to Nanda the cowherd's hut of his childhood passed in playing with the cowherd boys, and of his youth spent in the amorous sports with the milkmaids are set forth at great length, but the word Abhira is not once again met with. From this only one conclusion is possible, that is, that the Abhiras did not originally represent the Gopas of Krishna."
Secondly, these those so called "Yaduvanshi Ahirs" are likely the descendants of Duawa Ahirs who are thought to be the illilegitmate children of Tuar, Bundela and Yadu Rajputs of Malwa and Karauli.
PS: The above sentence is not found in cited material, so you either show it or face WP:Block. Ikon No-Blast 07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC) WP:Block
Kindly familiarize yourself with the rules of English grammar before thowing book at other contributors. The statement you are referring to is clearly outside the quotes which means that it is not being attributed to a reference. Be a little less aggressive in editing. You have reverted the edits which were supported by reliable citations. Secondly, it is based on well documented cases of incidence of Jadubansi clans being assimimated into ahirs through concubinage which is also indicated by below reference frim Russell. Russell records Duawa ahir children fathered by Jadubansi Rajputs of Karauli. So it is neither disrespectful nor far fetched to speculate some of the Yadhuvanshi ahir clans may have similar origin. I know this second statement incolves a synthesis but I never quoted this in the main article for your to be worried about synthsis rules. As regards, Duawa Ahirs and Ranawat or Rawat Ahirs, the citation from Russell is direct and clear that they are illiegitimate children of Rajputs. No synthesis is required to state that much, although be assured I will not quote even this part in the article.--YSBhadauria (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
--YSBhadauria (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Russell has also recorded this tradition as follows:
"The Duawa or wet-nurse Ahirs are descended from the illegitimate offspring of Bundela Rajput fathers by Ahir mothers who were employed in this capacity in their families. An Ahir woman kept by a Bundela was known as Pardwarin, or one coming from another house. This is not considered a disgraceful origin; though the Duawa Ahirs are not recognized by Ahir by Ahirs proper, they form a separate section of caste, and Brahmans will take water from them. The children of such mothers stood in the relation of foster-brothers to the Rajputs, whom their mother had nursed. The giving of milk in accordance with the the common primitive belief in the virtue attaching to an action in itself, and held to constitute a relation of quasi-maternity between the nurse and infant, and hence of fraternity between her own children and her foster children. The former were called Dhai-Bhais or foster-brother by the Rajputs; they were often given permanent grants of land and employed on confidential missions, as arrangement of marriages. The minister of a Raja of Karauli was his Duawa or foster-father, the husband of his nurse. Similarly, Colonel Tod says that the Dhai-bhai or foster-brother of Raja of Boondi, commandant of the fortress of Tanagarh, was like all his class, devotion personified"
-The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: pt. II., page # 25, Robert Vane Russell, Macmillan and Co., limited, 1916
More of their history can also be read on this link:
The Rawat Ahirs who are sometimes called Ranas are also of same origin as Duawa ahirs.
-The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: pt. II., page # 25, Robert Vane Russell, Macmillan and Co., limited, 1916 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSBhadauria (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
PS - the references cited in the previous section all are based on assertive claims made by ahirs themselves which were recorded by sociologists. They in itself do not make historical facts. The fact remains that Yadavas or Krishna are no where identified with ahirs, gwalas or even the royal abhiras in Hindu scriptures.
--YSBhadauria (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSBhadauria (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is typical example of WP:Synthesis, You have misunderstood citation itself. Dauo Ahir are not part of Ahir community. You should read the Russels citation carefully, they are rather accepted as Rajpoots, and call themselves Ranaut/Bhanot etc., and Rajpoots accept them as Son-in-laws. Ikon No-Blast 07:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The citation clearly states that there are Duawa and Rawat Ahirs who descended from Rajput fathers from their Ahir concubines. These Ahirs are part of larger Ahir group according to the citation, not Rajputs. Any other editor can check the source reference. You are only partly correct that Rajputs take them as sons-in-law. They infact intermmary with Ravana Rajputs who have similar origin as Rawat Ahirs. Rajputs proper check the purity of blood from both sides of the family before contracting marriages.--YSBhadauria (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yaduvanshi ahirs are not Daua. Nobody till day has said this. Reason is:
1) They are not found in those regions where you are speculating them to be. 2) Any of the so called Yaduvanshi Rajputs have never been called Yaduvanshi. They have only recently tried to style themselves like that. 3) They have gotras like other ahirs, not like those of Rajputs. 4) Illegitimate children of Jadaun are found in many communities and their Got is Jadaun, not like Yaduvanshi Ahirs. 5) Your Raja of Kirauli himself is not a proper Yaduvanshi. There are accounts claiming his ancestors were cattle grazers associated with lord krishna, and so his claim is defective. Most probably he himself is nandavanshi. 6) Mathura has never been the seat of Yaduvanshi. It has always been associated with nandavanshi, and that is the case with Raja of Kirauli too. Yaduvanshis had long ago left that territory. 7) Their population distribution is in conformity with the till now accepted population distribution of aryan people. western side of Yamuna was the aryan population. They are in the western side. 8) Last but not the least, the benefit of doubt that these Jadaun had got from varous scholars for a long time has gone away after late 1980. Why? because, Darbazza is no longer considered to be Dwarka. Dwarka has been found at exactly the place it is mentioned in Mahabharata. All are now considering Yaduvanshi Ahirs to be true Yadava. If you have found something contrary, you should get it published somewhere. Ikon No-Blast 16:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not need to publish anything elsewhere as very clear citations are available. Duawa Ahirs may or may not be same as so called Yaduvanshi ahirs, but all of your other statements are baseless and can be easily proven to be patently wrong. Karauli , along with few other Rajput lines, are the only genuine Yaduvanshis. To the extent your statements are baseless and result of some conflict of interest can be seen from the following references (first one clearly refers to Karauli Jadubansi Rajputs as Yaduvanshi and Yadava):
"The only Hindu descendants of the Yaduvansi at the present day are the Jadons of the small state of Karauli to the west of the Chambal and at Sabalgarh or Jadonvati in the Gwalior territory east of that river."
Page 9, The tribes and castes of the North-western Provinces and Oudh, Volume 3 By William Crooke
"The Ahirs of Sanwara say that their ancestors came to the village from Karauli and Mathura region. In support of their claim they rightly point out the great similarity between their language and culture and that in Karaului and Mathura."
-Page iii, Census of India, 1961, Volume 14, Issue 3,India. Office of the Registrar General
--YSBhadauria (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Its a Joke! You are showing me British census records. You need to clarify why these people are called JADOON, which itself is a foreign word, coming from afghanistan. Show me some historical records, where they have been referred as yaduvanshi/yadav. Todd does not list Jadon as a clan Why???, and Bhandarkar has dismissed them as Foreigners.
- Ahirs of north India have come from Deccan Area, via Rajasthan. It is proven by the traces of language similarity and also historical facts. Ahirs of Haryana have more in common with people of Rajasthan and not Mathura. Ikon No-Blast 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its a Joke! You are showing me British census records. You need to clarify why these people are called JADOON, which itself is a foreign word, coming from afghanistan. Show me some historical records, where they have been referred as yaduvanshi/yadav. Todd does not list Jadon as a clan Why???, and Bhandarkar has dismissed them as Foreigners.
Your claim seems like your personal opnion. Do you have a reliable citation to back it up? Other editors here would be very much interested in learning what Bhandarkar said on this issue. Can you please quote the relevant reference in full which supports your claim? I and other editors who are interested in this topic will look forward to reading them when you post Bhandarkar's reference here without paraphrasing. Until then lets not make claims which we have not back up with a citation. Regards.--YSBhadauria (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Bhandarkar identifies Salivahan as Satvahan. Satvahan were rulers of deccan along with their abhira allies. Iswarsena, their Abhira feudatory led a revolt against them and pushed them into northern region or lower Rajasthan. Losing their kingdom they became wanderer and were called Bhati(gypsy). Bhandarkar says, their satvahna memory has survived as legends of king salivahan. These Bhatis and also their allies who fought against iswarsena merged into Rajput at a later stage.
Origin of Satvahna is not clear, so we can't say anything about these Bhatis, even if we accept Bhandarkar's view.
Bhandarkar says every Rajput is a Foreigner! Ikon No-Blast 21:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Once agian a request. Please do not paraphrase or provide your own opnion. Please provide the the exact quote of original author. Please also do nto remove properly referenced edits without discussion unless it looks like a clear case of vandalism. Regards.--YSBhadauria (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Fort of Asirgarh
Please note that the image of fort of Asirgarh was also removed because it was a fort built by Chauhan Rajputs. Here is the proof that Ahirs had nothing to with it:
"The derivation of Asirgarh is clearly erroneous, it was known as Asir or Asirgarh, and held by Tak and Chauhan Rajputs from the eleventh century" The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: pt. II., page # 20 , Robert Vane Russell, Macmillan and Co., limited, 1916
http://www.archive.org/stream/tribescastesofce02russ/tribescastesofce02russ_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSBhadauria (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are detailed accounts of Asa Ahir having Built/Occupied the fort by many scholars. If you have an alternate view add it to the relevant page, don't remove it from here. Ikon No-Blast 08:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you quote some citations for these "detailed accounts"? The citation is clear that the fort is mistakenly associated with Asa ahir and was in control of Chauhan and Tak Rajputs. I am not going to fight an war with you on this. Please be reasonable cite the reference above which you have deleted for no reason. --YSBhadauria (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did you go through the article Asirgarh? Ferishta & several other mediaval scholars have given full account of How the fort was built and occupied by Asa Ahir.Then he shared it with Malik Kafoor, who had promised to protect the fort from Hindu Invader King. However, he slained Asa and became owner of the fort. Others too give the similar account. Some scholars do say there are reasons to doubt this account. Since Mediaval scholars have given such details about Asa, we cannot ignore it. However, you can add the doubts on the relevant page, citing the name of the scholar. Ikon No-Blast 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Can't Wiki moderators see that YSBhadauria is anti Ahir/Yadavs
YSBhadauria .Bhadauria is a Chauhan Rajput surname. He cannot digest the fact that Yaduvanshi's are descendants of Yadu.And are true Yadavs.He is hell bent to alter all historic records.
Even his Asirgarh claim was found mischevious.
Mr Bhadauria this is for you "proof that Asirgarh fort was built by Asa Ahir". I hope you can sleep better tonight.
Archaeological Survey of India Reports, Volume 9
- There was nothing "mischievous" about this ciation which clearly shows that the construction and possession of the fort of Asir Garh is mistakenly attrubuted to Asa Ahir:
"The derivation of Asirgarh is clearly erroneous, it was known as Asir or Asirgarh, and held by Tak and Chauhan Rajputs from the eleventh century" The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: pt. II., page # 20 , Robert Vane Russell, Macmillan and Co., limited, 1916 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSBhadauria (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is wrong to assume that the above editor is Rajput or cheatponia ... Let us say she is pretending one to be. Let me share with all, some years ago one ChohanJulie was active on Yahoo messenger asking people to vandalize some pages who claim to be kshatriya, however she was not a Rajput!! She told me that. Ikon No-Blast 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit repeatedly removed by User: Ikonblast
User:Ikonblast is repeatedly removing the cited content from RV Russell even when it is very properly supported by solid reference which clearly mentions "Ahir" in the title of the article and throughout every paragraph. The claims of Ahirs being actual Yadavas are disputed by many scholars. Ikonblast is trying to suppress the citation which indicates that Abhiras, through whom modern Ahirs justify their link with Yadavas and Krishna, were not associated with Krishna until 3 or 4 century. Russells commentary may or may not be ultimately true but the way this user has sought to suppress this citation seems to suggest a conflict of interest as this user might be a member of Ahir community. I am not going to fight an edit war with him but I am leaving the repeadly deleted edit content here for other neutral admins to address it:
"English Ethnologist, RV Russell, also commented that Abhiras, an ancient tribe from which Ahirs claim descent,[2] had no link with Krishna in popular legends even up to 300 AD. He attributes linking of Abhiras to Gopas or cowherds mentioned in Puranas and Krishna, to be a later development which resulted from assimilation of pastoral Abhiras with gopas or cowherd castes among whom Krishna worship was very popular."[3]
- ^ http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=389
- ^ Encyclopaedia of the Hindu world, page# 13, Volume 1 By Gaṅgā Rām Garg,Concept Publishing Company, 1992
- ^ The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: pt. II., page # 25, Robert Vane Russell, Macmillan and Co., limited, 1916
- There are multiple issues with your citation and claims.
1) Why you never point to the online material, when it is actually available. 2) RV Russel's work is dated 1920. He is of the opinion that Abhira came to India at the biginning of the christian era. This view is no more supported by modern scholars. The date was pushed back by Ghurye to before 150 BC, 1500 BC by BS Suryavanshi, and some skulls in Lothal dated 3500BC are very similar to Ahirs of present! 3) Russel neither offers nor claims any view regarding Abhira & Yadava connection. 4) Ahirs don't need to Claim desent from abhira, because the term is still in use for them only by Marathi and bengali Literature. Ikon No-Blast 20:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Book The tribes and castes of Bombay, Volume 1 says that Abhiras themselves were Yadavas. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=xm2ATbagEYPirAf-8szDBw&ct=result&id=fltuAAAAMAAJ&dq=chudasama+were+abhiras&q=yadavas
Rajputs are Shudra/Malechha
Rajputs are shudra caste who took birth after some muslim girls were captured and bred with indian soldiers dominantly Ahirs, so they claim to be yadav too. Historian Russel has categorically said Jadaun are yaduvanshi Ahir, but we also know, the links with muslims. Ikon No-Blast 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Now this is where I have caught the sincerity of your work User: No-Blast. This line shows your prejudicial self....I can not belief you can go to that length to make your point. --Manish0680 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Abhiras are Yadavas
If you have confusion between Yadavs and Ahirs please read Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA10&dq=lord+krishna+founded++yadavs&hl=en&ei=ivvdTcj6K5DjrAfD2_D_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=falseSumitkachroo (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Book The tribes and castes of Bombay, Volume 1 says that Abhiras themselves were Yadavas.
Abhiras supported Kauravas in Mahabharata war thats why they defeated Arjuna and snatched Yadav women from him
Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India
Man in India, Volumes 54-55
Ahirs (Abhiras) came from Eastern Iran
"The Abhiras who came from some part of Eastern Iran seem to have settled at first in northern Sindh."
Uttankita Sanskrit Vidya-Aranya epigraphs, Volume 2
Prāci-jyotī: digest of Indological studies, Volume 10-page-113
The tribes and castes of Bombay, Volume 1 By Reginald Edward Enthoven--page -23
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AqKw1Mn8WcwC&pg=PA32&dq=
Oriental studies, Part 1-page-57
The History and Culture of the Indian People: The age of imperial unity-page-221
Catalogue of the Coins of the Andhra Dynasty, the Western Ksatrapas, the ... By E.J. Rapson
The Age of imperial unity, Volume 2, Part 1-page-221
Advanced history of India
Geographical data in the early Purāṇas: a critical study-page-129
New light thrown on the history of India: the historical Naga kings of India, 6th C.B.C.-14th C.A.D.-page-76
Buddhism in western India-page-54
India as seen in the Bṛhatsaṁhitā of Varāhamihira-page-65
Some early dynasties of South India By S. Chattopadhyaya
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=78I5lDHU2jQC&pg=PA127&dq=abhiras+came+from+eastern+iran&hl=en&ei=9kOtTaaGOcjSrQeF_pz7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=Abiravan%2C%20in%20eastern%20Iran%2C&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raosaab7 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Havelis of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Havelis of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC) |
Varnas ?
In response to the various editors removing the mention of the Yadavs being of the Shudra (cultivator) varna, and particularly the one who recently gave as his edit summary:
| “ | kshatriya is different varna and sudra is different varna. So how can be a chandravanshi kshatriya is sudra. This is publish only in india today. But this is not true | ” |
The answer here would be "they claim to be Kshatriya, but most others classify them as Shudra", which is exactly what I added to the article, so there is no "conflict", just a difference of opinions which needs to be noted. So far as "only in India Today", that's not at all true; go to GoogleBooks and search "yadav shudra" and note the dozens of books listing the Yadav as Shudras. And if you seach "yadav kshatriya", you mainly get (in the serious, reliable sources) mentions of how the Yadav began to agitate for Shudra status around the start of the 20th century as a political move. I'm fine having mention of the Yadav's claimed descent, but we can't allow legend to completely replace actual history; both topics are worthy of inclusion. So please refrain from removing the word "Shudra" unless you can post references here clarifying that the dozens of other references are wrong. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are no results of Yadav Sudras on Google books however there are for Yadav KshatriyasSumitkachroo (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the late 1990's the Anthropological survey of India published several volumes on "India's communities', where it was said that the clans of the Ahirs (Yaduvanshi, Nandvanshi and Gwalvanshi) "recognise the varna system, six of them identified themselves as Kshatriya and five as Vaishya"
- Christophe Jaffrelot (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India. Hurst. pp. 195–. ISBN 9781850653981. Retrieved 23 May 2011.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sumitkachroo (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Labelling some one sudra is same as Ladebelling Indians as "slumdogs" and India as "third world country" ,These are derogatory terms which are used by casteists , or individuals with ill feelings to spread hatred.
- Some casteist wrote an essay on sudra and tried to show Yadav are sudras trying to please his ego .PLEASE before adding sudra learn the facts that this term was self made by "Brahmins" to degrade other Hindu communities. Those who oppose Brahmin rules was labelled as Sudra , Be it be Ahir, Jat , Gujjar or any other cast .Get out of sick mindset and please refrain from offensive words on wikipedia.Sumitkachroo (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm getting 701 hits for "yadav shudra" on GoogleBooks; not every one directly associates the two, but plenty do. Try that spelling instead and check out a few of the summaries. So far as the accusations of casteism and orientalism: all we can do is cite reputable academic sources. If you feel that Shudra is an "offensive" word, take it up with the academic world. And even then, the term was historically applied to the Yadav, so applicable here. If you're upset about the Brahmanical system labeling Yadav as Shudra, why not be likewise upset at their being labeled "Kshatriya" and then proudly displaying that? Bottom line: if reputable historical or academic sources apply the term Shudra, it is noteable and verifiable and should be included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Major rewrite needed
I've added "pov" and "rewrite" tags to the article, as right now (and it has apparently been for years) it is a mish-mash of conflation of disparate groups, and legendary/pseudo-history. Above editors have brought up very interesting concerns about this article unacademically linking the modern "Yadav" social groups to descent from Yadu, while plenty of sources available on GoogleBooks seem to indicate that the Ahir caste of Shudras began a historical revisionism campaign in 1924 to link themselves back to Yadu.
Among the many things wrong with this article:
- Terrible copyediting; many errors of punctuation and of capitalistion
- Terrible footnoting, with many bare URLs that can be converted to full cites in a matter of seconds using http://reftag.appspot.com for the GoogleBooks cites, and slightly slower but still easy to actually turn quotes from The Hindu, etc. into proper cites. There are also still some in-line cites "(Smith, page 23)" which is not part of Wiki format and should be turned into "ref" footnotes.
- Makes and proceeds under the assumption of milleniae of unbroken lineage. It's fine to cite that Yadavs believe this (so long as you're citing academic authorities), but to present it as "fact" is improper.
- There are far too many citations to ancient primary works. Nobody here is qualified to interpret the Rig Veda, Laws of Manu, etc. directly, so saying "The Rig Veda says such and such (footnote), and thus we can conclude" is terrible OR. Lacking any academic authority actually deliberately linking these Rig Veda stories to the modern Yadavs, all such material cited to ancient primary sources should be removed. Actually, in fact, I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and just do it now, as Wiki policy is very clear on not citing religious materials as though they were academic sources.
- There is a wealth of material online about the modern Sanskritisation of the Ahirs into Yadavs, and the fascinating politics involved, but this is given rather short shrift here, which must be corrected.
I will continue to chop, and will seek support from WP:WikiProject India. This article gets around 9,000 hits per month, far too much to let it be dominated by poorly-sourced assertions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you read this discussion page you will find one thing common that their has been confusion between Ahirs and Yadavs. However many have edited this page with ill intention of defaming Ahirs and Yadavs.
- Many have self stories stating Yadavs were Rajputs and Ahirs were sudras who claimed Yadav identity in 1924. which is incorrect in the historic records some going way back in 1555 and written in urdu says that
- "The state of Rewari was carved out of a jungle-jagir by Ruda Singh, a Yadav noble from Tijara, who obtained it in 1555 from the Mughal" .
- Now this Yadav noble belonged to Rao dynasty of Haryana who were Ahirs.
- All ahirs are not same as they are not confined to one place or state Ahirs are found in 10 states of India and numbered in Millions .
- If you would read this Page of Yadavs it says that Ahirs are classified into 3 Major groups are Yaduvanshi, Nand vanshi and Gwalvanshi .
- Now Yaduvanshi ahirs mainly from upper doab , Rajasthan, Pakistan, Western uttarpradesh , Haryana uses mainly Yadav title from Mugal times and beyond so saying all ahirs are Yadavs is wrong likewise saying Ahirs are not Yadavs is also incorrect that is why their is a classification and seperate articles like Yaduvanshi ahirs , Nand vanshi and Gwalvanshi , Yadav , Chudasama, etc. etc. So please move out of this cynical mindset and stop defaming other communities by labelling them as lower caster , sudras etc. etc. Yadav is one of the oldest and respected communities of India which has its historic value as Lord shree Krishna was born among Yadavs.Sumitkachroo (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- First off, please indent your replies by adding a colon to the start of your replies so they stand out from mine, and also, please use "Edit Summary" so people can see what it is that you're changing. Secondly, you accuse me of bias and then label the Yadavs as the "oldest and respected" and then discuss how they're supposed to be descended from a god? I have no problem including whatever legendary origins are applied to the Yadav, and have left those. What is not appropriate is to say "Yadavs claim to be descended from Yadavas, so let's spent multiple paragraphs discussing the Yadavas themselves." The Yadavas are completely not a concern to the Yadav article except to the degree that the Yadavs claim descent from them. Similarly, there are plenty of references indicating that modern Yadavs/Ahirs are a Shudra caste of herdsman, so that material should be included rather than being whitewashed out to avoid hurting people's feelings.
- It has been an unpleasant trend in such articles that people fill them with caste-cruft talking about how awesome a given caste is, and then when presented with proper academic citations labelling them as non-Kshatriya, then suddenly start stating that "caste isn't really important... but let's leave them listed as Kshatriya." I strongly dispute your changes, and have asked for more experts from WP:INDIA to weigh in on the issue. I strongly believe that the article has excessive detail on legendary roots that are only claimed, and applies extensive WP:OR to forge connections between the ancient Yadavas and the modern Yadavs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you have confusion between Yadavs and Ahirs please read Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava
- S. D. S. Yadava (1 January 2006). Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India. Lancer Publishers. pp. 10–. ISBN 9788170622161. Retrieved 26 May 2011. Sumitkachroo (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a glance at it, looks interesting. However, it's doesn't really appear to be a WP:Reliable source; Lancer isn't a very serious publisher, the book seems to treat Krishna as a factual historical figure, and the author has the same last name as the ethnic group he's writing about. So I'm sure it's an interesting perspective about how the Yadav view themselves, but not an authoritative work from a PhD scholar from University of Calcutta or Berkley. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Avnishpandey, 30 May 2011
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
as on your yadav page they are mentioned as upper shudra but the evidence provided by you some shows dey are uppar shudra ,some says they are lower shudra and some says they are chandravanshi kshatriya ,according to different states in india they have different classification so hw can you define them as shudra ower all .so sir plz remov it this is not fair they was many kings from yadav society they are kshatriya not shudra in some states like bihar they may be mentiond as shudra but not in our states like haryana, up so i humbly request edit these pages thanx Avnishpandey (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- In order to better clarify the contention of the issue, I've rephrased the lede to indicate that the varna designation has varied in time and place. It would help if you could provide some links specifying where/when they were defined as Kshatriya so I can better-reference that portion of the claim. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: by others. I'm going to collapse the template for now. If another edit is needed, feel free to change |answered=yesto|answered=no. elektrikSHOOS 19:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
hi MatthewVanitas,
as u mentioned cultivator(farmer) in ur wiki page for your information cultivator comes under vaisya varna (for reference u may go throw graduation level books of indian universities which is written by PhD holders) n now in modern india there are 4 category general,obc,sc &st.
where general and obc category are same there are some difference in economic condition. SHUDRA comes under sc(schedule cast) category n also in st.yadav comes under obc.in obc there are also JAT and GURJARS. yadav ,jat and gurjar are kshatriya.you knw the martial cast of india as defind by respected PM of INDIA Smt INDIRA GANDHI these are AHIR,JAT,GURJAR&RAJPUT(AJGR).i think u know the means of kshatriya so u may decide well.there is not upper and lower shudra u may also know that what is the mean of shudra and sir if you realy intrested in this topic then reference to books, on google everything is not available.
for you this may be topic of disscussion but for any society this is not topic of disscussin.
thanks matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avnishpandey (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, I'm not clear what you want us to actually change in the article. Can you clarify what you'd like to see different? I agree that not all books are available on Google, but quite a few of the more popular books, and those from major/reputable publishers are. I'd also disagree that cultivators are Vaishya; while there are undoubtedly people involved in farming in every varna, the Vaishya were historically associated with traders and the like. So far as modern OBC/SC-ST/FC etc. designations, those are also certainly interesting and any cited content you can provide on those would be great! Though the old varna system is no longer politically supported, it is of historical interest and thus should remain included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Temporary massive removal of some legendary history
There were quite a few paragraphs discussing the ancient origins of the Yadavs, but as I was picking my way through it, it appeared a well-nigh impenetrable mass of confusing data, and likely a lot of WP:Synthesis. Terms such as Yadava/Yadav, Ahir/Yadav, and Abhira/Ahir were frequently conflated, and it appeared at many (most?) times that info was included without regard for whether the cited author gave any indication that his topic involved the modern Yadav caste. The info is not "lost", it is cleanly preserved in the History tab, and its removal noted in Edit Summary and here so that any inclined editor can go back through it and carefully select the appropriate portions to re-incorporate. I submit that any info not specifically related to the modern Yadav go into the appropriate other articles such as Yadava and Abhira, etc. and that only material clearly linking the modern Yadavs to those ancient roots be included here. Otherwise, lengthy explanations of past groups with no clear link to the present group constitutes Synthesis, as it implies/pre-supposes a factual linkage when one may not be specified.
Again, I'm not trying to permanently wipe out this info, I just think the section was very unwieldy and contentious, and rather than pick and chip at it, it's better to temporarily wipe the slate clean, and then mine the past drafts to incorporate any usable data. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
YADAVS ARE KHASTRIYAS
There are number of reference in the form of books, ancient stone carvings and palace ruins. Like the suena yadavas of devagiri.
Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu
T. Padmaja (1 January 2002). Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu. Abhinav Publications. p. 34. ISBN 9788170173984. Retrieved 2 June 2011. Yadavs are khastriyas. please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see how the work you cite says anything about Yadavs being Kshatriya; the info you linked in is about the Velir sub-caste of the Ahir, and how they claim descent from Krishna. In any case, the page linked talked about the ancient people (which is covered at Yadava), not the modern caste associated with the Ahir and with cowherding/agriculture. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
For those who are confused between kshatriyas and sudras
Some editors on Yadav page are confused between Sudras and Kshatriyas.
The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race. There was a time when the Aryan society recognised only three Varnas, namely. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The Shudras did not form a separate varna . They ranked as part of the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan society. There was a continuous feud between the Shudra kings and the Brahmins in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities. As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras generated by their tyrannies and oppressions, theBrah mins refused to perform the Upanayana of the Shudras. Owing to the denial of Upanayana,the Shudras who were Kshatriyas became socially degraded, fell below the rank of theVaishyas and thus came to form the fourth varna.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6237429/Who-Were-the-ShudrasSumitkachroo (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Ambedkar (2008). Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. Gautambookcentre. pp. 124–. ISBN 9788187733331. Retrieved 31 May 2011. Sumitkachroo (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You raise some interesting points, though the Ambedkar book seems more a policy document and less an academic work. In either case though, I don't see how this contradicts noting that historically the Yadav have been Shudra in some contexts and Kshatriya in others. We're not here to make eternal pronouncements about The Truth, we're here to depict the course of history. Mentioning "Shudra" isn't a judgement, it's noting that the Yadav had been noted as such in some histories, which I've footnoted.
- As you're familiar with this subject, I could really use your help in laying out the issue of Yadava descent or no. As you noted, I removed many sections covering the Yadavas; my reasoning was that Yadava information not specifically-related to modern Yadavs should mostly be covered at Yadava, with only some bare summary here, as the reader can always go to Yadava for the full story. Further, as a reader coming from outside the subject, I just wasn't seeing any clear links (given in the text) to tie modern Yadavs to ancient Yadavas, and without that link the reliablility of the whole History section was unclear. I'd appreciate any light you could shed on that matter, as well as helping us come to an agreement here on the most accurate way to depict the shifting tides of varna over time. Thanks for your help, MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Originally, the term "Yadava" was used by a number of castes and communities that claimed descent from Yadu/Krishna. In modern North India, the term "Yadav" (when used in the context of caste) is generally used to refer to the Ahirs. Since the article Yadava already covers the ancient tribes that claim descent from Yadu, I agree with MatthewVanitas that the section about legends/mythological texts should be confined to the article Yadava.
- The scope of this article is not clear. Does it intend to cover all the communities that claim descent from Yadu? If yes, then it should probably be a disambiguation page located at Yaduvanshi. Or is the scope of this article restricted to the north Indian "Yadav" caste? In the latter case, we already have articles on Ahirs and the Yaduvanshi Ahirs, which duplicate a lot of content. Also, Abhira Kingdom and the modern Ahir caste are two different things, with the latter claiming descent from the ancient Abhiras. But, for an average reader, these articles fail to make a clear distinction between these related terms (Abihra, Ahir, Yaduvanshi Ahir and Yadav).
- The editors interested in improving this article (and related ones) may refer to the book The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India by Nandini Gooptu (page 205). It mentions how the term "Yadav" came to denote the Ahirs.
- As for the Sudra/Kshatriya status, it's just a political issue. Members of several castes classify themselves as the upper castes, while the outsiders (esp. the "rival" castes) classify them as the lower castes. Referenced attributions seem just fine ("According to X, this is a Kshatriya caste, while according to Y, it belongs to the Sudra varna).
- For the Indians who still consider the caste system as important, the varna of a caste will always been a sensitive issue that will ruffle feathers. But Wikipedia is not a platform for arguing about the appropriateness of historical classifications -- we should just present facts with attributions. Let the readers infer what they want to infer. utcursch | talk 14:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The more I dig, the more this gets both trickier and simpler. The current article lists amongst the Yadav subcastes "Sammas,[10] Ahirs, Bhati,[11] Chudasama,[12] and Jadeja". Zero argument on the Ahirs, but the last three all appear to be Rajput tribes. Do these tribes have any connection to the subject (the modern Yadav/Ahir bloque) other than also having a claim to be descended from Yadu? I fear such parts of the article are conflating "claiming descent from Yadu" and "involved in the All-India Yadava Mahsahaba". As I understand it (and the direction we're heading), the article is about the latter, and I'm having real trouble figuring out which cowherding/farming folks called themselves "Yadav" prior to 1924ish, who were then joined by renamed Ahirs in years following. I'm starting to get the feeling that much of what's in this article is going to end up in Ahirs, and that this article is going to end up largely being about caste politics, rediscovery of legendary descent, etc. And then anything about Yadu-descent castes not associated with the broad grouping of agricultural sub-castes can go in Yaduvanshi. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"However, their varna status is contested, as in some areas they have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra".
This again is very confuring please carify so that users are more aware of what they are {varna}, "which some areas they are treated as Shudras", who are those castes and regions?
You mean rival castes. Please rectify and clarify this mess of shudra and Kshatriyas. If Yaduvanshi's classify themselves as Kshatriyas then mention it same goes with gwalvanshi's whom upper castes treat them as Shudras.Sumitkachroo (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that more specific would be better, but I'm having a hard time pinning down more details. Honestly, I'm not really seeing much evidence that the Yadav are widely considered Kshatriya by non-Yadavs, though footnotes on that would be great. So far as the Yadu/Gwal "rival" castes; you've brought up some great cites noting that there are three kinds of Ahir, but we don't have any cites specifying rivalry, and we don't have any cites stating that the Yaduvanshi are Kshatriya while the Gwalvanshi are Shudra. The only mention I'm seeing that hints at a distinction is that the Sabyasachi Bhattacharya cite lists "Yadav - Goalla" as "lower Shudra". Can you dig up any clearer refs on the distinctions, and whether they're allies or rivals? I see what you're wanting to include, it's just that three out of our four refs don't make any distinction of Shudra/non-Shudra Yadavs, and one just refers to a specific Goalla branch as Shudra. Further, I think any detailed description of the three branches of Ahirs (other than simply noting it exists) should go into Ahirs. This page is about the term "Yadav" in the modern sense of the word, so specifics on Ahirs can go in its own article. Do you have many good cites demonstrating what groups fall under "Yadav"? Previously, the article claimed several Rajput tribes as falling under that, but as I understand it that's a misreading; those are Rajput clans claiming descent from Yadu, not clans affiliating themselves with the All-India Yadav organisation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 12.238.8.30, 3 June 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Seuna yadavas are related to modern day yadavas. The Seuna yadava ruled till 1334. but the dynasty fell down after mohameddan invasion. so yadavas were reduced in status. Actually all the yadavs in india claim descent from Yadu. There should be a connection and they are related to legendary ancient yadavs but having lost their kingdom they migrated to different parts of india and settled and some of them formed big dynasties.
http://www.sishri.org/velir.html
there are numerous stone carvings found in south india that mention how yadavs migrated after their kingdom fell in North india and settled. They are one and same group of people. Please correct them.
Source
http://www.sishri.org/velir.html In sanskrit the word yadav means descendants of YADU.
12.238.8.30 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, but
Not done. What exactly do you want changed or added, and to what part of the article? Please leave your request in the form of "please change X to Y" or "please add X to Y part of the article". Thanks again, Samwb123T-C-E 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Please change
" Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves.[2][3][4] However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra".[5][6][7][8] ".
to
" The Yadavs are descendants of the ancient King Yadu of the chandravanshi kshatriya clan but their economic status needs improvement".
The reasons for the statement change are
1. The name yadav in sanskrit mean descendants of Yadu.
2. These names were passed on from one generation to another by family genealogy. No one would just claim they are something else.
3. Yadavs are found all over India. All claim descent from legendary Yadu. There are numerous inscriptions which mention how yadavs migrated to different parts of India.
4. Seuna yadavs and chalukyas all claimed yadu linkage and these dyansties were in India till 1350 AD. The current yadavs are linked to these dynasties. Its just that the dynasty fell down and yadavs started living normal life.
5. the great vijaynagar king krishnadevaraya in his autobiography claimed he was yadav. krishnadevaraya lived till 1529. If only 500 years back the yadavs were ruling in some parts of India. they cannot just disappear into thin air. please read "Amuktamalyada" krishnadevarayas biography.
The ancient yadavs and current yadavs are same. Please put right info in wikipedia
ideally it should say in some regions as khastriyas and under some regions as shudras
Ideally it should say in some regions as khastriyas and under some regions as shudras. Basically in this world we can question everything. when a neutral author has classified yadavs are khastriyas there must be some truth in it.
Thne I can question the very concept of aryans and so called brahmins, khastriyas, vaishyas and shudras. In India everyone claims they are this and that. No one has a proof. In south India brahmins work as cooks and accountants in courts of kings. does it mean they are shudras. Yadavs are khastriyas and people are just being biased in saying yadavs are shudras.
Seuna yadavs lived till 1350. They descendants still live in maharasthra. The dynasty was destroyed but people still live. The meaning of the word yadav itself is yadu vansh.
In gwalior yadavs even a child knows yadavs are khastriyas. Please put true facts in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- You raise interesting points, but we need WP:Reliable sources to back them up. Your changes removed citations and did not replace them with competing citations, so I've reverted. Please spend a little time looking around GoogleBooks and see if you can find some books which explain these regional distinctions. Note that, as above, a passing mention of "Yadav Shudra" isn't enough, we need a clearer explanation of how the classification works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Neutral view should be put in
Many medeival dynasties claimed yaduvansh origin. so where are they now.They are in India and thats why I am saying they are kashtriyas. but due to economic situation classified as OBC. as editor u need to establish.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.149.143 (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Establish what? You are removing cited text, and it's likely based on the course of this page that your removal is based largely on "WP:I don't like it" rather than any real Wiki policy. The article explicitly says that the Yadavs claim Yadu descent and Kshatriya status, but that some other people don't believe them. Such claims are common throughout India, and people outside of that community being dubious of such claims is likewise common. If I just say "Kshatriya", we're ignoring the body of evidence that they have been classified as Shudra. If we just say "Shudra", we're ignoring the interesting fact that the community itself believes it is Yaduvanshi. I'm giving both sides of the story; are you implying by "Neutral view should be put in" that we need to remove the side of the story that you don't like in order to make it "neutral"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"Lorik Sena" - private Yadav Army?
"Upper caste private armies such as the Bhumi Sena of the Bhumihars and Sunlight Sena of the Rajputs now have their counterpart in the Lorik Sena of the Yadav in Bihar" -Sanjay Paswan; Pramanshi Jaideva (2002). Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 131–. ISBN 9788178350660. Retrieved 9 June 2011. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yadavs are khastriyas.
yadavs are khastriyas proof is as follows.
http://www.sishri.org/velir.html
Architecture in Dharwar and Mysore: historical and descriptive memoir - Page 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.8.30 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- First off, "proof" is not an issue. We're not trying to decide what they are once-and-for-all, we're just trying to depict different theories. Secondly, a website that claims to be a research institute is not very reassuring; do they have a peer-review process, have articles by reputal PhDs, have university backing? Third, the article already explicitly says the Yadav claim Kshatriya status, so what do you want us to add to the article? If you're offering this as evidence that we should remove the word "Shudra", no dice, because the cited footnotes from reliable sources explicitly state that the Yadav have been classified as Shudra in many cases. So please clarify what is is you want us to change, and why. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In the world famous sanskrit epic of ancient India MAHABHARATA, it is mentioned that Karna who was the son of Surya (a solar deity) and Kunti,but raised by Adhiratha, a charioteer (shudra) of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. When karna grew up, he became more interested in the art of warfare than in merely being a charioteer like his father Adhirata. Karna met Dronacharya, who was an established teacher in the art of warfare. Dronacharya taught the khastriya princes, but refused to take Karna as his student, since Karna was a son of a charioteer(shudra) and Dronacharya only taught Kshatriyas, or warriors. And during that time mostly kings were yadavs and yadavs were permitted to have education in Gurukuls like others khastriya's.So this is a centuries ago proof that yadavs were classified as khastriya's but not as shudra's. And more precisely a SINGLE CASTE CAN"T BE CATEGORIZED INTO TWO VARNA (here khastriya and shudra, either it can be khastriya or shudra but not both) according to POST VEDIC DIVISIONS. so yadavs are khastriya's.
refrences: 1.Hopkins, E. W. The Great Epic of India, New York (1901). 2.http://www.karna.org/body_story_behind_karna.html 3.Oldenberg, H. Das Mahabharata, Göttingen (1922). 4.Pāṇini. Ashtādhyāyī. Book 4. Translated by Chandra Vasu. Benares, 1896. (Sanskrit)(English) 5.Vaidya, R.V. A Study of Mahabharat; A Research, Poona, A.V.G. Prakashan, 1967
Inscriptions of Shudra dynasties declare that belonging to the fourth varna was a matter of pride. An inscription of Singaya-Nayaka (1368 CE) says: The three castes, Brahmanas and the next [Kshatriyas and Vaishyas], were produced from the face, the arms and the thighs of the Lord; and for their support was born the fourth caste from His feet. River Ganges, the purifier of the three worlds also sprang from Lord's feet. The members of this caste are eagerly attentive to their duties, not wicked, pure-minded, and are devoid of passion and other such blemishes; they ably bear all the burdens of the earth by helping those born in the other caste. so from this paragraph it is also clear that all four varna are different from each other and their originated point is also different. Hence a caste comes under a single varna can't be categorised under another varna.
References:Sastri, K. Rama (1982). "Akkalapundi grant of Singaya-Nayaka: Saka-Samvat 1290" Epigraphica Indica, vol. XIII. India: Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 259ff., v.5–7.Vikraantkaka (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
shudra is the fourth Varna in the traditional four-section division in the caste system. Their assigned and expected role in post-Vedic India was that of servants and laborers. The four Varnas are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. Yadav (Ahir) came under kshatriya varna. And more precisely a single caste can't be categorized into two varna according to post vedic divisions. Ref: 1.Shudras in Ancient India, R. Chandra and K.L. Chanchreek. New Delhi, Shree Pub., 2004, ISBN 81-88658-65-0.
2.Oxford English Dictionary, s. v. "Sudra" sic
3.Sastri, K. Rama (1982). "Akkalapundi grant of Singaya-Nayaka: Saka-Samvat 1290" Epigraphica Indica, vol. XIII. India: Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 259ff., v.5–7.
4.The Jati-Varna MatrixVikraantkaka (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- As those sources are unlikely to be online, can you possibly provide scans for people who are interested? The scans would need to cover a couple of pages before and after the relevant statement, otherwise there is no context. Context has been a particular issue on numerous caste articles and it is for this reason that I like to see the sources. I do realise that this has the appearance of breaching WP:AGF but in the past my requests have been supported by admins etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dear sitush if you still have confusion in beleving my sources which i have already mentioned above along with the centuries ago written ancient sanskrit epic MAHABHARATA that yadavs are khastriya. Epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana are the basis of hindu religion. so when you are diregarding claims from mahabharata then what other sources do you expect from me. It's my humble request to you first check claims done by Mahabharata and all my above mentioned sources then tell me whether you find true or false information.Vikraantkaka (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)