Talk:Kachhi (caste)

History and Origin
The heading does not explain any thing about historical details of the caste, instead emphasize largely on the various myths of origin prevalent among the caste members. Hence the heading should be myths about the origin.--Mahensingha 12:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Shakya
is it correct that some Kachhi claim descent from the Shakyas? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakya&action=history. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Joshua Jonathan:
 * Kachhi is just a synonym for Kachwaha or Kushwaha. Over the time Shakya, Maurya, Kushwaha, Koeri, Saini and lots of other castes who face similar social, political and economic circumstances and residing in same region started having more interaction with each other. But this does not mean that they are all the same caste. Most of these castes are and historically were unrelated. Kachi or Kushwaha is something we hear a lot is because of their huge population in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and MP. This misleads us in presuming that Shakya and Kushwaha or Kachhi are same, when actually they are not.


 * Changes in the Shakya article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya) is misleading that Shakya people in North India adopted Shakya surname. This is the first time I am seeing someone say that as I myself do research on North Indian castes and never heard anyone saying that. There is no evidence or proof at all anywhere which says that Shakya population in present times has falsely adopted a surname which was not theirs. Also Shakyas are not just in India, they are in Nepal also. Did they also adopt the surname ? The Shakya article itself needs more detailed profiling of Shakya population in present time which I will do as soon as possible.


 * I ask here to provide me one, just one, reliable evidence that Shakya people who are currently living have falsely adopted the Shakya surname.
 * And if you cannot then remove the misleading first line from the article.
 * Additions on wiki must be done based on evidence not because you don't have time to dig deeper or you are just biased or maybe just dont care." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 24 July 2015


 * great, now we are talking! And I think you've completely misunderstood: nobody says that the Shakyas adopted their surname; it is being said that some Kachhi trace their lineage to the Shakyas. let's see what Sitush says. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Shall we also assume that Tsering Shakya, Ming Zhen Shakya, and Thich Nhat Hanh are descendants of the ancient Shakyas until evidence is provided that they have falsely adopted that surname? According to information that was once in the Shakya article until it was removed for unknown reasons, the term Śākya, or the Pāli equivalent, was once applied generally to followers of the Buddha, or some subset thereof. Indeed, according the article on Newar Buddhism, “Shakya” is still the name of a Buddhist priestly profession in Nepal.


 * According to traditional Buddhist accounts (such as the commentary to the Dhammapada verse 47; not sure if these events are described in the tipitika per se), the Shakyas were almost all massacred during the Buddha’s lifetime and their state was absorbed into Kosala. I wonder how far back sources go that dispute the extinction of the Shakyas. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: 1) First of all, as I said Kachhi is just a synonym for Kachwaha or Kushwaha caste which is a well known fact. Shakya and Maurya population is sometimes persumed to be Kachi/Kushwaha because
 * a) similar geological location and economic/political interests leading to more interaction with them.
 * b) Kushwahas are in very huge numbers.

2) Example: Do you really think Mauryas are Kachhis ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachhi_(caste) Is there any historical background proving or even saying that Mauryas and Kachwahas are same. Yet, today Mauryas are misundertsood as Kachhis and the same misconceptions are written in wikipedia due to lack of desire to research by wiki editors.

Or you will say that present Mauryas are actually Kachhis who adopted the ancient 'Maurya' surname ? Ancient Mauryas were not even massacred, so where did they go then ?

3) @Greg Pandatshang A) First "almost all massacred" does not mean "all massacred". And that happened more than 2000 years ago, enough time for remaining people to increase in population once again. Moreover thats the reason that there are not many Shakyas presently.

B) Shakya does not only mean the members of Buddha's family. Shakyas were common people also. Thats why Shakya was a republic not a kingdom, Shuddhodhana was a leader of Shakya republic not a monarch/king. Shakyas were there even before Buddha's family. Shakyas were there is other regions as well. So they all got massacred ? Gautama Buddha's cousin Pandu Shakya went to Sri Lanka and has their own generation and history. Did they also got massacred ? Is that even possible ? Doesn't that defy common sense ?


 * So, what's your point? You're stating again "Mauryas are Kachhis," which you contest; the point is the reverse, and different: some Kachhis claim descent from the Shakyas. The claim may be a fact (I don't know); but you reverse the statement, and go on about "Shakya and Maurya population is sometimes persumed to be Kachi/Kushwaha." That's not what this descendence-claim is about.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no historical evidences that either Mauryas or Shakyas were Kachhi. Its simply a process of Sanskritization in India which was successful in case of Rajputs and Kayasthas(with doubts), Yadavs got little success. Rest all the communities claiming royal order could provide no historical links and hence failed in totality. If at all there are any acceptable historical evidences proving the claim to be true, any one here is most welcome to project. Otherwise, all such claims and discussions have no meaning at all.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mahensingha

If we go by your logic then there are no Kshatriyas or Brahmins at all and everyone is just claiming. If you ask even Brahmins to provide proof they won't be able to prove that they indeed belong to the same lineage as ancient Brahmins were (no one used to keep DNA records at that time FYI), and the reason is that it is not possible to provide reference to something that did not change. If a certain community in a region held a meeting and decides to change their surname then we will have that documented somewhere. If there is no such proof of mass change then we cannot assume that since a community does not have proof that means they would have adopted the surname.

I have seen your comments in Kushwaha discussion and it seems like:

1) you are trying to prove Kachhi and Kachwaha/Kushwaha are separate castes and then grant Kshatriya status to Kushwahas

2) But you will need someone to be in Kachhi caste afterall, hence you are trying to prove that Shakya population in present times has 'adopted' Shakya surname while they are actually Kachhi. (which was evident by your change in hathnote in Shakya article)

Let me inform you a few things:-

1) Kachhi, Kachwaha, Kushwaha, Kurvaka etc all these similar sounding names are same community. The changes in names happen because of influence of regional dialect. Just like Chandra Gupta Maurya was known as Sandrokottos and Androcottus in foreign Greek and Latin accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya).

2) Without an organized plan and centralized authority is it possible for a large part of community (Kachhi) consisting millions to adopt a certain surname 'Shakya'. Moreover do you have any proof if/when they did that ?

3) Shakyas are not just in India, they are in Tibet and Nepal also, so were they also Kachhis who adopted Shakya surname ?

Have you heard of "Occam's Razor Theory". It says among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected Now which theory seems more simpler and with less bizzare assumptions:

A) Kachhi, Kachwaha, Kushwaha, Kurvaka etc all these similar sounding names are same community. The changes in names happen because of influence of regional dialect. Just like Chandra Gupta Maurya was known as Sandrokottos and Androcottus in foreign Greek and Latin accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya).

B) Millions of people of Kachhi community scattered at different part with no internet/phone or any centralized authority (who were already claiming lineage from Kush, the son of Lord Rama) started to say "hey have of heard of Shakya they were also Kshatriya, so lets dump our claim that Kushwaha came from Kush and lets start calling ourselves Shakya, that would be fun !"

I agree that some individuals in Kushwaha community use misleading surnames like Verma, Singh, Kushvanshi, Maurya, even Suryavanshi, Raghuvanshi also, but these are individual cases cannot be used a defining factor for wiki articles.

@Joshua Jonathan

Please read my reply to Mahensingha (above), you will understand my point.


 * "Sanskritization" is the relevant context; thanks.
 * @Both: the disputed claim is still not that "Mauryas or Shakyas were Kachhi," but that "some Kachhis claim descendance'' from the shakyas." It's not relevant if this claim itself is "correct" or not; the only releavnt questions are: is this claim being made,and is there a relaible source for it? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with User:Joshua Jonathan, any thing supported with reliable sources is most welcome but the self assumptions even if practically prevalent are needless to discuss. The discussion must focus on what the reliable sources suggest.--MahenSingha (Talk) 05:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Shakya by User:122.171.85.85/User:Truth only 1 diff

@Joshua Jonathan

Earlier there was no hatnote and I had no issues with this article. I think you were not paying attention to the hatnote changes that were being made recently. Let me tell you by example:-

The previous hatnote was this:

'''This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the Kachhi community of North India who adopted "Shakya" surname, see Kachhi (caste)'''

Now, this misleads a general reader to think

1) Shakyas were only in ancient times and they are not alive anymore.

2) Which further implies that everyone from North India or anywhere else who uses Shakya surname is a Kachhi. Which is false because the Shakya state itself was from North India and hence most people using Shakya surname are infact Shakyas not Kachhis.

There can be individual instances where Kachhis/Kushwahas use Shakya surname but then they use a lot of different surnames from other castes as I mentioned in my last comment. This cannot be used as an excuse to make the entire Shakya community a Kachhi/Kushwaha.

The current hatnote is this:

'''This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the community of North India who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan, see Kachhi (caste).'''

Now this also misleads a general reader to think Shakyas were only in ancient times and they are not alive anymore BUT atleast it does not imply that anyone who is currently using Shakya surname is a Kachhi/Kushwaha. It leads a user to understand that "ok there are Kachhis/Kushwahas who claim lineage from Shakya. They may or may not be using Shakya surname"

I would request to modify this hatnote to reflect something like this:

'''This article is about the history of Shakya clan. For the community of North India who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan, see Kachhi (caste).'''

And then

In Shakya article: we can later add current demographic of Shakya population in various regions, their current conditions etc

In Kushwaha/Kachhi article: we can add their various claims to Kush, Maurya, Shakya etc while specifically informing that these are seprate castes whose surname Kachhi/Kushwahas sometimes copy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 July 2015

--- Also I am seeing a trend in this article that admins add something (example this hatnote which is recently added) without providing any evidence and when someone tries to correct it then they ask evidence from them. Anyone adding anything to an article must do that by providing evidence in the first place, which would save us from wasting our time on sunday. If I am admin then I can add that Shakya came from a far away planet and then ask evidence to revert it. There wont be evidence saying that they did not, because there are evidences for things that changed/happened NOT for things that did not change/happen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 July 2015

---


 * Wrong article. This article is not about the Shakyas.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Transferring all the comments on Kachhi talk page to Shakya talk page. Please discuss there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.85.85 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 July 2015


 * You can discuss the hatnote at the Shakya-talkpage; the Kachhi-origins are to be discussed here. Please stop messing-up the talkpages, and try to be more to the point.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakya-origins
Let's try again: some Kachhi's claim descent from the Shakya's: Sources please, not your personal opinions and analysis. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources which state that some Kachhi's make this claim?
 * Are there reliable sources which say that this claim is nonsense?

shakya-caste.blogspot

 * shakya-caste.blogspot, Shakya: "Shakya clan is also known as Maurya and Kushwaha. Kushwahas, in Rajasthan’s regional dialect, are also pronounced as Kachwaha or Kachhi."

Okay, clear: this claim is being made. No matter how (un)realiable this claim is, it is a claim. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, correction: it only speaks about the present-day community, not about origins.

Joshua-project

 * joshuaproject.net, Kachhi, Hindu in India:
 * "Depending on the region, the Kachhi claim a variety of different origins. According to the Uttar Pradesh state Kachhi, they are the descendants of King Ikshavaku from the south of Nepal. However the Kachhi in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi claim ancestry in Kush (the son]].  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC) of one of Vishnu's incarnations, Rama). These Kachhi also see a link between them and the Kacchwaha Rajputs."

No mention of the Shakyas; apparently there are several origin-myths for the Kachhis. See also [[Kushawa#Identification as Kushwaha Kshatriya

Shakya-surname
Some Kachhi's adopted the "Shakya" surname: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources which state that some Kachhi's adopted the "Shakya" surname?

Encyclopedia of Dalits

 * Sanjay Paswan, Pramanshi Jaideva (2002), Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India, Volume 7, Gyan Publishing House, p.318: "Kachhi Shakya."

Gyan Publishing House is highly unreliable. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion
I've seen enough. No claim for Shakya-origins; the hatnote at Shakya does not mention anymore this claim; the Kachhi-article also doesn't make this claim. As long as there is no reliable source, there is also no need to make such a claim. Cheers,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan

Thanks for taking your time to understand and research on this topic. Weekend is over, as soon as I get time I will focus on Kachhi/Kushwaha/Kachwaha articles. I had collected a lot of sources but lost them sometime back, will do research again. Unlike Shakya article, Kachhi/Kushwaha/Kachwaha is a very twisted topic and it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Regards, Truth only 1

Cheap Tricks
Mahensingha I have all the reasons to believe that you yourself belong to Kushwaha community. Its very well known fact that Kushwaha/Kachwaha/Kachhi are all synonyms. But you are trying to trick foreign editors into believing that they are different. You are using the lack of historical written material for your benefit. All the modern writer just made statements about this community what they heard without doing any research. But don't worry you cheap tricks are not going to work. We are here for many many years to come, so tighten your seat-belt ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.117.48 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to the anon editor: Please remain civil and assume good faith. Comments like the ones you made above will not help your voice to be heard. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page, and be sure to keep your composure. Thank you.  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say they are different. It sets out the debate. For what it is worth, I think the stuff you are complaining about was written by me several years ago, not Mahensingha. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Respected editors, I feel it to be a very difficult job to edit caste based articles. Since my username sounds to be Indian, hence I often face these oppositions tagging me to belonging to the caste of that article. Few years back I was a Rajput, then I became a Yadava followed by Jatav and finally now I am Kushwaha. No one bothers to realize that I am an editor too. Anyway, I am doing my job till I am permitted to do so. Thanks  and  to notice the event.--MahenSingha (Talk)  19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Kachhi, Kushwaha, Kachwaha (waiting since 2015)
Since you are more experienced in this field, I would request your help in doing so. This discussion was started in 2015, still no action has been taken, more due to laziness of us all, SEE
 * 1) There is need to merge Kachhi, Kushwaha. Kachwaha articles into one article. This is causing confusion. We are having three articles for same community, moreover all three article state the same thing. Matter from Kacchi and Kachwaha can be copied to Kushwaha, and then Kachhi and Kachwaha can be redirected to Kushwaha, to clear all the confusion.

Some Proofs:
 * 1) Excerpt: Kachchwaha (also spelled as Kachav h, Kachawaha, Kacchavahas, Kachhawa, Kuchhwaha, Kachhawaha, Kushwaha, Keshwala, Kacchapghata, Kush Bhawani, Kakutstha, and Kurma) SEE
 * 2) Kachwaha or Kushwaha clan SEE
 * 3) SEE
 * 4) SEE
 * 5) SEE
 * 6) again Kachhi and Kachhwaha SEE
 * 7) SEE
 * 8) SEE

You shud read this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

- input requested

Lbus dumbledoor (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * please be so kind to expose your previous avatar(s).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with JJ. However, to address the main point, being part of a wider community doesn't necessarily mean "merge". If we did that, all Brahmin community articles would end up under Brahmin, for example. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am Batman, by the way !


 * 1) You are correct in that sense.But what you are referring to is different Brahmin varna communities who claim to be from Brahmin varna. These communities are also associate communities, but Mishra and bhattacharya for example are two separate communities.


 * 1) But here we have a separate situation,  these three names Kacchi, Kushwaha and Kachwaha are not 3 different communities. These names are synonyms just like India, Bharat, Hindustan, Republic of India; OR like The Parmar,Panwar, Punwar, Ponwar, Paramara - we don't have separate pages for each. Please take this into consideration.

please see this: Excerpt: Kachchwaha (also spelled as Kachav h, Kachawaha, Kacchavahas, Kachhawa, Kuchhwaha, Kachhawaha, Kushwaha, Keshwala, Kacchapghata, Kush Bhawani, Kakutstha, and Kurma) SEE

Thank you. Lbus dumbledoor (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Books published by General Books LLC, such as the one you link, are not reliable. They just repackage Wikipedia articles. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

2402:3A80:D65:4EF6:E06E:1F91:AC11:6DBD (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC) I would too support the case of merging Kachhi, Kushwaha and Kachwaha, after all if they mean the same. There is no point of having different articles on the same thing, probably sub-sections in the same article would work. Example, like most of the people, have nickname(s), when you call a person by his name or nickname, the same person you would mean everytime. But when you receive a invitation letter to an event, it may be referred as "To Johnson's Family", that doesn't mean that every person in the house, is same but still they might have nickname(s). (As in case if you believe castes under Brahmin Varna this way should have been in one article)

Kushwaha
In wikipedia why there is sudra written in classification though we r Kshatriya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.236.185 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

i have some information about this community kushwah, kachhi kachwaha keshwala, kashi are same

kachhi and kashi are same caste there is so many region and buddhist book mention their surname as kashi not kachhi both are same sound word i m using kashi nd my caste certificate made name of kashi because kachhi or kashi both are same

shakya samaj also agreed with it kashi is oldest name of maurya but hindus text maurya caste belong to muri nd murao not kashi or kachhi because according hindus scripture kachhi or kachhwaha word come from (kachh) tortoise but jain and buddhist scripture mention that the oldest kachhi origin state was kashi varanarsi up you are also prefered mahajanapad books and history empire you will found the kashi kingdom in vanarasi tht state goes to raja pransajit kashi after gautam buddha, raja pransajit was next king of ayodhya or saket nagar its very similar as kashi or kachhi hence that is the main reason why kachhi are claiming from shakya dynasty bcoz after budhha there was kashi naresh who take over the shakya empire ... now what is the link b/w kashi and kachhi you can found them in caste certificate both are same and that the biggest reason why kachhi population are more in up side..

shakya samaj and buddhist said that in hindu scripture using word only kurm and kachh didnt write any history about kashi or kachhi or shakya or koshala or kushavati reason behind it kashi and shakya are more connected with jainism and buddhism if you seem their claiming empire maurya empire (hindu jain budh) kalinga empire kharval (jainism) narvar gwalior kingdom (made architecture of jain saint mahavira ) kachwaha jaipur old name is jainara kingdom (oldest jainist place) hindu kush ( in history that placed belong to buddhist region) shakya empire (buddh related) kashi kingdom and kamboj kindom ( jain and budh related)

there is no hindu caste connected with jainism buddhism .. like them why in hathigumpha odissa archeologist found some sanskrit slok https://www.jatland.com/home/Kaswan

https://www.jatland.com/home/Kaswan

read these link and checked the history of kushwaha

and shocking thing is that you can not reached this information everyone know kharvel kingdom in 2nd century there was no jaat system caste available in that time meanwhile you have to understand this


 * Please read WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

i added sub division of kachhi from this book Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste ... by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya

check page no 300 of this book

Publication date 1896 Publisher Thacker, Spink Collection americana Digitizing sponsor Google Book from the collections of University of Michigan Language English Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb. Copyright-region US Identifier hinducastesands00bhatgoog Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t6b285k0z Ocr ABBYY FineReader 8.0 Openlibrary_edition OL20511692M Openlibrary_work OL13146042W Pages 705 Possible copyright status NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT Scandate 20071003 Scanner google Source http://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&amp;oe=UTF-8 Worldcat 11383590 Year 1896 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.206.173 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Kachhi or Kachwaha
If Kachhi is just a synonym to Kachwaha, why we don't mention in wiki. Elekktric (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes,it is 100% true. Kacchi is just a synonym of kachwaha. Chouhansahab94 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)