Talk:Raju/Archive 1

Subdivision origin

 * Another reason for groupism came from the profession followed by the different groups. As people changed professions, they also had to change names to reflect those professions. However they needed to differentiate themselves from people who were already using those professional names. So as people took up farming they had to call themselves Vellala. However since other groups were using Vellala as title, different groups with additional names were created. Thus were created the various groups of Vellala.Lathead 9:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting but what does this have to do with Rajus?--(talk) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Rajus community? if it is less than 20%, aren't they anti-social?
 * People marry within a social group because they like the customs and traditions that they grew up with and would like to marry someone with the same appreciation. This doesn't make them antisocial or bigoted; it's just a choice they make to continue their traditions. What makes someone bigoted or antisocial is if they purposely suppress or intimidate others for their own benefits.  There is not a great deal of oppression from Rajus.--(talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * It is certain that Raju community had an exalted past but, that does not justify giving an account of Andhra dynasties starting from Ikshvaku to Chola/Chalukyas and link up with them. Is there any hard proof/evidence for such all encompassing and sweeping claims? Thurston said that Rajus were not real Kshatriyas of Aryan lineage. Ponder over this!!


 * Since when do we need a Christian European to coronate us as Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras? As far as hard proof, check the references. Rajus claiming that they were descendants of Madhava Varma, Chalukyas, Kota vamsa, and Pericheda have been told for centuries. These legends have been repeated by Thurston and other references. It is clear that Vishnukundinas, Kotas, Pericchedas, Sagis, and Vijayanagar were Raju ancestors. Surnames like Solanki and Chola exist amongst Rajus. There is no link to Kakatiyas other than a marriage.


 * Kota kings who ruled Dharanikota were Kammas . Their descendents belong to the section Called Kota Kammas . They have surnames such as Kota, Sagineni etc. Please correct yourself.


 * Kota Kings that were mentioned in this article existed even before the Kamma Caste even originated. They can be traced back to the Telugu Cholas, during the 9th Century. Kota Kings were from Dhananjaya Gotra, which even the book on the history of Kammas states. Since there is no Dhananjaya Gotra, and there are no Kamma zamindars that can lay claim to their lineage, which Rajus can, how can you rationally state that they were Kammas. That's just plain ridiculous. Also Sagis were not Kota lineage, they were Chagis, further showing your lack of understanding on the matter.
 * Its ridiculous claim by kammas when all historians, old inscriptions from 13th century n Raju zamindari records clearly mention that Kota Kings were Kshatriya Rajus. None of the historians ever linked them to Kammas. All the evidenced have been placed in Kota Vamsa wikipage.


 * I wonder how these legends came about. If you go with Thurston’s statement, then how did families from different castes like Reddy, Kapu, Velama, and Kamma come up with a common history of their origins?  Did thousands of families sit down together at some secret meeting to hatch a plan to fool all the other communities about their origins? Thurston wrote during the colonial era when the British promoted the Aryan invasion and subjugation theory to justify their presence. According to them all north Indians were descendents of Aryans and all the south Indians were Dravidians.  This theory is proved to be false.  The Ikshvakus did rule in Andhra, there are proclamations in the Vedas to this effect, so what happened to these families?  Did they become Kapus? Maybe, but the Aryan presence in south India is also being proved by the genetic studies.  It basically states that all Indians are a mix of Aryan and Dravidian including south Indians.  Of note it showed that Brahmans, Rajus and Komatis have more Aryan genes than do the Kammas, Kapus, and Reddys do.  The difference is small but significant.  Also historians have shown that the number of Kshatriya families in Andhra was always small and some married non Kshatriyas.  It’s interesting to note that they still make a small amount of the population.  We might be able to misinterpret ancient writings but it is difficult to misinterpret genetics.  If however you believe that we are all Kapus, Kammas, or Reddys fine, nothing wrong with that they are accomplished communities also.  Think about this, Rajputs and Marathas claim to be Kshatriya but researchers like Todd claim that they are actually not linked to the ancient Kshatriyas and may actually be Hunas and Sudras so Rajus claiming to Kshatriyas and linking themselves to 3 or four dynasties which our ancient texts list as Kshatriya rulers should not be any harder to believe as Kammas saying that they are descendents of Aryan Khambojas, Reddys being Rashtrakutas kings, Mudirajs claiming to be Kalachuri, Salivahanas being descendents of Satavahanas and Kapus being the progenitors of all the castes and rulers of all Andhra for 2,000 years.


 * Thurston felt Rajus might not be connected to the Vedic Kshatriyas; his rational is that a true Kshatriya does not eat meat. If this is his main argument about what makes a true Kshatriya then there is no such thing as a true Kshatriya in all of India.  Rajputs, Khatris, Jats and Marathas eat meat also.  But he did mention that they are truly Kshatriyas in the military sense.  In fact he states that they might be the military section of the Reddy, Velma, Kamma, and Kapu castes.  This still makes them the ruling elite section of these communities doesn't it? so if the Satvahanas, Chalukyas, Kakatiyas etc were actually Kapus or Kammas or Reddys or whatever then by logic they are the direct descendents of these ruling families that branched out and became regarded as Kshatriyas. So in essence they were Dravidians that became aryanized or Aryans that became dravidianized, either way they were warriors and rulers.--Andhra 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We know we are Kshatriyas but other people need to make up their mind about who Rajus are. Thurston says we aren't indo Aryans but scientists say we are.  When two of our politicians try to get on reserved tickets as Sudras the courts say that we can't because we are Kshatriyas.  No one denies our history of being rulers and warriors though.
 * The point is that no one denies the glorious past of Andhra Raju community. You are only cautioned that you may not link Andhra Rajus to all hundred and one dynasties that ruled Telugu land. You got to be logical and rational in your claims.


 * The article does not say that Rajus are directly linked to all the dynasties of ancient India. It is not Rajus that claim this.  The link to Chalukyas, Gajapathi, Eastern Ganga and Iskshavakus was mentioned by V. Rama Chandra Rao, the link to Matsya and Vishnukundinas was made by Thurston, the link to Vijayanagar was made by Robert Sewell, the link to  Kakatiya was made by Cynthia Talbot, and the link to the Reddy dynasty was made by Suvarna Reddy.  All these sources were mentioned. There are only a few dynasties that the Rajus are directly linked to. Most of the others, the community was indirectly linked to as feudatory leaders and as generals and soldiers during their reign. Much of the information was gained reading through ancient inscriptions made on temple walls and stone inscriptions. It is only logical that a community that’s role in the caste system is to be warriors and rulers, would always play some sort of function during all of the dynasties even if they were not directly ruling. So I don't see how you would find it irrational to mention their presence during each dynasty. The only reason that the Raju communities’ history is well documented is that temple priests and historians generally concentrate on the role of the ruling society more than they do the labor and farming community.


 * There is no doubt that Rajus are an affluent community but as the article says that the term Raju is a recent one and because it has importance in denoting the whole community then there should be some information on its origin without which the credibility of the claim that Rajus are Kshatriyas is debatable–– A small addition. Somewhere above it is mentioned that Rajus, Brahmins and Komatis have a slightly more Aryan genes. Not sure if this is verifiable. There are some articles that say Brahmins have a lot of Aryan genes (here Aryan usually becomes central Asian genes). Komatis, except for their brahminical traditions like the sacred thread, probably have the least of Aryan genes. Take a few Komatis randomly; u would not come across many fair skinned people. (In fact I have seen many fair skinned Reddys and Kammas). About Rajus, I have seen fair and dark skin. As again, the most probably theory is that a section of Rajus might have migrated from north, but many Rajus were originally other castes like Yadava and Kapus etc. who by virtue of their being associated with kingdoms were exalted to Kshatriyas. But this must have happened in the past a long time back. That still makes them people with a royal lineage. But it is also true that a large percentage of kingdoms in Andhra and Karnataka had non Kshatriya kings. The Yadava, Reddys, (Wodeyars of Mysore are also Yadava), and even Krishna Deva Raya is supposed to be a Kuruba (shepherd). Even from a population point of view, it is not possible for a cast of 1.2 % to rule a large area as Andhra. There must have been other castes, which were associated with ruling kingdoms. If I were to make an assessment of castes, I would definitely say Rajus, Reddys, Velamas, Kammas, Kapus, Yadava; Kurubas all have some lineage to royal kingdoms. None of these castes can singlehandedly lay claim to being associated with ruling clans, and claim that other castes are lower than them.


 * You make valid points, but certain points like the gene theory, genetics is a proven science and valid otherwise the study would not be published. Genetics are used to prove paternity and used in criminal cases. Another point is that the origin of Krishna Deva Raya is still debated. What most people think is that his father was certainly a Kshatriya King and his mother was a concubine. His sons in laws were Kshatriyas as attested by the fact their descendants are still alive and are Zamindars of Anegondi. They state they belong to the Raju caste. Finally it doesn't take a large population to control a territory. There is only one King. It wasn't like it is today where you need to get votes. You were born a King and nobody questioned your authority. Muslims were a minority but still ruled over Hindus. The British population was only a few hundred thousand yet they ruled over 300 million Indians.
 * Shivaji was not a Rajput/Kshatriya, but does it make him any less glorious. I would rate him as the most successful and true Kshatriya by practice. This whole business of claiming to be superior because one belongs to a caste seems more related to emotional depravity than anything backed by historical evidence. This applies to all castes. This is my humble theory, but is obviously open to dispute.


 * It is not clear what a high caste Kshatriya means and what is low caste Kshatriya means before claiming that Shivaji is low caste Kshatriya. The other point is most of the Raju community in Andhra seems to be complicated, people who belong to atreya gotra claim to be descendants of Suryavanshi but history says that they are Chandravanshi. Also the article doesn't talk about Rajus who have no reservations (forward caste) and Rajus who have reservations (backward caste).
 * Comment on the Commentary on Shivaji: Speaking of emotional depravity look who is talking. If you think to be glorious you don't have to be of a certain high caste, which is true and I agree, why are you showing the 'emotional depravity' yourself by branding him a Kshatriya. You could simply accept what shivaji's caste is and acknowledge his glory as well. You are actually insulting him and showing your inability to comprehend by equating him to a Kshatriya because he was glorious. All those who were glorious don't have to Kshatriyas. By thinking so you are the one showing least intellectual depth. Thanks - Dinesh. comment added by 75.171.43.219 (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is the True story: This article is neither accurate nor decently comprehensive. There are around ten or more castes in AP which claim to be Kshatriya but are not so by either history or by profession. This is clearly recorded by national authorities on castes of AP. For example, the caste Agnikula Kshatriya is actually a fisherman caste. They claim to be Rajus. In fact they even have reservations or at least in the Rayalaseema area are fighting for the same. Author better take note and make necessary corrections so that the article is complete. Why hide reality and cook up own theories and stories like the whole gene theories above. Most of it is unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Thanks. -Dinesh.75.171.43.219 (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2008


 * If an attempt was made to talk about the other castes that claim to be Kshatriyas (Raju) they would probably get upset if someone not from their community tried to edit it or wrote about them in a fashion that they don't like in this article so no attempt will be made to discuss them, but you are free to read their articles. This article can only concentrate on the specific Telugu speaking Raju community.


 * As far as facts, there are plenty of citations; you can verify them at your leisure.


 * Genetic studies are based on science and are valid; otherwise they would not be published. So this is not a cooked up myth. Rajus are a mixed breed and came from various backgrounds, it is not trying to present them as superior. The achievements are real and documented, so if you don't agree with them, simple paste any relevant info onto the discussion page and the article can be updated, but don't keep saying there are no facts when there have been over 100 citations and references made from texts.--(talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated earlier, this article is about Telugu speaking Rajus, who are not BC, ST, SC, and have no reservations, not about every caste that claims to be a Raju or Kshatriya. It is difficult enough to get verifiable information about one’s own caste without having to be responsible for writing about all castes. If you are interested in Vanniyars (agnikula Kshatriya), Boyar etc... You may read their article at your leisure. Thanks--(talk) 07:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rajus wiki contains information only of the community which has been traditionally recognized as Kshatriyas in Andhra Pradesh by their Vedic Kshatriya traditions and the people who are related to it. Indianprithvi (talk • contribs) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Emperical information
Response to person Yenkatashetty, who is pretending to be a Vysya.

What the hell Yenkatashetty is talking about? Obviously you are ignorant about Komati and Rajus specifically and about south India-India in general. Try read these articles and tell me who is giving false information, I don't know if you are a Telugu or not but you obviously don't know anything about Andhra society. Don't make demands about what should be deleted and what shouldn't be without knowing something, otherwise you’re just vandalizing and you should be the one deleted!!


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

--talk 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Yenkatashetty, If you are Vysya you should have at least respected history of your Vysya community. Indianprithvi (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with KumarRao
Dear Indian Prithvi,

My answers in italics.

Dear Indianprithvi,

I read the Wiki article Rajus with great interest. The article is primarily about Rajus social group of present day Andhra Pradesh. I find many historical incongruities, discrepancies and undesirable inputs regarding the lineage of Rajus.
 * The pictures of Rama and Krishna in ‘Legends’ section is highly objectionable in an article on a localized social group, especially if you are unable to trace them to Rama and Krishna. Since when did Lord Krishna, a Yadava, became Kshatriya? It is such a ridiculous thing which you should delete right away.
 * The origin Rajus as enumerated from 1 to 9 should be supported by proper citations. All these dynasties were real and should one presume that the present day Rajus were a mixed lot?
 * In ancient and medieval Andhra Pradesh many social groups had attached the suffix Raju simply because they happened to rule a small or big region. Do they all become Rajus?
 * There are many common surnames and gotras in Rajus, Kamma and Velama and Balija communities. How do you categorize them? This particularly applies to Kota, Chagi and Chedi dynasties.
 * Another strong exception will be made regarding Vijayanagar empire. It is widely agreed that the founders of the empire Harihara and Bukka of Sangama dynasty were Golla/Yadava warriors. See Sewell, Nilakanta Sastri, N. Venkata Ramanayya, Durga Prasad etc., down the line, there was considerable infusion of other social groups such as Kshatriya, Balija, Velama and Kamma into the royalty. Thus, the dynasty got a mixed complexion. As the old Indian habit goes, the descendents ascribed to themselves Kshatriya status.
 * Inclusion of Kakatiya dynasty in Rajus is a travesty of truth. As usual, they also claimed Kshatriya status although they were Sudras of Durjaya lineage.
 * The Chalukyas of Andhra Pradesh lost their identity after the ascent of Kakatiya dynasty and merged into warrior/martial clans such as Rajus, Kamma and Velama  in parts of Andhra Pradesh.  As such, a modest linkage to Rajus can be attributed instead of wholesale linkage.

I hope you would consider these suggestions and modify the article, lest others they do it. Kumarrao (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kumar Rao, Thanks your back with your original ID instead of MigratoryRefRequest. By Sentences/discussion of MigratoryRefRequest, I cud understand it was u, as we had few good discussions earlier also on other Wiki pages. Let me first tell u this WP was composed by 4-5 guys earlier, I contributed few and I’m trying to make it short. I have already deleted few, also at the same time I have 2 keep in mind of not hurting other clans in Rajus. Plz find my ans in bold below:

'''pictures of Rama n Krishna r displayed only to distinguish the two lineages as it’s the most common practice than displaying sun n moon ( Maratha Kshatriyas also show Krishna to indicate Chandravanshi lineage). It’s clearly mentioned "Ram Suryavanshi lineage" not that suryanshis of Ram lineage like that. In history Ram is synonymous to Suryavanshi n Krishna to Chandravanshi. Regarding Krishna - I think u have less knowledge of Kshatriyas. Plz refer 2 any book/cite, He is born in Yaduvanshi Kshatriyas, who form the majority of Chandravanshi n brought up by Yadavs. Even other Kshatriya clans Rajputs, Jats mention so also Yadava community say so.'''
 * The pictures of Rama and Krishna in ‘Legends’ section is highly objectionable in an article on a localized social group, especially if you are unable to trace them to Rama and Krishna. Since when Lord Krishna, a Yadava, became Kshatriya? It is such a ridiculous thing which you should delete right away.
 * I shall be editing Rajus by deleting the pictures of Rama and Krishna

'''Well traces to them cannot b achieved completely n also cannot be denied completely, since Andhra Kshatriyas were a mix of Kshatriyas migrated from North, West n local. Lineage to them is a claim which goes back 2 ancient period n they r just taken as symbol for lineage distinguish between Suryavanshi n Chandravanshi, recently Kammas also started claiming Khamboja origin (which is again an ancient tribe of Mahabharata period). If u feel it’s derogatory with NEUTRAL opinion, then I leave it to your conscience.'''

'''Agreed. Most of them are cited properly, 1 r 2 not cited, as they were orally told/folktales. Will be cited. Yep it true that present day Rajus r mix of different clans/dynasties. Present day diff is reduced to 3-4 groups who don’t intermarry now also.'''
 * The origin Rajus as enumerated from 1 to 9 should be supported by proper citations. All these dynasties were real and should one presume that the present day Rajus were a mixed lot?

'''Can u mention those non-Kshatriya rulers? There were very few non-Kshatriya rulers who used Raju title like Kodapadmuti Raju; they can be distinguished by their lineage n clan as Kodapadmutis belonged to Durjaya clan, Sudras. Most Kshatriya rulers used to mention lineage (Suryavanshi/Chandravanshi) r at least their clan.'''
 * In ancient and medieval Andhra Pradesh many social groups had attached the suffix Raju simply because they happened to rule a small or big region. Do they all become Rajus?
 * There are any numbers of examples. For instance, the Kota Rajus (whom you label Kshatriyas) claimed in inscriptions they they belonged to the fourth Varna (Chaturthaanvaya).

Kota kings discussion section can answer this

'''Bro surnames r derived mostly from villages they settled, Kshatriyas, brahmins, kammas, velamas, kapus n others who lived in same village had same surnames. Coming to Gotra I can assure u that Rajus Gotrams r entirely different from Kammas n Velamas. Not even one gotra is common between them. That’s y Chagis n chedis were clearly mentioned as Kshatriya in Kakatiya inscription. Kotas r described as Dhananjaya gotras, which can’t b found in Kamma n Velama'''
 * There are many common surnames and gotras in Rajus, Kamma and Velama and Balija communities. How do you categorize them? This particularly applies to Kota, Chagi and Chedi dynasties.
 * I did not point out any surnames based on village names. You are mistaken. Sagi vamsa and Vipparla gotra are common to Kamma and Rajus.

'''You again gave wrong info on Rajus, Vipparla gotra is not there in Rajus, In Rajus Sagi, Sagiraju both r of Vashishta gotra. U have already agreed Sagis were mentioned as Kshatriyas in inscriptions. So your above theory fails completely in case of Gotrams'''

'''It didn’t mention ab Sangama dynasty. Only two clans (Saluva Dynasty and Aravidu Dynasty) r mentioned as Kshatriyas, their descendents r alive n they have cited a concrete citation that they r Raju Kshatriyas (Chandravanshi, subgroup - Yaduvanshi). U can go through them. It’s contributed by Raju Kshatriyas of Karnataka who do claim Andhra origin'''
 * Another strong exception will be made regarding Vijayanagar empire. It is widely agreed that the founders of the empire Harihara and Bukka of Sangama dynasty were Golla/Yadava warriors. See Sewell, Nilakanta Sastri, N. Venkata Ramanayya, Durga Prasad etc., down the line, there was considerable infusion of other social groups such as Kshatriya, Balija, Velama and Kamma into the royalty. Thus, the dynasty got a mixed complexion. As the old Indian habit goes, the descendents ascribed to themselves Kshatriya status.
 * There is no shred of evidence that any of the Vijayanagar dynasties have Kshatriya ancestry. Some of the kings did marry Kshatriya women for political purposes.

discussion on this cont below

'''Agreed on your point. I wanted to discuss with 2-3 guys (who authored this WP initially) n edit it. Kakatiya Dynasty will b changed as Kakatiya Period to mention ab Kshatriyas like Chagis, Rudrarajus etc. Ok'''
 * Inclusion of Kakatiya dynasty in Rajus is a travesty of truth. As usual, they also claimed Kshatriya status although they were Sudras of Durjaya lineage.
 * That is fine.

''' Several historians have mentioned most Rajus have Eastern Chalukyas (Chandravanshi) n also chalukya-cholas (Suryavanshi) descdency. It’s not written by a single historian. Agreed that both dynasties had few marital alliances with 1 or 2 non-Kshatriya clans. But this doesn’t mean they merged into other warrior clans. Nowhere did Velamas make such claim. Except only in your WP of Kammas which claims Chalukyas of Kamma nadu merged into Kammas. Please let me know if all those historians r fools who mentioned Rajus have descendency from Eastern Chalukyas n chalukya-Cholas '''
 * The Chalukyas of Andhra Pradesh lost their identity after the ascent of Kakatiya dynasty and merged into warrior/martial clans such as Rajus, Kamma and Velama  in parts of Andhra Pradesh.  As such, a modest linkage to Rajus can be attributed instead of wholesale linkage.
 * I never denied that Rajus of Godavari delta might be descendents of Chalukyas. In fact, this was dealt in great detail by Kotta Bhavaiah in Kammavari Charitra. You will get very useful info about Andhra Kshatriya lineages from this book also. Try to get it.

'''Its mentioned Chandravanshi r descendents of Eastern Chalukyas, it didn’t talk ab complete merger like that. It would look funny if we mention Kshatriyas merged into Kshatriyas. Mentioning descendents doesn’t mean one it can b, For Eg. Sisodias r descendents of Gahlots doesn’t mean they r the only descendents, there is a Jat clan also which is a descendent of Gahlots. I hope your confusion is cleared.'''

Bro kumarrao, U also quote VR Rao, Durga Prasad sometimes n some wiki pages u say VR Rao its unreliable n illogical (WP of Maliq maqbul) n sometimes ignore Durga Prasad's history. Even I agree this WP mention VR Rao, took some info while ignoring 1 or 2. Just to say it’s our tendency n may b egoism. Let’s stop this word war n b more constructive. My intention was to avoid rift bet Rajus n Kammas who were always friendly with each other by removing/discussing controversies bet too. If u see clearly, I raised only 1 or 2 controversial issues in your WP Kammas that too which overlapped with Rajus WP only, though I cud have raised ab diff controversies n facts as it has a lot I never ran after them.
 * I never quoted Vepachedu in my articles. Many of the stuff in V R Rao webpages are casually written and are full of biases and conjectures. It is not history by any standard. Point out exactly where I ignored Durga Prasad. I consider History is as holy as Science.

Plz find in below discussion

Hope U understand my goodwill.

Wish to move together constructively rather than blame game at each other.

Plz feel free to write suggestions/complaints on my talkpage, you’re welcome.

Thanks Indianprithvi (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Indianprithvi,

You are welcome to get the IDs verified by Wiki administrators, if you are doubtful. Meanwhile, please provide tangible answers to my questions.Kumarrao (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao, Bro IDs can be traced to IPs, but one user can use multiples IPs n also multiple mail-ids, in such cases even Wiki admin also can’t help. Anyway I believed it was u basing on your familiar phrases n sentences u use. If u GENUINELY not used that ID, then apologises from side. I have provided ans, most of which u agree, please discuss ab other points which u need clarification on my talk page. Thanks Indianprithvi (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing history. There is no war or brotherhood here. You are welcome to question anything I contributed in Wiki pages, including Telugu Wiki. I did not find many of your answers satisfactory. However, I shall come back later.Kumarrao (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao, Thanks. Yep same case with me I also do feel some your follow ups (queries as well as your ans earlier) not satisfactory. But conscience can b reached by discussion.

In Kamma WP, when I informed u that line "Pothi Nayudu belonged to the lineage of Buddhavarma" is wrong. U just told me that Inscriptions say so referring to citation n completely ignored my info. Although in A.P.History by Durga Prasad, it’s clearly mentioned that Pothi Nayudu was subordinate of Pallava king Buddhavarma (not his descent).
 * Totally wrong. Refer to Annual Report of Madras Epigraphy 1938, No. 346 and 348. They claimed that they were descendents of Buddhvarma belonging to Durjaya vamsa and Vallutla gotra.

'''In History, Buddhavarma is a Pallava King, (Kshatriya / Brahmakshatriya). Here it’s saying Durjaya vamsa n Vallutla gotra. Is this Buddhavarma different from Pallava Buddhavarma? I will get back u to on this later'''

By applying same inscription theory: Saluva n Arividu dynasties r mentioned as Kshatriyas by their inscriptions n records as well as Karnataka govt. records say so, Karnataka govt recognizes them as Kshatriyas n honors Arividu dynasty descendent to this day. Plz refer their official site.
 * As mentioned earlier, all kinds of rulers claimed Kshatriya status. But you would tend believe more if someone claims Chaturtha status and non-Kshatriya gotra.

'''Dynasties of Vijayanagar r still debatable (never ending), But the Saluva n Arividu have been recorded as Kshatriyas in all their records n Karnataka Govt official records also. Coming to their gotra Athreya is found in North Indian Kshatriya clans of Chandravanshi (Yaduvanshi branch) also. Also their descendents do head (Hindu Kshatriya Guru (Religious Head)) of the Hindu Kshatriya Community of Karnataka (which includes Rajputs, Kshatriya Rajus).'''

Inscriptions during Kakatiya period, clearly mention Raju clans like Sagis (Chagis), Rudrarajus, Parichedis (forefathers of Pusapati) were mentioned as Kshatriyas. In later inscriptions Pusapatis n Vatsavais were also mentioned as Kshatriyas of Vasistha gotra.
 * That is fine

Remember in inscriptions they were always mentioned as Kshatriyas (Rajus was like nick name).

U mentioned surnames n gotras r common bet Rajus, Kammas, and Velamas etc..... First it’s pretty clear that Rajus Gotrams cant b found in Kammas n Velamas. Please verify this u will com to know. Rajus have Surname Sagi n Kammas n Velamas don’t have Sagi surname they have Sagineni. Even Kapus n Velamas clans have surnames with -neni (suffix). Kapus n other warrior clans clearly mention that neni surname is used by clans whose ancestor was senani. So clearly Sagis were rulers n Sagineni who were their subordinates r senanis.
 * Neni is derived from Naayuni not Senani as Vepachedu writes with ignorance.

'''But Neni is seems close to Senani than Naayuni. So it can’t b ignored unless there is evidence. Probably trace to their ancestry can give some clue whether they r senanis r Nayaks.'''

Note: Kotas moved to separate section Indianprithvi (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I will remove Kakatiya dynasty n replace it with Kakatiya period to mention inscriptions ab Kshatriyas like Sagis, Rudrarajus, Parichedis who were subordinates r small ruler in Kakatiya period. As u mentioned Kakatiya was Durjaya clan, Sudra. Can u plz provide appropriate citation coz some historians mention they were bunts, bonded labor like that n some attach them to royal Bhanj dynasty. It will b helpful in citing while making above mentioned changes to Kakatiya para.
 * Abundant evidence. Read Durga Prasad for instance.Kumarrao (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Indianprithvi (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Zamindari List
Zamindari list is too long (around 67) in this WP. Not intending to hurt anyone. I feel it would be better to place in a separate wikipage, also few zamindaris were mentioned without mentioning there ruling clans which makes it difficult to scrutiny whether it actually belongs to this community. Would like to put only prominent zamindaris around 20. If anyone has any issue in moving other 40+ zamindaris please let me know. ThanksIndianprithvi (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There already is a separate page of Raju Zamindaris

Putting back DELETED MATERIAL
For a more accurate representation, I request that the following be included in the article: According to Education and the Disprivileged by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Page 53: In Andhra, there is no real Kshatriya Varna, but the locally dominant landed gentry known as Raju claimed Kshatriya status. The point I am making is that the Rajus of the ancient past could have been anyone. Raju in the past was like a title and a king would be obviously be called as a Raju, no matter which community he came from. Moreover, according to VR Rao (indculture0.tripod) the earliest connections of Rajus seem to be of Chalukyas - Vishnukundins and there is no connection earlier than these, even in folk memory. From what I see, the Mutrachas are one the earlier tribes that use Raju surname and title. It is requested that you present a balanced article, instead of portraying a tweaked one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MigratoryRefRequest (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My answers in italics.

1) Bro Thanks for showing your interest in this community. Why you’re jumping from one topic to other, when I reply ab Genetics, u talk ab linguistic...etc.

''I asked about genetics, you gave me the name of a historian. No jumping here. Anyways you have not yet clarified - What do you mean by 'Aryan genes' or by Rajus having 'more Aryan genes', when the grouping is not classified as Caucasoid. Please clarify.''

2) Why r u referring to unknown historian like Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Plz refer to Andhra History by Durga Prasad, It clearly mentions ab varna system in Chalukyas(Eastern) period, Kshatriyas being rulers, Brahmins -> priest,Vysyas -> business. Instead of following Bengali n some unknown historians, we have lot of Telugu historians n also some other prominent historians whom we can follow.

''Agreed. Forget a Bhattacharya or a Thurston. However, it seems that the authors of this article have selected historians that suit selected understanding about the community in certain ways. The article is not a balanced one.''

3) U have referred Telugu historian VR Rao ((indculture0.tripod) he also mentions Rajus may b linked to Andhra Ikshvaku n Old Kosala. VR Rao also links to Maratha while few other historians also link to Satavahana.

''Agreed. Then why not mention the other parts of VR Rao's draft. As you might notice, the draft article by VR Rao is very balanced and approaches a community by exploring various sides of its origins. However, again you have chosen a tweaked stand in the current article.''

4) If u go by historical inscriptions, Eastern Chalukyas mention ab their ancestry from North, n they were Chandravanshi Kshatriyas. So u don’t raise ab such historical points but raise some unknown corner cases/theories.

Please clarify what are the unknown corner theories I am raising?

5) If in ancient days Kings were given Kshatriya status then y didn’t Satavahanas, Ikshavakus, Pallavas n few other dynasties were not called as Kshatriyas (though former 2 mite b Kshatriyas related).

''Since you yourself say this, then may I ask on what basis do some communities wish to be called the Kshatriya varna, based on supposed links to the Ikshvakus? The Ayyaraka patrulu also mention links to the Ikshvaku.''

6) No historical article is controversy proof. Plz avoid pin pointing at some xyz side stream books, This WP mentions info's which r mentioned by prominent historians r based on inscriptions n have been cited properly, we can’t mention each n every xyz historians points of view like Bhattacharya’s n make it unnecessarily long (which is already long :-p).
 * Its funny u dont know ab Ayyaraka patrulu history n still refer them. ayyaraka patrulu mention links to Ikshvakus just because they claim ther descent from Rajus. Since they think themselves also to be descendents of kshatriya rajus they do claim like that.

''Exactly, No work of history is without controversy. The idea is to present various sides to a community's origin, instead of a tweaked one. Since you seem to be taking things personally, let’s drop things here. Let’s leave the present article as it is. Instead, I propose a new wiki page on Andhra Kshatriyas, to explore the presence of lack of the Kshatriya varna in Andhra at different points of time. This will bring out possible links with the various tribes that went into shaping present day castes, and also help in understanding Andhra and her culture better.''

MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

As above discussion was prolonged, Left discussion as it is n cleaned up personalised discussion going nowhere. - IndianPrithvi It is requested that you ask before deleting, esp if you plan on filing a sock-puppet report. MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

Requesting info
Messy discussion here, not here to interfere with anyone’s sentiments of their community. Am looking for a few things and would be grateful for leads and links in that regard. Thanks.

A para here states: "The history of South India and the Puranas reveal that the Andhra Kshatriyas or Kshatriyas from Andhra Pradesh descended from the Aryavartham (North India) to the South due to internal conflicts, foreign invasions, famine etc. They travelled from Rajasthan and other places and arrived at the shores of the Krishna and Godavari rivers in the South, where they finally settled. According to legends, the Kshatriya sage Agastya was instrumental in spreading the Aryan culture from North India to the South".

1) Please help provide links regarding Puranas that mention Rajus. Telugu ones will also help greatly.

2) Would like to request for any citation / links that helps establish the migratory pattern of this community from Rajasthan / north to south. Did a few people migrate from there or did the entire community migrate from the north to AP? When did this happen? Would prefer any paper mentioning genetic studies in this regard, esp. to know similarities exist b/w which communities of the north and the Rajus?

3) Did Rajus play any role and have any association to Agastya? Around what time period would the spread of Aryan cultures to the south be as professed by the possible oral traditions of the Rajus? Thanks. MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

Hi, U are somewhat getting confused with words Rajus n Kshatriyas. 1. There r several books which mention few Kshatriyas clans migrated from north to south. They were not referred by Rajus in ancient period. From medieval period Kshatriyas who settled in Andhra came to b known as Rajus. 2. I have added citation which mentions ab migration n links Rajus to old Gehlot tribe (ancestors of Sisodia Rajputs). U can find this info some history books (book by Edward B. Eastwick is one). It is never said that entire community has migrated, only few Gothras have travelled n settled in Andhra, it is a known fact Kshatriyas had marital relationships with local warrior castes in their early days but in  less  proportions. It is already mentioned in discussion above that Brahmins n Rajus (Kshatriyas) have more Aryan genes than any other castes of AP. 3. As Rajus claim to be descendents of Vedic Kshatriyas, so there is nothing wrong in mentioning about Kshatriya Sage Agastya, as he was instrumental in spreading Aryan tradition in South.

If Kammas can make Kambhoja theory suddenly, why Rajus can’t refer to their ancestors who have been used in their folktales since centuries which is more genuine one. Indianprithvi (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

You say: 1. There r several books which mention few Kshatriyas clans migrated from north to south. They were not referred by Rajus in ancient period. From medieval period Kshatriyas who settled in Andhra came to b known as Rajus.

''My request: Could you include this info in the main article? Please make it clear that 'Raju' came to be used as a title for Kshatriyas from the medieval period. Since clans that migrated from north to south in the ancient period were not referred to as Rajus at that time, they cannot be linked to 'Raju caste' that came to be from the medieval times.''

You Say: 2. I have added citation which mentions ab migration n links Rajus to old Gehlot tribe (ancestors of Sisodia Rajputs). U can find this info some history books (book by Edward B. Eastwick is one).

''My thanks: Thanks. I will look them up.''

You say: It is never said that entire community has migrated, only few Gothras have travelled n settled in Andhra, it is a known fact Kshatriyas had marital relationships with local warrior castes in their early daysbut a  vaery  few.

''My request: Please include this in the main article as well. Or the article seems to convey as though the entire community travelled from the north.''

You say: It is already mentioned in discussion above that Brahmins n Rajus (Kshatriyas) have more Aryan genes than any other castes of AP.

''My request: Please clarify what you mean by "Aryan genes". Rajus have continuously been classified as a grouping of Australoid ethnicity and of Dravidian linguistic classification.''

You say: 3. they are  of  aryan  origins ''My request: Agastya is too ancient to be linked with any community in the present. It is equivalent to conveying wrong information.''

You say: If Kammas can make Kambhoja theory suddenly, why Rajus can’t refer to their ancestors who have been used in their folktales since centuries which is more genuine one.

My request: Could every grouping convey factual information, instead of being egoistical about such things? —Preceding MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest contribs) 09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear IndianPrithvi,

My answers in italics.

Ur point regarding mentioning of few clans of Kshatriyas is fine. Will modify accordingly in WP.

Thanks.

In the intro para itself clearly mentions Raju is Telugu variation of Sanskrit word n refers to Telugu Kshatriyas. Andhra Kshatriyas came to be known as Rajus doesn’t mean they r only referred by Rajus (its a telugu variation) but it was used synonymously with "Kshatriya" word, This WP cant mention ab evolution of Telugu from prakrit n when it became prominent etc. there r several inscriptions from Kakatiya period which mention Sagis(Chagis), Rudrarajus n few other Raju clans etc as "Kshatriya" n Past 15th century rulers like Vatsavayis, Gajapathi Rajus also mentioned as "Kshatriyas" in their records. Rajus was used like a synonymous name. Ur request is like one shoud'nt mention ab their ancestors, does it mean anything? It’s like saying Koluthunga Chola I shouldn’t refer to his previous name Rajendra Chalukya (after renaming).

''You got it wrong sir. It is unnecessary to connect things to language evolution, or about a chalukya not being able to refer to himself as a Chola, etc. The request was made on the basis that in the ancient times anyone who was a king went by the name 'Raju' simply denoting a king. Undoubtedly, there are inscriptions about Rajus from Kakatiya period or perhaps earlier periods as well. That's exactly what I am requesting...please make it clear that the present Raju community came to be as a grouping from the medieval period onwards.''

Why you are referring to 1 or 2 out of 10 theories, refer to majority theories. Then are the remaining historians fools who mention ab Rajus as who look different from other Telugu castes n also say Brahmins n after them Kshatriyas have more Aryan genes than any other Telugu comm. U have asked ab genetic similarities right, Book by Edward B. Eastwick which I mentioned earlier mentions Pusapati clan r descendents of Gehlot Rajputs (old Sisodia) n his forefathers migrated with four other gotras. Both Edgar Thurston as well as Eastwick mention Pusapati n other Rajus (Kshatriyas) as Rajputs.

''I do not know what are the 10 theories and what are the 1 or 2 you suppose that I am referring to. Please leave me out of the mess as discussed on this page. Works of history need not match with migratory patterns as evinced by genes. There is nothing called 'Aryan genes' and there is no evidence to show that Rajus have 'more Aryan genes'. Kindly clarify. Rajus have not been classified as Caucasoid, but of Australoid ethnicity. A historical connection with Rajputs by one clan or by weddings with a few families does not change the origins of the entire community. Rajus have been found to display mixed membership to multiple clusters just as the following communities of Andhra: Brahmin, Lambadi, Reddi, Kamma chaudhry, Komati and Kapu Naidu.''

Agastya is not linked he is just mentioned in WP just to give info that Aryan culture was existing in South India since ancient days, Some people have wrong notion that Aryan culture wasn’t there in South, (While Karnataka n Andhra had Aryan culture, extreme south TN n Kerala didn’t had that much Aryan culture).So as there is no claim only mentions of his spread of Aryan culture, it doesn’t convey any wrong info.

''It seems that you believe in the aryan-dravidian divide as espoused by historians. To genetists, the aryan-dravidian term applies only to linguistic groups. To historians, 'Aryan' usually translates as 'Caucasoid'. Rajus are Australoid and not different from the other Andhra communities. There is nothing to say about each individual's approach. However, since the article is of public consumption, it is requested and hoped that it conveys factual information, from multiple sources as a balanced view.''

Just for your kind info, Rajus history is scripted by many historians belonging to many communities unlike few other castes which have history created by their own caste members.

''Am sorry sir, my interest in history is very limited. Claims can be made by anyone.''

Thanks Indianprithvi (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Indian Prithvi,

For a more accurate representation, I request that the following be included in the article:

Bro Thanks for showing your interest in this community. Why you’re jumping from one topic to other, when I reply ab Genetics, u talk ab linguistic...etc Why r u referring to unknown historian like Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Plz refer to Andhra History by Durga Prasad, It clearly mentions ab varna system in Chalukyas(Eastern) period, Kshatriyas being rulers, Brahmins -> priest,Vysyas -> business. Instead of following Bengali n some unknown historians, we have lot of Telugu historians n also some other prominent historians whom we can follow.

U have referred Telugu historian VR Rao ((indculture0.tripod) he also mentions Rajus may b linked to Andhra Ikshvaku n Old Kosala. VR Rao also links to Maratha while few other historians also link to Satavahana. For your info this WP doesn’t mention ab Andhra Ikshvaku, Marathas n Satavahanas. All theories/dynasties cannot be mentioned, only dynasties which were mentioned by most historians r mentioned in this WP.

If u go by historical inscriptions, Eastern Chalukyas mention ab their ancestry from North, n they were Chandravanshi Kshatriyas. So u don’t raise ab such historical points but raise some unknown corner cases/theories.

Reg your point on Rajus/Rajputs relation: Rajus n Rajputs(some clans) r not only marital related, but have common ancestors like Chalukyas, Kalachuris, Haihyas, Chedis (Parichedis), Eastern ganga (one clan of Rajputs link 2 them) n few others.

Reg your request: I have already mentioned Rajus is/was used synonymous to Kshatriyas of Andhra. All Telugu historians agree the below synonymous names which were being used since some centuries: Bapana/Pantulu -> Brahmins Rajulu -> Kshatriyas Komati -> Vysyas Golla -> Yadavs While left side name (above) were like nick names, in records/inscriptions they always used right side names. Kshatriyas of Andhra existed since ancient (vishnukundin, chalukya) period n gradually got names like Rajulu (in medieval) n Rajavars (in British period).

If in ancient days Kings were given Kshatriya status then y didn’t Satavahanas, Ikshavakus, Pallavas n few other dynasties were not called as Kshatriyas (though former 2 mite b Kshatriyas related).

No historical article is controversy proof. Plz avoid pin pointing at some xyz side stream books, This WP mentions info's which r mentioned by prominent historians r based on inscriptions n have been cited properly, we can’t mention each n every xyz historians points of view like Bhattacharya’s n make it unnecessarily long (which is already long :-p).

Already this discussion is prolonged n I have mentioned my points n wont b replying on this discussion. But definitely some effort will b put to make it comprehensive n readable. Thanks Indianprithvi (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on other Warriors
I request one of you to make a new wiki page titled Andhra Kshatriyas or something to the effect of warrior tribes of Andhra...and we can continue discussion on that page. Please do post the link to the new page here. Thanks.

I request Indian Prithvi not to delete what I write here without asking me first please.

Btw, right now I looked at Dube (1955) and KSN Char, JG Shastry, et al (1989)'s paper on genetic differentiation and they say true Kshatriyas are non-existent in Andhra. It looks like the so-called Rajulu originated from indigenous populations of Andhra, who later clustered together to form a formal grouping. Considering the use of Raju title amongst various groups, I would not be surprised if a sanskritized group of Reddys were the earliest Rajus. And later this Raju grouping must have received input from other population units. Anyways, it’s not for me to speculate. It’s better to simply put out info as it is and let the reader decide. And there will always be two sides to any story. Better not to look at only one side. With new info coming out, any form of understanding is subject to change anyways.

MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

Dear MigratoryRefRequest,

First of all, sorry if your last post got overridden. I had issue with my Mozilla n as we were posting contents at same time, by mistake it might have got overridden.

There no dispute of ancient mixed origin theory, But History/ Inscriptions clearly mention Chaturvarna system in Andhra existed from Vishnukundina n Chalukya period (i.e. from 5-6th centuries), (Ref Andhra History by Durga Prasad n other books also) or even before that.

It’s not that there only one varna system in Andhra, Even Brahmins n Vysyas do follow it, Historically Kshatriyas of Andhra r synonymously known as Rajulu since 12-13th centuries r even before. All historians do approve this. I hope u got some clarification.

Dear Indian Prithvi,

I leave it to others to decide. Just need a new wiki page, that's all (though I do not think Rajus have always been the only Kshatriya claimants, and since there is already a page for Rajus why not have page that brings all the claimants together and examine their histories).

Dear MigratoryRefRequest,

I think u have little knowledge of History, Plz refer to books when Reddy word came in history n also refer to ancient inscriptions mentioning Chalukyas as Kshatriyas. Plz respect history instead of making your own POVs. I already told again n again: Rajus n Andhra Kshatriyas (Telugu Kshatriyas) mean same n directed same wiki page just like Komati n Arya Vysya (for Vysyas, Kamma n Chowdary (for Kammas).

Regarding other castes also WP exist. Agnikula kshatriya,Mudiraju Plz refrain from using the name for Wikipage which is used for another community for some centuries. Thanks Indianprithvi (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No one claimed here that all Andhra Kingdoms were Rajus, its never told that Kakatiya kingdom or Reddy Kingdom are Rajus etc. Dont mix current politics with old kingdoms, Population matters in democracy but not in old kingdoms, Kashmir in 19th century was ruled by Hari Singh though Rajputs were less than 1 % of Kashmir, British ruled India though they were in thousands. Please get all the information Regarding Vijayanagar empire, it was ruled by four clans Two were Kurubas(Yadavs) n two are from Chandravasnhi Kshatriyas. Having surname doesnt associate with the royal families of Vijayanagar, its there Gotra n lineage which matters. The two clans of Vijayanagar clearly say they r kshatriya rajus. Please check there official website.

Please sign in n also please get clarified and then write in discussion page. Indianprithvi (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To 117.195.192.25,

If you have any information to show that Kammas are Gujrati in origin or anything, please provide them on the Kamma page. Please do not bring it to this page.

To IndianPrithvi,

Reg your sentence "...its there Gotra n lineage which matters", we had already spoken about this before (sanskritization, etc), but you had deleted it. Anyways, forget that. Am looking forward to this info from you:

Please provide information to show since when the two so-called 'clans' of Vijayanagar have been claiming be to Raju caste. The uqconnect.net for Anegundi lists the record only from one Achyuta Deva Raya born in 1936 (the one who was interviwed by the British). Please provide information to show their connections to the Raju caste prior to the 1910s. Please note: there is no denying the lineal or adoptive descent (which is also listed on the Aravidu dynaty wikipage), am asking for reference prior to the 1910s for caste claims (not descent claims), to show since when they made their claim as belonging to "Raju Caste".

Thankyou.

MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2009 0(UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

Mr MigratoryRefRequest, Good question, I agree that base ruling clans were Yadavs, but due to political reasons ther other clans also got involved in ruling in later period. I think Bommarajus/Karvetinagar Rajus can give u the complete details of ther claim to b Andhra Rajus. I will giv u two other reasons apart from the adoption theory: 1) Bommaraju family of Karvetinagar say ther forefathers came from Pittapuram in 15th century n were Kshatriya Rajus. 2) there were marital alliances between Kshatriya Rajus n other royal families in Andhra in medieval period, so ther r instances where some other community royal families got assimilated into Kshatriya Rajus, best eg is Last generation of Kakatiya family who had three marital allainces with kshatriya rajus n got assimilated into Rajus. Even after Gajapati king was defeated by Shrikrishna deva raya, ther used to be marital alliances between Andhra Rajus n Vijayanagar families.

Thnx Indianprithvi (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou IndianPrithvi. Much appreciated. Your last sentence solves it. Regards.

MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

Requests
1. do not change the font size. It affects the readability. It is also requested not to edit stuff on this page.If this page gets too long, please request wiki to archive the discussion.

3. Request not to blank this page as it will be useful for new users.

Users 59.99.5.127 and G Sandeepvarma (dont know whether these are by same guy) are repeatedly blanking this talk page. If they further repeat this act they would be reported to the Wiki Admin.

Users 59.99.5.127 and G Sandeepvarma should keep in mind that this wiki is composed by 7-8 authors along with some reviews. You should atleast dicuss with them or provide good citation before making significant changes. You are qouting All India Kshatriya sammelanam something like that, can you please provide link to website r any other source (book, newspaper) it will be helpful. If your qoute that "Rajus came in 15th century is to be believed then how come Raju clans like Pusapati(pericchedi), Chagi, Rudrajus, Kota vamsas were qouted/ inscripted in Andhra since 7th to 14th century. Please do go through old historical Kshatriya books like Andhra kshatriya vrukshavali......

Thnks Indianprithvi (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

... While the original article definitely required cleanup/pruning and organizing, “Kumarrao” seems to be unduly forcing to remove the content while he does not apply same standards and logic to Kamma caste pages and is very generous there. He contributed many of the Kamma related pages. This is some form of Bigotry.

One more observation - people seem to be building virtual empires with out connecting to the ground realities by just giving reference to some authors who have vested interests. The wishful thinking of these authors is portrayed as truth with out supporting artifacts like family trees in the day to day life of current communities. Wiki has no way of verifying these ground realties which are in the day to day  life of families  of the respective communities but not part of published works. Razu.--The Razus, or Rajus, are stated, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, to be "perhaps descendants of the military section of the Kapu, Kamma, and Velama castes. At their weddings they worship a sword, which is a ceremony which usually denotes a soldier caste. They say they are Kshatriyas, and at marriages use a string made of cotton and wool, the combination peculiar to Kshatriyas, to tie the wrist of the happy couple. But they eat fowls, which a strict Kshatriya would not do, and their claims are not universally admitted by other Hindus. They have three endogamous sub-divisions, viz., Murikinati, Nandimandalam, and Suryavamsam, of which the first two are territorial." According to another version, the sub-divisions are Surya (sun), Chandra (moon), and Nandimandalam. In a note on the Razus of the Godavari district, the Rev. J. Cain sub-divides them into Suryavamsapu, Chandravamsapu, Veliveyabadina, or descendants of excommunicated Suryavamsapu and Razulu. It may be noted that some Konda Doras call themselves Raja (= Razu) Kapus or Reddis, and Suryavamsam (of the solar race). "In the Godavari delta," Mr. Cain writes, "there are several families called Basava Razulu, in consequence, it is said, of their ancestors having accidentally killed a basava or sacred bull. As a penalty for this crime, before a marriage takes place in these families, they are bound to select a young bull and young cow, and cause these two to be duly married first, and then they are at liberty to proceed with their own ceremony."

In the case of Raju Community, I know some Raju surnames where there are genuine family trees of last 16 generations or so which are maintained since 1600s. These are maintained by their family Gurus who happened to be Brahmins. I am not referring to surnames like Pusapati (Vizayanagaram Samsthanam) where they have even the horoscopes of most of the people of the family tree. These brahmins used to collect the data every 3 years by going to the respective villages. This practice continued from 1600s till 1970s.

While we should not allow free flowing imagination of people to create content here, we should be just and have reverence to others while following the ground rules. Otherwise wiki loses its credibility as a source of reliable information and becomes like one of those blogs. Request “Kumarrao" to take note of this.

Looks like Wiki may need to stop these caste pages and allow only the link to the reference sites. Let every caste boast of whatever they want in their reference sites.

Thanks- SharmaB

Kota kings (Dharanikota)
Discussion Kota Dynasty:

'''Kota dynasty rulers(11th - 12th century) century r mentioned as Kshatriyas(Rajus) of Dhananjaya gotra by historian VR Rao while some books say they r Dhananjaya gotrams. Dhananjaya is Rajus Gothram which is not found in Kammas n Velamas. Old Raju Zamindaris clans like Kota Jampana, Dantuluri, Uppalapati, Pakalapati and Nallaparaju were descendents of Kota Vamsa. Historians say Kamma Caste was first mentioned in early 13th century inscription on some Gangeya Sahni.'''

''That is half-baked history of Vepachedu. Kammas got their caste name from Kamma nadu which is as old as Christ (Read Chilukuri). I dealt with this detail in the article.'' '''Vepachedu is quoted by many people, Can’t say it’s totally biased. Karmarasthram might have existed since 2-3rd century, but kammanadu was not found until Kakatiya inscriptions, correct? Leave ab region, can u plz tell when was Kamma Caste first mentioned?'''

'''U can provide appropriate citations if u have mentioning Kota Kings of 11-12th century as Kamma. (we can discuss further).'''

''Read Kammavari Charitra (pages 31-32) by Kotta Bhavaiah. I repeat that Kota kings claimed themselves Chaturthanvaya. No Kshatriya will say he belongs to fourth Varna. Some of them (E.g. Dantuluri) do exist in Godavari Rajus for reasons unknown''.

Seems Need more discussion:

'''Plz stick to your words "No Kshatriya will say he belongs to fourth Varna" - it’s exactly correct. U ignored historian Vepachedus theory of Kotas as Kshatriya Rajus saying biased. But u r ref a book which is not general historical, I mean it’s a Kammas book written by a Kamma, other castes may say it’s biased, hope u agree. Anyway can u plz quote the inscription with king’s name, vansh, lineage, gotra, caste etc? Also need some info, during 11th-12th century whether Kamma caste was Hindu r Buddhist followers r some other?''' Indianprithvi (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao,

There are several evidences inscriptional as well famous history books like Studies in south India Jainism by M.S. Rama Swami Ayyangar, B. Seshagiri Rao to show that Kota kings were of Dhananjaya gotra and chandravanshis.

The Dhananjaya gotra Raju zamindars and there 500-600 old history (of Dhananjaya gotra people) and folktales do confirm there lineage to Kota vamsa by there culture as well as Gotra.

The Citation which you have provided doesnot confirm the Kota vamsas to be durjayas it only confirms Kakatiyas to be Durjaya.

Also many half baked theories mention Proli nayaka aka Proli Nayudu as Kota king... but inscriptional evidences during Kakatiya period clearly say Proli nayaka aka Proli Nayudu was minister of Kota Ketaraja. Proli nayaka himself belonged to Durjaya clan. But not the Kota kings, Also they were close to Chagis and Parichedis (both Kshatriya clans). Its also confirmed by some historians that by the time Kakatiyas started having marital relationship with Kota vamsa, they started claiming kshatriya status only because of having got marital relationship with three kshatriya clans (Eastern chalukyas, Chagi and Kota vamsa). With one half baked info u cant claim them to be sudras.

Its clearly evident from all the inscriptions that Kota kings n Chagis were Kshatriyas but they do used to hav concubines from Nayak familes... but this doesnt make the son of concubines as legitemate descendents of Kota kings.

You can also refer to century old "Kshatriya vamsa vrukshavali" which does confirm this about Dhananjaya gotra people and also V Ramachandra Rao does clearly say so.

Thnks Indianprithvi (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Aryans
some wrote that aryan translates to caucasians and dravidian to austrolids so aryan and caucasians are same ha caucasians manily mean whites (europeans) and aryan you cant be an aryan if you dont wear sceard theard those whites are danavas and they are not decendants of manu decendants of manu are manavas. greeks are called as danav in latin danu might be daughter of manu but i am not sure of that. so caucasians are danavas. only the decendants of manu three uppercastes bramins,kshatriyas,and vaisyas are called arya and sudras are also decendants of manu but not called arya coming to austrolid dravidians are not austrolids if you see a southindian uppercastes they doesnt look manily like north indian but are different from lowercastes southindians austrolids and dravidians are different lowercastes and middle castes are austrolid this has been proved recently that upper castes like bramins .kshatriyas rajus.vaisyas are more similar to indo european than lower castes this tests have been contected by andhra university  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.66.251 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You are saying greeks being caucasians are not aryans then you say Bramhins, kshatriyas , and vaisyas wearing thread adhering to Brmhinical orthodoxies are Aryans and manavas. Then you say research on these genes have proved they are indo - europeans like greeks. Please clear you head. Any body who is white is Aryan or Caucasian. Black is dravidian Austroloid, its so simple. Caste heirarchy is not based on race, but economic and political clout.

Intellect rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.41.12 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

other discussion
Dravidians there are no dravidians, only dravidas who where a small kshatriya tribe who are fallen because of non obeservance of vedic culture, (according to manu yavans,dravidas,chinese,persians etc are aryans but fallen) (dravidans is complete dravidas brits just divided our country ) who you call dravidians are not austrolids there a lot of difference betwee

n aus and dravidians austrolids are kind of sub human types color indians are neither white or black indians are just brown race —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.66.101 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Varna
Although Kshatriya status of Rajus cannot be disputed easily, the statement of Thurston needs to be paid attention.Kumarrao (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Kumarrao please try to read complete theory of Thurston, He never doubted Kshatriya status of Rajus,

From Thurston point of view -Vedic Kshatriyas should never eat Non veg, with this regard he made speculative statements. Remember all The major Kshatriya clans in India Rajputs, Rajus & Bengali Kshatriyas all eat Non veg, from this point his only speculation doesnt hold good. Kumarrao, You always make a statement and never stick to it. Isnt it ridiculous when u say Rajus came from Kammas n Velamas. Kshatriya Rajus have history since 4-5th century, and Kammas & velamas god knows wat ther history was before 11-12th century. I request you to refrain yourself from writing such logicless stuff. Indianprithvi (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute your theories. Learn to respect well-known authoritative historians. If you do not agree with Thurston, provide your argument with necessary references. Your reference to Kamma and Velama smack of prejudice. Kammanadu/Kammarashtram existed since the times of Christ. The name got ascribed to farmers turned warriors since 10th century. Kamma article clearly mentions that they are Shudras with historical evidences. Wanton glory is in vain Kumarrao (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao, You seem to be a confused guy. You yourself are contradicting your statements. Ia am not talking about kammarattam(region) You agreed Kamma caste came from 10th century. But historical inscriptions say Rajus Existed since 5-6th century. I always respect Mr. Thurston. But history/statements are not taken from single author. Its being considered basing on majoritarian historians consensus. Dont blindly argue basing on a single author statements. You always give a stupid ans for origin of Kammas When ur asked ab kamma caste existence u say Kammarastram came in 3rd century n kammas came in 10-12th century like that. Try to stick to a consensus & the actual one.

I have removed your statement because Rajus existence is inscribed since 5-6th century and other castes Kammas n Velamas as a caste was known only after 11-12th century. All Telugu historians agree to this point. Your arguement is like Junior Bush is the father of Senior Bush :D Hence I warn you, even after this clear logical statement/answer if you still persist with your illogical statement, Admins will be reported about your biased behaviour.

17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)en
 * I have reverted your edit. I cited a well-known historian. You cannot delete it. You are welcome to report the matter to administrators. If you want to edit Kamma (caste), please go ahead with proper citations and evidences. Kumarrao (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao, No offence intended or meant by me, it was plain US slang words. It has happened many times that u had put up half baked theories which I corrected, You too agreed most of them. I do contribute to very few (around25-30 wikis) as I believe in putting genuine facts rather than half baked theories. I hav also contributed positively to more than one caste. I have got some interesting facts/proofs to contradict Mr Thurston's book stmnt.

1) The line "Perhaps to descendants of miltary section of the Kapus, Kamma and Velama castes" was not by Mr Thurston, Its just a speculative reference to Madras census 1901. Remember Mr Thurston has not put his own views but mentioned them as "Madras census 1901" which is completely false census. Even it is agreed by most historians and even Kammas also say its totally false (as it included Kammam Kammas n Telangana kammas in Kapu caste instead of Kammas. So Madras census is a big false which mixed diff castes into one or other.

2) Madras census 1901 says Rajus population to be 2-3% or so which is infact big false. The Rajus population is in between 0.8-1.2 % only, so it had included Ayaraka Patrus(kapus but warriors), Konda Rajus and Bhatt Rajus.

3) Mr Thurstons book says "They have three subdivisions - Murkinati, Nandimandalam and Suryavamsam" which is also a big mistake as there are no subdivision like Murkinati and Nandimandalam, Rajus r only Suryavamsam and chandravamsam. Plz refer Rajus article for more.

4)Mr Thurston also says "Again subdivided into suryavamsam, chandravamsam and Veliveyabadina (may b ). There are no such veliveyabadina Rajus....(perhaps Ayaraka patrulu (Kapu warriors) Who are not considered True Rajus by all historians and Rajus also.

5)Mr Thurston also speculatively includes Konda Doras, Konda Reddies and Basava Razulu in Rajus as says they are not original Rajus. As he was a foreigner he has completely mixed up some other castes in Rajus which is agreed by telugu historians. So the madras 1901 census and Mr Thurston have mixed up and confused with few other warrior castes in Rajus which is not agreed by present day Telugu Historians as well as by the Rajus themselves.

6) The article itself has ample evidences/inscriptions mentioning Kshatriya Rajus existence from 4-5th century AD onwards. I again ask You once again to provide citation for Kamma & velama caste from which period they existed. Dont confuse people with Kammarattam (a place) with Kamma (caste). I bet Kamma as a caste never existed before 11th century. When you put in wiki there shud be somthing logical it shud not be like saying "Jr Bush is Father of Sr Bush.

I again reiterate this article is about Kshatriya Rajus and not about the non kshatriya Rajus(ayarakas, konda rajus & bhatrajus) Hence the line which u r stressing is totally baseless as it was clearly made by clubbing non kshatriya rajus with Kshatriya Rajus ( you can provide any other Famous Telugu historian like DurgaPrasad who support the ridiculous madras census).

I hope u agree with and can confirm the same with your kamma historians also :)

Indianprithvi (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A.R. sources
Could someone please explain what the sources are which are abbreviated as "A.R.", and where copies can be found. If copies are not available online then please could someone email me a couple of examples. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing, clearly. And I note that many of the quotations are either speculative in themselves or are being used in what appears to be a synthetic manner. I'll give it another month or so, then the stuff is going unless better, more modern sources appear. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Survey of Antiquarian Remains. JanetteDoe (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah.Not Archaeological Review, then. I'll see if I can find anything at www.archive.org because I've got quite serious doubts about how some of these things are being used. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether A.R stands for Antiquarian Remains or Archaeological Records, but The mentioned A.R sources/quotations are directly taken from Archaeological Records of Archaeological Survey of India,

(http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_9/eastern_chalukyas.html)
 * Mainly from Eastern Chalukyas period and Kakatiya period inscriptions. These are not speculative but inscriped records.

Indianprithvi (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I'll have a "dig" through some of it (boom-boom). I realise that they are inscriptions. My concern relates to the interpretations of those inscriptions and how they have been used in this article. I am expecting a lot of "maybe" and "probably" etc, plus newer works that contradict those interpretations. That's the way it usually goes, at any rate. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am still really struggling with the Vijayanagara Period section, which uses a lot of these A.R. records. Are there no more modern works that discuss these matters? - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012
Request for edit access

2.124.113.148 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, if you want to edit it yourself you need to create an account (it only takes 2 minutes and no personal info necessary) and become autoconfirmed or confirmed-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic sources
Can anyone get hold of a copy of:
 * Andhra Kshatriyas History by Penmatsa Krishnam Raju, Kshatriya vamsa ratnamala

I am a little concerned regarding the independence of these sources and the manner in which they have been used. There may be nothing untoward, of course, but I would like to double-check and also improve the citations with page numbers etc. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sitush,

FIRST ANSWER MY QUESTION : > YOU ARE UNDOING HISTORY UPDATED WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WITH OTHERS, > I INCLUDED THE ARTICLE WITH LORD RAMA AND LORD KRISHNA GOTRA PROVDING DOCUMENT PROOF 1: THE PROOF DOCUMENT "Genealogy of Bharata showing the Saptarishis as well" I GOT THE ABOVE DOCUMENT FROM EXISTING WIKI LINK "SAPTARISHI" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saptarishi

YOU REFUSED THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED IN NOT SUFFICIENT. HOW THE SAME DOCUMENT PROVIDED ACCEPTED AS PROOF IN SAPTARISHI WIKI LINK AND NOT VALID HERE.

> WELL, YOU REPLIED ME TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROOFS.

> AS YOU REQUESTED, I PROVIDED THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT lord rama gotra as Kasyapa. DOCUMENT PROOF 2:

WHY DIDNT YOU REVISED DOCUMENTS..? WHY DID YOU BLOCK THE WIKI > WE ARE DISCUSING ON LORD RAMA AND LORD KRISHNA GOTRA, WHY DID YOU WANTEDLY REMOVED PREVIOUS HISTORY "Eastern Chalukyas" ?

Your name looks like north indian, your comments above in telugu "ratnamala" that indicate you are from Andhra. YOU ARE BLOCKING AND REMOVING INFORMATION WITH HIDDEN ID AS SITUSH. (THIS WILL BE INFORMED TO WIKI)


 * Feel free to report me to Wiki. WP:ANI, WP:DRN, where ever suits you. I would limit yourself to reporting in one place, however, otherwise you may be accused of forum shopping. My response to your comments immediately above is to "look further up this page", ie: I have already responded. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

HELLO SITUSH,> WHY DID YOU REMOVE PREVIOUS HISTORY, WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION.

"Eastern Chalukyas" ?.

DONT REMOVE ANY INFORMATION WITHOUT DISCUSSION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, Undo your remove - "Eastern Chalukyas" ?.


 * Comment Those books do not exist. And the only references to them I can find are all from SPS . I would remove them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The genealogy document provided above, what is its source? Can you provide a scholarly volume that meets reliable sources standards? Until you do, it will have to be removed both here and at Saptarishi.  Also, please type with regular capitalization.  Writing in all capitals gives the impression of  shouting. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Admin note; 2.124.113.148, I've already blocked you once for edit warring on this article. If you continue to post stream of consciousness rants which attack other editors and prevent improvement of the article, I'll block you for a considerably longer period of time.  This has become far too disruptive and needs to stop now.  Make your points in a concise manner, avoid ad hominem arguments, and for reasons explained by JanetteDoe don't write in ALL CAPS.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I suggest you dont remove from Saptharishi WIKI, it is the very rare document found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That may be true, however, it is currently unsourced. Can you provide a reliable source for it?  Otherwise, it may be challenged and removed at any time, by any editor.  Also, if you indent your posts, it makes discussions easier to follow.  JanetteDoe (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Below are not right way of things done by SITUSH: > Yes, Sitush should not have done undone my information provided without my notice and discussions with me. for any author who provided information should be considered and see all the documents, SITUSH should not undo documents without notice. > I m discussing with him on Gotra of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. On what basis he is removing previously added history "Eastern Chalukyas" with out any discussion. > I m in discussion with you regarding the information I have provided, what is the need to block me. "Do you want to block me / the information".

Well as you said you are not able to access link, I verified the link, I can open the document. Again I m providing the document link for lord rama gotra below.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XUiYu3XByNgC&pg=PA28&dq=rama+is+kasyapa+gotra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NbU3T__bEcex0AWG1tGzAg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rama%20is%20kasyapa%20gotra&f=false

As per WIKI author / common man you can verify documents. > You need to go through the document, which mentions Lord Rama is decendent from Kasyapa gotra. > Above document is the proof for lord rama gotra.

Further dont remove documents with discussions,


 * I am sorry but you are just repeating yourself here. Please read my response of 12 February here. Bearing that response in mind, please could you explain the relevance of your repetitive comments. As said previously, we have articles for Krishna etc. I see nothing that connects Kasyapa to Rajus and the various mythological claims are so complex that they are better handled in topic-specific articles- Sitush (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply Sitush, I m sorry, for any miscommunications between you and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To understand kasyapa connecting raju, you need to understand Brahman, kshatriya, vysyas descendent from Saptarishi gotra. Tommorow, I will update you more information on that for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No need if it is going to involve synthesis and/or original research - neither of those would be acceptable here. What we need is reliable sources that say what that connection is, pretty much straight out and without jumping through numerous intervening hoops. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Connecting Raju's to Kasyapa Gotra : Suryavamshi Raju Kshatriyas include kasyapa gotra kings, who are decscendent from Lord Rama and other suryavamshi clans.

Chandra Vamshi Raju Kshatriyas include Atreya Gotra, who are descendent Lord Krishna and other chandravamshi clans.

I already given you document for Lord Rama Kasyapa Gotra, you have to do analysis on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

> Dont be agressive be paitence to understand the history, It should be investigated one by one. I already provided you Lord Rama gotra Kasyapa, which is accepted to confirm his gotra.

> I will provide one more document proof, which should answer you question as lord rama suryavamshi ksatriya. document 3: proof for lord rama, suryavamshi kshatriya.


 * No document is attached, only a line of text. And analysis is not acceptable, as it falls under synthesis.  And you still have not provided a source for the genealogy document despite two requests.  JanetteDoe (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, > Dont repeat the same, document 1 is not accepted by u, below is my answer: Well Document 1 provided genealogy from saptarish wiki is not accepted by you. AGREED.

>So I have provided Document 2 for Lord Rama Gotra, which is acceptable as its states Lord rama gotra as Kasyapa. Sitush said document2 is agreed on lord rama gotra as kasyapa but he asked for raju connecting kasyapa, please find reply for that.

>as proof of lord rama as suryavamshi kshatriya, above i stated, i will provided "Document 3". please wait for that, i m in search of document.

Go go back to history proof, it is difficult to get information. please wait, be paitence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's about enough. I've blocked the IP for a week for continuing to flood this page with malformed screeds.  Other editors, by all means continue discussion.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bulleted list item

Pallavas Period
Sitush, You are not suppose to delete the contributed information. I added the history proofs, pallavas from orign from telugu kingdom with family name varma and baradwaja gotra. I m addding the pallava period back, above clearly stated pallavas is telugu kingdom.
 * That is WP:SYNTHESIS. You need to provide some verifiability that the Rajus = Pallavas and that this extended content is relevant given the separate Pallavas article. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Raju, Varma, Deo family name indicate, they are from raju kshatriya. It is clearly stated Pallava is telugu kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.190.112 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you cannot use a name to verify anything like this. I have reverted you until the issue is resolved here. The content does refer to "Pallavas Raju Kshatriya" but that is actually a meaningless (or, at least, grammatically incorrect) description. I would appreciate it if you could find some decent sources that actually say the Rajus are the same people as the Pallavas. It is not much to ask, surely? - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, This doesn't make meaningful, you deleted and undid my contributions for Pallava period. what is the reason for blocking me as edit war. I already warned you not to delete contribution, you can add [citation needed]. Stitush (alias Rao) wantedly Blocking Contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.190.112 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you come up with some sources here on the talk page then at least we would have something to work with. So far, no-one seems to have managed that. The burden is on the person introducing the statements to the article, not on me or anyone else who takes them out. You may be correct but you need to be able to verify it because right now the connection looks very tenuous & this is not helped by the fact that Rajus appear not to be mentioned in the Pallava articles & I am struggling to find sources myself. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitush didn't prevent you from editing the article, I did; I semiprotected the article because you were repeatedly attempting to foist an unsourced hagiography onto us as factual. Do not attack other editors here, or you will be blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, the word you're looking for is wantonly; wantedly isn't a word at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent back-and-forth
Regarding this removal and reinstatement, I have no objection to it being removed if the thing is still unsourced at, say, the end of March. The chances of it being reliably sourced are not great and it would almost certainly necessitate a tightening up of the sentence - but those things may happen. In principle, I agree with the edit summary of the contributor who removed it: it is part of a general demographic movement and seems to apply to just about any Indian social group that you could care to name, except perhaps those among the scheduled tribes. It is also something that could equally be said of, for example, present-day European migration to the USA, Australia etc but I am pretty sure that we do not bother. In a sense, it is akin to saying that the sun rises every day or that the tide comes in and out; however, let's give it a bit more time: there may be something special lurking out there. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources
There are many more than just this one, but it will do for starters. I have just removed "Some include them among the military tribes of Rajput descent."

How we jump to "Some" when citing just one person is beyond me. But, which is worse, what Thurston actually says in that source is "The Razus at their weddings worship a sword, which is a ceremony usually denoting a soldier caste. They say they are Kshatriyas ..." Now, that statement does not mention Rajput at all, nor does Thurston say that he agrees with the claim that they do make. And in fact, as is usual with Thurston, he is actually citing an even older work - in this instance, the Madras Census Report of 1901. That report is one that we know to be hopelessly confused regarding identities.

Can anyone justify me reinstating the statement that I quote, based on the source that was given? - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Forward class/caste
I've just removed a mis-cited (wrong page number) statement regarding forward class status. I am well aware that there are no official published lists of communities officially designated as such - if a community is not in the OBC/ST/SC etc lists then it is by default "forward". However, using a brief comment from a table headed " Major incidents or atrocities on dalits", where the comment is "One dalit labourer killed in a dispute over a small patch of tank-bed land by a mob of backward caste farmers led by a forward caste (Raju) Congress Party leader." seems to me to border on being a "passing mention". Can we not find some better source? If not then perhaps we will have to reinstate it, but it really is pretty poor stuff. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I should add that I would have just removed the cite & added a request for a decent source if it were not for the fact that the same source we cited does in fact refer to the Rajus as a peasant community, as part of a rounded discussion of the role of various communities in Andhra. The idea that a peasant community might not be eligible for positive discrimination measures (ie: be listed as OBC or something) seems a little bizarre to me but I have a vague memory of seeing an example of this happening. Does it perhaps relate to their former vaunted status? And why does this source call them peasants but another modern source added by me in the last hour or so refer to them as gentry? - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Past names
I am concerned about potential WP:SYNTHESIS with "Over the centuries they have been called by various alternative names that signified their military status. During the British Raj they were known as Ratsas and Rajavars, which means of or belonging to the caste of Ratsawars[5] (Raja Caste),[6] using the title of Raju."

I cannot see the cited sources in other than snippet view, and in that view the words mentioned do not even appear.


 * I can find numerous mentions to Ratsa but it is almost always in the context of the Greek, Hebrew or German languages. The only definite mention relating to Telugu etc is in an early dictionary from 1802, and that is clearly a typesetting issue, Ratsa war.
 * Of Ratasawar itself, I can find only 7 sources, and 4 of those have nothing to do with India. Mr Justice Campbell mentions the term in 1866, in a single sentence: "Another similar tribes are mentioned as 'Ratsawars'."; and Alexander Campbell's grammar of 1820 mentions them in passing ("More conversant with arms than with books ...", on page xiv; and "a bold warlike race of men" on p. 75). Campbell's 1848 dictionary attempts to define them on pages 194-195. There he says "Of or belonging to the cast of Ratsawars, found chiefly in the northern circars. They are originally descended from the Raja or Chutriya casts in the north of India and are of the second pure tribe of Hindoos; but have, for many generations, been settled in Telingana. where many of them, in former times assumed and held regal sway ..."


 * For Rajavar(s), I can find 9 sources. We can discard two of those straight away: this from 2006 and this from 2004 are both published by Gyan and are both unattributed copies from this 1997 book. The 1997 source itself has no real context because it is a list; and, honestly, I do not think that we should be listing every possible spelling/transliteration because they are endless and we are not a dictionary of synonyms. If anyone can see the introductory information for that list, which forms part of the appendices to the book, then I might be more happy. Of the remaining 6 sources, 4 are completely unrelated to India and this one is a personal name. The last is LKA Krishna Iyer, who mentions Rajavar as a synonym for Rachewar here.

The Rachewar synonym has some potential: loads of sources mention the Rachewar/Rajavar connection, if we accept Rajawar as a standard transliteration (& the "v"/"w" thing often is) ... but I cannot find any that connect them literally to Raju, other than the 1997 appendix noted above. Everything else could just as well refer to a completely different community with a similar background.

Have I missed something? Can anyone find anything more solid than this? - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)