Talk:Roman Catholic Kshatriya/Archive 1

Category et al
The Roman Catholic Kshatriyas themselves self-identify as Kshatriyas. These people claim Kshatriya lineage, based on their ethnic and family histories. Their caste status remained with them as Catholics, after conversion. True, Hindus say that it is imperative to be Hindu to be Kshatriya. But then again, there are Hindus who believe that you cannot convert to the religion and must be born a Hindu. So, by your logic, should we disregard George Harrison and Annie Besant as Hindus? Also, the Namboodhri Brahmins do not consider the Goud Saraswats to be Brahmins, and the Chitpavan Brahmins do not consider the Shenvi sub-caste of the GSB's to be pure Brahmins. So, should we disregard them as Brahmins as well? My point is this, Kshatriya is just a label and if these people self-identify as such, then the category should be included. Now, whether or not, they are right on this matter, is another question! In this case, it's their self-identification that matters, not anyone else's opinions. Joyson Noel Holla at me  17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, your claim that there aren't actual Kshatriya castes in Goa is utterly and verifiably false. Take for example, the Konkan Maratha and Kalavants. The Marathas are nominal, but Kshatriyas nevertheless. The Marathas even called themselves Chardos, before labelling themselves Marathas later on, to distinguish themselves from their Christian counterparts. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  18:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is another example i would like to give. The Ahmadiyya and the Druze are not considered to be Muslim by other Muslim sects. Yet, they still label themselves as such. The Islamic categories are still included in these articles. So, if the Islamic categories can be included for these articles, in spite of their Muslimness being challenged by other Muslims, then the Kshatriya category can be included here, in spite of the community's Kshatriya status being challenged by Hindus.  Joyson Noel  Holla at me  18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

well seriosuly these are claims.and the article is badly cited and no third party sources,btwn abt goan kshatriya.there aren't any.all are more or less sat-sudra(nominally kshatriya) including the konkan maratha and kalvantas who have become brahminized (wearing sacred threads to claim proper kshatriya status) just like shivaji.also the caste name is chardo and includes trader castes as well.this kshatriya thing seems lot of pov.also please note.catholics both mangalorean and goan have darker skin and more importantly flat noses.clearly pointing they have mixed ancestry and aren't full blooded aryans even the bamons(so called saraswat converts).ps the namboodiri don't consider any one except themselves to be brahmins not just saraswats.that point is irrevelant here. Linguistic ''' Geek 08:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is badly cited, but includes multiple sources about the Kshatriya origins of the Chardos.


 * You should know that Goan and Mangalorean Catholics come from different castes, indicating their origins.Also, your claim about appearance indicating mixed origins is nonsense! Brahmins are not all fair skinned. There are plenty of dark skinned Goud Saraswats and Daivajnas with flat noses, as well. I should know. I spent over three and a half years in Mangalore and had many Brahmin friends. There is no difference between a Baman and a Konkana, in appearance! You cannot tell the difference between the two based on appearance alone. The Chardos include a small minority of Vaishyas who were incorporated. Their descendants consider themselves Kshatriya nevertheless. As for the Namboodhri, even if that is the case, my point is still valid! Should we disregard everyone else as Brahmins? The Goan Kshatriyas might be sat-Sudras, but they are still Kshatriyas, as i stated earlier. As for the origins of Bamans and Chardos, there is historical proof of it. Whatever you believe is irrelevant! Apart from our family traditions stating that and similarity of cultures, it is also stated by reputed experts on the Konkani Catholics. I could go and on about this.


 * You should read "Faces of Goa" by Karin Larsen, "Sarasvati's Children: A History of the Mangalorean Christians" by Alan Machado Prabhu, "Konkani Christians of Coastal Karnataka in Anglo-Mysore Relations 1761-1799." by Pius Fidelis Pinto, "Distinguished Mangalorean Catholics 1800-2000 - A Historico-Biographical Survey of the Mangalorean Catholic Community." by genealogist Michael Lobo, "History of Christianity in Canara" by Severine Silva, "The Christian Impact on South Kanara" by Kranti Farias, "Goa to Me" by Teotonio R. De Souza, "Land and people of Indian states and union territories" by S. C. Bhatt and Gopal K. Bhargava, etc. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  09:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

well clearly my friend do you understand third party sources ? ethnographers like Edgar Thurston etc not community literature. Linguistic ''' Geek 09:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The claims that those books are "community sponsored literature" is nonsense, as it is a claim not based on facts. These are reputed historians and by dismissing their work as such, you are insulting them. Added K.C. Das' book, "Global encyclopaedia of the West Indian dalit's ethnography". He is an ethnographer.


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=uRDOOYwhCl8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s


 * Joyson Noel Holla at me  09:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

clearly you have never heard of the word self glorification.all most all communities in india do it.third party sources are always better for citations.saying this because i have been invovled in lot of ethnic group article esp indian ones which are full of pov and We are great hogwash. Linguistic ''' Geek 09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! I agree with you, sir. It depends on what sources you use. But in this case, our dispute was not about how great the Chardos are! Our dispute was whether experts consider them to be descendants of Vaishyas and Kshatriyas or whether only they themselves claim to be such, without any agreement on this from experts. In addition to Severine Silva's book, i referenced it with ethnographers Bhatt and Bhargav's book, as well as K.C. Das' book. There shouldn't be any problem now, with the intro. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  09:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

claiming kshatriya status is part of self glorification.i have come to know this through experience.also this article still requires clean up.good luck with that. Linguistic ''' Geek 10:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think we can both agree that people who self-glorify themselves because they are Kshatriyas, whether Hindu or Catholic, are imbeciles. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop sterile arguments
Why do you people argue so much about it here?instead of improving the quality of the article?

UPWARD MOBILITY has been a natural human trait since times immemorial. Here are few examples:

by the Deshasthas.
 * The history of the Chitpavans  does not really go beyond some 400 years,their certain past is unknown.Their status was raised by the Peshwas.Still they are looked down upon
 * The Gowd Saraswat Brahmins and the Daivajnas have always been rivals even though some of them have same roots.The former refer the later as Shudras and the later refer the formers as Kharvis.Though the mainstream Brahmins scoff their Brahmin claims.
 * A group of Marathi coppersmiths claims to be a Daivajna.
 * The Nairs and the Bunts claiming Nagavanshis.

And many groups who were once very well cultured and powerful are leading miserable life,or at-least they claim so. Some examples could be:The Dhangars and Kurubas the who claim to have Kshatriya.Many Adivasis communities now could also have had a very ccivilized past.May be because of some natural calamities or attacks by the foreigners compelled them to take shelter in the forests.

Its very natural...

lets improve this article now!

Nijgoykar (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well said! The Mahars of Maharastra (derogatorily called Ghatis by some) also apparently once had a great culture, before they were reduced to Untouchable status. The following link makes an interesting read, regarding one Dr. Harish Bansode (a Mahar) on whether he was ashamed of his ethnicity.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bvGOHXlxUHUC&pg=PA175&dq=Mahars+ashamed&hl=en&ei=72ATTcvoD8-E4AbuwrCGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mahars%20ashamed&f=false


 * I am currently planning on revamping the Roman Catholic Brahmin article. I will first focus my attention on improving that article first, and then if time permits, i shall try to improve this one. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  14:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of context
Even though its out of context... Goans refer all others who come from the Ghats as Ghatis.Even the Gujaratis call Marathi speakers as Ghatis. Nijgoykar (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, i was told that it was a derogatory term used to label a Maharastrian or more specifically, a low caste Maharastrian. I guess it is all right for some and offensive for some. There was even a controversy as to whether the term is offensive. See HC to decide if 'ghati' is offensive to Maharashtrians Joyson Noel  Holla at me  15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

About Chardi
The word Chardi or Chardo in Konkani does not mean a Kshatriya,the Prakrit word Khetri in Konkani is equivalent of Classical word Kshatriya.

The word Chardi comes from the word Chavudi or Chavada which is a Bhoja clan a subclan of Yadu warriors which migrated to Goa from Saurashtra during the 7th and 8th centuries after their kingdom was destroyed by the Arabs in 740 AD.

The point is Not all so called Roman Catholic Kshatriyas can be the descendents of the Chavadas or not all are have Kshatriya descent. The actual term Chavudi might be a apabramsha form of Prakrit Chavuradi and Sanskrit Chaturathi,meaning:the ones riding a chariot yoked by four horses or those riding four chariots.