Talk:Samantha Kshatriya

Arbitrary heading
The article is Original research and synthesis. Malayala Kshatriyas is a pov creation of the author. No Google result other than two from Wikipedia, both of which are the creation of the author. 59.91.253.9 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Nambuthri definition there are no such things as "Malayala Kshatriya". It is important to note that the first Upanayanam to be performed by a Varma was in 1500s, and that was done by Brahmanar from outside Kerala because the Nambuthris thought of Varmas, Nairs and other Savarnar alike as Sudra. If there is such a thing as Malayala Kshatriya, this would include Nairs as well (the Varmas come under the general umbrella of Nair), and all that is different between Nair and Varma is that Varmas have begun wearing the Poonul since 1500s, all other traditions and customs are the same. In fact there are Varma communities that do not have the Poonul, so does that mean they are not Kshatriya? "Samanta Kshatriyas" do not have the Poonul, and they too are referred to as Shudra by Nambuthris. The Manusmriti does not say that Upanayanam is the defining factor for Kshatriya status, only that it is one of the rituals for a "twice-born". Kshatriyan 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Samantha Kshatriyas are not Malayala Kshatriyas and they are merely mentioned in the article because of their claim as being so...The said references mention the term "Malayala Kshatriyas" and even give a list of families that belong to that caste..Everything cannot be expected to be found on an internet search...kindly read good books before making concluding statements on the topic...i would suggest to u the Travancore Manuals and the History of Travancore by Shungoony Menon...the Census Reports of Travancore mention the Malayala Kshatriyas as a group as also refer to the Kshatriya Act, Nayar Act etc of the Travancore govt which are described in the Travancore State Manual Vol.4 by Velu Pillai...Kshatriyan, we are not taking into consideration the Nairs because when the caste system was in force irrespective of their vocation they were considered Sudras...although modern education and general view will class them as Malayala Kshatriyas the term was traditionally reserved for the poonol wearing Varmas...Also i dont understand how we, sitting here in this age, can interpret things of the past that were interpreted differently then...the manusmriti says so many things contrary to the things most of the Kerala upper castes did..so i would call research of old times with a modern view wrong when it comes to article like this because these things dont exist today and so we must present them as they did exist ages back..u will notice how the ezhava article doesnt mention once that the ezhavas were freed from slavery only sometime in 1810-1815 before which they were bonded labour...thus many things get overlooked when we try to look at the topic from the present scenario..Manu
 * From The Internal Structure of the Nayar Caste by C. J. Fuller (Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 283-312):In Travancore, the categorization differed slightly from that of Central Kerala; there, Thampurans were divided into three categories of which only the highest ranking a grouping made up of ten chiefly families and known as Koil Tampurans were Samanta Kshatriyas (Equivalent to Kshatriya, not proper Kshatriya). The second grouping, known as Rajas, comprised nine chiefly families (including the Travancore royal family) who were Samanthans (Equidistant from Samanta Kshatriya and Illathu Nair), like the third grouping of ordinary Tamburans. The Raja of Travancore, however used to perform an extraordinary ceremony known as Hiranyagarbham, "golden womb." The essential feature of this ceremony was the casting of a hollow golden vessel through which the Raja passed. On emerging from the vessel, the raja's caste status rose from Samanthan to Samanta Kshatriya. Unfortunately for the royal family, the Kshatriya status so acquired was not hereditary, and thus the ceremony had to be performed for each new Raja. But the misfortune of the royal house was a blessing for the Travancore Brahmans, for when the ceremony was over, the golden vessel was cut into pieces which the Raja then distributed among the Brahmans. It has been suggested (Drury 1890:188), although so far as I know without any very sound evidence, that the Brahmans' lust for gold sometimes tempted them to do away with ailing Rajas, in the expectation that another hiranyagarbha would soon have to be performed. (For a description of the ceremony, see Mateer 1871:169-175.) Axxn (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Malayala Kshatriyas - the truth

The family names are either of the perumbadappu swaproopam or Venad swaroopam only. However the Kolathiris (Mooshika vamsham) are the first even before Venad swaroopam to become "Kshatriyas". Hiranya garbham was performed by Kolathiri udayavarman in 1617 AD with the aid of Tulu brahmins. It was later when the Venad swaroopam also got the same fancy of becoming "Kshatriya" that later the then Travancore Raja brought 185 of these Saagara families to Thiruvalla to perform HiranyaGarbham for him. (These preists are generally called Thiruvalladesi Embraanthiris).So if you want to consider perumbadappu and Venad as Malayala kshatriyas, the Kolathiris (Mooshika vamsham) has an equal if not a better claim to the kshatriya status.So is the case with every poonol wearing swaroopam of Kerala which includes Samoothiri of the Nediyiruppu swaroopam also

Reference

Hindu Kingship and the Origin of Community: Religion, State and Society in Kerala, 1750-1850 Susan Bayly Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1984), pp. 177-213

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename article
The article should be renamed "Samantha Kshatriya" which is what the Rajahs were.Jammedfly (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please change the title Samantha else contain since it is one of the name of sub gotra of Sanaga gotra of Blacksmiths (vishwakarma's) reference Vishwakarma Purana or read http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lYSd-3yL9h0C&pg=PA552&lpg=PA552&dq=sanaga+gotra+and+samantha&source=bl&ots=aDqkAh1dKN&sig=WSgi69RjO3ZlPRhx_jPeWqCBWqI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=12GdUoLmC4KRrQeMi4EQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=sanaga%20gotra%20and%20samantha&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion - Nairs of Megasthenes?
Megashtenes did not mention any Nairs of Malabar. Actually, the word Malabar may not even be that old. This has been thoroughly discussed and discarded in the Nair page on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ANair/Archive_9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.10.250 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Rename article and clean up references
+1 on earlier section - this should be renamed as "Samantha Kshatriya" at the very least. Additionally, the article has multiple mistakes including classifying Perumpadapu Swaroopam as Samantha as well as noting Raja Ravi Varma as a prominent Samantha. It is well known that Perumpadapu Swaroopan (Cochin Raja) are Kshatriyas with the sacred thread. Raja Ravi Varma is from Killimanur and are also Kshatriyas with the sacred thread (Upanayanam / Poonool)

The article has too much misinformation (including categorization of different last names) without any references / citations. A complete rewrite is suggested. --Das —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.221.181 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

--I agree completely.Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Population figures given are absolute rubbish
The population figures which are given in the introduction page are absolutely untrue and baseless. According to the 1931 census, there were less than 9,000 Samanta Kshatriyas in Kerala. (Of which, 3,673 in Travancore which itself is inflated as 90% of the Samanthan Rajas reported themselves as Samanta Kshatriya, although they don't have any Chandravanshi heritage. 2,128 reported in Cochin and 3,000 reported in Malabar making the population around 8,800). The Samanthan population is given as 97 in Travancore (laughable.... ROTFLMAO...), 571 in Cochin (again same) and around 5,100 in Malabar. It seems that only in Malabar, the Samanthans reported themselves as such. In both Central and South Kerala, they exaggerated their caste status. In Travancore, only the Koil Thampurans (10 families) had the Samanta Kshatriya status. The King of Travancore and the nine Raja families didn't had anything other than Samanthan status. The third subgroup, which was more populous than these two were also Samanthan. So, at any given time and under any condition, less than one third of the Travancore Royals were Chandravanshi Kshatriya or Samanta Kshatriya. The remaining were low caste Nagavanshi. Still.... when the result of the census is published, 97% of the Travancore royals suddenly rises to Rajput status!!!

Even if there were 9,000 Samanta Kshatriyas in Kerala during 1931, it will be impossible for them to increase their numbers to more than 25,000 or at the maximum 30,000 now. Nairs who numbered 1,750,000 in 1931 numbers less than 4,500,000 now, i.e 157% increase. So the Samanta Kshatriyas should number around 22,600 now. (i.e if no additional families were suddenly granted the Samanta Kshatriya status during 1931-2009). And, as far as I know, no Hiranyagarbha ceremony was conducted after 1930s, as the British banned the ceremony (When the people were starving, the Rajas of Travancore was wasting crores of rupees to keep their Chandravanshi status). So effectively, the royal house of Travancore is currently inhabited by Nāgas, not Aryans.

If anyone has JSTOR access, then please refer this article. Axxn (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be merged
I think that it should be merged with Kshatriyas in general. It's not really significant, and since it's part of the general Kshatriya caste, it should be merged with that article.Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)