Talk:Origin of the Rashtrakutas

message: The word Rashtrakuta means Chief of the Rashtra. Here, the Rashtra could mean nation but in reality means the Rashtra or Rashtri people in this context. It is a different fact that finally they ended up not only as chiefs of a particular tribe but also chiefs of multiple nations. That is precisely the reason Arabs called them one of the four principal empires in the world. This Rashtri complex needs to be well understood for someone to get a good grip over the Rashtrakuta ancestry. The Rashtra or Rashtri upon ap-bhramsa becomes Ratta or Rathi. This same northern rendition becomes Raddi in the south. So, what needs to be understood here is that these Rathi/Raddi/Reddy were a nation-wide farming community in history. Reddy is still the same in Andhra and the Rathis are still represented by the Marathis in Maharashtra region but up north, most of the Rathis in Rajasthan and Haryana are now either Maheswaris or Jats. But originally, these Jats of the northern plains and Rajasthan were also a part of this same Rathi/Raddi complex. 
The biggest clue is that in the foothills of Himachal even today, the Rathis are the lower social status kinsfolk of Thakurs and they are the ones who wield the yoke or the plough. It was the same Kshatriya caste that was known by two different epithets, Rashtrakuta or chiefs of the Rashtras and Gurjar Pratihar or protectors of the Gurjaras. The name of this Kshatriya tribe that largely disappeared from multiple parts of the country after the Turkic invasion is Ror.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.109.191 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rashtrakuta kings could not be Abhira

message: Raj era sources dealing with caste and history are not considered to be reliable, per the consensus of umpteen discussions at WP:RSN, WT:INB and elsewhere. Why, then, are so many being used in this article? It needs to be updated to reflect modern sources and/or pruned to remove the dodgy stuff written in the 1930s etc. I realise that this is intended to be some sort of overview of theories etc but, really, why give credence to unreliable sources? - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raj era sources 

message: It has been well established in the article that Rashtrakutas were of Kannada Origin. It has also been mentioned that they were of Dravidian Cultivator origin. The chief cultivating caste of Karnataka are the Vokkaligas. Kindly mention the possible Vokkaliga origin.
Shetty, Sadanand Ramakrishna (1994). Banavasi Through the Ages. Banavasi (India): Printwell. p. 121.:“The community of the land tillers or agriculturists was known as vokkaligas. The importance given to the cultivation of land is amply demonstrated by the fact that numerous tanks were dug and irrigational facilities were provided at various places. Some of the Rashtrakuta inscriptions found in the Banavasimandala carry the depiction of a plough at the top. There is a view that the Rashtrakutas were originally prosperous cultivators, who later on dominated the political scene. Some of the inscriptions refer to them as Kutumbinah which is interpreted as meaning cultivators.”
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=cUhuAAAAMAAJ&dq=vokkaliga+rashtrakuta&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=vokkaliga+rashtrakuta Cyberanthropologist (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think there is a need to go specifically into theCaste of the Rashtrakutas. The fact that they may have been Kannadigas is already mentioned and that should suffice in a summary article.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rashtrakuta Vokkaliga origin