Talk:Maratha (caste)/Archive 2

message: Hi, I have archived the old discussion page as it was too long and unwieldy. Also, please note that well over half the length of that archived talkpage comprises of a long list of clans, an identical copy of which is to be found in Maratha Clan System. I created that page myself some weeks ago, taking the same matter from a badly placed posting on the "ruling clans of India" category-page. ImpuMozhi 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On archiving the old page

message: Which brings me to the point that the only surviving discussions to be brought forward from the old talk-page pertain to the subject of maratha clans. Two lists are available:
*The list found on the Maratha Clan System page -- this needs a VAST amount of word to become readable and useful.
*The list found in the Appendix of the Maratha page -- this list features Gotras and surnames. I can affirm definately that EVERY ONE of the Gotras mentioned there are Brahmin gotras, and that atleast a few of the surnames listed seem likewise to be Brahmin surnames. 
There is need to reconcile these lists, include all available information which is RELIABLE, and create a single dependable listing. This project is obviously for someone having intimate knowledge of the subject. Even when some such person come up, it may be best to make those efforts on a page dedicated to the subjecy of maratha clans. Hence, I shall be moving the list available on the Maratha page also the the clan page; please make contributions to that topic on that page. ImpuMozhi 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on Maratha Clans

message: Well methinks Marathas are treated as a single caste rather than a collective term. Only distinction being that 96 kulis were warriors and Kunbis were peasents but inter-marrying has blurred the line between them
अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 08:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marathas a collective term? 

message: I noticed the following text added to explain the origin of Marathas:
"The origin of the Marathas is a much debated issue. According to Risley , the Marathas were of Scythian origin. However , some historians assign Scythian origin for the Rajputs and White Huns origin for Marathas. This seems more accurate because the Rajputs emerged from Agnikund , and the Scythians were fire- worshippers. The Maratha Clan system is more similar to the White Hun's clan structure. The Marathas may be an admixture of White Huns , Greek (Seleucid - Salukya dynasty) , and other invaders such as the Ahirs and Gujars."
Why should the Marathas regard themselves as descendants of obscure foreign invaders, rather than LOCAL rulers, who actually ruled Maharasthra, and whose names are actually borne by some of the Maratha clans still today?
James Todd wrote his influencial book "The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" in 1829 and 1832. At that time he proposed his theory of the Rajputs being descendants of  Scetians and Huns, based on recently written chronicles he came across. 
Since his time a large number of copper-plates and inscriptions have been discovered. With direct evidence why is there a need to speculate?
Anyone, who need to lookup the original sources can do so, by looking at compilations of inscriptions published by the "Archaeological Survey of India". You can go and visit the museums, and see the copper-plates yourself.
The Rashtrakutas of Latur/Manyakhet, the Chalukyas of kalyani did actually rule Maharashtra. They have left numerous inscriptions and copper-plates. They were, in fact, among the greatest rulers of India. They supported numerous scholars, whose books can still be found. Most of the caves of Ellora, and at least one cave of Ajanta is from their period.
There still exist Maratha clans that bear their names. Why then, the need to seek Scythian and Huns to explain the origin of Marathas?
The Shilaharas of Kolhapur and the Kadambas of Goa were real dynasties, actually ruling parts of Maharashtra. There are Maratha clans that bear their names. The Yadavas of Devagiri were also distinguished rulers of parts of Maharashtra.
Not acknowledging them as the ancestors of Marathas, is practically like someone disowning their own ancestors (like some Pakistanis sometimes do). The sad things is this: The Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Shilaharas, Yadavas and kadambas were great and noble kings. Anyone should have been pround to have them as their ancestor.
--Malaiya 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ORIGIN OF MARATHAS

message: Hi, the core of the "origin" paragraph introduced by an unregistered user lies in the following words, and I quote: "...historians have assigned a White Hun origin for the Marathas and Scythian origin for the Rajputs. This is because the Scythians were fire worshippers and the Rajputs hold the theory that they emerged from Agnikund. Therefore , the White Hun origin of the Marathas is the best explanation of Maratha origin..."
"Illogical" is a mild assessment, "arrant nonsense" is more like it. A hundred other ancient tribes worshipped fire; were they all scythian? Who says the scythians had a cultural copyright on fire, one of the basic needs of early man?? But what takes the cake is the judgment that "because the rajputs were scythians, the marathas must have been white huns(!!!!)"
====In this connection...====
It is an insult to a great people and to their land to suggest that because they are great, they cannot be native to that despicable land, they must be glorious foreigners. The theories about rajput/foreign origin deprives the actual community and their native land of justified glory, to the aggrandisement of "approved" ruler-communities; this needs to be reprobated because it is FALSE. The maratha heroes who went out and ACHIEVED an empire did not care to create fictitious genealogies and try to claim to belong to castes other than their own. They just ACHIEVED. The whole crap about glorious foreign origin, descent from the mewar royal family, etc etc was a function of the effete-ness of their successors, the powerless, under-employed princelings of British India, who idle mind turned them towards wasteful pursuits such as creating fictitious genealogies. A similar phenomenon is observed in the case of the Jat rulers of Punjab; they also have created such genealogies linking them to the rajput caste and the royal house of Jaisalmer. 
Even those idle princelings, living in the caste-bound 19th century, made only caste claims and NOT CLAIMS OF FOREIGN ORIGIN; that idea is unknown to the traditional Indian mind. Even the connection of rajputs with scythians and others is the work of James Tod and other motivated EUROPEAN scholars, who had a vested interest in linking the traditional rulers of India with foreign lands. 
There is in fact no reason to search for any but a native origin for the marathas. Even if a few drops of their blood by chance came from elsewhere, it cannot be right to exalt that fact above the major part of their ancestry. Of a persons 64 known ancestors, if one was a rajput and another a "white hun", can that be exalted to the disregard of the other 62 ancestors? A similar argument can be made for not linking any of them to previous rulers of maharashtra -- it simply does not MATTER. In the deccan region and the south, it has been a persistant trend for subaltern castes to gain political power; this is a prime reason for the situation of relatively greater social harmony that obtains in this part of the country.
Please do not revert the reversion, and make no additions without references and proper discussion on this talk-page. ImpuMozhi 14:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my reversion

message: It is an insult to a great people and to their land to suggest that because they are great, they cannot be native to that despicable land, they must be glorious foreigners. The theories about rajput/foreign origin deprives the actual community and their native land of justified glory, to the aggrandisement of "approved" ruler-communities; this needs to be reprobated because it is FALSE. The maratha heroes who went out and ACHIEVED an empire did not care to create fictitious genealogies and try to claim to belong to castes other than their own. They just ACHIEVED. The whole crap about glorious foreign origin, descent from the mewar royal family, etc etc was a function of the effete-ness of their successors, the powerless, under-employed princelings of British India, who idle mind turned them towards wasteful pursuits such as creating fictitious genealogies. A similar phenomenon is observed in the case of the Jat rulers of Punjab; they also have created such genealogies linking them to the rajput caste and the royal house of Jaisalmer. 
Even those idle princelings, living in the caste-bound 19th century, made only caste claims and NOT CLAIMS OF FOREIGN ORIGIN; that idea is unknown to the traditional Indian mind. Even the connection of rajputs with scythians and others is the work of James Tod and other motivated EUROPEAN scholars, who had a vested interest in linking the traditional rulers of India with foreign lands. 
There is in fact no reason to search for any but a native origin for the marathas. Even if a few drops of their blood by chance came from elsewhere, it cannot be right to exalt that fact above the major part of their ancestry. Of a persons 64 known ancestors, if one was a rajput and another a "white hun", can that be exalted to the disregard of the other 62 ancestors? A similar argument can be made for not linking any of them to previous rulers of maharashtra -- it simply does not MATTER. In the deccan region and the south, it has been a persistant trend for subaltern castes to gain political power; this is a prime reason for the situation of relatively greater social harmony that obtains in this part of the country.
Please do not revert the reversion, and make no additions without references and proper discussion on this talk-page. ImpuMozhi 14:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In this connection...

message: Well we need to Marathas who speak Hindi or Tamil as their first language. Cant find any credible sources, maybe Impu you could help. Plus could somebody condense Anglo Maratha Wars for this article?
अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 15:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Marathi Marathas 

message: Well, there are many non- Marathi speaking Marathas. Many of them speak Malvani, Karwari, Konkani, Hindi and Marwari languages. Some even speak Urdu, Gujarathi, etc. I will add a sub-section in the main article.
New Rock Star 10:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Marathi-Speaking Marathas 

message: Attention--Zorawar Singh
Maratha tradition is well preserved in the royal palaces right from Gwalior to Tanjore and Baroda to Nagpur.Please bear one more point that many maratha forts were destroyed during Maratha-British wars.However I must admit that more efforts are required in Maharashtra to preserve forts and other symbols of tradition.dbkasar210.211.136.93 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military tradition

message: Dear Manu, thanks for your query.Now again a few facts ignored by many foreign and also Indian scholars including Romila Thapar,Sarkar and many more due lack of acquaintanace with maratha social customs.
1)Sacred thread ceremony is not mentioned in Rigveda.It is evident that it came during Yajurvedic or even later period perhpas to accomodate new group or some changes in society.
2)Maratha society follows Rigveda e.g.Worship of vanspati(Devak),Worship of cow and sun,worship of maruts .Further their marraige custom is akin to Rigvedic practise.
3)Sacred thread ceremony is accompanied with Gayatri mantra.Gayatri mantra was composed not by brahmins but Vishvamitra(Kaushika).Even today Vishwamitra alias Kaushikas is one of main gotras of marathas.So it appears that dvija concept is later development.
4)For many maratha social customs please refer Dhanurveda.
5)At least half of Maratha Gotras are ancient 'Rajyans 'Like Vishvmitra,Shaunak,Gritsmada and others.
6)Maratha does not require any certificate from brahmins for their social status.
7)Again a point of interest please remember even in medieval time Shivaji, his father Shahji  and his son Sambhaji all were scholars of Sanskrit .By the way they are also Kaushikas.
8)It is a strange matter that Puranas mention that 50 sons of Vishvamitra became Mlechhca.This is irony of Indian history that not all but certain Brahmins have utilised their talent against the persons who have denfended them.
9)Maratha invariably worship Pipal tree which was a practise  prevalent among Indo-Aryan clans .Please refer Proto-European customs.
10)During Shivaji's time many common people like farmer,shepherd,bhikshus(brahmins)got chance to rise.Simply to say had not maratha been there these elements would not have risen.
-----So there are such many facts.Please remember Maratha society is a broad based society which includes royal clans to ordinary farmers.We are proud of our rural background as well as bravery.Maratha is an honorific name .Even Brahmins of 17th century Maharashtra are known as maratha brahmin or they have prefered at least publicly(please refer Grant duff and records of that period).So better not to ignore these facts by their modern descendent of 20th century.
Waiting for your reply and further any query.It is good thing that we are discussing over here.This will enhance our knoweldge.You are welcome,Manu.
A maratha
-------------
wht i wish to emphasise is that without wearing the sacred thread nobody can be dwija...and marathas have never been considered dwija....heres a passage from India a History:
"Marathas not being accounted as of Kshatriya caste, a bogus geneaolgy had to be fabricated which linked Shivajis' predecessors to the eminent Sisodias of Udaipur.."
it is a very common case in the whole of India where warrior clans donot have kshatriya status. as u said marathas encompass nobles to farmers, there are other warrior clans...be it the Nairs of Kerala, Poligars of Tamil Nadu, Naikers, Nayaks or any such clans....the brahmins never considered them kshatriya....what i am saying that in the article the statemnt that marathas are kshatriyas shud be removed and replaced by 'Martial caste' or something similar....because when we talk of caste we talk of what the brahmins think since its all made by them.....after a serious controversy in the case of the Nair article, their heading now reads as a 'martial nobility'.
-manu 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sacred thread 

message: I, a true Maratha, would like to thank my fellow Indians for their extraordinary bias that they show against the Marathi people in general and Marathas in particular. Thanks for calling us [{Shudra]]s, Ghatis, lower-class and vernacular. These abuses are thrown against us so unfairly. Every non-Marathi person looks down upon Marathi people as some downtrodden race. They come to our capital, Mumbai and we welcome them with open arms. They are good to us for sometime and then they stab us in the back, just as Marathi Brahmins have done to Marathas for so many years. They say "All Marathis are Ghatis". When we say that "Everyone is welcome in Mumbai, but respect the indigenious ethnic people", they show disrespect to us. When we say, "Mumbai Is Ours", they say "Mumbai aahe tumchi, Bhandi ghaasa aamchi". Marathi people are not given promotions, there are very few Marathi people in top positions in Corporate world and most of them are Brahmins. However, the most stunning prejudices (or should we call it discrimination) against Marathi speaking people is observed when they are denied buying flats/propeties in a Gujarati & Jain dominated buildings. They blatantly tell us "Since you are Marathi and non-vegetarian, you won't be allowed to buy flat in this building. People are vegetarian here !". Incidentally, only Marathis and Muslims have to bear the brunt of this. The plight of Muslims was highlighted by a leading tabloid a few days back. But what about the open discrimination going on against Marathis. No one is interested in taking up their case, because no one cares about Marathis. Whenever a Marathi person speaks up, he is called jingoistic. The English media is extravagantly biased against Marathi jingoism. However, when Bengali people take to the streets for Sourav Ganguly it is not jingoism, it's a fight for their rights. Political parties taking up the Marathi cause, like Shiv Sena are looked down upon and severely criticized. They are called uncivilized, communal, rioter and whatever else is there. I am not a supporter of Shiv Sena nor a Shiv Sainik, but I can see the bias against them. I have never supported Shiv Sena for embracing Hindutva. But under the pretext of attacking Hindutva/communal policies, the non-Marathi people attack Shiv Sena's fight for ethnic rights. 
Whenever a disaster strikes any part of India, (examples - Gujarat earthquake, Gujarat riots, Andhra famine), funds pour from the high and the mighty & the rich and the famous of Mumbai. Processions are taken out, Events are organised, Films & documentaries are made, celebrities come out and speak for the people ! But when disater strikes for Vidharba's farmers, forget the funds, no one even wants to even talk about about it. For them it's a non-issue because the affected people are Marathis. When floods hit Mumbai last year (26/7), the media balked only about the affected people of Mumbai, nobody talked about those affected in the rest of Maharashtra. I know these people don't have a sense of belonging to Maharashtra. When we remind them that they are earnin their huge profits in Maharashtra, they say it's no big deal, India's a democracy and anyone can go anywhere. 
Can you tell me what has happened to the Marathi culture of Mumbai ? When you say Mumbai, what picture comes to mind ? U.P. chatwallas of Juhu, Punjabi culture of Bollywood, businessmen from Gujarat, Blue collar men of South India, the common people projected as the Bihari taxiwalas, autowalas, Virani family of TVdom !!! Where do you find Marathis or Marathi influence ? I tell you - kaamwali bais, BMC sweepers, BEST drivers ? But they are never projected as common men, they are lower class extremely poor people. Also their population is miniscule compared to Bihari people. Which takes me to the topic of demographics. Demographics is a extremely important topic and has the power to wipe out a culture totally and within limits of legitimacy. One must take the examples of the [{America]]s esp. Mexico where the indigeneous Indian people were wiped out. Or take the example of Israel where the population of Jews increased due to aaliyah and the Jewish theocratic state became legitimate. Or take the example of Indonesia where demographics changed the nation. Mumbai which had a Marathi population at 80-85% now has only 29% Marathis and that too is a 2001 figure. The percentage of Marathi population is going down at an alarming rate, mainly due to immigrating Biharis, UPites, Gujaratis and others who come in truckloads to Mumbai. Marathi people could do well to understand that Mumbai is in their hands only till their population is significant. Once a particular ethnic group overtakes the Marathi population in Mumbai, I am afraid Mumbai is close to gone from Marathi hands. And this is happening ! It won't take long before Mumbai is cutoff from Maharashtra. And let me tell you every non-Marathi including Biharis, Gujaratis, South Indians, North Indian Muslims(this term I use only for Urdu-speaking Muslims), Rajputs, Bengalis, and others, want it to happen. The other day, I was reading a leading newsmagazine and there was a column by Rang de Basanti director Rakeysh Om Prakash Mehra on "How To Save Mumbai". He writes that Mumbai, in order to be saved from disasters should be severed(thats the word he used) from Maharashtra. He goes on to say that Mahrashtra leaders are too busy in other problems like farmers suicides in Vidharba to look after. This means that he is interested only in Mumbai but not in farmers suicides in Maharashtra. And why is he so concerned about Mumbai. Because Mumbai has a big population of his ethnic group. 
Of course, there are many prejudices against Marathi people and yet they do nothing. That day, after the Rakhi Sawant-Mika Singh episode, there were reactions from different people. Shefali Zariwala, former item girl, says that "Rakhi must be lying, Mika cannot do anything like this because he is a true PUNJABI and all Punjabis are gentlemen." Yes, Shefali, I know you've married a Punjabi(Manmeet Gulzar), but does that make every Punjabi a truthful man ? And Marathi people can be liars ? Remember it is the soil of Maharashtra which made you ! This is only an instance of the thousands of prejudices which are being made against Marathi community. 
Marathi culture is being suppressed and Marathi people don't know this. I can't understand how Marathi people can sit calmly. Doesn't your blood fill with rage at this discrimination against us in our own land ? And Marathas being the warriors and protectors of the Marathi community should lead the Marathis towards glory and justice. Although today there doesn't seem to be a Maratha leader who will take on these things, I know a Maratha will rise, just like Shivaji who came out of nowhere to build a Maratha Empire. In the history of this world, each time a particular community has been oppressed, it has woken up and avenged its oppression and ruled in glory. 
--Sawai Raja 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You, Fellow Indians

message: ok, let us analyse this perception as projected by a few brahmins1).
1)Not the entire Brahmins but a few authors put forward this view during late 19th and 20th century when Marathas were thrown out of power.
2)Please remember Huien-Tsang clearly writes Pulekeshi Chalukya as Kshatriya king while a king of Sindh as a shudra king.Hence he was having quite clear idea of Indian society.
3)So it quite clear that there were kshatriyas rulers at least till that time.Now look at the stories forward by Puranas which are nothing but Bramhnic fallacy.
4)The controversy of Vedokat between Rajashri Shahu and his servent priest created this controversy.It is tragedy of India that during political slavery such priestly have tried to asseert their supremacy.So is it not altogether a matter of shame for such lot.
5)If Marathas were shudras then why all sorts of priests accepted gifts from Maratha kings since down ages and saluted them.
6)There is this confusion mainly regarding Upananyan sanskar.And as I have challenged that please let anyone show it as an ancient custom from Rigveda even in a single richa of all 10 mandalas.
Please refer 10th mandala which mentions that Rajnyas originated from hands.Shudras from feet.It means whoever fights for the society ,he is Rajyana.Does it mention that you require any kind of ritual? Answer is NO.
Again go through the ceremnoy of sacred thread.It is said that Lord Mahadev was angry with incest of Brahmdev with his own daughter.Hence he cut his one head.Then Brahma statrted running .The Mriga constellation and Vyadha star  in the sky is connected with story .AS a token of this, they were putting a piece of deer earlier.
Against this background please remember Brahmins have served maratha kings .Shall I say they are shudras? 
It is said that only 24 rishis have understood Vedas (Vishavamitra to Gautum).Does it mean there is no Brahmin after that ?Brahmin is a person who understand Bramha.A priest performing may not necessarily be a bramhmin.
But for practical purpose whoever performs rituals is generally called a brahmin by all of us.
7)Maratha-Brahmin controversy can be traced back to the days of Vishvamitra and Vashishthas.
There is cooperation and conflict over the ages.It can be seen as a struggle of Temporal and warrior people over political power.
8)There was no controversy at the time of coronation of Shivaji.He assumed the title of Kshatriya kulavantas  ie-head of kshatriays of all India.Hence Gagabhat was called who happened to be chief of Kashi as kashi is the number uno.
Shivaji did not prove his kshatryiya as it was not needed.He show the world that vedic Indra is still alive in vanqishing the enemy.
9)As far as perception of certain individuals is concerned, it is their own outlook.But in the quest of knoweldge, one must have a very deep knoweldge and a sense of scholarship.
10)You refer any record of 18th century Brahmins are also called Marathas.Hence understand the problem .
11)And lastly If warriors who have won battles and defended their motherland are not kshatriyas,then who is kshatriya?
12)Now look a third view  ,rather impartial view by foreign encyclopedia Colombia
'The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001-05. 
  Marathas 
   
or Mahrattas (both: mrt´z, mrä´tz) (KEY) , Marathi-speaking people of W central India, known for their ability as warriors and their devotion to Hinduism. From their homeland in Maharashtra their chieftains rose to power in the 17th cent. The Marathas helped bring about the fall of the Mughal empire and were the most determined rivals to British supremacy in India.  '
I think this will clear your doubts.
If you have any query regarding maratha wars,weapons,forts etc please raise queries.You are welcome.
Har Har Mahadev
Kasar 11:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manu

message: Attn-Jai,Dudhane and others -
You are right .The facts put are quite genuine .However a few facts can be added.
A note of caution is that so far in history , there is no comprehensive study of Marathas as such .The tragedy of maratha or Indian history is that there was no systemic attempt regarding history.Puranas  are nothing more than flattery and story books.A simple comparison of puranas with archeology and foreign accounts exposes its weakness.
Secondly Marathas is a very wide spread group ,perhaps as single group no other group is so widespread.That creates problem.
Third many noted historians like Romila Thapar ,Bipin Chandra or a few more ,with respect to their talent and contribution ,it can be said that they are literary figures than historian.They do not know much history beyond books and Delhi.As compared with this  lot Grant Duff or other British historians were better acquainted with ground reality and traditions of marathas.
Fourthly Marathas as such are not bothered about their own history.So why to blame others if they project wrong things.
So better let us start gathering information as far as possible instead of reading silly accounts.Our forefathers made history but we are such worthless lot that we are not even able defend or preserve at least on paper.
Keeping in this mind let us start .We should not project a false or a kind of grandiose picture.But should not be goverened by idiotic perceptions of certain persons as we have seen.
1)Please refer the clan system for origin of 96 royal clans.It is a very old system common to Indo-European people.You may please refer scottish clans or German clans.
Even among Hittite people who ruled over Syria/Anatolia(modern Turkey)1800B.C., Kul means warrior people.Their language is quite akin to marathi and it was the first to break off from Indo-Europeans.What is my point that we have to gather information worldwide regarding ancient customs,festivals, war ,weapons .That will give us a great insight into marathas.
2)Please go through RigVeda (Griffith's translation availble at sacred text.com), one will notice that it is the description of martial peasant class.There is reverence for Bull,for Cow,for farmers and as such all nature.Carefully obeserve marathas practises of worship specially in villages , one will struck by the similarility.
Now see puranas and their modern champions keep shouting that farmers are kshatriyas whereas in Rigveda ,Indra is ploughing the field in richa.
---There are such hundreds of things which we can contribute and can really give a better and historical accounts than flattery on puranic pattern.
kasarKasar 07:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 96 CLANS

message: --203.197.93.88 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grate original historian .... 

message: Attn-Jai,Dudhanean and others.
photos ar equite good.Very soon we will utilise at appropriate place.Please keep contributing more and more.
Your thoughts are correct and let us start from ourselves.Basically any society which want to contibute to the civilization needs to be knowledge based one.So let us enrich the pages over covering all possible fields of maratha history.We can encourage all those who want to contribute.Many people do not know wikipedia .May we spread the message.Let us change our maratha cavalry into internet savy and knoweldge thirsty army.please react.kasar59.184.155.69 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribution

message: Hi Vishal, I know you've contributing a lot to Wikipedia especially to Maratha-relatd articles and particularly Maratha Clan System. Great work. And for that here's a barnstar from me 
--NRS | T/M\B 13:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BARNSTAR !!!! 

message: Watch and read this statements
"The Marāthās"(Marathi:मराठा)is a collective term referring to an Indo Aryan group of Hindu, Marathi-speaking Shudra and lower caste to Brahmin castes of peasants hailing mostly from the present-day state of Maharashtra, who created a substantial empire, covering a major part of India, in the late 17th and 18th centuries AD.
1) Marathas are not shudras. They are Kshatriya .The bramins of Maharashtra , because off political resons referred them so. But it has no support by nature itself.
2) The Shudras of maharashtra are not Marathas because ther caste is reconised as diffrently by goverment of India . If you have dought about please contact the goverment of India and see the law says what.
3) Brahmin caste of Maharashtra and India are not reconised as Marathas by law or by peoples of India.
4) Ignoring these facts if someone calls Marathas as Shudras or Shudras as Marathas then it should be reconise as a criminal act and should be punish in the court of Law.
5) I know that here on Wikipedia , anyone can edite but editing by bad intentions in mind and ignoring the facts accepted by the legal entities of this world should be count as a criminal act.
6) Wikipedia generaly insist on that statements , edits done at Wikipedia should be verifiabel and trure.
---- Vishal1976
:: Those Hindus who are not in Indian Military are SHUDRAS. Read Varnas well. How can you call Coolie, Clerk Maratha as Kshatriya? Then do u want to say Indian Military is Hijra?. Shudra Maratha should read 'Shivaji:Hindu King in Islamic India' by Jaims Lain. It gives information how Shivaji biological son of Brahmin Dadoji Kondadev :). I will give proofs .. so think before reverting Shudra123 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again insulting statements about maratha caste ?? Why ?? Stop this. 

message: Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing insulting to call any Hindu a shudra. Understand Varnashrama dharma in a present situation. Also read ShivDharma concept in Maharashtr. If Maratha feel insuting to be called as Shudra then you can convert to other religion. Being lower-cast to Brahmins is Dharma for every Hindu. Shudra123 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Varnas]] and Shudra Concept

message: and have a distinctive look which distinguishes them from other Indians-
Can anyone elaborate on this, is it the physique, facial structure, skin color etc??
Rakes 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can some one elaborate this

message: *Smita Patil
*Sulochana
*Shriram Lagu
*Lakshmikant Berde
*Sulochana Chavan
*Nirmiti Sawant
* Nana Patekar
*Ritesh Deshmukh
Of the above mentioned artists there seems to be some disagreement, if they belong to 
Maratha clan or not. I have undone a previous edit, and put it there for discussion. 
The earlier edit  gave no references. Hope  u all contribute and so that we change the list.
(Asro 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artists