Talk:Kshatriya/Archive 3

message: I have archived the old discussion page as the size was longer than is preferable. You can find it by clicking the above link. For furthur discussion, please post here.
-- Shishir Rane 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving The Old Page 

message: I fully agree with SK comment-this wikipedia is a joke.First Rajputs introduced their version of origin from fire and now marathas have come with their version of cock and bull stories.I neither agree with the content on maratha origin nor will buy the logic that all modern kshatriya are of recent origin- Mr Rane/Dudhane do you mean to say all past kshatriya disappeared from earth,where did they go-blown with the wind.
DS
I think more discussion is required on kshatriya descendants issue.list is too long and contains castes which has no history of war.One is not kshatriya merely because names suggest it or someone is engaged in some sort of samskara.List banks too much upon Rajputs not being Aryans.
DsHolywarrior 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Comment 

message: I have taken out the italic sentence from the article:
-Although the Rajputs are far from being a homogenous race, recent Genetic & historical studies done in India have yielded evidence of the Scythian roots of Rajputs . By the tenth century, Post-Gupta Kshatriya rulers of northern and central India also adopted the term Rajputs and were responsible for the continuity of administrative style and coinage of the preceding period[6].-
The main reason for the removal being that a non-published book by a non-existant author with random and suggestive data from 5 books (also from an ambiguous website) should by no means be considered as 'Recent Genetic and Historical studies in India'.  I have seen this website for many years, and as I am from Rajasthan, I rather doubt the existent of the so called 'Rajasthan Liberation Front'
, of which the webpage is said to be affiliated, which is the reason why I raised the issue.
Regards, Maharaj Devraj 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the Agnivanshi section 

message: Please go ahead and read my postings on the Yadav page discussion, all of them, and you will see for yourself what this person called Ikon ha been doing. I urge you to do so. He suggests that I hate Yadavs, I am surprised by this, and deeply offended. They are a great community, and I have known many, however, just because I like someone, I cannot agree to false propaganda about him/her no matter if it is positive or negative. I think we should present the right information. 
Please read my postings carefully and you will know.
Ikon has not replied to any of the points that I have raised, and you can check this. It is in the public domain. Also, he/she has been levelling all sorts of accusations, some of whome I don't even understand as I am new to Wikipedia. 
Like I have said, let us all share good references, and put here whatever is right. :)
By the way, all the references that I have provided are from PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN REPUTED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. PLEASE VERIFY TJIS AS WELL before you trust me or any other person. I will wait for some more time.Shashis 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply Ikon 

message: Plz tell me if these sources are less credible.
::Abhira referred as Brahmin
,Abhira ruler of Somnath fighting against Mahmud,ref of Abhira as kshatriya
Abhira are mentioned as Kshatriya in Mahabharata and were a very important part of Chakravyuha made by Dronacharya , the man who allowed only Brahmins and Kshatriyas in his army. All the sources mentioned by sashi does not at even one place says Yadavas are shudra.He makes many twisted arguments to arrive at this conclusion. When abhira (to be called ahir later) themselves were called Brahmana, Kshatriya then the efforts to trace their shudra origin is exercise in futility, forget about yadavas who are equally part of Yadav - Ahir society.  Ikon |no-blast 10:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sashi's observations are based on census records, which we all know declares Yadava's as shudra, this is the very basis of them being in OBC list. However census records lacked consistency and were changed from one census to another, and are good for sociological research not history related one. Sociologists started using this term because Kshatriya , shudra ... terms are controversial, any back calculations to arrive at certain conclusion is bad, and is considered as unpardonable sin in sociological research. Ikon |no-blast 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: REPLY> Thank you for the references, and I am happy that we are moving forward. The first reference seems good, I checked the article. The remaining two are doubtful, and clearly not as credible as any published research article in an academic journal. The credibility of the first reference also rests on the references provided within it, which are themselves credible being from such published research. In short, there is only one good reference, the first one. Let us now get to the point. The existence of a group of people referred to as Abhiras is well recorded, and there are no issues in this. Who these people were is not clear. Some researchers refer to them as one of the invading tribes. The problem is the assumption that Abhiras are the modern day Ahirs. Please show us the basis for this conclusion. Like I have said before, similarity in names does not mean anything. Also, if one could show that Abhiras and Ahirs are the same, then we run into the problem of shwing that Ahirs are related to Krishna. I am very interested in learning and maybe our search for a common ground would reveal new interesting and credible info. it is considered likely that groups of people were accomodated into different classes in the Hindu Varna system, and movement up and down within the system was not unusual. Interestingly, rcent genetic research suggests that genetic variation within a caste group is much more than across groups. In essence this means that genetically, it is hard to argue that any caste group is homogenous and people from the same racial stock might be members of different classes. However, we need more researchon this issue before drawing conclusions and work is still going on Shashis 06:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: REPLY cont...> Ikon is mistaken when he/she says that my observations are based on census records. Such records are just one source. By the way, all the Yadavs in India have accepted these census records as true when they accepted being part of the OBC group. Just to refresh your memory, in compiling the list for OBCs, it was explicitly stated as a criteria that the groups to be considered for inclusion SHOULD NOT BE KSHATRIYA OR BRAHMIN, and only those who were not one of these were even considered. I am surprised that this is even an issue. There are numerous sources that say what I am suggesting based on the references. Besides the references that I have provided, there is the Imperial Gazette of India at the University of Chicago library, there is a published book on the topic of caste and society in the 18th-20th century in India by a faculty member at Oxford Univ. that also provided many other references. I can provide the exact book details if required, I have checked it. It is sold on Amazon.com. I would not be surprised if one can disprove the claims of many groups of people with supposed origin from a historical figures  or mythological figures (such as Parasurama etc.). Tgis is because as groups of people rise in stature, they find a glorious link to enhance their status. Some such links are ture, others false. What I am suggesting is that we can see this process happening today with many groups of people such as Kurmis and Yadavs. The unfortunate thing for Yadavs is that we are living today when such transformation is going on. Had this been done many centuries earlier, we would probably accept Yadavs as Kshatriyas, given their current political power. Regarding the consistency of census records, Ikon says that they lacked consistency and were changed from one occasion to another. I would like him to show this lack of consistency in case of Yadavs. At least we will learn something new. Please show. In short, here are the issues now: (1) show that Abhiras are Ahirs, and that Ahirs are related to Krishna or any ancient Kshatriya figure/tribe. (2) the census records with respect to Ydavs/Ahirs have indicated that thye are Kshatriyas. So far I have only seen similarity of names, and no other evidence. Contrast this with numerous references that I have provided. Note that all the references that I have shown say that Yadavs are Shudras, or a notch above that. Finally, Ikon suggests again and again that I am presenting some far fetched twisted argument to prove my point. This is wrong. I have presented quotes from references and have left the judgment on the reader. I have not tried to really draw any conclusion so far, and have invited arguments for or against what is presented in the references. They are in enough details and really leave little to be added to. SO THE DETAILS ARE FROM RESEAR ARTICLES, NOT MINE. I have added my point of view, but this is only until I learn something new, I am open minded. So far the weight of the evidence supports Yadavs being Shudras. Shashis 06:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Re ----> I think you sd show Ahir and abhir were different, all sources and historians agree that they are same. BTW Abhira were cowherd, warriors and kings.If you accept manushmriti and tatva philosophy , then they are Kshatriya of very high grade may be just below brahmana. As per manushmriti 1)Fusion between two varnas is legal only when father is of higher origin and mother is of lower one and child will get varna higher to mother and lower to father.Further,
Abhira = Brahmin + Ambashta, Ambashta= Brahmin + vysya . Both are legal fusion and suggests abhira as kshatriya. As regarding census, most of Yadavas were illeterate during that time neck down in poverty, they could not even present their case well.Regarding arbitration case ---- they didn't pretend anything , they had frankly told they consider themselves descendants of Krishna and are bonafide Kshatriya known as Ahir/Gwal, a group claimed direct descent from Krishna called Krishnauth. They never ever claimed suryavanshi or chandravanshi stuff which are proven farce now , claimed by many other communities. Ikon |no-blast 08:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: One editor anonymously has done this edit ,I can guess it but does he has courage to own it on Talk page!!!!!!!!!!!!!.Let us see.  Ikon |no-blast 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is this editor 

message: It is a smart idea to dodge an argument by putting the responsibility of proving something on someone else. Let me expalin, I am not saying let us put Yadavs on this page, IKON or whoever has put it here is doing this without evidence. So let him or another who supports this inclusion prove it, I have presented my arguments and numerous references that suggest Yadavs are not Kshatriyas. I do not want to get lost and waste mytime on minor peripheral issues. In fact, I believe that at this time Ikon is not even sure what he is talking about. I want to focus on the real issue: Should Yadavs be included as Kshatriyas? Interestingly, while here ikon is arguing that Ahirs and Abhirs are the same and considering Ahirs and Yadavs as one group, on my talk page (see shashis discvussion page), he is suggesting that Yadav and Ahirs might be different. UNTIL SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED, YADAVS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF KSHATRIYA GROUP. I am waiting for a proper response with published credible references, not just same opinions. I want to keep Yadavs here, just show us some evidence. It is unfortunate that IKON is again trying to bully an editor. This type of act of his is what prompted me to enter this forum. Please refrain from this. Anyone reading our arguments is likely to agree with my presentation becasue I do not have a bias (at least I try not to have one to the best of my abilities), I have presented evidence, and I have given all the time for others to contradict me. No one has come forward so far. So what do you expect, it might be time to make changes. If someone goes ahead and makes changes, please respond to the changes using evidence, and do not revert back. IF YOU WANT TO REVERT TO THE OLD PAGE, THEN SHOW EVIDENCE supporting WHAT IS THERE ON THE PAGE. This is a fair way of moving forward. I do not have time at the moment to make careful changes, and I will wait until I have some free time. Meanwhile, others are welcome to contribute. Shashis 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have proved that you don't want to improve, next time onwards I will slap you with warnings which may lead to formal bans. The friend of yours that 59.94... or 59.95.... IP is a very well known Troll and has vandalised pages in past , his deeds and his avatars are well recorded, I will simply ask you not to join him.What I had posted on your page was nothing but facts . Look below for clarifications.
1) Abhira and Yadava had been different is well recorded and accepted,I just told you Abhir= Ahir and Yadava= Abhir + Yadav = Ahir ok.I just showed you even Abhira were Kshatriya.
2) It is you who has failed to proove your point till now and has been almost testing the patience of the community with your rants.
3) If you are concerned about non kshatriya entries here, You must first delete Rajputs which looks dirty now for the loads of facts against them.  Ikon |no-blast 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: > REPLY> I don't care who the editor is, and neither do I want to join anyone. I do not like the way you address issues. For example, to the editor in question, you challenge unnecessarily about courage etc. Maybe the person is new and does not know the procedures. You can just revert the changes and repectfully ask the editor to discuss them first. Al least provide some more information and some proper warning. Remember that you have been wrong before, in my case where you had assumed I was somebody else and were very rude. Try to learn from your mistakes. Further, you have again behaved rudely with me. Please read your response to me and you will understand. I am not bothered about any act of yours. Please go ahead and "slap a warning" or whatever you want. It might be fun! In fact I look forward to an outside neutral intervention. That will save all of us time. Like I have said before, I am new here and do not know the procedure to have some sort of arbitration. I can learn, but I do not have time and inclination for it at the moment. If you believe that I am not arguing correctly and creating problems, then why don't you have something like a mediation? You know a lot about Wikipedia and it might save all of us time. You always talk about warnings, notice, Wikipedia policies etc, why not use your knowledge to save all of us some time? If a neutral authority agrees with your point of view, I will happily accept it here. How about it? Are you afraid? Let a neutral authority test both our claims. If my references are wrong, or if they have been mis-represented by me as you have claimed in your earlier posts, then I will withdraw from Wikipedia, otherwise you accept to withdraw. It is a challenge. Are you willing to accept it? I don't think so. I defnitely invite all readers to check the references that I have provided, they are open to the public. At least a reading will expose the games Ikon is playing. Regarding Rajputs and others being Kshatriyas, that is not what we have been discussing. If some group of people (no matter who they are) cannot be supported by evidence as being Kshatriyas, then they should not be here, for the sake of presenting right information. I am all for it. For that start a separate discussion. Here we are talking about Yadavs. Don't try to confuse issues again.Shashis 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have presented enf. proofs on this page, regarding Yadava being Kshatriya and Rajputs being Mlechha (sometime upgraded to shudra as concession), it is you who is afraid of loosing your position and have been playing game of sort.When I presented you the only surviving account on destruction of hindu temples (the Muslim Chronicles), you readily say these are doubtful because the next page was almost a nightmare for you. It talked about how captive muslims became Rajputs, like Shekhawat, the word itself means --- the incoming Sheikhs.You till now have not presented any credible source, it was I who told you Yadavas were called shudra in British census (perhaps you didn't know that either). I feel you don't have any expertise in any field and talks what fools and fanatics talk on any issue they take up.I do have the exact copy of Jafferlots citation and that wd proove how you misrepresent facts. Jaferlot just comments on post census scenario and nothing more than that, you selectively quoted him to obscure the tone . Your other sources are not credible, though authors are of obscure credibility, they don't support your claims whatever. Ikon |no-blast 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shasi's rants are now shifted to vijaynagar empire !!!! I don't know how it is related to present issue here. He again refers those records which directly or indirectly produces the same debunked census records.Perhaps Sashi is not even aware of what Risley, Crook and H A Rose (all British Royal Society anthropologists) and treated as authority on Indian caste System, says about this census record.Infact I have gone thru article by them (available on JSTOR) and they are even reluctant to use dubious caste designation, nor do they approve of the census records,explicitly saying these designations are not clear and hinders further research but are compelled to use it because of popularity of usage only.He again and again produces same Mandal commission reports which are based on Bristish Census Records, and No fresh research work.Point to be noted here, census were made free for all after sometimes and any body cd claim anything.So ppl who remained shudra in later census was by choice not compulsion. One can say why??? but reproducing same wd be far from truth, when we have loads of fact to the contrary. Ikon |no-blast 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 1)Govt of India does not recognise ANYONE as Kshatriya.2) No reseracher till now has shown any expresses interest in Kshatriya/Shudra stuff,3)Most reliable and authentic source is Mahabharata which recognises Yadava Abhira, Surasena and Many others as Kshatriya.Infact it was the clan name which exposed Rajput's myths as Kshatriya well recorded as Mlechha in scripture, yet Sashi fights on !!!!!!!  Ikon |no-blast 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let us keep focused on the discussion of Yadavs and why they should be included as Kshatriyas. If we include many issues, then we will never reach conclusion. You are welcome to start another thread about Rajputs, please go ahead. Do not attempt to include everything here so that we lose sight of the main point, if that is not your objective. It is not mine. Regarding status of different caste groups, you say that no one has studied it. This is factually incorrect. Please read the articles that I have referred earlier, there are many more. There is a book called "Hindu Castes and Tribes" that describes in details all the castes and tribes. There are others. Since you have access to Jstor, go ahead and check that to start with. Second, you say that Yadavs are the only ones linked with Yadu. Factually incorrect. No one has ever shown any link between the CURRENT Yadavs and the historical Yadu. This is the heart of the issue. The current day Yadavs have claimed links with the historical Yadu ONLY on the basis of name similarity. I will not go in circles, we have discussed this issue earlier on the Yadav discussion page. There are many communities with similar names, it says nothing about them being the same. I would be happy to accept Yadavs as Kshatriyas if you can provide reference (credible, research based) linking current Yadavs to Yadu. There is none to the best of my knowledge. There have been many rulers claiming links to acient Yadavas (all over India), the current Yadavs have no links to any of them. Please show it if there is. A lot of these things were symbolic. A claim of one or the other group as being a Yadava might have been symbolic (to link themselves with well regarded ancient dynasty and thus suggest that they possess similar virtues), there is always a possibility of this. Just as there is a possibility of the some of the groups among current Yadavs being linked to Yadu. However, such a possibility is alwasy there for all people. Remember Lucy? Not only the current day yadavs, even other groups within the OBC category claim links with Krishna and they have no obvious links with current Yadavs. Please read the references that I had provided earlier. I am simply suggesting that we should keep on this site what can be supported by credible reference. This is nothing against or for any group, this is a universal statement. It can only improve the quality of information on Wikipedia. Do you have anything against that? If not, the please present your references and do not make wild claims about things. If you cannot provide a reference, then let us agree on some issues. I do not believe that you have any reference because if you had any, you would have provided them on the Yadav page. I have discussed the quality or credibility of each reference on the Yadav page in the discussion there. Let us avoid making this a coffee table discussion.Shashis 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to the point.Seems like sashi has many issues whirling around in his stomach, the most important one is Rajputs NOT being considered Kshatriya.Secondly,he has not provided any proof still counts them numerous!!!!! His so called proofs are full of flaws all being duly exposed, still his rants continues.I do not want to take up this Vijayanagar Empire controversy for now for I was not involved there even, though I do blv they were Yadava King. Sashi again and again shifts discussion on OBC classification ---- which has nothing to do with varna stuff. Directly or indirectly this guy tries to show Rajputs as Kshatriya, though the fact that they are not even remotely related to any kshatriya has been well exposed many times.Sashi has no explanation to till presented contradictions still he continues to bank on those articles.This attitude is not acceptable. Ikon |no-blast 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over Yadavs 

message: In colloquial Nepali, "Kshatriya" becomes "Chhetri".  
Nepal also presents an interesting problem because indigenous Tibeto-Burman tribes such as Magars and Gurungs have conspicuous martial traditions and are disproportionately represented in Nepal's army and as mercenaries in the Indian and British armies. Yet they seem to be disproportionately underrepresented in government outside the military sphere. They are warriors but not rulers.
Some of these non-aryans claim Chhetri status and claim to have adopted this caste's dietary restrictions, e.g. not eating pork, beef, buffalo or perhaps even chicken.  Some even wear sacred threads.
This runs counter to orthodox Hinduism in which aryans pretty much have a monopoly on the upper half of the pecking order.  It's an interesting and dynamic phenomenon, quite  different from the notion that caste is a static thing.  And I hope someone from Nepal or anyone else with additional information will flesh this out so it can be added to the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.26.121 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Present Kings of nepal are Guhilot dynasty of Rajputs.Ancient rulers of Nepal Abhira called Abhira Gupta who were later replaced by Kiraits of mongoloid origin.Present kings status is only honorary  Ikon |no-blast 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chhetri = Kshatriya 

message: In response to the above editor's request, for what it's worth "Chhetri" and "Khatri" (Nepalese and Punjabi respectively) do NOT connote Kshatriya status in Indian society. According to the laws of Manu, the offspring of a Brahmin male and Shudra wife is to be called a "Kshettri" (as opposed to "Kshetriya") and because they do not have the warrior blood, is NOT allowed ANY administrative authority, but IS allowed to serve as a low-ranking soldier or civil servant. Chhetri and Khatri are regional varieties of "kshettri" and not "Kshatriya" (royal/blue blood Aryan warrior who is a member of the kingdom and entitled to rule i.e. hold high civil or military office or be the king). 
There is an ENORMOUS difference between kshettri and Kshatriya, and this is the cause of much modern-day confusion. The Chhetris of Nepal and the Khatris of Punjab, as kshettris (i.e. not warrior race but higher up than a shudra) are NOT the Kshatriya people of Nepal or the Punjab. A vast number of common Nepalese have last name "Chhetri" and are kshattris. But the KSHATRIYA people of Nepal are for the most part the world-famous Gurkhas (i.e. the Gurung tribal people) and always have been (with the addition of Nepalese royal family who are a different type of Kshatriya). If you don't want to take the word of a Brahmin on this, or consult the Vedas, then go ahead and ask the royal family of Nepal. Or the British Army for that matter. Or the Gurkhas/Chhetris themselves. The physical appearance of a Gurung is very rugged compared to an ordinary Nepalese, and they have incredible strength and endurance. As GENUINE kshatriyas, this is native to their race. It is what they were made for.
The Kshatriyas of Punjab are ALL those who have genuine or proved Suryabansi and Candrabansi origin. This includes the Jatts (the largest group), the Rajputs, some other people like Gujjars, and 52-kula people and yet more. It does NOT include the mixed-blood half-Brahmin half-shudra "khatri" people, who can't show ANY link WHATSOEVER to the solar or lunar dynasties, and who were not among the 4 clans created from fire during the great yaaga. The Punjabi word for the Sanskrit "Kshatriya" is NOT "khatri" but "SHATRIYA"!!!  
A kshettri is allowed to be involved in mercantile trade, but a Kshatriya is not.
Khatris i.e. Kshettris are known for being deceitful and cunning, which is perhaps the reason why they were differentiated from the equally intelligent but more honourable Brahmin caste in the first place. It may be interesting to note that pre-1857 (mutiny incident) in the days of the British Raj, the British were careful to AVOID recruiting khatris and preferred Brahmins and Rajputs to all others (even Sikhs). Brahmins and Kshatriyas have a sacred duty to work together to support each other.
This is the ORIGINAL law and in pre-British times even the kings and emperors had their lineages open to extremely careful scrutiny by learned Brahmins who determined whether they were entitled to have their place (such as in the case of Maharaja Chhatrapati Shivaji Bhonsle).
There are many people today who wish to exalt themselves by misinterpreting the Vedic law. However, they are not fooling the wise. Kshatriya derives from the old Persian Kshettiya which means "the king", and denotes royal blood. Being entitled to enlist in the army does not make you royal blood, in ANY culture.
All the references are here in this message. Manu's dharam shaster on the UNRELATED "kshettri" caste, the history of enthronement of Shivaji Maharaj, Persian meaning of the term kshettiya, British Army recruitment stats pre-1857. Any serious student of this subject will check these references to find out if what I'm saying here is the truth. Kshatriya deserves RESPECT and not to be defiled/polluted by wannabes, and it is the duty of brahmana to sort the weed from the chaff so that everyone can KNOW reliably whether someone is legit. Kshatriya deeds and martial accomplishments were brave beyond the imaginings of these internet liars who argue that "khatri" is short for Kshatriya. Kshatriya never retreats until ordered to, and stands there in the battlefield taking damage and dying, fighting to the last breath if needed. Kshatriya never lies, and never turns down a challenge to a fight. So DON'T STEAL that heritage.
For the sake of Shiva Mahakaal Mahadev, if you are a khatri or a chhetri then respecting your ancestors and your actual forefathers declare yourself as khatri or chhetri and not kshatriya, otherwise people like me will always show you up at inconvenient times and you will lose face in front of Westerners like now. All Indian warriors respect Shiva, and lying about your ancestry is a sure sign you disrespect Shiva and your father.
--Zubedar 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on Nepalese "Chhetri" and Punjabi "Khatri" 

message: DUDE, YOU ARE SO FULL OF B.S. THAT ITS RIDICULOUS.  I MEAN, HOW CAN YOU SIT HERE AND CLAIM KHATRIS ARE NOT KSHATRIYA??  YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.......KHATRIS/KSHATRIYA ARE ONE IN THE SAME.  
LET ME PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU.  YOU CLAIM KHATRIS TO BE OF LOWER STOCK, RIGHT ABOVE SHUDRAS, CORRECT?  WELL THEN, IF JATTS AND OTHER TRIBES/CLANS OF PUNJAB WERE OF HIGHER CASTE, WHY WOULD THEY FOLLOW THE SIKH RELIGION WHICH WAS CREATED BY 10 GURUS ALL OF WHOM WERE OF THE KHATRI CASTE?  
Lets say hypothetically, If Jatts, according to you, are of the Kshatriya caste, then why would the great majority of them follow a religion started by members of a lower caste (Khatri)?  Thats right, they wouldn't!!!  That only goes to prove that Khatris were not of lower caste.  Besides, I don't need to even use this example to explain this, everyone already knows the status of Khatris in Punjab / India.
HEAVILY BIASED AND RACIST ARTICLE
^In response to this:
Manu's dharam shastra states that the Saka people (i.e. Jatts) were originally kshatriyas, but that they lost their status as kshatriyas and descended to shudra status when they failed to observe their duties. There is still quite a lot of pride in Jatt people, stemming partly from their kshatriya ancient history. However, it is not right to bring Sikhism into this discussion. Sikh is a spiritual way, and does not relate to matters of blood or tribe. For matters of blood or tribe you have to refer to tribal law (i.e. the Brahmin rules or shari'a if you are a Muslim, etc.). Sikh is nothing to do with caste status as it is solely concerned with the spirit not the food body.
--Zubedar 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZUBEDAR.......GET LOST WITH YOUR B.S. 

message: This all discussion going on without knowing roots.It is clear to a student of Indian History that Sanskrit had never been the language of common people in India.It was the language of higher classes.Therefore Buddha delivered his lectures in Pali and Prakrit.Ashoka s inscription are found in Pali.The word Kshatriya is of Sanskrit.It is deformed in local dialects.Kshatriya and Khatri are the same.It is not necessary that every kshatriya was a ruler.They were mainly soldiers and warriors.Later on other castes who were also warriors were considered as Kshatriyas,because it was the profession not the birth which was considered important for determining varna.At the time of Buddha castes started to be by birth.It is true that Sikh Gurus were Khatris.They were of higher castes then Jats who were only peasants at that time.Only Guru Gobind Singh ji turned them Martial.It is also to be understood that Punjab falls on the route of invaders.All the Invaders except europeans came from Kheyber Pass and Punjab.Therefore the condition of Kshatriyas became worse in Punjab who faced attack of invaders from the begining.Alexender attacked Porus who was a kshatriya.Kshatriya were further ruined by Indo Greeks,Manghols,Huns, and Muslims in Punjab.It is no wonder some persons consider them inferior to Jats and other communities.This is not true.
--Shivbramh 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tke Kshatriya (the warrior and king) in no manner must be bracketed with the Khatri (merchants) as this will not confuse us Indians but will confuse the foreigners.
Perhaps it was meant for the discussion page in the first place?
Lusanaherandraton 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khatris 

message: The intriguing  and funny case of   Dr  N D King  resembling  the similar posting pattern of  IP 208.125.3.245
Dr N D King starts posting edits on 24 april  2007 , 11:19, 24 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Central Asia (passes NOT asses) 
from this day onwards Dr  N D King   makes about 35 edits …
every single edit thereafter being only  minor language , grammar edit ….
and then lo and behold  on 26th July Dr N D King  makes the following emphatic  post in bold on the Kshatriya page viz 
Revision as of 09:06, 26 July 2007 (edit)
Dr N D King (Talk | contribs)
m (→Further reading)
← Older edit
The Kshatriya, or Royal and Warrior caste, is not to be confused with the Khatri which is a merchant caste
Now lets look at IP 208.125.3.245 posts on the Khatri page .
See the posts of this IP 208.125.3.245 strange ...same posting pattern grammar etc as Dr  N D King and then posts its 
see its post 
Revision as of 21:12, 8 July 2007 (edit) (undo)
208.125.3.245 (Talk) 
Newer edit →
"Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels was sure if you lie several times it does become the truth. Time proved him wrong. the Khatri (a caste of businessmen) is a much respected caste in India but they can not be classified as Kshatriyas (the warrior-royal-caste). Not only are the profession of these two castes in general totally different there is a big difference in structure and attitute too." 
See the posts of this anonymous IP 208.125.3.245 and Dr N D King  strange ...same posting pattern grammar etc as Dr  N D King and then posts its opinion on Khatri . Meawhile IP 208.125.3.245  also has a personal problem with a pakistani politician who it says it knows personally
Lol  
Cheers
Intothefire 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr  N D King posts on Kshatriya  and IP 208.125.3.245 on Khatri

message: 'Balmiki Ramayana' and 'shanti parva'in 'MAHABHARATA' clearly says that kshtriya took birth from heart of GOD. A sukta in Xth Mandal of Rigveda talks about this theory- which has been declared as adultration by various renowend writers.As heart is always important than a mouth- that's why kshtriys were always given a higher status in the society and were treated as a ruling class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.120.76 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kshtriya 's Origin from GOD'S Heart or Arms. 

message: I shifted the Jethwa from under Suryavanshi to Chandravanshi because that is more consistent with their wiki page, which says they are Chandravanshi. Anybody who differs please explain
Regards, Rorkadian (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jethwa