Misplaced Pages

User talk:Shashis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:44, 26 January 2007 editShashis (talk | contribs)42 edits →Hello← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:39, 26 March 2007 edit undoRaorajesh29 (talk | contribs)5 editsNo edit summary 
Line 34: Line 34:
== Kshatriya issue == == Kshatriya issue ==


Yadav's are the original Kshatriya's from Vedic times. Shri Bhagwan Krishna the original supreme personality of Godhead belongs to the Yadav Clan. All other psuedo kshatriya castes like Thakur, Rajput like Parmar, Rana, Shekawat, Rathore etc are all shudhras who got converted to Kshatriya status by some stupid ill gotten brahmins in Mount Abu. These Thaukars etc are infact belong to shudra caste.
I would also like to tell you, I am not happy with many pages listed on ] page, you may help me rearrange it if you want. Infact I haven't edited the main article, though talk page and entire archive is filled with my comments. I am HW, Holywarrior, DS, Satyamev Jayate, SMV, and of course ikonoblast there. Feel free to express yourself anywhere. No version is last version anywhere on wikipedia.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 11:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Re > Thank you for the normal message, I am a bit surprised, but happy nevertheless. I would be happy to work with everyone to improve the Kshatriya page, but first I want to sort out the Yadav issue on both Yadav and Kshatriya page. This is because I have already spent so much time with the Yadav issue and I want to lead it to conclusion. Although I wish I had not gotten involved in all this in the first place. It is quite addictive. ] 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis


Yadav's used to rule the world and in today's time also shall rule India.
== Transferred from talk:yadav == == Transferred from talk:yadav ==


== References regarding Yadav from Published articles == == References regarding Yadav from Published articles ==

Following are some credible references that talk about Yadavas. The readers can decide for themselves. I have discussed the merits of the references provided on the Yadava page currently earlier in my posts in the discussion section. In short, they are junk. Readers are welcome to verify. I welcome comments about these references and then we can move on to correct the information on the page. Please keep your comments to facts/research issues only and refrain from making unsupported claims. There are several other references, but these get the point across, Thanks for reading. The citations are within quotes. There are 7 references in total, all from published articles in research journals.

:::1) A New Demand for Muslim Reservations in India
Theodore P. Wright, Jr. Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 9. (Sep., 1997), pp. 852-858.

At the time of publication of this article, Prof. Theodore P. Wright, Jr. was Professor Emeritus, Political Science Department, State University of New York, Albany.

“the commission had recommended and V. P. Singh ordered the extension of 27% reservations to OBCs defined in terms of Hindu subcastes, generally of Shudra varna just above the untouchables in ritual status.” Page 855.

Please note that Yadavas are part of the OBC castes.

:::2) Exploration in Caste Stereotypes
Gopal Sharan Sinha and Ramesh Chandra Sinha Social Forces, Vol. 46, No. 1. (Sep., 1967), pp. 42-47.

Authors belonged to Patna University, India, at the time of this article.

Classify Ahir as backward caste, different from Forward castes that includes Rajputs and Brahmins

:::3) Is India Becoming More Democratic?
Ashutosh Varshney The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 2000), pp. 3-25.

Author was (at the time of publication) an Associate Professor of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

“Weighted down by tradition, lower castes do not give up their caste identities; rather, they “deconstruct” and “reinvent” caste history, deploy in politics a readily available and easily mobilized social category (“low caste”), use their number to electoral advantage, and fight prejudice and domination politically.”

“In the 1980s and 1990s, a southern-style plebian politics has rocked North India. The names of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Yadav, Kanshi Ram, and Mayawati – all “vernacular” politicians who have risen from below—repeatedly make headlines. They are not united. Indeed, substantial obstacles to unity, both vertical and horizontal, remain. Vertically, though all lower castes are below the upper castes/varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas), there are serious internal differentiations and hierarchies within the lower-caste category. And horizontally, even though caste system is present all over India, each caste has only local or regional meaning, making it hard to build extralocal or extraregional alliances. Thus, horizontal mobilization tends to be primarily regional or state-specific, not nationwide.” On page 6

“Technically, the term OBC incorporates two different disadvantaged communitites—Hindu and non-Hindu. Of these, Hindu OBCs are the low castes whose traditional social and ritual status has been above the ex-Untouchable scheduled castes, but below the upper castes (figure 1). Hindu OBCs overlap mostly with the Sudra varna of traditional hierarchy, a category consisting mainly of peasants and artisans.” Page 8

“Bein mostly sudras, the OBCs have faced many social and economic disadvantages, but the fit between the two categories – OBC and Sudra—is not perfect. If one goes by the all-India classification of castes, a national level abstraction, the picture that emerges is unable to capture the many regional variations in dominance and power. Sociologists and social anthropologists construe the term Sudra to include, but the category of OBC on the whole excludes, the so-called “dominant castes”: the Jats, Reddys, Kammas, Patels, Marathas, and others. The notion of “dominant castes”was coined by M. N. Srinivas (1966) to specify those groups which, in a ritualistic or formal sense of the all India caste/varna hierarchy, have been termed sudras, but the ritualistic usage of the term is vacuous because these groups have historically been substantial landowners and rather powerful in their local or regional settings. In any realistic sense, the term Sudra can not be applied to them, nor are they typically included among the OBCs.” Page 11

Note that even the dominant caste mentioned are not mentioned as forward caste. Plus these cannot be termed as sudras and are not included in OBC category. Yadavas ARE included in OBCcategory.

“… new distinctions are also getting institutionalized between upper OBCs, such as the Yadavas, and the lower OBCs, such as the Telis and Lodhas. These differences have already undermined the OBC cohesion evident at the time of the Mandal agitation on the early 1990s.” page 12

“By an large, the category of OBCs is equal to the Sudras minus the dominant castes. The dominant castes in northern and western India—the Jats and Patels, for example—have in fact opposed the extension of reservations to the OBCs.” Page 17

“The upper OBCs, such as the Yadavs, are indeed peasant proprietors and also beneficiaries of Zamindari abolition. Much like the Patels in Gujarat at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Yadavas have achieved sufficient upward mobility since the green revolution, and have used their numbers to considerable effect in a democracy. Once can indeed say that they are fast becoming a dominant caste, and will in all probability be viewed as such in the coming decades. But the lower OBCs, such as the Lodha, Pal, Mali, Teli and Maurya, are not as privileged.” Page 17.

:::4) Sanscritization vs. Ethnicization in India: Changing Identities and Caste Politics before Mandal
Christophe Jaffrelot Asian Survey, Vol. 40, No. 5, Modernizing Tradition in India. (Sep.-Oct., 2000, pp. 756-766. Copyright 2000 by the Regents of the University of California/Society.

See page 762… “In North India, while caste associations took shape at an early date, they did not prepare the ground for a resilient ethnicization process but operated within the logic of Sanskritization. These shortcomings are well illustrated by three cases chosen among the Shudras and the Untouchables, respectively the Yadavs and the Chamars.

The Yadav Movement: Ahirs as Kshatriyas

The “Yadav” label covers a great number of castes. The common function of all these castes was to take care of cattle as herdsmen, cowherds, and milk sellers. In practice, however, the Yadavs have been spending most of their time tilling the land. While they are spread over several regions, they are most specially concentrated in the Ganges Plain where they represent about 10% of the population. They for one of the largest castes in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh with respectively 11% and 8.7% of the population. The Yadavs reportedly descend from immigrants from Central Asia, the Abhiras, who established kingdoms in North India. From the 1930s onward, intermarriage-based fusion was made easier when North Indian Yadavs started to migrate from their villages to towns. But this ethnicization process remained largely unachieved because the Yadav movement remained imbued with the ethos of Sanskritization. The Yadavs lent themselves to such Sanskritization because they had a special relation to the Hindu religion, owing to their association with the Arya Samaj. The Arya Samaj is an association too often regarded as purely Punjabi and confined to the urban middle class. The Arya Samaj did not hesitate to mobilize lower caste people against the Brahmins, but not against the caste system. In fact, they followed the path of Sanskritization. Their campaigns were especially successful in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The “Aryanization” of the Yadavs. The propensity of the Yadavs toward Sanskritization is evident from their attempt at “Aryanizing” their history. The first history of the Yadavs was written by Kithal Krishna Khedekar in the late 19th century. This work was finalized by his som, R. V. Khedekar, and published in 1959 under the title The Divine Heritage of the Yadavs. The book situates the origins of the Yadavs in the Abhiras and then the ruling dynasties mentioned as Yadavas in the Mahabharatas and the Puranas. Most of these caste histories try to demonstrate that Abhiras were of Aryan origin and that Rewari is the last representative of the Abhira kingdoms.

This narrative certainly aimed at giving the Yadavs an ethnic identity, but the ethnicization process was embedded in the Sanskritization logic. In contrast to the lower caste leaders of Maharashtra and South India—who tried to invent a bahujan or a Dravidian identity that presented the Shudras and Untouchables as the original inhabitants of the country against the Aryans—the Yadavs claim that they are Aryans in order to enhance their status within caste society. Thus, Yadavs, largely because of the influence of the Arya Samaj, remained imbued with the ethos of Sanskritization. It prevented them from developing an emancipatory identity like in the West or in the South.”

Further continues to write,

“The untouchables of North India were also exposed to the influence of the Arya Samaj at the turn of the 20th century. This is evident from the Jatav movement in Uttar Pradesh. Jatavs are Chamars, Untouchable leather workers, who claim descent from the Yadu race, which, allegedly, entitled them to be known as Kshatriyas like the Yadavs, and once again the Arya Samaj missions were responsible for propagating these views. They were especially successful through their schools among the sons of Agra Chamars who had become rich thanks to the Leather trade. They were drawn by the teachings of Swami Manikchand Jatavaveer (1897-1956). He was one of the founders of the Jatav Mahasabha In 1917. He was a teacher in an Arya Samaj-run school of Agra. Together with Sunderlal Sagar (1886-1952) and Swami Prabhutananda Vyas (1877-1950), they all preached moral reform, vegetarianism, teetotalism, and temperance for achieving a cleaner status. That was also the first inclination of Swami Achhutananda (1879-1933), who was to become a major Untouchable leader of the united Provinces in the 1920s-30s.”


:::5) The Affirmative Action Debate in India
Dharma Kumar Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Mar., 1992), pp. 290-302.

At the time of publication, the author was a Professor of Economics in the Delhi School of Economics.

Regarding the Mandal Commission report, the paper says,

“The procedure followed for the calculation of the proportion of OBCs in central government employment was even worse. The commission’s secretary wrote to central government offices asking them to state the number of OBCs employed, using two criteria. First, the employee, if Hindu, should not be a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya (the three upper castes broadly defined). Secondly—and this is crucial—the employees father or grandfather should not have studied beyond the primary level.”

In the paper, citation is provided from the Mandal report. Note that the Yadavs are ruled out as Kshatriyas, otherwise they would not be included in the OBC group.

:::6)The Distribution of Selected Castes in the North Indian Plain
Joseph E. Schwartzberg Geographical Review, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Oct., 1965), pp. 477-495.

Presents the status of castes from authoritative references and shows Rajputs as Warriors and landowners (Kshatriya occupation) and Ahirs as Cowherds and cultivators.

Says about the Ahirs..

“The Ahir, or Goala (go, cow; wala, person) as he is known in the eastern part of the study area, is, his name and reputation notwithstanding, more than a milkman, grazier, and breeder of cattle; he is a member of one of the largest and most widespread cultivating castes of India. ……In status they rank somewhat lower than the Kurmis and slightly higher than the Lodhs …”


:::7) The Rise of the Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt
Christophe Jaffrelot The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 2000), pp. 86-108.

this article aslo talks about Yadavas and their caste status, basically the same things discussed so far. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::::I think you have exhausted your resources. see below:
{{cquote|OBC is not ethnicity}}
{{cquote|On the same line there is nothing like Forward Caste}}--- its merely an opportunistic alliance of people who are by product of Islamic invasion of India mostly of obscure lineage.
<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue you are talking about may be put on OBC page instead. Take care next time. bye.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
==Hello==
You might be interested in ] or ]. They are both working on a wide variety of wonderful topics. I suggest you look around these pages and find something of interest to you that you would have fun working on. You will find many fair-minded and helpful editors there as well. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me - or anyone else, for that matter :).] 03:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Re> Thank you for the kind message. I would work on relevant things on both pages, but it might be very very slow as I have severe time constraint. Misplaced Pages seems interesting and I would like to do my bit to present right information. Thanks for the encouragement. ] 05:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)shashis

== Hinduism ==

{{Hindu Links}}--] 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== Rv of ur edits ==

Hi,I have rv your edits from ] and ] because editing archived talks is considered Vandalism per ], presuming you as a new user, I suggest you not to do so in future.Plz also observe ] as your rv edits ,, did not comply with that either.Also avoid questioning sources valid per ],and avoid relying on articles which fails neutrality test per ] regardless of wherever they appear. Your Friend <span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:::REPLY> Good, and I like civil discussion. Maybe this will convince me to leave things as they are. Please take care and treat newcomers well in future. You do not have to pay anything. By the way, I have little idea about the technical terms that you have mentioned including the vandal and policy stuff, nor am I interested. Like I have said before, academic sources are the best/most credible, no matter how biased they seem. Also, I get unhappy when someone tries to mess with whatever I want to present and moves the info around for fewer people to see it. Please avoid doing that, let the administrators do it if it is not right. Since both of us are discussing a dispute, you cannot arrogate to yourself the authority to do all this. Thank you. If both of us know what makes us unhappy then we can work. Your friend. ] 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

== Some thoughts on my proposed edits ==

This is something that I have been thinking about for quite sometime. I hope this is the right place to say this. I do not like the caste system the way it is, and the caste system should be dealt with somehow. I strongly believe that all castes have people who are capable and others who are not so capable, and no caste/race is really superior to another on all dimensions. The problem that all of us who are touched by the caste system have, is how to deal with it. One way is to have all the castes find out real or hypothetical links with a glorious past and thus feel equal or superior to others. I am not certain this is the right way, although I could be wrong. The reason is that this in fact perpetuates the caste system and castes/groups who are not prosperous or politically powerful are left behind and still face discrimination. This process acknowledges the superiority of some castes versus others even by those who want to come up the caste ladder. A more difficult path is for all groups/castes to acknowledge that they are who they are, and then prove that they are equal if not better in every respect. An example would be, say, Yadavs or Reddys. Both are a prosperous communities today. They do not need a hypothetical or real position in the caste system to draw strength from. By being who they are supposed to be, and then with their success proving that caste does not matter, they can do much to damage caste based discrimination. This is obviously a longer route, but more effective in my opinion. Being part of a caste/class is not important. How sucessful one group is much more important. The success of Reddys and Kammas in Andhra are shining examples. The success of many foreign invaders in becoming part of higher castes over time is due to their own strength, and not due to charity from existing caste groups. This is a norm everywhere. By trying to short circuit the process and making claims about belonging to a particular caste/class, one is in fact agreeing with the system and its beliefs and prolonging its life. I hope I am able to make this clear. For the moment I will let things remain as they are. Like I have said many times before, I really have no interest in who is what in the caste hierarchy. I just feel that academic issues should not be politicised. I do not have a big enough stake in wikipedia to spend a lot of time now, maybe in future when I am free and feel more strongly about this. Have peace, for the moment...] 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)shashis
:::Your idea may be good but founded in ignorance.Infact I think apart from census record , which are itself founded on many ridiculous and unreliable parameters, you have nothing to show to support the shudra allegation on Yadavas.FYI,1)There is no linkage between janeu and gene.2)Kshatriya didn't wear janeu in post buddhism scenario,even Brahmana didn't.(Source:Bhagwatam, Parikshit-sukdeva dialouge).3)Mahabharata doesn't mention the term gwal, it is found in ''later sanskrit'' only.Incidentaly, ppl . who are true gwal in eastern part has their clan name gaur (mentioned in mahabharata as Kshatriya ruling in east), and they are in minority.Word gwal is found in puranas not mahabharata.Eastern yadavas were never called Ahirs (another Flaw in your citation).Ahirs and Yaduvanshis are found in west only.4)Mahabharata doesn't give any clue of Krishna's birth either,nor does it mentions Yadavas or Yaduvanshi or Yadus as Kshatriya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,if you go strictly you will find them as Brahmanas, not mentioning that either.4)Lastly,cowherding was never a profession of shudra, Mnaushmriti asks for it from Brahmanas and Bhagwad geeta, says it is the profession of vysya (Krishna says this when he describes works of varnas), now you sd be able to understand who these Ambashta are.Incidently Nanda and Yashoda though being connected to Yadavas had been called Vysya ---- indicating clear cut defiance against loosing their racial identity to fit into caste system.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot spare time at the moment for all this. However, whatever I have said is most likely to be true. None of us here can say things that are not clear with certainty. By basing your arguments about Yadavs on Hindu epics, you are assuming that they are historical documents and have not been modified over time to suit some purpose. You immediately modify your stand when you talk about Kshatriyas/Rajputs. You then base your arguments more on history/social anthropology. I think that Hindu religious texts are based on historical events, however, they have been modified over time. At the moment, what we have is so complicated that significant research is required to confidently say something that is still controversial. For proof of this, you only have to read a few books by famous authors in this area, and you will find contradictions or uncertainities mentioned. I look at Kshatriya "caste" as a status, and many castes are part of it. This is not a static fact, rather a dynamic concept. So in one period, you can have some castes as Kshatriyas, and in another, some of these might lose their status. It is important to understand that only castes can move up or down these classes and that too slowly. For most of recorded history, the people that you refer to as Yadavs/Ahirs etc have never been part of Kshatriyas, and neither they are today. This is a social reality, and has been. If you go back to ancient times, then in order to prove that these groups had been Kshatriyas, you have to show a few things that I have mentioned in my several posts. You or anyone has not shows these at all. In fact what you have done is recoreded in published articles as an attempt by these groups to claim Kshatriya status (please see my references). I am neither for or against any caste group. My only interest is to present what we know for certain. Any logical person or right thinker, if considering our arguments, will not agree with what you have said. By picking up bits and pieces of arguments from several sources and then weaving a nice story around them is just that, a story. It is not a scientific way of presenting your case. Give me some bits and pieces and I can construct another, different story that fits them, and fits them as well as yours. Then how do you know your story is true? In fact more people in India would disagree with your story. Think about what I am saying carefully. Only when you stop thinkiing politically will you understand. Do not start learning about a topic with a firm belief in mind, have an open mind and you will see my logic. The references that I have provided are from sources more reputed, and more credible than any provided on the site. They are as credible as any source. Whatever you think cannot change this reality. These people have spent years researching this issue dispassionately and have published their research in peer reviewed journals. That is the state-of-the art. Maybe in future more research will say something else, however, until then we have to accept this research as most credible.
Regarding your specific points, of course there would be no linkage between janeu and genes, there might be at most a weak linkage. This is becauase janeu is supposed to be used by a class of people and these classes are heterogenous with respect to genetic composition. Research suggests that there is more variablity within many castes than among castes. Kshatriyas still wear janeu in rural areas, and what you have said is factually incorrect. It is one of the essential rituals. Now you may find many Kshatriyas not wearing one today and that is because all religious traditions have weakened. Even many Brahmans do not wer it now. So there is nothing of consequence here. Finally your attempt to separate the Ahirs and the current Yadavs goes against your position. In some cases, where it is convenient, they are presented as part of a group, and in others they are presented as being very different. If they are different, then both cannot claim descent from Krishna. Why don't you resolve this issue first and then talk about others? Why is this so convenient to gloss over all these contraditions just to show that Yadavs/Ahirs are Kshatriyas and not even the entertain the obvious problems in considering Yadavs/Ahirs and Kshatriyas? Think.! It is politics, not knowledge. ] 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)shashis
By the way, if you want to argue this issue, please do it on the Yadav or Kshatriya page, not this one. I will transfer this type of discussion related to the page on the right page in future so that others can have a say ] 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

== Hello ==

Since you are online, this discussion may be interesting .You may join it too.<span style="border: 1px solid">]</span>|] 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks. However, I think even the Yadav discussion is taking precious time away from me that I would rather spend elsewhere. I just feel that there is too much opinion out there regarding all groups of people based on very little credible information. Maybe in future when I have free time I would pitch in.] 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)shashis

Latest revision as of 03:39, 26 March 2007

Your Ip check suggests you are sockpuppet of banned user:subhash bose / user:hkelkar . I am reporting you and soon after You shall have to wear the tag of being suspect. Good Day.  Ikon |no-blast 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC). Your case is here. Ikon |no-blast 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am User:Hkelkar. You have been accused of being my sockpuppet (basically being me) by ikonoblast. Don't let this distress you. Just go ahead and click on his link above to the RFCU page and add anything you need to in order to clear your name. I have had, uh, "dealings" with ikonoblast before and this sort of thing happens a lot.
So, you're a Houstonite, eh? Big Gujarati community there.Lots of pollution but NASA center's cool.Hkelkar 13:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

More issues

Plz confirm your other edits (treated as vandalism) with 206.54.214.150 ip, which were answered word to word. Also I see your edits similar to user:pushyamitra sunga or user:neo1in who used to troll on Bhumihar page. The investigation might reveal something new and startling about you coz its my gut feeling now that our association and rivalry is not as old as ppl on WP are seeing. I know of your user:neo1 id which I observed in the log of Domkatar (now deleted), In all likelihood you may also be user:WiseAdmin. It would be better if you confirm yourself. Ikon |no-blast 11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry, the checkuser proved you were not a sockpuppet. Please do not get the wrong impression of wiki from tendentious editors like the one above.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear Shashis: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!Bakaman Bakatalk 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

== Hello ==
I read your comments on Talk:Yadav page.Presently I have removed them for most of them did not concern the topic, if you wish you may carry them on your talk page.Those who are interested will answer them here.In future plz be focussed and precise in your comments.For Kshatriya related issue visit Talk:Kshatriya, read the archive well and venture your claims there.Regarding Abhir/Ahir issue go thru talk:Ahirs.A similar question has already been answered. Good Luck.  Ikon |no-blast 11:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kshatriya issue

Yadav's are the original Kshatriya's from Vedic times. Shri Bhagwan Krishna the original supreme personality of Godhead belongs to the Yadav Clan. All other psuedo kshatriya castes like Thakur, Rajput like Parmar, Rana, Shekawat, Rathore etc are all shudhras who got converted to Kshatriya status by some stupid ill gotten brahmins in Mount Abu. These Thaukars etc are infact belong to shudra caste.

Yadav's used to rule the world and in today's time also shall rule India.

Transferred from talk:yadav

References regarding Yadav from Published articles