Do Kings have to be Kshatriya?/Shivaji

[Guest guest]

"V.V. Raman" wrote:

 

> <There was a claim that there were no Kshatriyas existing at that

> time, and thus all non-brahmins are shudras.>

>

> Interesting proposition that merits some clarification and

discussion. Was this all over India, for example in

>Bengal, Bihar, and Gujarat also; and when? Were all the Rajputs

either Brahmins or shudras?

 

This was one view, let us call it an extreme view. According to this

view, kshatriyas (and vaishyas) had cesed to exist anywhere.

 

According to another view, those who have traditionallly received the

sacred thread are non-shudra (dvija). By this view the Rajputs are

Khatriyas and many of the merchants communities are Vaishyas. Let us

call it the traditional view.

 

"V.V. Raman" wrote:

> Were all the Rajputs either Brahmins or shudras?

 

Also "naga_ganesan wrote:

 

> Are there any Rajput brahmins? Since Rajputs are

>supposed to have entered India later, there are no

>brahmins. In south Indian terms, they will be

> shudras (ie., excepting rajput brahmins *if any*)

 

By the extreme view, there are no kshatriyas. By the traditional

view, Rajputs are kshatriyas.

 

Here by Rajput, I mean Rajputs of royal descent, like the Sisodias,

Gahadwals, Parmars, Solankis, Rathores etc. [Note that these days

some communities of non-royal descent sometimes also use these

names.]. The word "Rajput" exactly describes the Rajputs, they are

simply the descendants of kings.

 

A royal Rathore can not marry a Rathore because that would be incest.

 

A Rajput can not be a brahmin. However some Rajputs are of Brahmin

descent. Sometimes it is said that kshatriays today are these origin:

surya-vanshi, chandra-vanshi, agni-kula and rishi-kula, the last

being descendants of brahmins.

 

Rajputs did not originate as a single race. While some Rajputs may be

descendants of Shakas etc, some are actually of south indian origin.

 

We know with absolute certainty that Rathors are Rastrakutas and

Solankis are Chalukyas from south. Not only that, an inscription

suggests that the Parmars may be descendants of Rashtrakutas.

Some Rajputs must be descendants of ancient Ikshvakus and Bhojas of

ancient India, but it can be hard to establish that with great

certainty for a specific clan.

 

It is well known that Gaga Bhatt traced Shivaji's line to the Gahlot-

Sisodias of Udaypur. However I was just looking at

Brahmanotpattimartnada, it quotes a text that mentions that Bhonsles

are descendants of king Bhoj of Dhara, a Paramar. There is another

theory that Bhonsles are descendants of Hoysals.

 

The more we dig into the four-varna-view trying to apply it today,

murkier it gets. It is my view that it no longer makes sense to

attempt to divide the Hindus into four clearly divided varnas. It did

not make much sense even several centuries ago. It has been a myth

for a long time.

 

Yashwant