Brahmins and Kshatryias

[Guest guest]

Dear List Members

 

I have a rather flat-footed question I'd like to pose. I've come

across some historical references to Brahmins serving the

Vijayanagar Empire as "Generals", waging battle against the "moors",

killing people, etc.. In S. India, some castes which are now said to

be Brahmins have served as "generals" to petty chieftains and the

like. How are we to understand this? Is it just another case of

historical reality vs. orthodox, essentialist models of Indian

society? Could these jatis have recently "ascended" to the status of

Brahmins? In short, can a Brahmin be involved in domains which are

usually said to be the Kshatryia's privilege?

 

Thank you all in advance

E. Rai

[Guest guest]

There are quite a few such cases of Brahma-kshatriyas.

 

Some of the Rajput clans are thought to be of Rishi-kula, i.e.

derived from Brahmins.

 

Rani of Jhansi was a brahmin.

 

Yashwant

 

 

INDOLOGY, "elzirai" <elzirai> wrote:

> Dear List Members

>

> I have a rather flat-footed question I'd like to pose. I've come

> across some historical references to Brahmins serving the

> Vijayanagar Empire as "Generals", waging battle against

the "moors",

> killing people, etc.. In S. India, some castes which are now said

to

> be Brahmins have served as "generals" to petty chieftains and the

> like. How are we to understand this? Is it just another case of

> historical reality vs. orthodox, essentialist models of Indian

> society? Could these jatis have recently "ascended" to the status

of

> Brahmins? In short, can a Brahmin be involved in domains which are

> usually said to be the Kshatryia's privilege?

>

> Thank you all in advance

> E. Rai

[Guest guest]

There are also lot of kings who were Brahmins, the teachers of the

pandavs and Kauravas, guru Dronacharya also was a brahmin.

 

Yogesh

 

INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

> There are quite a few such cases of Brahma-kshatriyas.

>

> Some of the Rajput clans are thought to be of Rishi-kula, i.e.

> derived from Brahmins.

>

> Rani of Jhansi was a brahmin.

>

> Yashwant

>

>

> INDOLOGY, "elzirai" <elzirai> wrote:

> > Dear List Members

> >

> > I have a rather flat-footed question I'd like to pose. I've come

> > across some historical references to Brahmins serving the

> > Vijayanagar Empire as "Generals", waging battle against

> the "moors",

> > killing people, etc.. In S. India, some castes which are now said

> to

> > be Brahmins have served as "generals" to petty chieftains and the

> > like. How are we to understand this? Is it just another case of

> > historical reality vs. orthodox, essentialist models of Indian

> > society? Could these jatis have recently "ascended" to the status

> of

> > Brahmins? In short, can a Brahmin be involved in domains which

are

> > usually said to be the Kshatryia's privilege?

> >

> > Thank you all in advance

> > E. Rai

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Yogesh Deshpande"

<yogesh1991> wrote:

> There are also lot of kings who were Brahmins, the teachers of the

> pandavs and Kauravas, guru Dronacharya also was a brahmin.

>

> Yogesh

>

> INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

> > There are quite a few such cases of Brahma-kshatriyas.

> >

> > Some of the Rajput clans are thought to be of Rishi-kula, i.e.

> > derived from Brahmins.

> >

> > Rani of Jhansi was a brahmin.

> >

> > Yashwant

> >

 

Thank you for your replies. The main question, however, remains

unanswered. What does this mean for our mainstream understanding of

Indian society? Does this mean that there is a huge gap between,

say, the varna theory and social reality? What are the implications

of such a "promiscuity" between the Brahman and Kshatryia categories

for Indian studies? What happens to Dumont, V. Das, and hundreds of

other authors whose theoretical constructions heavily depend on a

clear demarcation between the two areas?

 

Best regards

E. Rai