Talk:Ahir/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
No unreferenced points
I don't find anything in the article which is unreferenced.wikipedia must come out with points of doubt raised over the article.Holywarrior 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Abhira/Ophir
(source: History of Antiquity – By Max Dunker volume IV).
With Phoenicia the Indians enjoyed trade from the earliest times. In the tenth century B.C., Soloman of Israel and Hiram of Tyre sent ships to India, whence they carried away ivory, sandalwood, apes, peacocks, gold, silver, precious stones, etc., which they purchased from the tribe of Ophir. Now Ptolemy says there was a country called Abhira at the mouth of the River Indus. This shows that some people called Abhir must have been living there in those days. We find a tribe called the “Abhir” still living in Kathyawar, which must, therefore, be the Ophir tribe mentioned above. Christian Lassen (1800-1876) author of Indische Alterthumskunde vol I p. 354, thinks “Ophir” was a seaport on the south west coast of India. Mrs. Manning says it was situated on the western coast of India.
Among the things sent by the Hindus to Solomon and Hiram were peacocks. Now, these birds were nowhere to be found in those days except in India, where they have existed from the earliest times. “We frequently meet in old Sanskrit poetry with sentences like these: ‘Peacocks unfolding in glittering glory all their green and gold; ‘peacocks dancing in wild glee at the approach of rain;’ peacocks around palaces glittering on the garden walls.’ Ancient sculptures, too show the same delight in peacocks, as may be seen, for instance, in graceful bas-reliefs on the gates of Sanchi or in the panels of an ancient palace in Central India, figured in Colonel Tod’s Rajastathan p. 405. “The word for peacock in Hebrew is universally admitted to be foreign; and Gesenius, Sir Emerson Tennent, and Max Muller appear to agree with Christian Lassen in holding that this word as written in Kings and Chronicles is derived from the Sanskrit language.
With regard to ivory, it was largely used in India, Assyria, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Elephants are indigenous in India and Africa, and ivory trade must be either of Indian origin or African. But the elephants were scarcely known to the ancient Egyptians, and C Lassen decides that elephants were neither used nor tamed in ancient Egypt. In ancient India, they were largely used and tamed. All the kings processions and battles have elephants mentioned in them. The elephant is the emblem of royalty and a sign of rank and power. The god Indra, too has his ‘Airawat.’ The Sanskrit name for domestic elephant is ibha, and in the bazaars of India ibha was the name by which the elephant’s tusks were sold. In ancient Egypt, ivory was known by the name of ebu. source[1]Holywarrior 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Abhira Surabhira disambiguation
In sanskrit two words are often mixed like Krishna and Arjuna are together referred as Krishnarjuna as one word.Similarly Suras and Abhira are referred as Surabhira.But not only the words writers have also wrongly attributed sins of Suras on Surabhira and hence Abhiras had wrongly been indicted for doings which they never did.Holywarrior 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
| “ | Cintamani-Prakara-Sadmasu Kalpavriksha- Lakshavrteshu Surabhir Abhipaalayantam |
” |
| — Brahma Samhita | ||
"Lord Krishna is situated in a spiritual abode made of transcendental gems. In that abode he is surrounded by millions of desire fulfilling trees (kalpa-vriksha), and he takes pleasure in tending the divine cows. He is always being served with great reverence and affection by hundreds of thousands of devotees. To that Supreme Lord, who is always trying to satisfy the senses of the cows, and who is the original person, I offer my worship." 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Holywarrior 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
lakshavriteshu surabhir abhipalayantam [2]Holywarrior 17:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahir/Ahirs merger
Don't merge retain this page as different,this is full of references whereas other is full of opinions.Holy---+----Warrior 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What references are you talking about. There is absolutely no proof that Ahirs and other groups are really descended from the ancient Yadavs. SImilarly there is no way you can claim that Mauryas and Guptas were Ahirs (who may have not even been present then). It is far more likely that Jats / Ahirs / Gujars are descended from migrants who came to India after the fall of the Gupta Empire and mxed with local tribes. THat would account for the low social position of the AHirs. Regarding the other groups in SOuth India / Maharashtra, there is no proof that they are related to Ahirs or any proof of Yadava descent. Wikipedia really needs to check on contributors like Holy warrior who give a version of hsitroy as they want it to be rather than facts / proper historical research quoting genetic studies.(unsigned comments from user:203.200.12.4 )
You need to check both the pages Abhira and Yadav,go through the talks and content.You will get all the references you want to read. You need to specify what you mean by It is far more likely that Jats / Ahirs / Gujars are descended from migrants who came to India after the fall of the Gupta Empire and mxed with local tribes,We are not here to entertain your Likely,versions. It is far more likely that Jats / Ahirs / Gujars are descended from migrants who came to India after the fall of the Gupta Empire and mxed with local tribes. THat would account for the low social position of the AHirs.---- You really need a proper dose from my side ,Read the citations well I hope it goes down your spine(perhaps you possess it),Infact Guptas themselves has been referred to as Abhir.Wikipedia really needs to check on contributors like Holy warrior who give a version of hsitroy as they want it to be rather than facts / proper historical research quoting genetic studies---Yes you are rather welcome to raise questions on any of my edits But advised to assume Good Faith.Your rather uncivil comments does not reflect it.Holy -- + -- Warrior 09:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my comments. Iwent through your links. You have not presented any proof that the ABhiras are todays Ahirs. Or that Mauryas and Guptas were Ahirs. ALso there is no proof stating that Ahirs or any other group claiming to be Yadavs are descended from the ancient Yadavas in the Mahabharata.(—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.12.4 (talk • contribs).
- Reply----->No credible person till date has doubted abhira being called Ahir(A word not found in any scriptures),still I would sugest you to go through this link [3],[4].We are not here to run a tutorial class for clarifying all the nonesense you put here.Holy -- + -- Warrior 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reply---->If you go through any school book of sanskrit between class 6 to 12 in India, in the section of Ap-bhramsh (mis-spelled words), like attalika now called as atari, you can see Ahir is apbhramsh of correct work Abhir. This should be good enough proof for all, who recevied his/her school education, with sanskit as subject, in India. I hope, everybody is listening here. Raj 09 Oct 2007
get your facts right before writing something as riduculous as this. Abhirs were arch rivals of the Ahirs, because the sound the same they aren't the same gyan.org has a full indepth history of yadav clans. the research carried out by max muller tried to diminish indian history with his contradictory lies. wikipedia should take this article off.
- I do understand your sentiments and respect them, but it is always better, that you go through the webpages carefully and try to understand the meaning of all sentences(it is always better to ask for some help), i also read the gyan.org several times, but never found the arch rival concept between Abhir and Ahir, and the reason the simple, one can not be an arch rival of oneself. Is it not so logical dear. Raj 09 Oct 2007
Move to Ahir
This page should be moved to Ahir, the singular world. The plural Ahirs should be a redirect.
Some administrator should please do this.--Jahilia 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC) in the main page there is a mistake of putting bhil under the Ahir clans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.83.230 (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahir, Jat & Gurjars
Ahir,is comes under Chandravanshi kashtriya commonly known as Yadav.while jat and gujjar comes under sudras.
Chandravanshi's are known as Gwala/Gadaria/Shephereds. Because Lord Krishna was the shephereds. And we are all knwon as Gwala/Shephereds/Ahirs and very commonly known as Dhangars / Neekhars.
Earlier peoples known and recognised by their linage like Suryavanshi's, Chandravanshi's, Agnivanshi's but later on they adopted the name as Rajputs.
Originally we are Shephereds / Gwala known as (Chandravanshi' or Somavanshi's and in some part of country knwon as (Yaduvanshi's a part of Chandravanshi's). As regards to Gotra's - Chandel is a main gotra and again it is further divied into sub gotras e.g. Chandiya Chandel, Rahiya Chandel, Guiya Chandel, Mankiwale Chandel, Basedewale Chandel and Chandrayan.
A large part of Chandels are in Pal Community which is known as Pal Kshatriya / Pal Shephereds.
We all have to project ourselves as Chandravanshi's ...
Main Stars Of Chandravanshi's Or Gwala-Shephereds ;
1) Shephered Samrat - Bharat 2) " " - Lord Krishna 2) " " - Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar 3) " " - Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar 4) " " - Poet Kalidas 5) " " - Sant Kanakdas 6) " " - Chandragupt Mourya 7) " " - Samrat Ashok
Many more stars in Chandravansham. For more detail see the wikipedia.org (DHANGAR COLOUM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakhmi (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Needs cleanup
This article has turned into a propaganda piece ("most ancient martial tribes", "long cherished the tradition of bravery and warfare"), full of fringe pseudohistorical theories in the Origin section. Needs serious cleanup. utcursch | talk 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Utcursch, as per the comments on propaganda, the references are added in the page. However, I would like to to request you to keep track of individual who first remove the references, and followed by putting the banners/tags regarding citations or references. I do understand that you are tracking this page on "Abhira", "Ahir", "Ahira" or "Abhirs" page for more than 2 years. I would appreciate your co-ordination in this regards. Thanks.
- http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_150bc.jpg
- http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=272865&rel_no=1
Please mentions the locations, which you found as original research in the above page. This will surely help in justifying the tags properly. Putting tag with out proper disputed content area in the talk page, will increase individuals bias and credibility, which may eventually lead into the revocation of certain privileges, earned through hard labor in wikipedia. Looking forward to healthy discussion on this. Raj the one (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Lead is too long
The lead should be only three or four paragraphs. Discussions of derivations of names belong in article.--Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
the tribe known as Bhil has in no part of history and present been a part of the Ahir clan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.83.230 (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Notable Ahirs Section
Do all those listed belong to Ahirs or other subsects of Yadavs ?
For example 'Kannappan M.L.A and former PWD Minister of Tamil Nadu' belongs to Tamil Konar - a subsect of Yadav. Is he a Ahir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.55.104 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
List of Ahir gotras
I moved the list, which took up and undue amount of article space, from this article to its own article. Another editor has now put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ahir gotras. If there's interest in saving the list, please register it there quickly. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits by Ikonoblast
The following is copied from my talk page and explains some of Ikonoblast's edits which I challenged.
1)The Article is about ahir, not thakur, gujjar etc. so, no need to mention them.
2)The Avar=Ahir, is not suggested by any credible source.
3) All the materials I have added are in Bombay Caste & Tribe, Vol.1, by very respected anthropologists and historians, naming them individually.
I've checked out the web sources for the material that Ikonoblast removed and agree with Ikonoblast's view.
- The deleted refs include
- The tribes and castes of West Bengal , page 35, Asok Mitra, Alipore, West Bengal : West Bengal Government Press, 1953
- http://www.archive.org/stream/tribescastesofce03russ/tribescastesofce03russ_djvu.txt
- http://www.wahlah.org
- http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=gujjar+khazar+thakur+ahir+as+avars&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
- http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/indoscythian.htm
- www.webcitation.org/query?id=1256433532989276
I'd still like to see reliable sources to support Ikonoblast's "Controversy does not end here and arguments are given that, Gopas, Abhira, Kuruba & Ballabha might be different initially and got amalgamated somewhere at the beginning of the christian era, with Aryan, Scythic & Aboringial Admixture. It is also argued that fair, tall, and well built Ahirs of the north cannot be the same stock as Dark & Short kurubas of Southern India. Still, Amarkosa, an ancient Sanskrit text says Abhira is the synonym of Gopa and Ballabha.", please. If this is from Bombay Caste & Tribe then please just add a ref to that effect. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is the typical unencyclopedic gotra-cruft, the kind that is only ever touched by people who think they are descended from the group in question. The fact that we get tons of these doesn't make it any better. My suggestion would be to radically remove all content that is not directly referenced to quotable sources and start over. Naked urls are a no-go. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahir/Abhira Disambiguation
The term ahir comes into existence, in British era. Muslims recorded them as abhira.Even the last recorded Ahir ruler of Haryana is mentioned as Abhira. Marathi & bengali literature till day has used abhir. So, one will duplicate other. We cannot disambiguate. Ikon No-Blast 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- To Dbachmann: can you explain the rationale for your split proposal, and how you would propose apportioning the existing content between the two articles? Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is a prime example of abominable gotracruft. In my experience, the best way to fix these things is to tear it all down and just keep the bare bones of actual facts. We managed to do this at Jats: it's still a horrible article, but it is now at least possible to read it without going insane, and further cleanup will be comparatively straightforward. To get ahead with this article, we will need to throw out absolutely everything that is
- unreferenced
- referenced to a bare url
- referenced to some 19th century source but presented in Wikipedia's voice as a fact
--dab (𒁳) 07:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ahir
This article gives the impression the terms Yadava and Ahir are synonymous. Yadava and Ahir are not same. Ahir, also called variously as Gwal, Gopa, etc and engaged in the profession of cattle-herding, took on the name Yadava during 1920s. Here are references:
"One of the most politically active active among the Shudra castes was the ahirs or yadavs. In 1922, an ahir conference was held in Lucknow, followed by another ahir mahotsav (festival) in Allahabad in 1923, where a provincial mahasabha was inaugurated, with the new name of Yadav Mahasabha"
- ibid. : The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India, Page 205, Nandini Gooptu, Cambridge University , Press, 2001
There are many more that can be easily found on the Google Books. Some more are given below:
- ibid. :Land tenure and peasant in South Asia, Page 198, Robert Eric Frykenberg, Manohar, 1984 - Political Science -
- ibid. : Caste and race in India, Page 450, G.S. Ghurye, Popular Prakashan, 2005
- ibid: Caste and the Indian Army, Economic Weekly, 1439-1443 August 29 1964
Please post the references in the artice.
--142.205.241.254 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Done--130.101.152.3 (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Some more very reliable references. Placing them here for the view of other editors in case the moonlighters vandalize them.
- "The name of Abhira has survived in tribe of their descendants, Ahir or Ahir (the Prkrt form of Sanskrit Abhira), who are mainly cowherds, carpenters and goldsmitshs."Encyclopaedia of the Hindu world, Volume 1 By Gaṅgā Rām Garg, Page no. 113
- Urban sociology in India: reader and source book , Page No. 286, M. S. A. Rao, New Delhi] Orient Longman [1974]
- "A poignant illustration of the dual dimension of the ideology of Shudra caste movements comes from a pamphlet entitled Ahir Jati Ki Niyamamvali or "Rules of Ahir Caste"", Encyclopaedia of violence against women and dowry death in India , Page no. 581, Kalpana Roy,New Delhi : Anmol Publications, 2000.
--130.101.152.3 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kindly note: The world neither was created on the day of british census nor it ended there so repeatedly producing the same is ridiculous. Kindly stop it.
- The definition of abhira and its synonyms are given in ancient Sanskrit text, amarkosa, so none of the refs written after can challenge that and should be removed if found in the article. amarkosa lists gopas, gwal, vallabha, Ghosha as abhira synonym, and nowhere it is written that they are shudra. 122.176.224.5 (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are historical evidences for equating Ahirs with Yadavs, written in Yadav article, so the allegation that they changed their identity is bullshit. 122.176.224.5 (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- The definition of abhira and its synonyms are given in ancient Sanskrit text, amarkosa, so none of the refs written after can challenge that and should be removed if found in the article. amarkosa lists gopas, gwal, vallabha, Ghosha as abhira synonym, and nowhere it is written that they are shudra. 122.176.224.5 (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Kindly note: The world neither was created on the day of british census nor it ended there so repeatedly producing the same is ridiculous. Kindly stop it.
yadavs and Ahirs are same=
The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India-page-22
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ri7pgHOQC8UC&pg=PA21&dq=ahirs+of+gujarat&hl=en&ei=rS2MTbuHHsf4rQfOx-XSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20of%20gujarat&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Taelus (Talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahirs → Ahir — Please move to Ahir, the singular word. ≈ Prometheus «talk» 10:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. No rationale for move given. Groups of conationals or coadherents are often at article titles in the plural (cf. Malays (ethnic group), Germans, Jews). Cited sources also use the plural form. — AjaxSmack 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ahir is an ethnic group and not groups of conationals. Most of the similar articles have title in singular eg. Maratha, Nair, Dalit as can be seen in Social groups of India. I have suggested move because of the same reason. ≈ Prometheus «talk» 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I still see no reason for a move but, if no one else cares to discuss this, I don't want to torpedo a proposal that I don't feel that strongly about so I withdraw my opposition. — AjaxSmack 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- OpposeI oppose the move of changing the page, as there is nothing objectionable in plural name Ahirs. I am not agree on ethnic content. Raj the one (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I still see no reason for a move but, if no one else cares to discuss this, I don't want to torpedo a proposal that I don't feel that strongly about so I withdraw my opposition. — AjaxSmack 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ahir is an ethnic group and not groups of conationals. Most of the similar articles have title in singular eg. Maratha, Nair, Dalit as can be seen in Social groups of India. I have suggested move because of the same reason. ≈ Prometheus «talk» 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closed. Only one discussion at a time. Wait for the first one to close before starting another. Ahirs → Aheer No logic of merging Aheer & Ahir. Both titles have nothing in common at present and represented individual identity in separate country with different religion. Raj the one (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge Yadav caste → Ahirs
Please discuss the proposed merge here ≈ Prometheus «talk» 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- oppose the understanding the Yadav & Ahirs are same in incorrect, both the groups were different in mythology and have individual identity and representation. Both titles are commonly used in india as surname and not linked with each other in every case. Raj the one (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As in other caste there are several sub classes same way yadavs too have. What is the big fuss in it. hene the yadav yaduvansi aheer etc should be merged in one
Ahir, Abhira tribe and Yadavs are same tribe of ancient warriors and Rajputs were never called Yadavs.
Please discuss the proposed merge here ≈ Prometheus «talk» 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.129.35 (talk)
From thousands of years and in all religious books and many well known historians have mentioned that Ahirs or ancient Abhira tribe and Yadavas are same people and they comes under Chandravanshi Kshatriyas.
However due to lot of increase in casteism today Rajputs and some jats wants to show and describe Yadavs/Ahirs and Gujjars as low class people.And many times write some weird remarks on this wiki page.
Fact is Rajputs are ancient hun tribes and were never mentioned in Historic religious or vedic books.The word Raja-putra in some vedic books which Today rajputs say and corelate that raja-putra means rajputs in vedic books is wrong as Raja-Putra in sanskrit and hindi means "Raja as King and Putra as son ."Kings- son" can be any person from any caste or tribe.
Jats were considered shudras in hinduism by bhramins however the great Sikh guru converted them to sikhism and improved their social status.And since then they became above Ahir/Yadav and Gujjar which left behind.
Rajput word came into existance in 6 bc .Their status were raised by bhramans of that era who used to protect them and donate money and in return bhramins gave them top status. Jats ,ahirs/Yadavs and Gujjars were considered shudras by bhramins as they were against Bhramins.
Rajputs were Huns tribe ,Jats were Getae tribe , Ahir/ Abhira ar Yadavs were Avar tribe people, and Gujjars were great Khazar tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.129.35 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Derivation from Ahi
This article has at some places Ahir derived from Ahi or Ahaiya. Please note this derivation as pointed out by J.C. Nesfield is absurd and outdated. It is a well established fact that they were known as abhira and not ahir, so kindly stop using this derivation, and citations from Joon/Jatland/jatwiki etc. fails WP:RS, so anything based on it would be removed. Also, no scholar of any reputation has derived ahir from Avar, so it is equally absurd and won't be tolerated Ikon No-Blast 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh! yeah...According to you some one is absurd and let me give you some links of scholors mentioning ahir with avars obviously you are only historian left "reputed one"...
Proof of Avars with ahirs
By Alexander Crawford Lindsay Crawford (Earl of)
By Lord Lindsay
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sg1P86VWYOsC&pg=PA377&dq=avar+tribe+and++abhira&hl=en&ei=dic9Tb32FsSblgesr6ydBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=avar&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ahir Vs Ahar
There is an editor who is mixing Ahir with Ahar. Please note,
1. Ahir and Ahar are Socially two different communities.
2. Ahir never claim descent from Yaduvanshi Rajput, Ahars do. Please don't ever put it here.
3. Yaduvanshi Rajput, better known as Jadaun have arrived very late in India, so don't push this nonesense ever again, because, Cult of Krishna has spread with Ahirs and Jadaun adopted this Krishna at a very late stage in the History. Ahirs have traditionally claimed to be descendants of Krishna themselves and not via any other community, so stop pushing this nonesense here.
Ikon No-Blast 21:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh ! yeah you are the new so called historian then please click below links.
"Ahir never claim descent from Yaduvanshi Rajput, Ahars do. Please don't ever put it here." you are wrong
Ahirs have yaduvanshi's clan and claim to be rajput origin:-
Yaduvanshi ahirs with rajput origin
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=typmTffGFMitrAf22YXbCg&ct=result&id=6uMhAQAAIAAJ&dq=jadubanshi+ahirs&q=ahirs
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&pg=PA182&dq=jadubanshi+ahirs&hl=en&ei=typmTffGFMitrAf22YXbCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=jadubanshi&f=false
By H A Rose
William crooke
The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India-page-24
Ahirs are divided into many clans.In north India it is divided into Juduvanshi,Nandvanshi and Gowalvanshi .And Jaduvanshi claimed to be descended from the Yadavas,who now for the Yadu and Jadon-Bhatti clans of Rajputs.Which means Yaduvanshi ahirs ,Bhati ,Jadaun & Khanzyada have same roots.
Sir Herbert Hope Risley
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=mixmTaqENIOurAe_m9naCg&ct=result&id=wqeBAAAAMAAJ&dq=jadubanshi+ahirs&q=jadu
Lucia Michelutti
Anthropological Survey of India
India. Office of the Registrar General
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=dC5mTc_bGMnlrAemme3aCg&ct=result&id=yWaaAAAAIAAJ&dq=yaduvanshi++ahirs&q=yaduvanshi+
Rajasthan [district Gazetteers
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=z4YbAAAAIAAJ&q=yaduvanshi++ahirs&dq=yaduvanshi++ahirs&hl=en&ei=5S5mTfWtHovMrQei4eXaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATgU
University of Oxford. Institute of Social Anthropology, Research Centre on Social and Economic Development in Asia
By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=PA86&dq=jadubansi++ahirs&hl=en&ei=vi9mTZieAsj5rAfytNjaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=jadubansi%20%20&f=false
You seems to be anti ahir cate person ,I doono what are you trying to prove here,I can do this all day ,first you said that ahirs don't have yaduvanshi clan , now you agree but against that fact that yaduvanshi ahirs claim descent from Yadu Rajputs so please go ahead.
Sir H.M Elloitbook "Indian castes and tribes" say Yadubansi Rajputs are derived from the Yadubansi Ahirs,please chek celow link
page-283
A. H. Bingley says that ahirs used to get rajput status {go to gae 26}:-
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Cc2HyXP5dygC&pg=PA163&dq=Ahirs+descent++Rajputs&hl=en&ei=uUZrTcOuJ8bprAef9vzCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=Ahir&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Friend,
There are many people who think: 1) Krishna and all gods are rajput. so if they are claiming descent they too should be Rajput. Give it up 2) I am not against any caste. I am definitely against people who make such claims. It looks very ugly. Give it up. 3) Claiming Descent from Rama, Krishna, Yadu is OK. Claiming through Rajputs! Why??? Ikon No-Blast 17:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Friend,
There are many people who know:
That there were not rajputs in Krishna era, Rajputs came into existance after 6 B.c ,Rajput is not a pure tribe it is a mixture of Gujjars , meenas, Jats and Yaduvanshi ahirs and many more.please search
if you don't believe me than read what did A. H. Bingley wrote about rajput status {Go to Page 26}:-
In a book written by a Rajput."Castes and tribes of Rajasthan" on page 117 he says that Yaduvanshi ahirs claim "Rajput Pedigree"
Another Rajput autor says on page 92 that ahirs claim descent from Rajputs.However this refers to Yaduvanshi Ahirs {found in Haryana, Rajasthan and Upper doab} not Gwalvanshi or Nandvanshi Ahirs.
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=F-RtTYXJKI_irAeundH7Bg&ct=result&id=DuAtAAAAMAAJ&dq=rajasthan+ahirs&q=jaduvansis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
removing villages of Delhi ncr section as it's been with Yaduvanshi ahirs
removing villages of Delhi ncr section as it's been with Yaduvanshi ahirs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
ahirs of rajasthan
cite book|author=Sukhvir Singh Gahlot|title=Rajasthan directory & who's who
http://books.google.com/books?id=6tMXAAAAIAAJ%7Caccessdate=28 March 2011|year=1982|publisher=Hindi Sahitya Mandir}}
People of India, Volume 4-page-56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raosaab7 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
These Ahirs(Abhiras) came from Eastern Iran
"The Abhiras who came from some part of Eastern Iran seem to have settled at first in northern Sindh."
Uttankita Sanskrit Vidya-Aranya epigraphs, Volume 2
Prāci-jyotī: digest of Indological studies, Volume 10-page-113
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AqKw1Mn8WcwC&pg=PA32&dq=#v=onepage&q=abiravan&f=false
The tribes and castes of Bombay, Volume 1 By Reginald Edward Enthoven--page -23
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AqKw1Mn8WcwC&pg=PA32&dq=
Oriental studies, Part 1-page-57
The History and Culture of the Indian People: The age of imperial unity-page-221
Catalogue of the Coins of the Andhra Dynasty, the Western Ksatrapas, the ... By E.J. Rapson
The Age of imperial unity, Volume 2, Part 1-page-221
Advanced history of India
Geographical data in the early Purāṇas: a critical study-page-129
New light thrown on the history of India: the historical Naga kings of India, 6th C.B.C.-14th C.A.D.-page-76
Buddhism in western India-page-54
India as seen in the Bṛhatsaṁhitā of Varāhamihira-page-65
Some early dynasties of South India By S. Chattopadhyaya
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=78I5lDHU2jQC&pg=PA127&dq=abhiras+came+from+eastern+iran&hl=en&ei=9kOtTaaGOcjSrQeF_pz7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=Abiravan%2C%20in%20eastern%20Iran%2C&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raosaab7 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Major cleanup underway
This article has quite a few problems, and I'm working to fix them now:
Done Way to many links needing Disambiguation- Done Too many images not directly related to the subject (except might need to remove that Mahabarata map too)
- (partial) Too many ELs, some of dubious credibility and applicability, and in some cases origin not noted in cite
- (partial) Various footnotes not done as full citations; I've fixed some of the GoogleBooks ones using http://reftag.appspot.com , which I recommend highly
- Way too much emphasis on claimed/legendary Kshatriya descent, and no description of the Ahir classification as Shudra cowherds, milkmen, etc.
- Lede is too convoluted and unclear; I've done some minor fixing, but it talks too much about history theories and not enough about the modern notability of the Ahir
- History section is way too long and focused on the Abhiriya, with little mention of how applicable that ancient group may be to the modern Ahirs. This article should link to whatever claimed ancient groups, and then explain the theory of descent, rather than just list out a whole claimed multi-millennium history.
- The section on modern Ahir caste-politics is too short; there was some major early 19th C. moving and shaking as the Yadavs, Ahirs, etc. sought to define themselves as Kshatriya
- The History and Distribution sections have significant overlap with Yadav. The info needs to go one way or the other, or be covered in one and linked/summarised in the other, or the two articles need to be merged.
- The Military section was word-for-word the same as in Yadav; same again, there needs to be some differentiation, or remove it from one article or the other entirely.
- Sourcing/footnoting needs extensive improvement throughout.
Those are just a few major observations. I've done some extensive copyedit and re-org which I think has helped, but there's plenty more to be done. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- "The caste claims to be of Chandravanshi Kshatriya descent, but some other groups classify them as Shudra".It sounds confusing "who some others".
- You mean rival castes. Please rectify and clarify this mess of shudra and Kshatriyas. If Yaduvanshi's classify themselves as Kshatriyas then mention it same goes with gwalvanshi's whom upper castes treat them as Shudras.Sumitkachroo (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- For User:MatthewVanitas, Please go through "The tribes and castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Volume 1 By William Crooke", it will clarify you that All three groups of Ahirs are different and share no common relationship except being called ahirs: [5] Page 53 Sumitkachroo (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- SK raises a very good point here, so when I start this cleanup soon this data needs to be mentioned in the lede, which will help sort out some of the classification issue. Good find. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
some seeing ahir as shudra?
In india citizens are free to use any name or any surname as they wish, there are no boundations regarding to it. Due to this reasons many shudra communities have started using many upper caste surnames of brahmins, rajputs/khastriya and other high rank communities.
Besides these shudra communities get the benefit of reservations in schools, colleges admissions and selection in government jobs provided for scheduled caste (sc) and scheduled tribe (ST)in India for their upliftment in society. But to enjoy another advantage of social respect in indian society many shudra community persons have started using upper caste surnames as their surnames too.
For example in western india (rajasthan, gujarat) and also in punjab and haryana where suryavanshi rajputs/khastriya are in majority many shudra families use chouhans,parmar, parihar, sisodiya etc as their surname. In haryana, delhi and western up and some parts of mp some jatavs(a shudra community) have started using jats as their surname. In uttar pradesh, madhya pradesh, chhattisgarh many shudras have started using brahmins surnames. Likewise where yadav's(ahirs) are in majority many shudra's have started using their surname.
so dear Matthewvanitas, someday you will describe Brahmins, chouhans, sisodiya, parmar, parihar, jats as shudra's. For such important caste matters immense care should be paid and proper grass root level research should be done before writing any caste related article for indian society.
And what SHOCKED me more that your REFERENCES are articles printed in any random magazine or in any random book published just two or three year ago. IF YOU CAN SHOW US OR ENLIGHTEN US WITH ANY ANCIENT REFERENCE OR ANY CENTURIES AGO WRITTEN INSCRIPTIONS OR ANY PROOFS FROM HINDU SACRED VEDAS OR PURAANS mentioning yadavs as shudra's we will be very pleased. BUT ACCORDING TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ALL HINDU PURAANS( SACRED BOOKS) DESCRIBE YADAVS(AHIRS) AS ROYAL CHANDRAVANSHI KHASTRIYAS/RAJPUTS WHO HAVE HIGHER RANK IN CASTE HIERARCHY OF INDIAN SOCIETY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikraantkaka (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings, so far as the "shocking" references of recent vintage, some of those may be from other editors tampering, but in any case it is indeed more preferable to use the most recent academic works. Earlier works, for example from the British Raj, often have significant biases, and ideally should be quoted indirectly from more recent works which have critiqued and analysed their statement. The same is true of the Vedas and other ancient texts: it would be ridiculous to allow random editors to attempt to interpret the Vedas to apply it to modern social groups. What is reasonable is to quote a modern academic saying "According to the Vedas.... which gives some indication of where the Ahirs derived their mythic origin." Attempting to analyse ancient documents directly falls under WP:Original research, and is not admissable evidence.
- So far as your comments about other classes purporiting to be higher caste, taking their names, etc. that is indeed a fascinating detail and referenced in other articles. If you can find reliable, academic works describing this phenomenon specifically in relation to the Ahirs, that would be a valuable addition to the article, so please bring such footnotes if you have them, and we can discuss them here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
List of shudra communities ( scheduled castes and scheduled tribes) provided by the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) census department clearly shows that yadavs(Ahirs) caste is not subjected to shudra communities. Reference given below
http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/scst_main.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikraantkaka (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Vikraantkaka (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not every SC/SCT is Shudra, and not every Shudra is SC/SCT. As I understand it, if a given community is successful economically, in education, in employment, then they don't require government preferences to pull themselves up, and accordingly are not granted a special status. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
shudra is the fourth Varna in the traditional four-section division in the caste system. Their assigned and expected role in post-Vedic India was that of servants and laborers. The four Varnas are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. Yadav (Ahir) came under kshatriya varna. And more precisely a single caste can't be categorized into two varna according to post vedic divisions. Ref: 1.Shudras in Ancient India, R. Chandra and K.L. Chanchreek. New Delhi, Shree Pub., 2004, ISBN 81-88658-65-0.
2.Oxford English Dictionary, s. v. "Sudra" sic
3.Sastri, K. Rama (1982). "Akkalapundi grant of Singaya-Nayaka: Saka-Samvat 1290" Epigraphica Indica, vol. XIII. India: Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 259ff., v.5–7.
4.The Jati-Varna Matrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikraantkaka (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Vikraantkaka (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In the world famous sanskrit epic of ancient India MAHABHARATA, it is mentioned that Karna who was the son of Surya (a solar deity) and Kunti,but raised by Adhiratha, a charioteer (shudra) of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. When karna grew up, he became more interested in the art of warfare than in merely being a charioteer like his father Adhirata. Karna met Dronacharya, who was an established teacher in the art of warfare. Dronacharya taught the khastriya princes, but refused to take Karna as his student, since Karna was a son of a charioteer(shudra) and Dronacharya only taught Kshatriyas, or warriors. And during that time mostly kings were yadavs and yadavs were permitted to have education in Gurukuls like others khastriya's.So this is a centuries ago proof that yadavs were classified as khastriya's but not as shudra's. And more precisely a SINGLE CASTE CAN"T BE CATEGORIZED INTO TWO VARNA (here khastriya and shudra, either it can be khastriya or shudra but not both) according to POST VEDIC DIVISIONS. so yadavs are khastriya's.
refrences: 1.Hopkins, E. W. The Great Epic of India, New York (1901). 2.http://www.karna.org/body_story_behind_karna.html 3.Oldenberg, H. Das Mahabharata, Göttingen (1922). 4.Pāṇini. Ashtādhyāyī. Book 4. Translated by Chandra Vasu. Benares, 1896. (Sanskrit)(English) 5.Vaidya, R.V. A Study of Mahabharat; A Research, Poona, A.V.G. Prakashan, 1967
Inscriptions of Shudra dynasties declare that belonging to the fourth varna was a matter of pride. An inscription of Singaya-Nayaka (1368 CE) says: The three castes, Brahmanas and the next [Kshatriyas and Vaishyas], were produced from the face, the arms and the thighs of the Lord; and for their support was born the fourth caste from His feet. River Ganges, the purifier of the three worlds also sprang from Lord's feet. The members of this caste are eagerly attentive to their duties, not wicked, pure-minded, and are devoid of passion and other such blemishes; they ably bear all the burdens of the earth by helping those born in the other caste. so from this paragraph it is also clear that all four varna are different from each other and their originated point is also different. Hence a caste comes under a single varna can't be categorised under another varna.
References:Sastri, K. Rama (1982). "Akkalapundi grant of Singaya-Nayaka: Saka-Samvat 1290" Epigraphica Indica, vol. XIII. India: Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 259ff., v.5–7.Vikraantkaka (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I am waiting for the response to my sources which i have already mentioned aboveVikraantkaka (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)!!!!!!
Separating Abhira tribe from Ahir
Currently there is far too much overlap between Ahir and Abhira tribe. As I understand it, Abhira refers to an ancient tribe, while the Ahir are a modern pastoral caste. Further, it appears that the links between Abhira and Ahirs are widely speculated on, but not necessarily definite in the academic world. The "History" section is tremendously large right now, and given that we have an entire article Abhira tribe, I suggest that we move all the ancient history there, summarise it in a paragraph, add in any academic debate about the connections between the two, and then proceed with the modern history of "Ahir" as an ethnic/caste signifier.
Does anyone have any substantantive objections to this proposal? Does anyone have a clear view as to in what century is the cut-off between "Abhira" and "Ahir"? Thanks for any insight in sorting out these two overlapping articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Overlap between two articles is good.because modern Ahir not much differ from ancient abhira tribe.there is continuity in history and culture. only name change from abhira to ahira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
please leave a space and indent replies, and sign at the end
- How is there "not much difference"? From what I understand, the Abhira and Yadav ceased to be major powers around the time of the Moghuls, and though the reading here is very dense I'm not totally convinced (from what we have here) that there's an explicit link between them. Certainly an implied/legendary link, but I'm still uneasy on it. In either case, overlap is a bad thing on Wikipedia. As long is the reader is made aware that there is an article Abhira tribe, they know where they can go for more info, and all this article needs is a brief summary to let them know what's there. This whole Ahir category has far too much overlap between articles, with the same information being summarised over and over. Again, on a Wiki, that's unnecessary and unconstructive; better to keep info in discrete locations, and allow readers to bounce from article to article. Each time we duplicate the exact same info, it's a whole separate place we have to maintain, update, protect from vandalism, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
But loss of power in moghul period does not mean that connection between Abhira and Ahira broken.i think you are not a student of history so not able to understand what i am saying.abhira tribe and modern ahir caste both same community.only difference in present in pronouncing name in country side.moreover in ancient vedic period when caste system not present in its modern form than we had abhira accross varna system.if you are seperating smae community on period bases with different title than you are creating more confusion for reader and you are presenting corrects facts in wrong way which can change the whole meaning.you have deleted yaduvanshi ahir article completely this not constructive.i agree there were problem of overlap but a good article can evolved only continous editing from authentic sources not from deleting complete article.so have patience don't do anything in hurry.you are behaving like a dictator give notice and destroy article.you are removing authentic information from ahir also.
Ancient indian historian (talk
- You have to be specific; it does no good to complain that I'm "removing authentic information" yet give no detail as to in which cases. So far as Yaduvanshi Ahir, 95% of the page had zero material actually using the term "Yaduvanshi Ahir" or anything similar. The page was a whole list of picking and choosing general Ahir data, but then putting the word "Yaduvanshi" in front of it, despite there being at least two (three if you count Lingayat) other major branches of Ahir.
- Again, as stated earlier on this page, I'm just not seeing much clear-cut explanation that Ahir and Abhira are the same thing. We're certain seeing reference that some people believe that, that it's a "reasonable assumption", etc., but I'm not seeing clear-cut cases of modern scholar saying "There was Community X, and they're now called Y but are basically the same people." If this is such a clear connection, it must be well documented. It is far safer to question the Ahir-Abhira link and leave it up to the reader to read both articles and make sense of them, then it is to (potentially) incorrectly treat them as the same subject. Ditto Yadav, it seems that some editors on the two pages want to insist they're different groups of people, and then use the terms practically interchangeably during the articles. Your thoughts appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
REPUTATIONAL SOURCES claiming that YADAV (AHIRS) ARE KSHATRIYA
Yadu (Sanskrit: यदु) is one of the five Indo-Aryan tribes (panchajana, panchakrishtya or panchamanusha) mentioned in the Rig Veda). The Mahabharata, the Harivamsha and the Puranas mention Yadu as the eldest son of king Yayati and his queen Devayani. yadu is described to be the father of all yadavs and he is a chandravanshi kshatriya. so when father is a kshatriya so his childrens will be same kshatriya but not shudra,this is a common sense.
references:1. Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Education. p. 187. ISBN 81-317-1120-0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. 2.The Father of Yadu - Yayati - Ancient Indian History 3.Horace Hayman Wilson (1835). "India". A manual of universal history and chronology (Originally from Oxford University). p. 26.
In the world famous sanskrit epic of ancient India MAHABHARATA (Epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana are the basis of hindu religion), it is mentioned that Karna who was the son of Surya (a solar deity) and Kunti,Though Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby, she was unwilling to be accused of being an unmarried mother and so with the help of her maid Dhatri, she placed the baby Karna in a basket and set him afloat on a tributary of the holy river Ganges, the Ashwanadi, in the hope that he would be taken in by another family.The child Karna was found by Adhiratha, a charioteer(shudra)of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. When karna grew up, he became more interested in the art of warfare than in merely being a charioteer like his father Adhirata. Karna met Dronacharya, who was an established teacher in the art of warfare. Dronacharya taught the khastriya princes, but refused to take Karna as his student, since Karna was a son of a charioteer(shudra) and Dronacharya only taught Kshatriyas, or warriors. And during that time mostly kings were yadavs and yadavs were permitted to have education in Gurukuls like others khastriya's.So this is a centuries ago proof that yadavs were classified as khastriya's but not as shudra's. And more precisely a SINGLE CASTE CAN"T BE CATEGORIZED INTO TWO VARNA (here khastriya and shudra, either it can be khastriya or shudra but not both) according to POST VEDIC DIVISIONS. so yadavs are khastriya's.
refrences: 1.Hopkins, E. W. The Great Epic of India, New York (1901). 2.http://www.karna.org/body_story_behind_karna.html 3.Oldenberg, H. Das Mahabharata, Göttingen (1922). 4.Pāṇini. Ashtādhyāyī. Book 4. Translated by Chandra Vasu. Benares, 1896. (Sanskrit)(English) 5.Vaidya, R.V. A Study of Mahabharat; A Research, Poona, A.V.G. Prakashan, 1967
The following is a list of the 36 major royal Rajput(Kshatriya) clans as listed by James Tod in 1829.
Ahirs Agnipala Balla Bargujar Bhati Byce Chauhan Chawura Dahima Dahiya Doda Gahlot Gaur Gherwal Gora Hun Jaitwar Jhala Jat Johiya Kachwaha Kirar Mohil Nikumbh Pala Paramara Pratihara Rathore Solanki Lohana Sengar Sikarwar Silar Sisodia Taunk Tomara
here Ahirs, which is a subsect of yadav caste is cleary mentioned in the list at the top. References:
1.Tod, James. Annals of Rajasthan, Vol 1. Page 175 2. Brig. A. Mason, M.C., R.E. (2007). "The Thirty-six Royal Races of Rajput". kipling.org.uk. Retrieved August 2, 2010.
Most of mine sources are vedic puranas, ancient indian epics, vedas or claims made by reputational authors.Vikraantkaka (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The source you have mentioned- Norman Gerald Barrier (1981). The Census in British India: new perspectives. Manohar. Retrieved 22 May 2011, it is clearly BIHAR concentric. On page 165, 174 of your above mentioned source it is stated that: BHUMIHARS ,KURMIS , YADAVS of rural areas of BIHAR are taken collectively as shudra. Your sorce mentioned only about yadavs of bihar but not of YADAVS OF WHOLE INDIA.
As you have mentioned that yadavs are shudra's, so in this way HINDU GOD KRISHNA will be a shudra because hindu god KRISHNA himself is a YADAV and descendent of king YADU. This is a direct insult to our GOD KRISHNA. But on the contrary to your claim i would like to enlighten your mind with many facts, claims, sources that mentioned GOD KRISHNA as chandravanshi kshatriya/rajput king. For example Several Chandravanshi castes and communities in modern India, such as the The Bhati, Chandela who built Khajuraho), Jadaun Rajputs, Chudasama, Jadeja, Jats, Sainis Of Punjab claim descent from chandravanshi kings yadu and GOD KRISHNA. So hindu god KRISHNA and yadavs are kshatriya's. references: 1.People of India: Haryana, pp 430, Kumar Suresh Singh, Madan Lal Sharma, A. K. Bhatia, Anthropological Survey of India, Published by Published on behalf of Anthropological Survey of India by Manohar Publishers, 1994 2.In the Punjab in the sub- mountainous region the community came to be known as 'Saini'. It maintained its Rajput character despite migration." Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan, pp108, Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, Jain Brothers, 1989 3.Ram Sarup Joon. History of the Jats. Jaitly Painting [sic] Press, foreword, 1968 (Original from the University of Michigan). "Only amongst the Jats are found eighteen basic gotras bearing the names of Aryan elders form in the first twenty generations of Chandravansha 4.Panwar, Hukum Singh (1993). The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations. Manthan Publications, Rohtak. p. 93-112. ISBN 81-85235-22-8. 5.Sunil Kumar Bhattacharya, Krishna-cult in Indian art, page 127 6.http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=udp9TZz9Hc2rrAfDpPnBBQ&ct=result&id=yqYIAAAAQAAJ&dq=ahirs+of+rajputana&q=Aphrya+ 7. The Rajputana gazetteersVikraantkaka (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
what happened matthewvanitha i am still waiting for your response????Vikraantkaka (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm slow responding, it's because you're posting very lengthy yet unclear arguments, and generally based on ancient sources, or very iffy WP:Synthesis. I don't at all see how the above quote about the Jats is supposed to help anything. Furhter, you're carrying on two equivalent arguments at two different pages, Yadav and here, so if I answer one I get bugged to give the same answer on the other. Further, you keep conflating Yadav and Ahir: if they're the same thing, put in a merge proposal, otherwise stick to one topic at a time. I haven't seen any rebuttal to the two sources used for "Shudra" in this article, (or in Yadav), nor am I even clear on exactly what you want changed. Please read up on WP:Edit requests for the clearest ways to make your requested changes known, as I'm not keen to decipher multiple paragraphs of rhetoric in an attempt to understand what you want. Comments like "This is a direct insult to our GOD KRISHNA." are not at all helpful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
My recent deletions from the article
I have just deleted several sections from the article, using the edit summary "remove: uncited, but I bet it relies on highly unreliable ancient texts". To expand on this comment, the ancient Indian texts - such as, for example, the Puranas - are often very beautiful writing but are not usually thought nowadays to be accurate documents. Where there is support for their statements from archaeological information etc then there is no problem, but they are always extremely vague about places, dates etc and they were written usually by or for extremely biased people.
We certainly cannot use them directly in this or any other article concerning the history/castes etc of India. We are not qualified to do so and they are primary sources. If anyone should wish to reinstate the removed information then please provide a modern, rigorously academic source when you do so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Cleanup looking great, but concerns on Abhira -> Ahir connection
The cleanup is looking great, but while we're hacking I'd like to note my concerns about the ties between the ancient (and medieval?) Abhira and modern Ahirs. From what I'm seeing in secondary sources, there's some presumption that the two are linked, but thus far I haven't seen much ironclad evidence indicating that Abhira:Ahir::Celts:Irish in such a clear fashion.
It may end up being the case that all Abhira material should go to Abhira, and whatever mention made here that "the Ahirs may be related to the ancient Abhira; theories include... *footnote*footnote*". At the very least we should avoid duplication with Abhira on general WP principle. At the worst, it may be that these links are quite tenuous and their inclusion here is caste-cruft vice academic consensus, at which point it may just merit a short mention as one "legendary origin".
Looking forward to hearing how we can sort out this issue. There is a very similar situation with Yadav/Yadava that I need to dig back into as well, but I'm always leery of presumed connexions based on similar names, particularly when the "predecessor" has a long history of awesomeness that might be exploited to inflate the prestige of a modern caste. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It may be easier than you think. I plan to do a bit of work round this area but am getting sidetracked. Gist is, 80%-90% of both articles can probably be consigned to the WP history bin as being completely mad. Give me some time and, in the interval, we'll keep picking at it. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- From following links what i got that the general opinion is that Ahir is prakrit of sanskrit Abhira.In Bengal, they are still known as Abhir while in other part of country as Ahir.All views are covered in following links regarding the origin of Abhira or Ahirs.
- RegardsMkrestin (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of those. Thanks for drawing it to the attention of a wider audience, though. It is a tricky area and needs some work but does not alter the fact that, in my opinion, this article is chock-full of cruft. I am not going to do it on this occasion precisely because of my awareness, but in the past I have practically stripped articles such as this right back down to a couple of sentences and then rebuilt them. Along the way, other people came in who appreciated where the real issue may lie. We do have to appreciate that there is a phenomenal amount of information out there which fails the basic tests of Wikipedia. This does not necessarily mean that they are wrong; it may merely mean that they do not fit in with the policies and guidelines here. We shall see. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hindi source I have just removed
I have just removed
while historian Thakur Deshraj noted: "Ahirs along with other tribes made a great contribution in building the state of Rajasthan" and suffered great difficulties in protecting their culture and the land".[1]
from the lead. The source is in Hindi and the sentence at best has a typo in it (there is either an extra " or a missing "). It needs a proper check, also, for context. I have the suspicion that this may have been cherrypicked.
The cite is <ref name="Thakur Deshraj">[[Thakur Deshraj]], Jat Itihas (Hindi), Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi, 1934, 2nd edition 1992 pp. 587–588</ref>. Can anyone oblige? - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Good i was expecting it from you , please chk refrences on articles like jats rajputs , and rajputana etc. etc. they are filled by same British historians like James Tod and indian historians who obviously have written many books in hindi too.By the way famous Britich historian James Tod refrences numbered in hundreds are intack in many aricles but removed by you as you have said he was a useless person . According to you english refrences are from useless historians like James Tod and hindi refrences from Thakur Deshraj famous jat historian who was one of the best Indian historians are not usable and useless then why don't you add or merge Ahirs articles with Shudras.Raosaab7 (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahir/ Yadava / Yadav Confusion?
Yadav is a clan of Yadava (descendants of Yadu). These clans are also descendants of Yadava like Saini, Bhati, Jadeja etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This is what i got an answer on Yadava talk page when i asked if ahirs are not yadavs then why indian govt recognises them as yadavs and if saini , bhati and Jadeja are yadavs then why not in present and in history they used used yadav to represent themselves or used as last name .
If yadavs are shudras then Bhati, jadeja and saini should be shudras too?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Abhiras(ahirs) as shudras?
"while others consider them as Shudras" {cultivators}. Who are these others please clarify and then update by the mean time i am removing it.Sumitkachroo (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Above user is blocked for legal threats, but for context "others" was my attempt to be diplomatic; so far as I've seen, all neutral parties consider them Shudra, and the only Kshatriya arguments are caste proponents, foreign observers who took locals at their word when recording histories, appeals to the tenuous Abhira connection, Puranas, and follow-on WP:SYNTH, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to be diplomatic here , had you been diplomatic there would not have been so much of voices against you. Any ways coming back on topic what are these nutral parties?Raosaab7 (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Whats Happening with this article?
A month back, Ahirs were mentioned as Chandravanshi {from the family of lord krishna} basically warriors, page which was filled with refrences of James tod and other british historians , Then till yesterday intro said that ahirs consider themselves as Chandravanshi { after removing all refrences} but other {indirectly means upper casts} considers them as Shudras , when i asked who others ? .Today it is changed to Ahirs are Shudras the lowest category word shudra originated by upper castes specially Brahmins and Rajputs to supress others . Tommorow Ahirs will be something else.
Another funny part is some one is removing refrences , like in intro it was mentioned from last 3 years that James tod the famous british historian mentioned Ahirs in 36 royal races of Rajasthan and said that there has been evidences that "some" rajput rulers of rajasthan were Yaduvanshi Ahirs. However all refrences are removed and today in into after that line of ahirs included in 36 royal races it is asking for citation needed. Isn't it funny . By the way i have read many books of historians who wrote about different casts in north west india.
Articles like yaduvanshi ahirs were written by me , some one has deleated the complete article , some how i have all the refrences i can put them again with james tod 36 royal races but some one will again remove them , I am sorry but deleating articles like yaduvanshi ahirs which has all refrences {numbered in 200+} from google books and british and indian historians is unjustified and today on talk:Yadav"Admin " sitush says James Tod was a useless fellow page is scary.
If Ahirs/ Yadavs are shudras because they are cultivators them why other sister communites of ahirs like Gujjar and Jats have into of Kshatriyas and Bhramins, where as Gujjars have lower status being Schedule tribes {ST}. and Jats considered OBC like ahirs in all sates except Haryana , where also they are fighting hard too taking example of ahirs and yadavs .Why only ahirs and Yadavs.Raosaab7 (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was the one who merged Yaduvanshi Ahirs into Ahirs, and if you look at the history of the article I clearly explain each and every thing I removed, until there was about a paragraph left, which I merged. You claim "200 references", but as I went to check each one, almost none whatsoever actually used the term "Yaduvanshi Ahir" or some variant thereof. You had parts that said something like "The Yaduvanshi Ahirs were skilled farmers", but the citation actually reads "The British government noted that the Ahirs were heavily involved in agriculture." What possible justification can there be for assuming that they meant "Yaduvanshi Ahirs" as opposed to Ahirs in general?
- Both this article and Yadav were full of pseudo-history, tenuous historical claims not supported by the citations, etc. Sitush and I are working on a lot of articles, and don't just idly chop out sections, but open up each footnote and read it, and it is not infrequent in caste articles that the sentence footnoted bears only the most tangential resemblance to the actual source. Please check out the History link I give above, where I explained each section I removed from Yaduvanshi Ahir, and that should cleaar things up.
- Regarding your other point: we have not classified the Ahirs as Shudra because they're farmers, we have classified the Ahirs as Shudra because reliable modern academics note them as a Shudra caste. Arguements about the Puranas, Vedic Period, medieval Ahir kingdoms, OBC/SCT lists, etc. are of no interest to the classification issue: what is important is whether an reputable academic or government office has a document saying "Ahirs are Shudra", which we found and footnoted as you see.
- Regarding Tod: you can actually look at Tod's list here: there is a folding section right before page 99 where you can zoom in and scroll [6] First off, it does't say "Ahir" it says "Abhira". There were certainly people calling themselves "Ahir" at that time, so if it was meant to apply to the modern people it would say "Ahir". Secondly, Tod isn't saying the Abhira are of the 36, he's noting that they appear on others' lists, but his own list (at the far right) does not include them.
- Hope this answers a few of your questions, but overall the article is much improved and more neutral, and just needs to be continue to be improved with reliable sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Coiming on you justification of delating yaduvanshi ahir article , if you know (which i am sure that you are ) that all famous historians and writers have mentioned that three ahir communities yadu, nand and gwal they are found in differnt regions of india and share no relationship with each other except for the fact that they have common ahir endings with their names. For the matter of fact they never intermarry . One of the best example or practice historians used to diffrenciate caste communities and tribes.On that grounds i formed yaduvanshi ahir page keeping in mind Wikipedia terms and conditions . Yaduvanshi ahirs are found in the west of Upper doab wich now in modern india mens parts of western Uttar Pradesh , Haryana and rajastan . I used all ahir data and used it as refrences from google books. This answers your question that many refrences had ahir insted of yaduvanshi ahir.Best example is in the famous case of James Tod's list of ahirs in 36 royal "tribes" of rajastan. Obviously if there is any refrence of ahirs of rajasthan it will be of yaduvanshi ahirs as they reside there not gwalvanshi's. For a community of around 40 million ahirs (yaduvanshis) who look diffrent than other two ahir subcastes, does not speak the same language has a different history doesn't intermarry requires a diffrent page on wikipedia like for an example of Saini which has many diffrent articles like mali, rajput saini etc. I would have appriciated if you would have used Talk page on yaduvanshi ahirs insted of delating the whole article using your admin rights. I need opinion of few other admins or wiki contributors here. Insted being blocked by you.Raosaab7 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1) I am not an Admin, and have not "blocked" anyone nor "abused" any rights, particularly as I don't have them.
- 2) I made a variety of posts on the Talk page of Yaduvanshi Ahir, I think over a period of weeks, and nobody had any defense of the article. And I didn't just delete it wholesale, I went through it line-by-line and removed non-applicable material. Though you may have some argument that the type of Ahir discussed may be ascertained by geographic location, I'm not sure we can do that without breaching WP:OR, and besides, even if we assume that the sources meant "YA" when they said "Ahir", a lot of the cites could only support the article through extreme stretches of imagination, so really weren't proper cites at all.
- 3) The YA article had a ridiculous amount of overlap with every other article in the family (Ahirs, Ahir Clans, Yadavs, Yadava).
- 4) Regarding the above, herein lies one of my great problems with the credibility of these distinctions between groups you mention above: there has been a strong tendency in some editors (not just you) to loudly insist that all those groups are the same and then create massive crossover between their articles. For example, listing Yadav war heroes on the Ahir page and vice versa. But then, whenever it's convenient, the same people start insisting they're completely different groups, all deserve different articles, etc. So you can understand it's a bit tough to know who to believe.
- 5) We have plenty of refs saying Ahirs are dividided into the three branches (although a few sources mention a Lingayat branch; any comment on that?). If indeed they are "unrelated" it'd be great to see a clear ref for that, and some details on how they come to share a name.
- 6) Please show me where the "Ahir" (not "Abhira") are on Tod's list. For that matter, you haven't replied to my observation above that even the Abhira only appear on others lists which Tod mentions but dismisses in favour of his own, which does not include Ahir, Abhira, or Yadav. Any comments on that? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Periplus paragraphs just removed
I have just removed
Abiria was a region in Sindh (modern Pakistan) described by Classical authors, such as Ptolemy, which includes the area east of the Indus River Delta. Ptolemy's Abiria (Abhira) is included in Indo-Scythians [2][3] The 1st century CE Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a collection of documents describing trade between the ancient nations of the East and West, describes Abiria as the territory east of the Indus delta and north of Surastrene (modern Saurashtra)
Beyond the gulf of Baraca is that of Barygaza and the coast of the country of Ariaca, which is the beginning of the Kingdom of Nambanus and of all India. That part of it lying inland and adjoining Scythia is called Abiria, but the coast is called Syrastrene." Periplus, Chap. 41.[4]
Regarding the Periplus it should be noted that Schoff, who published his translation from the original Greek in 1912, noted that "the text is so vague and uncertain that [the author] seems rather to be quoting from someone else, unless indeed much of this part of the work has been lost in copying."[5]
from the Origin section of the article. How this relates to the Ahirs is beyond me. As it stands, it appears to be vague and wild speculation by some previous contributor, presumably based on phonetics. What the Periplus says has no bearing on this article unless it can be directly, positively and reliably related to the caste. Schoff at no point makes the connection, merely pointing out on pp. 175-176 that the area referred to as Abiri/Abhiria cannot be Ophir and that there is a place called Abhiria in Gujarat. So what? And then we have the issue, which I added prior to moving the content here, that the Periplus itself is "vague and uncertain" ... - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Abhiras or ahirs are they same or different?
I see that some admins and wikipedia contributors are not on the same page on abhiras and ahirs being the same. I want to eredicate this problem by asking this question? as according to me they are one and same.Raosaab7 (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources to back that up? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Abhira and Ahir are same.they are the name of a same tribe in different period.abhira used in ancient and medieval sanskrita literature.Abhira basically is a sanskrita word.hindi language originated from sanskrit language.so sanskrita abhira bocome Ahir in modern period with advent of hindi.modern Ahir region and ancient Abhira region completely same.there occuption also same both are cultivators and cowherders.both are followers of Krishna.Both are hindu.i am providing some useful links.. ((Krishna-cult in Indian art By Sunil Kumar Bhattacharya)) URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=SyyNIL7Ug2kC&pg=PA126&dq=abhira&hl=en&ei=vzQgTsDTCouqrAff7bSGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AE))Bill clinton history (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
((Man in India, Volume 54,Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur),A. K. Bose, 1974 - Social Science))URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Aqo4AAAAIAAJ&q=abhira&dq=abhira&hl=en&ei=bzkgTqmUNcjKrAfC0oWNAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwATgU))
((Kalādarśana: American studies in the art of India By Joanna Gottfried Williams))URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-qoeAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128&dq=abhira&hl=en&ei=bzkgTqmUNcjKrAfC0oWNAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAj))
((The castes and tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's dominions, Volume 1 By Syed Siraj ul Hassan))URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lYSd-3yL9h0C&pg=PA12&dq=abhira&hl=en&ei=bzkgTqmUNcjKrAfC0oWNAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEsQ6AE))Bill clinton history (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the sources cited above. Williams does not mention Ahir at all, so it is impossibly to connect that to Abhira other than by synthesis. All of the other three sources, do mention both terms and they are mentioned in relation to cowherding etc, the belief appears to be that the word abhira means cowherd. Only Hassan specifically says that Abhira and Ahir are the same tribe; the other two merely use the connection of the cowherd word. I am not sure that Hassan is a reliable source, although he is much used across Indian articles, nor am I sure that the Abhira/Ahir tribe which he refers to (Abhira being the Sanskrit word, which others say is a Prakrit word!) is the same as the Abhira community. There are, as always, huge issues with transliteration across the numerous languages in use and there is also the usual issue of often vague interpretations of Puranas etc, which themselves were often vague and are nowadays dismissed as unreliable by most scholars, certainly those outside India itself. There is a brief analysis of the reliability of Sangam literature at Paravar. The same issues apply here, so it would be preferable to have modern sources to confirm the connection rather than something written in 1920.
- I will do some more digging of my own, but any other sources that might be suggested would be welcome. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahirs Cowherders
Ahirs should be mentioned as Cowherders instead of shudra.because most historical evidence identify them cowherders than shudra.moreover this article related to Modern Ahirs which comes under other backward classes(OBCs) of India.So OBC WORD MORE USEFUL THAN SHUDRA WHICH IS ANCIENT CONCEPT AND HARDLY RELEVENT IN MODERN PERIOD.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Stop sockpuppeting, please. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've just reverted a change to "cowherders" in the article by User:Bill clinton history, as such a contentious change would need discussion and consensus first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Further to your recent edit, which I have reverted.
- Shudra is valid even if cowherds may also be valid. This is because the term is verifiable in reliable sources.
- There is scope to include both opinions but what certainly should not be done is blanket removal of cited information, as you did. I have only just said above that I intend to revisit this issue because the sources provided need to be evaluated.
- It does not matter one iota whether or not the shudra term is used nowadays, although in fact it is (and even by the government of India). As a historical concept, it remains a valid point in the article.
- I hope that this helps to explain. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Further to your recent edit, which I have reverted.
I am comletely agree sir,both term used in different sources at different time.both have references in valid sources.so my request is we should have both in article simultaneously.so we can present a neautral and comprehensive article to our readers.
There also sources with refrences ahirs as kashtriyas but article does not contain them.i think this article has become completely one sided and narrow view based.it should contain all views.let the reader decide.
with this thinking i did not delete shudra word only mention cowherders seprately from relaible sources.so my point is both point of view should find palce in article.this is not wrong thing for subject like history in which many point of view for a topic very common accros the worldBill clinton history (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct about retaining "shudra" - it got buried below your edit. My apologies. We have had a lot of problems with a group of articles and my reaction was a little kneejerk (but still slower than Boing's!) Can you name any of the sources for the kshatriya point which you make, please? - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry if I reverted any valid edits there - seeing the opening message in this section written partly in caps (which is generally considered "shouting" in Internet etiquette), and seeing what looked like yet more arguing over the use of the term "Shudra", I feared yet another organized attack on a caste article. If there's a consensus for making some of the proposed changes, that will, of course, be fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Sir,i have already cited some refrences of Cowherders,ancient kingdoms in above paragraph.so may i make my point in article?Bill clinton history (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would not do it just yet, at least in part because of the points I raised about the sources you named. In any event, the article already mentions the cowherd point & there is no need to repeat it. One issue that I have just noticed is that there may be a huge piece of copyvio/plagiarism in the thing, so perhaps let me check that out first also. Unless you want to check it out? - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Bill: Are you referring to your references in the Abhiras or ahirs are they same or different? section above? I don't think any of us disagree that Ahirs are associated with herding. To make this easiest, how about you provide here an example of what text you'd like to add to the article (including your sources). Suggest you do the sources as bracketed links like this [http://www.sourceexample.com/example.html] rather than use the autofootnoting as it doesn't work well on Talk pages. Then we can all agree on a version to add (which shouldn't be too hard on the cowherding issue), and that way you'll have the support of all the regular editors on this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just returning to the copyvio/plagiarism thing: it is actually close paraphrasing and, which is dispiriting, it seems that there may have been some cherrypicking going on with regard to which opinions stated by Sunil Kumar Bhattacharya are used in this article. I'll have to have a think about that but perhaps suggested text from BillC could be a quick way round it, if acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
More than three major subidivisions?
The current article (and many sources) note three major Ahir subdivisions: Nand, Gwal, and Yadu (with the suffix -vanshi, -bansi, or others). However a few sources mention a Linga- branch, and ul-Hassan (see Pg3) also mentions Ghosi and Gujar branches adding up to a total of six major subdivisions. Are there 3-division, 4-div, and 6-div theories on how to divide them, or are the same facts just being presented differently. At least the Linga- branch seems to be mentioned in several places, so at the least I'd like to add mention of that one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- three major division of ahirs accross india recognised by many authors which are mentioned in article.gujar tribe and ahir have different history and culture.gujar came late in india as around 6 cetury AD OR gained importance from that period as Gujar-partihars kingdom emerges in western india.on the other hand we find refrences of Abhira kingdom from 200BC.gujar caste is entirely different caste, not a part of any caste.
- Lingas are followers of Lord shiva and mainly found in karnatka.they seems to belong from regional tribe in there social customes not a national tribe like abhira.
- Ghosi as i know found mainly in West Bengal state of india mainly.
- these three communities have completely seprate regional identity ,customs and history.they did not related with each other.while other three division of ahirs found accross india with greater similarity and residing in same region.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Cowherders
I am focusing on cowherders word because Ahirs from ancient period is caste of cowherders.they are followers of a cowherders god Krishna from ancient period.they hardly refered as cultivators in ancient sanskrit text.even in modern period many ahirs residing in arid regions of gujrat and Rajasthan where till 1960s hardly any agriculture was possible.most erlier refrences of ahirs by Patanjali around 300bc mentioned them cowherders not shudra(cultivator).
Even according to Varna system cultivators comes under vaisya not shudra.
these some points i find while study the topic.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your point and will try to dig deeper. The definition of shudra/vaishya is disputed: farmers are certainly vaishya but cultivators seems to be a vague word and is often said to equate to agricultural labourers/very small-scale farming etc, which is shudra. We'll sort something out but you need to bear in mind that we are not usually supposed to use primary sources such as the ancient Puranas/Sangam etc, nor can we really use sources that merely restate what those old texts said. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am also of the opinion that we should reach a consensus before using disputed words like Vaisya,Shudra,Kshtriya,Cowherders etc. for any community in indian context.but i found strange when shudra and cultivators word inserted in article without consensus.i agree cited sources mentioned them shudras but i am again emphasising that other sources mentioned them completely opposite.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those words have been in the article for ages. As there was no apparent issue at the time, equally there was no need for consensus. However, when people then start contesting things there becomes a need to seek consensus. If we did otherwise, no article would ever be created. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- yes I know it was but other views were also there which have been deleted.this make article definately one sided.mention only it at the top without cultural and political history of a community not make any sense.it only weakens the quality of article.i again making a point for comrehensive covering of all issues regarding Ahirs.if some disputed words have place in article than they should discussed first at this page.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sir,some issues present in article also but i find them not at right place.they should be at the top with Shudra(Cultivators) sentence in introduction to convey right meaning.
Exa.Abhira jatis The Abhiras split into both varna and jati categories; there were Abhira brahmins,[53][54][55] Abhira kshatriyas,[56][57] Abhira vaisyas,[58] Abhira carpenters and goldsmiths.[59] For example Baradas Abhiras are of Rajput origin. They derive their name from acting as priests of Abhira.[60][61] [edit]
Exa.There are a huge list of Abhira(ahir)kingdoms from ancient to medieval to modern period in article with well cited references.some sentences about these should also find place in first paragraph.
The present Introduction giving conclusion of disputed matter very erly should be balanced.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Abhira issues are covered in Abhira tribe, and there appear to be significant doubts as to whether there is a direct link between the ancient Abhira and the modern Ahirs. Regardless, there is a separate article to cover the ancient history, so there is no need to have more than a few sentences and a link to Abhira tribe, and said section should also make clear that the Abhir-Ahir tie is not a definite thing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your suggestion of things to put in the lede: I have seen nothing thus far indicating that the mdoern Ahirs are split into multiple varna/jati categories. If you have such information applying to the modern Ahir clan and its direct antecedents, that would be very interesting and you should provide sources here. Your above (58-61) footnoted info is interesting, but belongs in Abhira tribe. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes.you are rightly getting my point,Modern ahirs also have different social and economic status accross india.Yaduvanshi clans has same status as Rajputs.Rewari,Jodhpur,Jaisalmer,Krauli etc. royal famlies of Ahir origin can not be put among sudra(cultivators).your generalisation of all Ahirs as Shudra(cultivators) makes article unbalanced.this not shows the whole picture.other advance streams of ahirs should be represented in the introduction.And if sources clearly mention Abhira-ahira same than some points on origin also should be there.it will make article representative of true and whole picture.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I have yet to see anything indicating it is a common belief (not a self-belief of Ahirs themselves) that Yaduvanshi Ahirs are similar in status to Rajputs. Do not quote Tod here, as I have said many times above that a) the list says "Abhira", b) it is not Tod's list, it's just a list he quotes in his book, c) Tod specifically says that here are others' lists which are wrong, and here is Tod's list of 36 that's right, and Tod's list mentions neither Abhira nor Ahir. You can click 36 royal races and see an actual literal screencap of the very page and see for yourself there is no Abhira or Ahir on Tod's personal list. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- A huge list of kingdoms mentioned in article proves that the AHIR enjoy different social and economic status accross the country.but you have generalise situation only on one aspect by defining all of them shudra.Bill clinton history (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- First off, you're still conflating Abhira tribe/dynasty with the modern Ahir class. Secondly, even if we assume an Abhira-Ahir prominence under the Moghuls, that does not mean that they could not be a depressed/Shudra etc class in later centuries. The Irish had all kinds of kingdoms in history, but by the 1800s they were in a very disadvantaged position and treated poorly by both the British and Americans. Is is not I who am generalising, it is the sources we cite who describe the Ahirs as a class as being Shudra pastoralists/agriculturalists. Again, I am not trying to remove the word "Kshatriya" and yet you persist in trying to remove the word "Shudra", so how do we not interpret this as a desire to remove information/controversy while Sitush and I seek to include it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I never said or tried to remove the word shudra .i have already said to you maintain it in article because it has well cited sources.i am only persisting put Shudra sentence in right section with mentioning of kshtriya,viasya ,cowherders so that article looks more neutral.i want also some sentences on Other Backward Classes status of Ahirs so that Article proves more usefull from modern point of view for our readers.I am also for some restructuring of article with well odering of section according to their relevance or sequences.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding Abhira-Ahir relation i have already provided many sources.Sitush also has find some merits in them.No one on the disscussion page have been able to provide some sources against my point of view on Abhira-Ahir relation.discussion going on very positively.I invites everyone to take part in it with different or same point of view as i have.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Thakur Deshraj, Jat Itihas (Hindi), Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi, 1934, 2nd edition 1992 pp. 587–588
- ^ Sophia Wadia; Indian Institute of World Culture (1967). The Aryan path. Theosophy Co. (India), Ltd. Retrieved 28 March 2011.
- ^ The Aryan path, Volume 38-page- 176
- ^ Schoff, Wilfred Harvey (1912). The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea : travel and trade in the Indian Ocean. New York: Longsman, Green. p. 39. Retrieved 2011-07-09.
- ^ Schoff, Wilfred Harvey (1912). The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea : travel and trade in the Indian Ocean. New York: Longsman, Green. p. 16. Retrieved 2011-07-09.