India: Gujarat Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Gujarat.

Why are Bramins at the top? Is this representing the caste order?

There are huge issues regarding classification of communities by varna. These have been demonstrated time and again on individual caste articles and in various discussions at WT:INB. Given the warped British Raj system, the debate concerning what went on before it, and the concept of Sanskritisation, well, can we really accept a template that has varna at its heart? List the communities, by all means, but do so in alphabetical order. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially for Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. I would instead recommend classifying the majority of the castes by traditional occupation or larger caste group instead. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an artisan community^[1] claiming to be kshatriya by its caste association.^[2] It must be included among Artisan communities. If there is any source proving them not to be an Artisan community be discussed here.--MahenSingha (Talk) 08:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaIsTheBest (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Keep on checking if someone changes contents without providing sources. The page content are linked to sources that were available. If someone vandalizes this page I need you to take actions on the vandalizer. Thanks.[reply]

अहीरों की ऐतिहासिक उत्पत्ति को लेकर विभिन्न इतिहासकर एकमत नहीं हैं। परंतु महाभारत या श्री मदभागवत गीता के युग मे भी यादवों के आस्तित्व की अनुभूति होती है तथा उस युग मे भी इन्हें आभीर,अहीर, या गोप ही कहा जाता था।^[1] कुछ विद्वान इन्हे भारत मे आर्यों से पहले आया हुआ बताते हैं, परंतु शारीरिक गठन के अनुसार इन्हें आर्य माना जाता है।^[2] पौराणिक दृष्टि से, अहीर या आभीर यदुवंशी राजा आहुक के वंशज है।^[3] शक्ति संगम तंत्र मे उल्लेख मिलता है कि राजा ययाति के दो पत्नियाँ थीं-देवयानी व शर्मिष्ठा। देवयानी से यदु व तुर्वशू नामक पुत्र हुये। यदु के वंशज यादव कहलाए। यदुवंशीय भीम सात्वत के वृष्णि आदि चार पुत्र हुये व इनहि की कई पीढ़ियों बाद राजा आहुक हुये, जिनके वंशज आभीर या अहीर कहलाए।^[4]

इस पंक्ति से स्पष्ट होता है कि यादव व आभीर मूलतः एक ही वंश के क्षत्रिय थे तथा "हरिवंश पुराण" मे भी इस तथ्य की पुष्टि होती है।^[6]

वर्तमान अहीर भी स्वयं को यदुवंशी आहुक की संतान मानते हैं।^[7]

ऐतिहासिक दृष्टिकोण से, अहीरों ने 108 A॰D॰ मे मध्य भारत मे स्थित 'अहीर बाटक नगर' या 'अहीरोरा' व उत्तर प्रदेश के झाँसी जिले मे अहिरवाड़ा की नीव रखी थी। रुद्रमूर्ति नामक अहीर अहिरवाड़ा का सेनापति था जो कालांतर मे राजा बना। माधुरीपुत्र, ईश्वरसेन व शिवदत्त इस बंश के मशहूर राजा हुये, जो बाद मे यादव राजपूतो मे सम्मिलित हो गये।^[8]

कोफ (कोफ 1990,73-74) के अनुसार - अहीर प्राचीन गोपालक परंपरा वाली कृषक जाति है जिन्होने अपने पारंपरिक मूल्यों को सदा राजपूत प्रथा के अनुरूप व्यक्त किया।Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). HinduKshatrana (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave Lohana as they are originally Kshatriya in the table, they belong to the Lohara Dynasty which ruled Kashmir. Here is the link to the book that confirms this : https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=iuURFTHTU0EC&pg=PT38&dq=lohana+lohara+dynasty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj44eb77bPoAhU0UhUIHdB0BfIQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=lohana%20lohara%20dynasty&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.80.175.196 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to records Lohanas were Kshatriya as they belonged to the Lohara Dynasty and also James Todd, A historian also shows that they originally belonged to the rajpoots. An editor called Hindukshastrana keeps on changing the Lohana ( Luvana ) back to Vaishya, thereby removing my edits. Please do not do s as I have provided links to books to confirm that the Lohanas were originally Kshatriya.

Here are the Links that confirm Lohanas were Kshatriya originally

https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=ckgOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Rajputs:+history,+clans,+culture,+and+nobility+pd&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs8M_0pvToAhV1DWMBHbMsBNwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=lohana%20formerly%20they%20were%20rajpoots&f=false

https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=iuURFTHTU0EC&pg=PT38&dq=lohara+lohana+dynasty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOv8GssPboAhVDrxoKHWQEAMwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=lohara%20lohana%20dynasty&f=false

Hi, @Chariotrider555. As discussed in the above section 'Classifying by varna', it would be better to not use Varna classification. Page revision history itself shows competetive claims for community articles to be classed in a different category. That's my rationale for the change. Please again see this revision by me 17:12, July 25, 2022, which I believe its better and encompasses almost all community articles as before.

Also, the template should hold Community/Caste articles and not clans/subcastes. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krayon95 That makes sense, but in future edits could you use an edit summary so others can see your rationales. There are a lot of different factors going into any sort of classification of castes. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chariotrider555. Okay. So, template should be changed to required version with proper edit summary. Krayon95 (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]