Talk:Maratha clan system
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arbitrary heading
[edit]As per my understanding maratha clan sys was created because in future no girl will marry his brother. Or no boy will marry his sister. Our ancestors were very clever. Today western countries prove it by blood tests. A girls or boys blood group is same then they prove to be bros ans sister. So the cannot marry. If they marry each other then there r more chances that their child will be not physically good. Now we know why our ancestors made clan sys.
December 2020
[edit]@Jonathansammy: Regarding this removal. This source says something like "Together with the Marathas, the Maratha Kunbi belonged originally, says Enthoven, to the same caste; and both their exogamous kuls and exogamous devaks are identical with those of the Marathas. Enthoven opines that the totemic nature of their devak system suggests that they are largely of a non-Aryan origin. ... The Kunbi cultivators are also Marathas but of a somewhat inferior social standing. The Maratha claim to belong to the ancient 96 Kshatriya families has no foundation in fact and may have been adopted after the Marathas became with Shivaji a power to be reckoned with.
". Perhaps it the sentence can be reworded to "Thus, these clans have no ritual foundation." as you have put in the edit summary? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk:, Agree and will make the change.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonathansammy:, [1] I think you put the citation needed tag inside the quote in the citation. Please can you review the edit? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @LukeEmily: Yes, indeed. It would be great you could expand on the term kshatritization.I can find sources on sankritization but not on kshatriyatization. I am sure you will agree with me that in the last century and half Sanskritization has in practice meant kshatitization in most instances. Having said that, until you started using that term on wikipedia, I had never come across the term anywhere else.So please supply a reliable source where it has been used and remove the tag.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonathansammy:, [1] I think you put the citation needed tag inside the quote in the citation. Please can you review the edit? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @Jonathansammy:, I agree with you. 'Kshatriyaisation' is used but not on wikipedia. On this article page it is used by this reference.
Nevertheless, he had won power and so expected the Brahmins to confirm his new status by writing for him an adequate genealogy. This process recalls that of Sanskritisation , but sociologists refer to such emulation of Kshatriyas by Shudras as ' Kshatriyaisation ' and describe it as a variant of Sanskritisation
[1] Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @Jonathansammy:, I agree with you. 'Kshatriyaisation' is used but not on wikipedia. On this article page it is used by this reference.
- @Jonathansammy: Shall I add the above sentence → "Thus, these clans have no ritual foundation."? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Fylindfotberserk:, Please go ahead.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonathansammy: Shall I add the above sentence → "Thus, these clans have no ritual foundation."? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey @Fylindfotberserk:, @Jonathansammy:, 'ritual foundation' phrase is a bit confusing. LukeEmily (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @LukeEmily:, Per Hindu mythology, there should by no kshatriyas in present times because Parshuram got rid of them. Hence "no ritual foundation". But as we discussed on your page, numerous people and groups have fought to be called Kshatriya and so there is a rich history on the topic and therefore "historical foundation" is not the correct phrase. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know if you are familiar with Gramanyas. As per puranas, Kshatriyas *do* exist in Kali Yuga but the caste had to be mentioned in the Purana to validate that claim. The "no Kshatriyas and no Vaishyas in Kaliyuga" is a theory from Harivamsha or Vishnu Puran that was used to attempt to put an end to Vedokta of some castes in Maharashtra that is why some sources quote it. But was contradicted by other Puranas in specific cases i.e. some Kshatiyas escaped and destroying Kshatriya means destroying the kingdom not literally killing them all. Hence there are non-Brahmin ritually upper castes in Maharashtra. Skanda Puran for example is the Puran was used heavily in the Gramanyas that does state that Kshatriyas exist in the Kali Yuga. From the Rajput page CHitpawan and Maratha page, I saw a citation added by editors that discussed the ritually upper castes of Maharashtra. They are only Brahmins, CKP and Saraswats. Based on study of caste debates in the 18th -19th century, this is accurate as all these castes find mention in Puranas. Hence there is no need for Sanskritization or inventing genealogies by Brahmins for these castes. [2][3] LukeEmily (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @LukeEmily:, Per Hindu mythology, there should by no kshatriyas in present times because Parshuram got rid of them. Hence "no ritual foundation". But as we discussed on your page, numerous people and groups have fought to be called Kshatriya and so there is a rich history on the topic and therefore "historical foundation" is not the correct phrase. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Christophe Jaffrelot (2006). Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting Caste. Permanent Black. p. 39. ISBN 978-81-7824-156-2.
His theory, which is based on scant historical evidence , doubtless echoed this episode in Maharashtra's history,whereas in fact Shivaji, a Maratha-Kunbi, was a Shudra. Nevertheless, he had won power and so expected the Brahmins to confirm his new status by writing for him an adequate genealogy. This process recalls that of Sanskritisation , but sociologists refer to such emulation of Kshatriyas by Shudras as ' Kshatriyaisation ' and describe it as a variant of Sanskritisation.
- ^ Dr.Neela Dabir (2000). women in distress. Rawat Publishers. pp. 97–99.
(page 97, 98) In the process of Brahminisation, other upper castes across the country, tried to imitate the Brahmins and followed similar norms in the matters of marriage, divorce or treatment of widows. In Maharashtra, for instance, the family norms among the Saraswats and CKPs were similar to those of the Brahmins. Marathas although politically powerful and economically well to do, were on the lower rung of the caste echelon. They had different ritual norms which were marginally lenient as compared to the Brahmins. In contrast, the women from the lower castes enjoyed a little more freedom in these matters. Widow remarriage was an accepted practice in many lower castes[Ranade,1991]...For the purpose of analysis, we have grouped these 56 castes into the following basic categories (1) Brahmin, Saraswat, and CKP (2) Maratha, and (3) other castes (page99) Table 8 reveals that women from the upper castes i.e. Brahmin, Saraswat, and CKP together form the largest group(46%) among the women admitted[in the Ashrams]...The data also reveals some significant differences in the marital status of Brahmin, CKP and Saraswat women on one hand and Maratha and other caste women on the other...These statistical differences acquire a special meaning when we look at them in the context of our earlier statement that oppression of widows and the restrictions on married women were far more severe for the women from Brahmin, CKP and Saraswat castes than for women from Maratha and other castes.
- ^ Rajendra Vora (2009). Christophe Jaffrelot; Sanjay Kumar (eds.). Rise of the Plebeians?: The Changing Face of the Indian Legislative Assemblies (Exploring the Political in South Asia). Routledge India. p. 217. ISBN 9781136516627.
The upper castes, composed mainly of Brahmins, constitute 4% of the population. While Brahmins are found in all the districts of the state, the Saraswats and Prabhus, the two other literate castes of this category, are in significant number only in Mumbai city[]The Lingayats, the Gujjars and the Rajputs are three other important castes which belong to the intermediate category. The lingayats who hail from north Karnataka are found primarily in south Maharashtra and Marthwada while Gujjars and Rajputs who migrated centuries ago from north India have settled in north Maharashtra districts.
- Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- Unassessed sociology articles
- Unknown-importance sociology articles
- Unassessed India articles
- Unknown-importance India articles
- Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Maharashtra articles
- Unknown-importance Maharashtra articles
- Unassessed-Class Maharashtra articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Maharashtra articles
- WikiProject India articles