Was there a Kshatriya Holocaust on the subcontinent ?

[Alternative]

One thing any serious student of ancient history will notice when he travels the length and breadth of India is the lack of true Kshatriyas descended from the imperial bloodlines mentioned in the Vedas, Epics and Puranas. On the other hand - Brahmins, Vaisyas and Shudras are found nearly everywhere, and well-represented in the historically high density population regions.

All Kshatriya castes in India can be classified into three categories:
1) Recent claimants to Kshatriya identity e.g. Ahirs, Kurmis, Reddys, Marathas through a process of mythologizing and sankritization
2) Descendents of the 4th -7th century Scythian hordes whom Brahmins converted en masse to the neoVedic religion e.g. Rajputs, Gujjars
3) Castes with somewhat more credible claims to true Kshatriya status e.g. Khatris (word itself a derivative of Kshatriya, located mainly in SaptaSaaraswat), Jats (widely considered Irano-Scythian in origin, but with a long history dating back to at least Harshavardhana, whom everybody considered to be a Kshatriya and and possibly even to the Sacrifice of Daksha Prajapati).

This classification is arbitrary and make no sense at all: For example,
1) Recent claims are absurd, and without any merit: Marathas claim to Kshatriya identity.....wow just wow, despite the fact we all know about "synthesis" of Maratha ethnicity during and after of Bahmani Kingdoms and its rivals.
2) Kshatriyas are mention in vedic literature date 1500 B.C. at least and onwards, so any equating with decendents from some tribe in 4th-7th century is exercise in futility.
3) Again fairly recent events as compared with dated vedic literature, so a big NO NO here also.
Papa can't come after the Son.
And there is no region named as Sapta Saraswat: There was Sapta Sindhu. I understand from where you are coming from.

Even if the Khatris' and Jats' somewhat tenuous claims on being the descendants of the imperial Kshatriyas are upheld, that leaves huge stretches of Bharata Varsha bereft of Bharatas. Particularly galling is their absence in the Gangetic plains, which nurtured the later stage of Indo-Aryan civilization.


From Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes' Indica, we know that some vestiges of the regal Kshatriyas were present in 300-200 BC since one of Chandragupta Maurya's rivals was the ruler of Punjab, a descendant of Porus and presumably a Bharata by blood. Going back further, Buddha is supposed to have been a Kshatriya. But reading between the lines, one can see that even at that time, the population of Kshatriyas was very small compared to the other three castes, strengthening the argument for some type of holocaust at an early time.

Varna system as mention in Vedic Literature is not found by ancient visitors like Greeks: Indica paint a different picture. Priestly class is mention but no Kshatriya can be found.
Your innocent presumption to link a historical figure (Porus) to Mythical Class (Kshatriya)is drawn from thin air.

What has been left un-researched is the possible socioeconomic consequences of such a disastrous war in a pre-modern society. One could predict hundreds possibly even thousands of years of peace as the most aggressive members of society were no longer present but also stasis as leaders, men with initiative and risk takers disappeared from society .

The burden of supporting the lavish and wasteful lifestyle, and war-debts of the Kshatriyas no longer had to be borne by the working classes, resulting in their liberation from tyranny, oppression and exploitation (hence the elevation of Krishna Vasudeva who was the architect of the Mahabharata War to a God).

Wild speculations on your part. What is has to do with disappearance of Kshatriya? Nothing to comment here.

Further, in order to find a thing, first thing that should be investigated is that whether that thing existed in first place.
SO the actual question is that, whether there was any class of people name Kshatriya existed in time period between 1500 B.C. to 500 B.C. in Sub-continent? Literature is there but do we have any other corroborating evidence?

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a great thread and I have enjoyed reading nearly all of the posts on here so far, I do regret to say I do not know enough about history of the subcontinent to contribute in a great way, however one thing that did catch my attention was when you mentioned the Anu's in your post:



Basically, because some writers have attempted to link the Anu's of ancient times to the Awans and Janjuas of today:

"The Purans, however state that the whole of the Punjab was peopled by the desecendants of Anu, also called Anavas or Anuwan, which over time would naturally have been shortened to Awan (Cunningham, 1875: (V) 79-80)." Hari Singh Nalwa, "champion of the Khalsaji" (1791-1837)
By Vanit Nalwa

I know some writers have their own agendas and not all the information is reliable, but does this have any significance? If not, feel free to give it a wide berth.

EDIT: Also, some people in parts of KPK still called Awans "Ainki" or some similar word that escapes me.

The strongest claims to descent from the tribes or tribal groups mentioned in the Rg Veda are undoubtedly in the Punjab. What you mention is quite possible, but I am unable to give you chapter and verse on it. A very rough reconstruction (my apologies for using Wikipedia as a source, but I have been separated from my books for three years now):

1. The Rg Veda describes more than one tribe, and places them very approximately;
2. 33 tribes are mentioned; these are
   1. Alina people (RV 7.18.7) - They were probably one of the tribes defeated by Sudas at the Dasarajna,[5]:I 39 and it has been suggested that they lived to the north-east of Nurestan, because much later, in the 7th century CE, the land was mentioned by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang.[5]:I 39 The amateur historian S. Talageri identifies them with the Greeks (Hellenes).[6]
   2. Anu is a Vedic Sanskrit term for one of the 5 major tribes in the Rigveda, RV 1.108.8, RV 8.10.5 (both times listed together with the Druhyu) and, much later also in the Mahabharata.[7] In the late Vedic period, one of the Anu kings, King Anga, is mentioned as a "chakravartin" (AB 8.22). Ānava, the vrddhi derivation of Anu, is the name of a ruler in the Rigvedic account of the Battle of the Ten Kings (7.18.13) and at 8.4.1 with the Turvaśa (tribe). The meaning ánu "living, human" (Naighantu) cannot be substantiated for the Rigveda [8] and may have been derived from the tribal name
   3. Āyu[9]
   4. Bhajeratha[10]
   5. Bhalanas- The Bhalanas are one of the tribes that fought against Sudas in the Dasarajnabattle. Some scholars have argued that the Bhalanas lived in Eastern Afghanistan Kabulistan, and that the Bolan Pass derives its name from the Bhalanas.[7][5]
   6. Bharatas - The Bharatas are an Aryan tribe mentioned in the Rigveda, especially in Mandala 3 attributed to the Bharata sage Vishvamitra and in and Mandala 7.[11] Bharatá is also used as a name of Agni (literally, "to be maintained", viz. the fire having to be kept alive by the care of men), and as a name of Rudra in RV 2.36.8. In one of the "river hymns" RV 3.33, the entire Bharata tribe is described as crossing over, with their chariots and wagons, at the confluence of the Vipash (Beas) and Shutudri (Satlej). Hymns by Vasistha in Mandala 7 (7.18 etc.) mention the Bharatas as the protagonists in the Battle of the Ten Kings, where they are on the winning side. They appear to have been successful in the early power-struggles between the various Aryan and non-Aryan tribes so that they continue to dominate in post-Rigvedic texts, and later in the (Epic) tradition, the Mahābhārata, the eponymous ancestor becomes Emperor Bharata, conqueror of 'all of India', and his tribe and kingdom is called Bhārata. "Bhārata" today is the official name of the Republic of India (see also Etymology of India).
   7. Bhrigus[12]
   8. Chedi[13]
   9. Dasa (dāsa, 'slave', 'servant')[14]
   10. Dasyu (Iranian: Dahyu, mentioned in Latin as: Dahae, in Greek as: Daai)[14]
   11. Dṛbhīka[15]
   12. Druhyus - The Druhyu were a people of Vedic India. They are mentioned in the Rigveda,[16] usually together with the Anu tribe.[17] Some early scholars have placed them in the northwestern region.[5]:I 395 The later texts, the Epic and the Puranas, locate them in the "north", that is, in Gandhara, Aratta and Setu. (Vishnu Purana IV.17) The Druhyus were driven out of the land of the seven rivers, and their next king, Gandhara, settled in a north-western region which became known as Gandhāra. The sons of the later Druhyu king Pracetas too settle in the "northern" (udīcya) region (Bhagavata 9.23.15-16; Visnu 4.17.5; Vayu 99.11-12; Brahmanda 3.74.11-12 and Matsya 48.9.). Recently, some writers[18] have ahistorically asserted that the Druhyu are the ancestors of the Iranian, Greek or European peoples, or of the Celtic Druid class.[19] The word Druid (Gallic Celtic druides), however, is derived from Proto-Indo-European vid "to see, to know' [20] It has also been alleged that the Rg Veda and the Puranas describe this tribe as migrating North,.[18][19] However, there is nothing of this in the Rigveda and the Puranas merely mention that the Druhyu are "adjacent (āśrita) to the North".
   13. Gandhari[21]
   14. Guṅgu[22]
   15. Iksvaku[23]
   16. Krivi[24]
   17. Kīkaṭa[25]
   18. Kuru[11]
   19. Mahīna[26]
   20. Maujavant[27]
   21. Matsya[28]
   22. Nahuṣa[29]
   23. Paktha.[30]
   24. Panis (Iranian Parni?)
   25. Pārāvata
   26. Parsu (Parśu) - The Parsus have been connected with the Persians[5] This is based on the evidence of an Assyrian inscription from 844 BC referring to the Persians as Parshu, and the Behistun Inscription of Darius I of Persia referring to Parsa as the home of the Persians.[31]
   27. Puru (Pūru)
   28. Ruśama
   29. Sārasvata
   30. Srñjaya
   31. Tritsu The Tritsus are a sub-group of the Puru who are distinct from the Bharatas mentioned in Mandala 7 of the Rigveda (in hymns 18, 33 and 83). Under king Sudas they defeated the confederation of ten kings led by the Bharatas at the Battle of the Ten Kings. [This is very badly constructed; it should read "Under King Sudas, led by the Bharatas, they defeated the confederation of ten kings at the Battle of the Ten Kings." - Joe]
   32. Turvasa (Turvaśa)
   33. Yadu
3. There was a process that may be discerned across the years, from the literature and from indirect references. As the power centre shifted gradually more and more to the east, the tribes in the original path of movement forward, those that were more and more left behind in the north-west, lost their relevance in the mainstream. Their dialects and language usage was seen as more and more alien.
4. Please see the references above, specifically the sections in blue; the Battle of Ten Kings may be interpreted as a memory in the Rg Veda of the rearguard action by the tribes moving from the Iranian homeland into India against other tribes still associated with that homeland, and associated with aggressive intentions towards the emigrants.
5. Not only the mention of this Battle of the Ten Kings in the Rg Veda; there was also the passage in Panini the grammarian who crystallised Sanskrit out of the Rg Vedic Indo-Aryan about a verb no longer in 'proper' usage, at his time used only by the 'impure' tribe - he mentions a tribe - living in the north-west.
6. We also have the Kamboj, fierce horsemen known to have fought for the Kauravas at the Battle of Kurukshetra, where their cavalry charges were almost irresistible. The Kamboj were located in a region close to present-day Ferghana, the homeland of the best horses of that age.
7. There are explicit references to the Punjab and points north-west of that having become 'impure' by the time of the late Puranas, and during the course of the shift of power to the east.
   

Hope this slightly incoherent note was useful.

 

[Magi Brahmin]

There are some 200 million Kashtiryas in India.

But are they true kshatriya ?

 

[Musalman]

One thing any serious student of ancient history will notice when he travels the length and breadth of India is the lack of true Kshatriyas descended from the imperial bloodlines mentioned in the Vedas, Epics and Puranas. On the other hand - Brahmins, Vaisyas and Shudras are found nearly everywhere, and well-represented in the historically high density population regions.

All Kshatriya castes in India can be classified into three categories:
1) Recent claimants to Kshatriya identity e.g. Ahirs, Kurmis, Reddys, Marathas through a process of mythologizing and sankritization
2) Descendents of the 4th -7th century Scythian hordes whom Brahmins converted en masse to the neoVedic religion e.g. Rajputs, Gujjars
3) Castes with somewhat more credible claims to true Kshatriya status e.g. Khatris (word itself a derivative of Kshatriya, located mainly in SaptaSaaraswat), Jats (widely considered Irano-Scythian in origin, but with a long history dating back to at least Harshavardhana, whom everybody considered to be a Kshatriya and and possibly even to the Sacrifice of Daksha Prajapati).

Talking about Pakistan, which tribe is brahmin, kashtria, vaisyas and shudra. I know you have mentioned few brahmins give some more examples.

BTW unlike what you guys believe your post reminds me of my 6th class history book Atleast 35 years back I did studied in my history books about the history of India.

 

[defence_analyst]

But are they true kshatriya ?

Yes why not? Who is true kashtriya? any exemple

 

[Joe Shearer]

The biggest problem in solving these puzzles remain in our interpretation of time as perceived by us.
As far as the IVC collapse is concerned once again it is just our own conjecture. Specially the concept of the twin river running parallel to Indus in modern day India. Now that river i think it is called saraswati or something went dry due to seismic activity up north which disrupted the flow of the river.

But the beauty of it all is, no one really knows what happened to the people. No one can tell their story.

Now this debate is different as to what the Puranas and Mahabharata say. These are ancient books recollecting stories of the past with no definite time period given. Sure they may point out to tribal warfare and disharmony among the folks before the great war or calamity.

Just a question. What do you think the polar shift 12 thousand years ago plays into this? The polar shift and the last ice age did bring huge water in land and shaped the new climate.

That's a tough question to answer. There isn't much recorded scientific analysis about the effects of the polar shift, if there was one - none of the orthodox geologists seem to put much store in it. There isn't even much palaeogeology about the sub-continent, or palaeobotany for that matter, none that I've read, at any rate. We do know that around the time of the IVC, there was lush vegetation in the IVC hinterland, in the river basin, and we had a wide mix of fauna in that area. Make of that what you will; it resonates with the finding that there was a wild mix of fauna in Siberia sometime before 10,000 BC, and the two may be connected, assuming that one accepts the polar shift theory.

How could the polar shift, if real, have affected things? It could have changed the topography catastrophically, as it did in Siberia, going from tropical, or at least temperate to arctic; or the attendant end of the Ice Age have released very large volumes of water into the earth's oceanic systems, making land connections go under water and approximating today's water levels and shore lines. It means that Sri Lanka would have become difficult of access, and also the Indonesian archipelago, one island from its neighbours.

Beyond this, there can only be speculation without informed research into geographical and geological conditions. That research hasn't happened.

 

[RowdyRathore]

What the hell is that? And notice this is Pakistani history so it should try to stay as much as possible within the Indus Region. If the subject is trans-continental then it belongs to South Asia section.

there were kshatriya tribes in pakistan and afghanistan as well.

and sapta saraswat means indus valley (+ old yamuna and sarasvati)

I'm a Punjabi KHATRI and my forefathers were belongs to somewhere in Saghodha district in Punjab Pakistan.
I feel pity on some people when they distort the history & try to act as an alien. This usually happen when the demography of the land changes.

 

[Magi Brahmin]

I'm a Punjabi KHATRI and my forefathers were belongs to somewhere in Saghodha district in Punjab Pakistan.
I feel pity on some people when they distort the history & try to act as an alien. This usually happen when the demography of the land changes.

i dont get it.

 

[El Sidd]

That's a tough question to answer. There isn't much recorded scientific analysis about the effects of the polar shift, if there was one - none of the orthodox geologists seem to put much store in it. There isn't even much palaeogeology about the sub-continent, or palaeobotany for that matter, none that I've read, at any rate. We do know that around the time of the IVC, there was lush vegetation in the IVC hinterland, in the river basin, and we had a wide mix of fauna in that area. Make of that what you will; it resonates with the finding that there was a wild mix of fauna in Siberia sometime before 10,000 BC, and the two may be connected, assuming that one accepts the polar shift theory.

How could the polar shift, if real, have affected things? It could have changed the topography catastrophically, as it did in Siberia, going from tropical, or at least temperate to arctic; or the attendant end of the Ice Age have released very large volumes of water into the earth's oceanic systems, making land connections go under water and approximating today's water levels and shore lines. It means that Sri Lanka would have become difficult of access, and also the Indonesian archipelago, one island from its neighbours.

Beyond this, there can only be speculation without informed research into geographical and geological conditions. That research hasn't happened.

But for that you have to understand climate change and what anything above 5 degree centigrade can start a worldwide migration of fauna and culture.

It is not that they turned up the heater or air conditioning and it was all well. Minute changes in climate and temperature renders pastures or acres of space useless and kick start a huge migration pattern that would see the Alaksan corridor being used or Egypt being rendered not ideal for civilization.

So there is something far more worth scaring about and that is why Paris agreement was so important to the Europeans and not an island named America.

Trace the linguistic pattern along with DNA pattern and migration pattern and you can put Out of Africa theory perfectly.

Why do you think the Nubians are going crazy claiming Egypt back? They know something you do not.

 

[Joe Shearer]

But for that you have to understand climate change and what anything above 5 degree centigrade can start a worldwide migration of fauna and culture.

It is not that they turned up the heater or air conditioning and it was all well. Minute changes in climate and temperature renders pastures or acres of space useless and kick start a huge migration pattern that would see the Alaksan corridor being used or Egypt being rendered not ideal for civilization.

So there is something far more worth scaring about and that is why Paris agreement was so important to the Europeans and not an island named America.

Trace the linguistic pattern along with DNA pattern and migration pattern and you can put Out of Africa theory perfectly.

Why do you think the Nubians are going crazy claiming Egypt back? They know something you do not.

The out of Africa theory is fairly well-established; why it needs further reinforcement is mysterious. The linguistic pattern does not show a path, except possibly in the case of the Indo-European language family; DNA patterns have just started showing some detail, not much, so what sweeping conclusions we can draw from these is not clear.

What is your argument? if you have one, that is.

 

[El Sidd]

The out of Africa theory is fairly well-established; why it needs further reinforcement is mysterious. The linguistic pattern does not show a path, except possibly in the case of the Indo-European language family; DNA patterns have just started showing some detail, not much, so what sweeping conclusions we can draw from these is not clear.

What is your argument? if you have one, that is.

There are no arguments in academics. Stop thinking of every thread and discussion as some sort of info wars.

Every language of the world is Indo European and why do you even insist on the European bit?

Each language of the world developed from one singular language. Or you think this is just a figment of my imagination?

 

[Joe Shearer]

There are no arguments in academics. Stop thinking of every thread and discussion as some sort of info wars.

Every language of the world is Indo European and why do you even insist on the European bit?

Each language of the world developed from one singular language. Or you think this is just a figment of my imagination?

A figment of your imagination.

There is a specific group of languages that is known as Indo-European.

Whether or not each language of the world developed from one singular language is not known. Burushaski in your part of the world is a lone language with no known connections to any other language. Magyar, or Ugro-Finnish, correctly speaking, including both Magyar and Finnish, also have no known linkages, and are generally classified on their own.

Apparently you have not yet had a chance to dabble with linguistics or theoretical linguistics. Do make the effort and catch up.

 

[El Sidd]

A figment of your imagination.

There is a specific group of languages that is known as Indo-European.

Whether or not each language of the world developed from one singular language is not known. Burushaski in your part of the world is a lone language with no known connections to any other language. Magyar, or Ugro-Finnish, correctly speaking, including both Magyar and Finnish, also have no known linkages, and are generally classified on their own.

Apparently you have not yet had a chance to dabble with linguistics or theoretical linguistics. Do make the effort and catch up.

Magyar language has Mongol roots.
Why do you think we do extensive research on the people of Kalash?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Magyar language has Mongol roots.
Why do you think we do extensive research on the people of Kalash?

If Mongol roots means that you think Uralic is a Mongolian language, then there is no point in discussing these matters.

If you have done extensive research on the Kalash, or are familiar with that research, you should know that they speak an Indo-European language, not Burushaski. Burushaski is an isolate. I do not know of any research that links it to any existing language.

You seem to know everything about all things. When you ask why Indo-European necessarily has European as a part of its name, that impression takes quite a hit. In fact, most of your statements are staggering in their superficiality and ignorance.

 

[El Sidd]

If Mongol roots means that you think Uralic is a Mongolian language, then there is no point in discussing these matters.

If you have done extensive research on the Kalash, or are familiar with that research, you should know that they speak an Indo-European language, not Burushaski. Burushaski is an isolate. I do not know of any research that links it to any existing language.

You seem to know everything about all things. When you ask why Indo-European necessarily has European as a part of its name, that impression takes quite a hit. In fact, most of your statements are staggering in their superficiality and ignorance.

There are no European languages.
I cannot help you if you need a white guy to certify each of your claim.
India has a slave mentality it cannot come out of unless there is a massive change in the status quo.
Atleast the so called Bakhts have an open mind when it comes to challenging the west on history.