Is there any basis for the Yadav claim of Kshatriya status?

Mar 2014
475
Canada
Many Yadavs have started to claim descent from the Yavana Kings and refer to themselves as Yaduvanshis. They also claim to be descendants of Krishna. This is despite there status as "sudras" and cow herders, Is there any concrete evidence showing a link between the ancient Yavana Kings and the modern day Yadavs?
 
Jan 2015
981
Here and there
Many Yadavs have started to claim descent from the Yavana Kings and refer to themselves as Yaduvanshis. They also claim to be descendants of Krishna. This is despite there status as "sudras" and cow herders, Is there any concrete evidence showing a link between the ancient Yavana Kings and the modern day Yadavs?
Im confused , do you mean Yadava instead of yavana? If so you are talking about the unbroken lineage of more than 5000 years(Krishna as per belief existed around 3000 BC). So thats quite an incredible claim. As per Gandhari's curse they shouldve been destroyed but it seems to be a more of loss in status.

As an aside, Krishna is said to have battled Kalayavana who invaded Dwaraka from the West. Seeing how Yavanas was applied to different people at different times(from Greeks, to Romans to Arabs),what could be the ethnic group of this Kalayavana in that era?

I think basically too many of these so called Yadavs ancestors used to be just shepherds or owned a cow shed and started calling themselves Yadavs. In the modern era, upper castes "stooped" to calling themself Yadav in order to gain more votes. A good example of this is Laloo Prasad Yadav whose father didnt carry the Yadav surname until rather late in life.

Since dawn of recorded history in India , solar dynasties had the upper hand over lunar dynasties. Only in the medieval era those kingdoms associated with Yadavas- Yadavas of Devagari, Hoysalas, Chalukya, Vijayanagar, Palas came to the fore.Many of these had the same boar and moon emblem that is a lunar dynasty trademark.


In my native Andhra Pradesh, there has been a proliferation of Yadavs over the past 150 years mostly from lower castes some upper castes ,and pastoral peoples so much so that they are now 15% of the population.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
Im confused , do you mean Yadava instead of yavana? If so you are talking about the unbroken lineage of more than 5000 years(Krishna as per belief existed around 3000 BC). So thats quite an incredible claim. As per Gandhari's curse they shouldve been destroyed but it seems to be a more of loss in status.
Didn't Women and Children of Yadava escaped the great calamity of Dwarka along with Arjuna?

I think basically too many of these so called Yadavs ancestors used to be just shepherds or owned a cow shed and started calling themselves Yadavs. In the modern era, upper castes "stooped" to calling themself Yadav in order to gain more votes. A good example of this is Laloo Prasad Yadav whose father didnt carry the Yadav surname until rather late in life.

Since dawn of recorded history in India , solar dynasties had the upper hand over lunar dynasties. Only in the medieval era those kingdoms associated with Yadavas- Yadavas of Devagari, Hoysalas, Chalukya, Vijayanagar, Palas came to the fore.Many of these had the same boar and moon emblem that is a lunar dynasty trademark.
Chalukyas were Brahmins and not Kshatriyas. Although claiming migration from Dwarka and descent from Yadavas indeed became popular especially in south (and especially among Kannadiga dynasties like Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas, Yadavas (?) and even Wodeyars) from medieval period onwards. Probably because many of them had pastoral origins and in such situation claiming descent from Yadus was the best available option to gain high status due to pastoral activities of Krishna himself.
 
Jan 2015
981
Here and there
Didn't Women and Children of Yadava escaped the great calamity of Dwarka along with Arjuna?
I believe the women were kidnapped by Abhira bandits and Krishna and Arjuna's helplesness in preventing this was due to Gandhari's curse and the onset of Kaliyuga. Interestingly Abhiras or Ahirs consider themselves related to Yadavas but outside Vedic society for some so they have mleccha/Vratya status.


Chalukyas were Brahmins and not Kshatriyas. Although claiming migration from Dwarka and descent from Yadavas indeed became popular especially in south (and especially among Kannadiga dynasties like Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas, Yadavas (?) and even Wodeyars) from medieval period onwards. Probably because many of them had pastoral origins and in such situation claiming descent from Yadus was the best available option to gain high status due to pastoral activities of Krishna himself.
I believe some ascribe to Chalukyas a Gurjara origin , Gurjaras being another pastoral group though mostly in Northern India and they too like Ahirs claim Yadava ancestry. In fact in some Gurjara websites Lord Krishna is categorized as Gurjar :lol:. It was under the Chalukya rule that the Lata country was rechristened as Gujarat.

I once read an interesting theory of the Muslim Yadav political confederacy in Hindi speaking states , that despite their obvious religious differences these two groups are drawn to each other to the predominance of the moon in the belief systems.:lol: Who knows , politics has made strange bedfellows out of flimsier binds!
 
Aug 2015
125
earth
Many Yadavs have started to claim descent from the Yavana Kings and refer to themselves as Yaduvanshis. They also claim to be descendants of Krishna. This is despite there status as "sudras" and cow herders, Is there any concrete evidence showing a link between the ancient Yavana Kings and the modern day Yadavs?
manu is dravidian king Manu daughter is ila ,ila family is lunar dynasty.and his descendant is yayati

yayati had 5 sons

Yadu whose descendants are Yadavas:
Turvasu whose descendants are Yavanas.
Drahyu whose descendants are Bhojas,
Anu, whose descendants are Mlechchhas.
Puru, whose descendants are Pauravas puru,kuru pandavas belongs to lunar dynasty these dynasty created Vedas and Hinduism.

yavanas migrated to turkey and they dropped vedic culture

yayati timeperiod was before vedic period approx 1900bce -1700BCE and
so initially aprart from puru dynasty none were vedic followers also hinduism

initially they were Dravidian and they adopted vedic cultures.

later this yadavas adapted vaishanavites and pauravas adapted shivavites.
two sects of hinduism.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,861
USA
There are many low castes across India that claim twice born status without any real supporting evidence. It just shows the grip Hindu caste system continues to have over people. No one wants to be a Sudra or a Dalit except when it comes to the 'reservation system'.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,626
USA
manu is dravidian king Manu daughter is ila ,ila family is lunar dynasty.and his descendant is yayati

yayati had 5 sons

Yadu whose descendants are Yadavas:
Turvasu whose descendants are Yavanas.
Drahyu whose descendants are Bhojas,
Anu, whose descendants are Mlechchhas.
Puru, whose descendants are Pauravas puru,kuru pandavas belongs to lunar dynasty these dynasty created Vedas and Hinduism.

yavanas migrated to turkey and they dropped vedic culture

yayati timeperiod was before vedic period approx 1900bce -1700BCE and
so initially aprart from puru dynasty none were vedic followers also hinduism

initially they were Dravidian and they adopted vedic cultures.

later this yadavas adapted vaishanavites and pauravas adapted shivavites.
two sects of hinduism.
This is the funniest thing I have read: Manu was Dravidian, apparently he is also a Vedic sage (Rig Veda), but yet his followers being Dravidian then adopted Vedic culture - from where?
 
Aug 2015
125
earth
This is the funniest thing I have read: Manu was Dravidian, apparently he is also a Vedic sage (Rig Veda), but yet his followers being Dravidian then adopted Vedic culture - from where?
yeah may be i compressed the infos thats why. manu mentioned in vedas and yes he is Dravidian but manu time vedic culture was not there. vedic culture is post manu timeperiod.
descendant of ila lunar dynasty composed vedas. yadavas adapted vedic cultures from vedic people i.e descendant of ila/puru/kuru.
this is after the great flood they spread to different parts of india and different dynasty started.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2014
475
Canada
Almost all British gazetteers seems to also designate the Yadavs and Ahirs with Sudra status. This claim of higher status seems to be quite a recent claim.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
I believe the women were kidnapped by Abhira bandits and Krishna and Arjuna's helplesness in preventing this was due to Gandhari's curse and the onset of Kaliyuga.
But as far as I know some of them still managed to escape and reach Hastinapur. Anyway I don't have detailed knowledge so I may be very well wrong here.

Interestingly Abhiras or Ahirs consider themselves related to Yadavas but outside Vedic society for some so they have mleccha/Vratya status.
Yes Abhiras had low social status in Indian hierarchy. However despite that they were in unique position in a sense that association with Krishna gave them somewhat prestigious status in contrast to their scriptural status. It is probably because of that reason that association with them was adopted as one of the tactics by the various dynasties to elevate their social status who might be otherwise pastoral in origin or have low social status and yet thanks to their pastoral profession it would have been easy for them to link with groups like Ahirs and via them with Krishna..... OR it is completely possible that one or many of the earlier dynasties of Deccan were indeed linked with Ahirs/ Abhiras as they claimed. Judging from the various quotes, works and sources that I have come across, I can say that there may be some historical truth in the claim. None the less with Dravidian agenda brigade hovering over the subforum like vultures it isn't a good place to elaborate on it, least it consume another thread in nonsensical agenda driven issues.

I believe some ascribe to Chalukyas a Gurjara origin , Gurjaras being another pastoral group though mostly in Northern India and they too like Ahirs claim Yadava ancestry. In fact in some Gurjara websites Lord Krishna is categorized as Gurjar . It was under the Chalukya rule that the Lata country was rechristened as Gujarat.
First of all Chalukyas of Gujarat are different from Chalukyas of Deccan. (In case of Gujarat they weren't even referred to as Chalukya but rather even more Sanskritized Chaulukya - ultimately corrupted to Solanki). None the less neither Chaulukyas nor Chalukyas claim origin from Yadus. Chalukyas of Deccan were certainly Brahmins and Chaulukyas of Gujarat were Agnivanshi Rajputs in scriptural sense.

Also for the time period being discussed Gurjardesa was the name of place or region or country. Chaulukyas were Gurjara in a sense that they were inhabitant or rulers of Gurjaradesa. Just like the Gurjara Brahmins or Gurjara artisans mentioned in literature.

I once read an interesting theory of the Muslim Yadav political confederacy in Hindi speaking states , that despite their obvious religious differences these two groups are drawn to each other to the predominance of the moon in the belief systems. Who knows , politics has made strange bedfellows out of flimsier binds!
It is indeed ironic....But then it is politics....