I have a question...what about all those who claim kshatriya lineage..must they too reclaim their rights and start ruling again and regain their lost kingdoms?
There are no Kshatriyas in South India (also not present in North India for that matter). There were only chieftains and kings who arose from the common classes; but with positions of social power (due to land holding) claimed to be brahmins.
The last ruling groups of present region of tamilnadu were nayaks and marathas. Even the nayaks despite their non-brahmin lowly origins claimed to be brahmins. The marathas being more recent than the nayaks had little luck for they were eclipsed by the self-claimed 'brahmin' peshwas; and had to hence settle for claims of kshatriyahood. The legitimate descendants of erstwhile chieftains are most likely the smartas of today.
IMO, the descendants of vijayanagar and nayaks merged most probably into the vadamas, niyogis, and madhavas of today (krishnadeva raya himself had converted to a madhava; and it appears part of his family; and many officers of his court had followed suit).
Those who fought and gained land control required 'laws' to administer a territory. They were the law-makers. They were very likely not temple (agamic) priests who got represented as
devalaygan (as they are called in manusmriti) in a lowly position in their 'dharma'shastra.
The agamic priests were just wise men (priests or shamans of tribal periods, village sorcerers, etc) who were converted or elevated into temple-associated service functions as
brahmins (this happened all thru since the Pallava times). Most were just native and regional. The agamic priests (such as gurukkals) were looked down upon (sometimes with poorly concealed contempt even in colonial period) by smarthas (who claimed to be 'vedic brahmins', or 'vedic sacrificing brahmins').
Nevertheless, there appears to be a strange connection (imo) between certain specific shaktas and shaivas agamic groups with Smartas (who most likely imo arose from a section of pashupatas, ganapatyas, koumaras, and Devi-worshiping tantrics). Agamic groups are not homogeneous either in culture or in origin. One agamic group was almost always inimical to another (as was the case even between the pancharatras and vaikhanasas). The Smarta form of unification of 6 deities (of which only Vishnu is Vedic and the rest Agamic or tribal), imo was political.
With social power the rulership got to claim fanciful origins (from Yayati or Brahma or whoever they pleased); and got fanciful things composed. The 'brahmin' kings / chieftains had harems; and produced so-called Raja putras; a chunk of which are the middle castes of today (am not using the term Rajput since it indicates a supposed community of today, although the harem origin holds true for them).
Back then,
rights depended on ruling power. World over, people went to war to seize land control (fertile land, fresh water) and on settling in such a land, fought to protect their sovereignty therein. The Jews fought so hard against Philistines precisely because they did not want to be conquered and made into slaves (shudras) again (their freedom from slavery under egyptian pharoes was as such hard earned by Moses). When defeated, a group lost its ritual rights and hence its identity. If luck wud have it, sometimes they regained it, albeit perhaps at times only nominally or differently.
For all we know the Madhyana Paraiyans (a so-called 'subsect' of Iyers) may be descendants of Pallava chieftains, who possibly were demoted into Paraiyans (outcastes) during the Chola heyday but regained part of their ritual status after the Chola downfall. So did perhaps a certain regional Vaishnava brahmin grouping.
In an advanced time period; in a secular democratic world of today; it perhaps makes no sense to speak of regaining or
reclaiming of
rights. Instead, empowering all people would include
giving up rigidity of birth-based positions, be it reservations in academic institutions or in veda patshalas.
