Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Suggestions to improve this article

The caste topic is clearly contentious. Kautilya3 suggests above that the main article should be revised first. However, the issue here is that the underlying literature is contentious to start with. A better article can emerge only if editors discuss and agree on guidelines that prevent tendentious editing.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Ideal sources for content for this article are peer reviewed articles or systematic reviews published in reputable journals, academic and professional books written by scholars and from a respected publisher. This is readily available for this article.

2. Reject sources that are blogs, posted on NGO-run websites, from oped in newspapers, or any transitory news source that reports a developing story. These are typically too preliminary to belong in an encyclopedic article.

3. Reject content that is only supported by a primary source. Any content that is from a primary source, should also include a second reliable secondary source.

4. Ideal sources are those that are not dated, preferably published within the last 25 years. Avoid content that is derived only from a source that is 75 or more years old - if such dated sources are used, the editor should include a second reliable secondary source. Why? Because, if the 75+ year old theory is still in vogue, the editor should have no problem finding a recent reliable secondary source quoting it or discussing it.

5. Reject content that is he said or she said type quotes. That is opinion mongering. Such content is better suited in biographical articles on that author, but not this article.

6. It is better to not summarize poor quality sources in this encyclopedic article. Go for quality and scholarship, not quantity nor polemics.

7. The main article should be revised, whenever the lead is. The main article should be revised, even if the lead isn't.

Paulmuniz (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Er, yes. Are you aware of WP:RS and the like? You are stating the obvious, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after reading it, what I am suggesting is more WP:MEDRS-like guidelines, which read more stringent than WP:RS-like guidelines. Paulmuniz (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, WP:HISTRS guidelines. The problems we have are really from people who can't graduate from blog+opinion column sourcing to scholarly sourcing. So, it helps to put it down in black and white. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are massively detailed survey stats really required?

Do we really need stuff like In a 2008 study, Desai et al. focussed on education attainments of children and young adults aged 6–29, from lowest caste and tribal populations of India. They completed a national survey of over 100,000 households for each of the four survey years between 1983 and 2000.[118] They found a significant increase in lower caste children in their odds of completing primary school. The number of dalit children who completed either middle-, high- or college-level education increased three times faster than the national average, and the total number were statistically same for both lower and upper castes. However, the same study found that in 2000, the percentage of dalit males never enrolled in a school was still more than twice the percentage of upper caste males never enrolled in schools. Moreover, only 1.67% of dalit females were college graduates compared to 9.09% of upper caste females. The number of dalit girls in India who attended school doubled in the same period, but still few percent less than national average. Other poor caste groups as well as ethnic groups such as Muslims in India have also made improvements over the 16-year period, but their improvement lagged behind that of dalits and adivasis. The net percentage school attainment for Dalits and Muslims were statistically the same in 1999. ?

There is a tendency for dalit activists to swamp every possible page with information relating to their ilk but, really, we're reporting one survey in immense depth and we're citing it directly. I always worry about including too much detail from surveys in this manner because often their results are skewed by methodology and/or amended/rebutted at a later date. While doubtless a reliable source in our definition of the phrase, it is easy to over-egg puddings such as this. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of space waiting at Caste politics in India to be filled with info which is too much at this page... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that moving stuff like this somewhere else really addresses the point but, hey, what do I know? - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the social mobility of castes definitely belongs here. Perhaps some condensed version of the study should do. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed social mobility belongs in this article. It existed before the Raj and to some degree or another is emerging again now. And during the Raj there was, of course, sanskritisation. It's just the level of detail and weight given to this single survey that concerns me, so some sort of condensed version would be preferable. Will have a think. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in medieval India

The sentence in the lead reads, "The jātis developed in post-Vedic times with the emergence of feudalism in India, which crystalised from the 7th to the 12th century." The cited sources are: Juergensmeyer (2006), p. 54; and Gupta (2000), p. 218. This is also in the main article.

A cite check does not verify the claim. Gupta discusses feudalism near p. 218, but not varna / jati / caste in the medieval era.

Suggestion: Delete and replace.

Reference: Precolonial India in Practice, by Cynthia Talbot (2001), Oxford University Press, pp. 50-67

1. If varna and jati were indeed the two most significant aspects of social organization in traditional India, one would expect to find numerous references to them in medieval literature, inscriptions and other historical records.

2. Scholars have looked for such evidence in medieval era texts and temple donor inscriptions, but failed to find supporting evidence, and to everyone's surprise, succeeded in finding the contradicting evidence.

3. In Andhra region of India, in the numerous donor plate inscriptions, a lot of personal details of the donor are mentioned, but rarely is varna mentioned.

4. An unexpected peculiarity is found in the rare records that have possible varna/jati disclosure. For example, leading warrior families proclaim they descended from Brahma's feet (which scholars consider may be an allusion to purusa sukta verse, but this is not certain). Two rare records from warrior family donors of the 14th century AD proudly claim to be sudras, one stating that sudras are the bravest, the other saying sudras are the purest. Kakatiya Andhra coastal kingdom records, such as from the era of king Prola, record that sudras had the greatest political power until the 14th century.

5. Not only is the word jati or varna rarely found in 13th century inscriptions in Andhra, there are no references to specific subcastes by name.

6. In Tamil region, for similar reasons, doubts have emerged whether a caste system existed during the Chola era, from 9th to 13th century AD.

7. Leslie Orr, in her book, (Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 30-33), concludes, that "Chola period inscriptions challenges our ideas about the structure of (south Indian) society in general; we do not find caste is the organizing principle of society."

8. Ronald Inden, in his book, (Imagining India, Indiana University Press, 1990, p.82), reviewing caste system in many parts India during the medieval era, concludes, "castes do not appear until the 13th or 14th century at the earliest."

Paulmuniz (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bayly also mentions the development of the jatis in post-Mauryan times, and the consolidation in the feudal post-Gupta time. But it seems, to me, that she is relying on Gupta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Paulmuniz, that is useful information. However, we can't generalize from the study of South India because the South has always been less "Aryanised" than the North. Sitush mentioned this earlier but I think we still need reliable sources that explain the difference between the North and the South. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3,

1. We can't and shouldn't generalize. We can't and shouldn't ignore these large parts of India either, or these centuries.

2. Ronald Inden's 1990 book above includes discussion on caste system in medieval India in the north and the east. Other sources include Susan Bayly that editor Joshua Jonathan mentions (some of her cites have turned out to be flaky, but her book is generally good). Here are a few others with a discussion of caste system in medieval north / west / east India,

Ronald Inden, Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices (2000), Oxford University Press

Ronald Inden, Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture: A History of Caste and Clan in Middle-period Bengal (1976), University of California Press

Dirk Kolff, Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy (2002), Cambridge University Press

3. I will post summaries from a few.

Paulmuniz (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in medieval north India

Reference: Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, by Susan Bayly (2001), Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-4

Bayly acknowledges the uncertainties in various theories on caste system in India. She writes, "caste is not orientalist fiction", then emphasizes, "until well into the colonial period, much of the subcontinent was still populated by people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance". She summarizes, "caste as we now recognize, it has been engendered, shaped and perpetuated by comparatively recent political and social developments. Even in parts of the so-called Hindu heartland of Gangetic upper India, the institutions and beliefs which are now often described as the elements of traditional caste were only just taking shape as recently as the early eighteenth century - that is the period of collapse of Mughal period and the expansion of western power in the subcontinent."

Reference: Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy, by Dirk Kolff (2002), Cambridge University Press, pp. 198-199

Kolff concludes his book with, "The omnipresence of cognatic kinship and caste in North India is a relatively new phenomenon that only became dominant in the early Mughal and British periods respectively. Historically speaking, the alliance and the open status group, whether war band or religious sect, dominated medieval and early modern Indian history in a way descent and caste did not. That is not to say that the latter were absent. They may even have been important, especially in urban and commercial centers, but they moved to center only as a result of relatively late closed-shop strategies (that is, jobs), to exclude other members of the peasantry by adopting the 'modern' ideology of caste."

Paulmuniz (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in medieval Bengal (east India)

Reference: Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture: A History of Caste and Clan in Middle-period Bengal, by Ronald Inden (1976), University of California Press

1. Inden presents an analysis of Bengali texts from 15th to 18th century, which discuss varna and jatis, how these formed, why these formed. These texts are legends, Inden recommends caution.

2. One is a legend of King Adisura. The king is called a great, kind, heroic king. Many versions of this legend exist. All known versions of the legend tell of only two, not four, varnas - brahmin and sudra, and all these versions speak highly of the vedas. The king is sudra in all versions. The brahmin are armed warriors, sudra are the experts in vedas. Despite these unexpected professions, the legends speak of how the king worships both the brahmin and the sudra, how both varnas settle down in Bengal. Their lineages become various jatis such as Ghosh, Basu, Mitra and others, so go these legends.

3. Another geneological text, loaded with myths, is traceable to late medieval, early modern era. This legend is of king Vena and Prthu, and how Bengali castes came into existence between 1450 to 1800 AD. Once again, only two varnas - brahmin and sudra. Once again, both are honored as so-called "kulinas".

4. The third revolves around king Vallala Sena. Two varnas again. The king is again a sudra. The text uses the word "kula", which is interpreted as "family lineage living in a certain territory of the kingdom". But a new twist: the legend mentions the Muslim conquests of Bengal in 13th and 14th century. The invading Muslim armies are called barbarians. The story claims some Hindus work for the Muslims, sell supplies to the raiding Muslim armies, some out of greed, some out of desperation. Hindus find this wrong, do not want to mix with Muslims, resort to strict endogamy to preserve their faultless daughters and sons. From 15th to 17th century, goes the story, endogamy was encouraged, religious conversion and marriage with a Muslim shunned. Inden notes, Muslim writers hypothesize and spin the Muslim marriage and arrival of Islam as "egalitarian", but he offers the alternate hypothesis that the endogamy practice may have been a way to preserve a non-Islamic culture in Bengal.

5. These legends from Bengal discuss how endogamy and jatis / kula developed. The legends never mention any hierarchy, nor boundaries of commensality, nor do they suggest social or economic immobility among the varna / jati / kula.

Paulmuniz (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India in the 11th century AD

This is a description of the Indian caste system given by a visiting scientist to India in the 11th century AD:

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/14.asp

The fact that this description of the Indian caste system is being given by an "outsider" who had impeccable credentials of scholarship ought to lend greater credence to his description of the Indian caste system as existing in his time. Soham321 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. WP:PRIMARY - we're not using an ancient text directly. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The objective here is to try and find secondary sources which make use of this primary text in their analysis of the Indian caste system. Soham321 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Again: nobody here argues that there were no varnas or jatis before the British Raj; but as Sitush noticed at his talkpage, nobody has found reliable sources which do contest the conclusions that the British had a decisive influence on this system. And as Sitush also noticed: we're all puzzled about this, since it contradicts basic notions about the Indian caste-system. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The visiting scientist Alberuni is contradicting the view of the British having any "decisive influence" on the Indian caste system. The sources which claim the British had a decisive influence on the Indian caste system are ignoring primary source material like Alberuni's book.Soham321 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment:

1. This is from a 1910 translation of Al Biruni's Al Hind. This or parts of this extract is found in polemics and poorly researched books/blogs. It is a serious misrepresentation of Al Biruni.

2. This is not a "description of the Indian caste system by a visiting scientist to India in 11th century". It is cut out part of a translation of Al Biruni. The original is a theory from a now-missing text, and it is part of a dialogue between Krishna and Vasudeva from that missing text. Strangely, some versions extracted from Edward Sachau translation, as is the case above, leave out paragraphs that contradicts the varna theory and that presents the other side. You can read the entire translation, over pp. 99-104, by clicking this link. That this is an extract from some Arjuna-Vasudeva text is obvious from p. 102 last line onwards. That this varna system was likely disputed by 11th century Hindus is obvious from p. 104.

3. This is indeed a primary source, not fit for an encyclopedic article. There are multiple translations and inconsistent interpretations of Al Biruni, and only secondary sources/reviews should be relied upon.

Paulmuniz (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that there exist multiple translations of Alberuni's book on India is not true. There has been only one translation of the complete text of Alberuni's book on India and that is by Edward Sichau. This book is published by Cambridge University Press and it continues to be in print. One may check to see that any book or article which refers to Alberuni's book on India invariably refers to Sichau's translation of Alberuni. Soham321 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment 2:

1. There are 4 non-English translations, and 2 English. Edward Sachau's 125 year old translation is the oldest, most well known. You can read the difficulty and issues with the Al Biruni manuscripts, as admitted by Sachau, in Nature journal (as published in 1888 or 1889, or there abouts).

2. If you read the complete translation carefully, you will notice that Biruni does not mention endogamy, or other aspects. Biruni did write about marriage in 11th century India, in Chapter 10, but he made no mention of "caste endogamy" there or in the varna chapter. This has made scholars wonder if Biruni's description is same as the modern concepts of caste system in India. For what its worth, Biruni also wrote a chapter declaring Hinduism is a monotheistic religion. His comments on Buddhism were equally strange.

3. Biruni was not a "visiting scientist to India". Biruni was with Mahmud of Ghazni, and he wrote about the utter destruction, persecution and plunder by Ghazni and Muslim army on Hindus. His comments about the Indian society in 11th century northwest India is as suspect, as would any research on a social group in continental Europe be if it had been done during World War II.

4. I do not believe editors Sitush or Joshua Jonathan or others are arguing that there were no varnas in ancient India. The article should and does mention varna in ancient India. A mention of Al Biruni's view on varna and his silence on endogamy etc may be okay if it comes from a recent scholarly secondary source. Susan Bayly mentions Biruni in her book on pp. 103-104 (above).

Paulmuniz (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a 1999 article published in Frontline magazine by the eminent historian Romila Thapar. She refers to Alberuni's book on India in her article. In the references she gives you can see she is referring to Sachau's translation. Here is another article written by another eminent historian, D.N. Jha, who also refers to Alberuni's book on India and gives Sachau's translation as the reference. And this is a reference to a book on Hinduism by Jha first published in 2009 and reprinted in 2014 which again uses the Sachau translation. Since you claim there exists a more modern english translation of Alberuni's book on India, please give details about this work because it seems to be unknown to contemporary historians. Soham321 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Any translation is still a basically an ancient primary source. An exception would be when the translation has truly copious notes attached, turning it into more of a commentary. An example of that might be Stein's work on Kalhana, although even there we would prefer to use an out-and-out secondary source rather than the Rajatarangini itself. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Paulmuniz is saying that there is something wrong with Sachau's translation. But he is saying that, as per Wikipedia policies, we can't use Al Biruni as a source. We are free to use contemporary secondary sources that make use of Al Biruni as their source. See WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read his edit again: he claims there are four non-english, and two english translations of Alberuni's book, and the Sachau translation is the oldest available translation. I am asking him to provide details of the second english translation he speaks of because contemporary historians continue to rely on Sachau's translation. Regarding Sitush's comment, Sachau's translation includes a detailed commentary written by Sachau on Alberuni's book on India. Soham321 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence from Genetic Research on existence of caste system 2,000 years ago

This is an extract from a news article: The caste system in South Asia — which rigidly separates people into high, middle and lower classes — may have been firmly entrenched by about 2,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis suggests.Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics. Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, and caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago. Genetic study on caste systemSoham321 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And this is a link to the actual paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248 Note that this paper was published in September 2013 Soham321 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Genetics are a waste of time for articles about Indian history. Have you noticed how many qualifiers there are even in the bit you quoted, eg: "may have", "suggests", "according to". And it is mixing research on genetics with research on ancient texts - most ancient Indian texts are widely regarded to be more fiction than fact. That the caste system existed in the ancient world is not disputed even by the likes of Zwart. What the contemporary people are saying is that the British administrative efforts, driven often by Brahmin urgings, served to intensify the significance of caste in a modern context, to reinforce boundaries within the system etc and thus made it more "rigid". There was a certain amount of fluidity in the pre-British system, whereby people's caste roles were redefined. That, for example, is why there are so many "degraded kshatriyas". Or so the postcolonialists say.

In a society where there was little geographic movement, it is inevitable that the DNA profile will be fairly narrow for a considerable period of time. One doesn't need a degree in genetics to realise this and, generally, there is much rubbish written about genetics in the historic Indian context, usually by people who conduct very limited surveys for a socio-political purpose. At the end of the day, we simply do not know and never will because we all have the DNA of millions of our predecessors, and none at all from some with whom we are related. Basically, never use these reports because they are couched in such terms as to be meaningless for our purposes. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you click on the link to the news report? It has comments by Prof Michael Witzel of Harvard University who had represented the State of California in the California textbooks case. The Hindutvas were of the same opinion as you--that the British created the caste system as we know it today. Their view was not accepted by Witzel and the State of California (including the California judiciary). Soham321 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? You are talking bullshit - nowhere have I said that I share the opinion of the Hindutvas - their opinion is not even relevant anyway and you are flogging a head horse by repeatedly raising it. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You may claim that you do not share the views of the Hindutvas but the fact remains that they share your view that the caste system as we know it today is a creation of the British. They even filed cases in the State of California pertaining to this issue and other issues so that their views are reflected in California text books. They lost. Soham321 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: I support this proposal. There have been quite a few studies on caste and genetics in recent years. Given the article includes diverse opinions from many social scientists. I don't see why a subsection should not exist for genetic studies. --Kenfyre (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

8000 BCE

"Dumont who concluded that caste system was ideologically perfected by 8000 BCE" - that's a typo, I guess? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought so too. But thats what Gupta writes. I will check the Dumont cite in Gupta book, once I get hold of it. Paulmuniz (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

8000 BCE, that's 6,500 yeears before the postulated date of the Indo-Aryan migrations; that's even before there were any Indo-Europeans at the Pontic steppes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed subsection: Legal aspects

I think there should be a subsection here on various central and state laws mandating reservations and other benefits to backwards castes, and prohibiting discrimination. -Kenfyre (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be at Caste politics? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already got some info here about it. There will inevitably be some overlap with other articles, such as Caste politics, but the impact of reservation is certainly relevant here. As we know, the entire article needs to be sorted out, and I anticipate that will include a mention of, for example, just how many appeals have had to be handled by the NCBC as castes continue to jostle for position. The figure is somewhere north of 1200. Also, the argument that by enacting positive discrimination, the government has effectively hardened caste differences, as evidence in the howls of annoyance from various Forward/General Castes. All stuff for another day! - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also the Reservation in India article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, @Sitush:, @VictoriaGrayson: My proposal is to specify specific laws, and their summary, in a separate section. There will be outgoing links to other articles like Reservation in India. It would be an one stop section for anyone seeking brief information about the legality of the caste system and the laws passed to elevate weaker castes. As Sitush pointed out, whether this caste politics works or not, is another day's work. I just intend to summarise the laws and benefit schemes in one place. -Kenfyre (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I endorse Ken's proposal. Soham321 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is already in there. It just needs tightening a bit. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Driven by sociology?

"The second school considers caste system to be driven by sociology" - so, at some time in history the sociologists entered the scene, and then a phenomenon called "caste system" appeared which was driven by the science of social systems? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is plain daft. If the sources really say that then they're not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, plain drafting mistake. I changed it, sorry. Paulmuniz (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The wording of this paragraph is basically problematic: "ideology" is also a social factor. Social-constructionists, which seem to be a major party in the scholarly community in this topic, do take serious issue with this. Is there any source which explicitly states this disticntion between schools? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about synthesis of sources in this stuff but I've not yet managed to check them all. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruption of Article Edits

I started laying in a major update at 14:49 and within one minute my edits were being interfered with, the article ended up looking like a mess due to the incredible level of disruptive editing, why couldn't editors Grayson and Sitush just wait? Why did they feel it necessary to disrupt like that? It looks like these two editors believe they somehow own the article, why didn't they just wait until the work was done before they interfered with any changes? Twobells^t@lk 14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironic again.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

With respect, there is nothing ironic about fact. Twobells^t@lk 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Request For Comment

Although there have been more than 4 reverts by one person, I'm not vindictive, instead I'll request comment on this article and moving forward because, clearly from the language employed, certain editors have taken ownership of the article wishing to deny any attempt at returning the article to neutrality as well as further endevours to prevent the addition of legitimate uncontroversial citations. Twobells^t@lk 15:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, ironic.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: As you should be able to tell by looking at the history of the article over the last couple of weeks, the issues you are playing with are extremely contentious. There is a major question of WP:WEIGHT as to how much weight to give to the idea that the caste system is traditional and to the idea that it was constructed by the British colonial regime. The only people that can take a balanced view are those that have read the sources of both the sides. I don't think any of us currently discussing here really qualify.

The alternative that I suggest is to develop the body of the article using all the sources that we have and, in the end, we will know the due weight to give. So, I sincerely request everybody trying to put their POV into the lead to STOP, and work on developing the body. There is no other way. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thank you for your good manners Kautilya, I started to wonder what I had wandered into here. Having lived in India and coming from a family that has close ties to Gujarat and the Punjab going back a considerable period of time I was interested, having found this article a while back, so was shocked at the suggestion the Indian caste system had been promoted here on Wikipedia as a substantially, modern British device when the segregation they found was already extremely well established. Subsequently, they, the Raj, worked with what they had and the most modern sources confirm that, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Raj was guilteless, it wasn't, however they DID inherit the system but any suggestion that the segregation was further developed by the British just ain't so. Twobells^t@lk 15:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your agenda to right great wrongs your family experienced in India is meaningless to Wikipedia. Also read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in either but thanks for the bad faith, rather I am attempting to incontrovertibly bring the article closer to neutrality, my comments on India were (as I am sure you know quite well aware) was how not why I came here. Your continued ABF and attempts to close down debate on the issue won't work I'm afraid :-/ Twobells^t@lk 16:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: Comments on what? Please read the discussions of the past few weeks, and don't push your POV. @Sitush: good work so far; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? 'pov-push'? where is AGF? I don't even know you, I am trying to improve the article, following the latest research on the issue, many of the sources in the article are extremely dated and favour a rather, with respect, ludicrous non-neutral agenda. Twobells^t@lk 15:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

These last 3 threads should be hatnoted.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: A lot of editors that encountered this page over the years have been similarly shocked by what this page says. However, that doesn't give any of them the right to delete the material. They need to go and read the sources and understand why it has been said. You are no exception. Wikipedia is not here to reflect your views, but rather the views of the scholars. Your claim to be updating "outdated sources" of respectable scholars like Nicholas Dirks and Susan Bayly by citing a student essay is extremely naive. Your best bet is to offer an apology at WP:AN3 and take part in the discussion here in a civilized manner. Otherwise, you are looking at a block. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: there is a huge difference between 'deleting' and updating an article, much of the work I have done has been arbitrarily deleted, what I did was adapt the existing work to reflect the most modern insights into the issue, not delete it. Essentially, you accuse me of what has been done to me. Again, I refer you to my previous comments, I have read the sources and for the most part they are outdated and quite partisan.Twobells^t@lk 16:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ivy League scholars, university published books and academic review articles are not partisan. You are partisan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but none of my sources are partisan, rather, they, unlike much of the dated citations offered up in the article are neutral. Twobells^t@lk 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: Please tell us which sources you have read and in what ways you found them outdated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:I'll collate all of my various sources, you do the same with yours and tomorrow we can compare notes to see if we can reach a common ground. Now, tonight I'm off to eat and then go see Woman In Gold, bye. Twobells^t@lk 16:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not ask for your sources. You started this afternoon by deleting a reference to the British Raj [1], which was sourced to five impeccable sources. One of them was published this year! Have you looked at those five sources? How did you decide that they were "out of date"? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not surprised there was some deletion, much of mine was deleted also, seeing as how there was a flurry of edit conflicts, see the word 'being'? it was employed twice in one sentence. Like I said earlier, messy when three people suddenly all start editing at once. Be patient, we can compare sources tomorrow, hopefully moving towards common ground, regards.Twobells^t@lk 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because it was against policy. You were modifying sourced content. But you haven't answered my question. Which of those five sources did you read? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

'modifying source content' that's exactly what was done to me, not by me. I have consulted with administration and will, in the next few weeks create an rfc, it will be at that point I will put forward my issues with the article and the sources therein, thanks. Twobells^t@lk 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Playing The Blame Game?

With respect to all the editors here, is this article attempting to play some sort of discriminatory 'blame game'? The British Raj inherited the segregation they found yet every time I alter the lede and add sources to reflect that they are undone, deleted or go 'missing' during other editors updates. The British didn't 'modernize' the Indian caste system, they worked with what they found. Many workers refused to work with members of different castes, eventually the bureaucracy had to adapt, yet supposedly we are to ignore that and push some sort of anti-British blame game. Twobells^t@lk 16:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:VNT. Also, can you please stop flooding this talk page with your repetitions?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my reliable sources that were arbitrarily deleted, thanks for stressing that for me. Also, I'm sorry you dont' like what I'm saying, I get that from your behaviour, however, what you call 'flooding' are actually new topics. Twobells^t@lk 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone hatnote all of Twobells' threads?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to hatnote three distinct topics of discussion? Twobells^t@lk 16:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to endorse the views of @Twobells. Soham321 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've repeatedly stated that the article does not say that the British invented the caste-system; what's so hrad to understand about this? Let's have a look at Twobells' additions:

Caste is an ancient, discriminatory fact of Hindu life, that continues to this day.

A discredited theory previously propagated was that the caste system had been a construction of the British colonial regime. citing that between 1860 and 1920, the British 'segregated' Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to the upper castes, however, the British worked with what they found, which was an indigenous, discriminatory 'caste system' laid in by the third century. Segregation occurred under the British due to the fact that workers of different castes refused to work together under any circumstances. Social unrest during 1920s led to a change in this policy. However, the premise has however been found to be untrue being that the caste system pre-dated the British by thousands of years.

References

• "Caste is an ancient, discriminatory fact of Hindu life," source: Ben Heath,The Impact of European Colonialism on the Indian Caste System,E-International Relations (E-IR), 26 November 2012 Retrieved 15 June 2015</ref>

• The varnas already existed in Vedic times, which is not Hindu;
• "discriminatory" is POV;
• Regarding the source: "This content was written by a student and assessed as part of a university degree" - not WP:RS

• "that continues to this day." source: Arundhati Roy, "India's Shame", Prospect Magazine, November 13 2014 Retrieved 14 June 2015</ref>

• is this informative?
• source: what is "Prospect" magazine? And this seems to be an opinion-article.

• "A discredited theory previously propagated" - this is not what De Zwart's source says, on the contrary;
• "however, the British worked with what they found, which was an indigenous, discriminatory 'caste system' laid in by the third century." - yes, they did, and the article does not deny that; and again "discriminatory" is not a neutral statement;
• "Segregation occurred under the British due to the fact that workers of different castes refused to work together under any circumstances." source: World Development book case study: the dalit minority in India "World Development book case study: the dalit minority in India"|url=http://newint.org/books/reference/world-development/case-studies/inequality-dalits-in-india/%7Caccessdate 14 June 2015|</ref>

• Segregation of who or what? And wasn't this an ancient system? There's a contradiction here.
• Source: "New Internationalist"? Sounds very neutral...

• "However, the premise has however been found to be untrue being that the caste system pre-dated the British by thousands of years." source: Castes of Mind:Colonialism and the Making of Modern India "Castes of Mind:Colonialism and the Making of Modern India", Nicholas B. Dirks.[url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7191.html]

• What does this sentence say?!? What is the "premise"?
• What Dirks says is:

"caste is a modern phenomenon--the product of a concrete historical encounter between India and British colonial rule. Dirks does not contend that caste was invented by the British. But under British domination caste did become a single term capable of naming and above all subsuming India's diverse forms of social identity and organization."

What you apparently try to state is contradicted by the source you give here...

Ergo: personal POV, partly unreferenced, and partly "supported" by a couple of websites, disregarding scholarly claims. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

With respect, your supposition is a prime example of the very poorest analysis slated towards a partisan position I've come across, the website citations refer to scholarly articles that offer the most concise, up to date examination of the caste system in India and how they pertain to the British Raj, yet seemingly you have an issue with 'websites' although online citations have been accepted on Wikipedia since Larry Sanger booted the first server. I refer you to this and this policy in the knowledge that your response to online citations must have been a momentary aberration, regards. Twobells^t@lk 08:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If those websites refer to scholarly articles, then use those article as a reference. You removed sourced info, and replaced it with your personal opinions and WP:CHERRYPICKING. I'm seriously beginning to doubt your competence on this issue. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: Both Joshua and I have argued for your point of view quite a few times on this talk page. Joshua has also reinserted the ancient origins of jatis which was deleted by Paulmuniz. We are all trying to improve the article in a cordial manner. You are welcome to join us. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading the first source now, The Impact of European Colonialism on the Indian Caste System. It's written by a student, as I'd noticed before; papers by students are not WP:RS. According to Twobells, this paper's "citations refer to scholarly articles that offer the most concise, up to date examination of the caste system in India." Is that so? How do you know?
The author refers to the varnas as "caste", whereas most authors seem to agree that "caste" refers to the jatis. The only mention of discrimination is in a quote from Dirks:

"The colonizers were part of the Abrahamic tradition, which believes in homogenization, and the heterogeneous and non-conflicting Indian society would not have suited their design. That might have led them to construct a class-based discriminating society out of the multiple sampradayas and castes co-existing peacefully. After all, history is constructed to suit the colonisers and victors."

This quote does not support Twobells line ""Caste is an ancient, discriminatory fact of Hindu life", on the contrary. It states that the British created a "class-based discriminating society".
If my questioning of this source is "the very poorest analysis slated towards a partisan position I've come across", well... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And to repeat:nobody here is arguing that the British invented the caste-system; what's being argued here is that most, if not all, sources state that the British used the caste-system the rule their Indian territories, meanwhile/thereby significantly influencing and changing the caste-system. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Issues with editor Twobells edits

I have linked the threads started by editor Twobells, because my comments apply to all of them.

1. Editor Twobells complains about "discriminatory blame game", "reverts", and "removal of reliable sources". He calls a post on a *.info website and blogs as "legitimate uncontroversial citations".

Reality: The cites provided by editor Twobells are not reliable sources. Just because you like an opinion or declare a publication "legitimate uncontroversial citation", neither makes it so nor a reliable scholarly work. Publications on a website run by NGOs, such as one Twobells cited, are in truth, "inappropriate controversial citations" for an encyclopedic article.

2. Twobells pleads some personal testimony with, "coming from a family that has close ties to Gujarat and the Punjab going back a considerable period of time."

Comment: Such claims and personal testimony about events before one was born are unverifiable, can be easily faked or inadvertently overstated, and unreliable. They cannot be a basis for an encyclopedic article. Social issues and problems can be triggered by a number of causes, and individual testimony, from either side, cannot be the basis for scholarly sociology. Colonial South Asia suffered from many issues, ranging from Apartheid-like racism to religious riots to poverty triggered by a remarkable frequency of genocidal famines. An encyclopedic article should not take sides, blame any side.

Paulmuniz (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In Reply

1: I can source any number of similar sources and plan to, however, my times is limited at the moment but I will do what I can when I can. In a chat with admin it has been jointly decided that I will put forward an rfc in the next few weeks and until that time the article should remain as it is. However, having said that I cannot see how: India's Shame by Arundhati, Roy, Castes of Mind:Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Nicholas B. Dirks or The Impact of European Colonialism on the Indian Caste System, by Ben Heath can in any way be described as '*.info website and blogs', rather I put to you that your position is untenable in that you have attempted to discredit irrefutable, legitimate sources for reasons of bias.

2: with respect, I ask you to re-read the talk history, my comments on India was about how I came to the article, not why, however, it seems that the 'why' of it is being used as an attempt to discredit my contribution to the article.

3: In closing, I get that editors attempt to claim ownership of an article following their contributions, I do; however, if that work is biased or pov-pushing then it needs to be addressed, attempts to close down debate or the removal of neutral, legitimate citations for reasons of political ideology has no place here on Wikipedia as that breaks policy, regards. Twobells^t@lk 13:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, you default position seems to be one of bad faith. When you do the RfC please ensure that you have fully understood WP:RFC before opening it. If you phrase it even in a remotely similar style to that which you use in your comments, it will be struck out within minutes. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Varna and Jati

I think we need to bring out the differences between the Varna and Jati more clearly. Varna was clearly a class system designed to sanctify a hierarchy. But Jatis have diverse origins, none of them having to do with hierarchy. While it is true that the people of jatis perceive some form of hierarchy, it is nebulous, ill-defined and variable. This hierarchy has more to do with social status, wealth and political influence, than any ritual or religious underpinning. I think it is wrong to speak as if varna and jati are the same. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to open a section here asking for opinions and sources relating to our opening "Definitions" section in the article. I thought it might be easier to start from the top and gain consensus section-by-section, going through the sources with a fine-tooth comb etc. That section does include a few lines about the various theories but unfortunately the later section - in the subheadings under "History" - has recently been changed and is now rather contradictory. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think the relative rank of Brahmins vs. Kshatriyas has always been open to contestation. Dipankar Gupta (2000: Ch. Brahman, Baniya, Raja) states that this is in fact a contest between the religious and political/sociological aspects of varna. However, both the Brahmins and Kshatriyas together have always assumed superiority over the others (commoners and labourers). That shouldn't surprise anybody of course. In South India, where there is no Kshatriya varna worth speaking of, the land-owning and ruling classes have played the de facto role of Kshatriyas. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautliya3, I spent the last hour reading Gupta again. I don't see anywhere, "in South India, there was/is no Kshatriya varna". Do you have page numbers? or are you referring to another book or journal paper by Gupta? There are several books, by authors other than Gupta, with sections on Ksatriya in South India (Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Andra Pradesh). Sitush, Which specific contradictions did you have in mind? Do you mean between the lead and the main? Paulmuniz (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that South India doesn't have Kshatriyas. I think Sitush can provide sources. Actually, Samuel (pp. 60, 64, 67) tells us that Kshatriyas were mostly gone even in North India by the time of the Magadha empire. They probably fought too many wars and destroyed each other. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can sort it out. I am working towards that as I fiddle with the "Definitions" section. That section flows rather poorly and, as I said somewhere above, is somewhat confusing. The full-blown varna concept didn't really reach south India, in part because the influence of Brahmins came later as they were forced out of the north by the Muslim invasions etc. I agree that there are many sources that mention, for example, the Nair of Kerala and the Ror of Andhra etc as kshatriya etc but they are usually doing so in the context of sanskritisation, which is a fairly recent phenomenon. In the south, for centuries, it was basically (a) Brahmins and (b) everyone else, precisely because the entire varna concept is a creation and imposition of the Brahmins and they didn't generally hit the south until relatively late on. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulmuniz: The present day status of the Vedic varnas is as follows:

* Brahmans preserved themselves and multiplied, probably acquiring a lot of new entrants through ritual, education and marriage.

* Kshatriyas mostly destroyed themselves and lost influence by the time of the Magadha empire. Afterwards, many kings throughout the subcontinent claimed Kshatriya status and concocted lineages. It is easy for a king to acquire a kshatriya status: just give plenty of gifts and grants to Brahmanas, and perform grand sacrificial ceremonies, and you get billed as a Kshatriya. (However, a king's kshatiya status is open to contest by other kings. For example, the Rashtrakutas contested the kshatriya status of Gurjara Pratiharas. They kept fighting them and mocking them.)

* Vaishyas are also mostly gone except for the trading classes. This is most likely due to attrition. People just stopped caring about the varna idea after the jatis acquired significance.

* Sudras comprise all the people that never bothered to claim any varna status. Once again, it is the jati that matters, coupled with political, economic and social power. Once you have those, varna doesn't matter.

* The non-varna people (Dalits) remain because their occupations are considered "polluting."

On the whole, we should say that the varna system is dead. We talk about it only because its ideas of purity-pollution and ritual hierarchy have influenced the jati system. However, it is questionable how much the ritual hierarchy matters. It is rather the political/social power that matters. (If the British had not come to rule India and resuscitated all the Brahmanical laws, everybody would have probably forgotten that there was anything called varna. Brahman and Vaisya are easily treated as jatis.) This is sort of a quick summary of the Dipankar Gupta's "Interrogating Caste." These ideas are distributed throughout the book, but the "Brahmin, Baniya and Raja" chapter probably gives the best explanation. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)