This is an archive of past discussions about Chitpavan Brahmins. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Brahmins who converted to christianity in Goa are called Roman catholic brahmin and so this is a bit of a grey area.The Pandita has been dead for almost a century.She may have renounced Hinduism but that does not mean she wanted to give up her tribal association.Her biography says that she would not take food from lower castes.I believe you should restore it or invite additional comments.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Jonathansammy, not sure what the rule for converts is. Please can we get feedback from other editors? How do we discuss this so that a wider audience gets involved and we get multiple inputs? Is there a way to ping a group of editors? I removed it based on the history that Sitush had removed it at one time. Joshua Jonathan, you work on both the Christian and Hindu articles, please can you comment about this? What is the wikipedia consensus about converts to Christianity in caste lists? Please see Mr.Jonathansammy's comment also. Thanks for your input. - Acharya63 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, please can you comment on this - Here [1] is the citation for her caste but it is unclear if she still considered herself Chitpawan or Christian. Or if she was just referring to her old association. What is the rule for converts? Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
We have categories for people who convert from one religion to another and such a category is appropriate here. However, since Christianity does not accept the concept of caste, she must have renounced her caste to become a Christian. If she was alive, this is akin to Amitabh Bachchan renouncing his caste and we should treat the two as the same. Yes, I am aware that there is a concept of Christians vaguely fitting into the caste system for practical purposes (reservation, for example) but it really is a concept associated with Hinduism. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
References
^Meera Kosambi. Pandita Ramabai: Life and Landmark Writings. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York. p. 120. [Peshwa] Bajirao II had married a girl of 9 or 10 when he was 60 and blind, to maintain the perpetual sacred fire [agnihotra]. This lady now lives in Nepal. Oh, the fate of our Indian women! Bajirao-saheb was a ruler who belonged to my caste, and he was also my kinsman. But that does not mean that I approve of his vices.
Treatment of untouchables under Peshwa rule
The content in this section relies primarily on writings of a child in 1850s.Can that be used to make serious allegations of human sacrifice, and beheadings for trivial offences? Also author of one of the source was a disciple of Ambedkar and dedicated his whole life to propagating buddhism amongst the dalits.He is not a historian and certainly does not have neutral point of view. Also should the whole community be tarnished for the what happened during the rule of the last Peshwa.I look forward to comments by other editors.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Jesus! You need to stop disrupting this page everyday. Literally, every day, you come now and then and disrupt this page, the same content, destroy references and so on. Looks like you have different ideas everyday without any new source. Are you saying a White man invented some stories about 18th century chitpawans just because he was a buddhist and a follower of 20th century Ambedkar? What nonsense! Then why has no writer challenged such infamous stuff for 2 centuries after that girl wrote the essay? There are multiple sources that repeat this content. Chitpawan history began with the peshwas and almost every writer has criticized them. They WERE bad. Have you even bothered reading this page? No it does not rely on the writings of a child. Salves section is different and is supported by other sources given( assuming you do not remove them again). I am sorry to say but you are indeed very incompetent. God Bless! -M — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH1995 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Manohar Joshi , Arun Shridhar Vaidya, Sonali Bendre are NOT Chitpawans
Please do not add these three names( some IP addresses have been adding these names in the past):
Manohar Joshi needs self identification as he is a living person. In any case, he is Deshastha. Not all Joshi's are Koknastha.
'Arun Shridhar Vaidya is CKP and is already listed on that page. See [1]
quote: Mr. C.D. Deshmukh, India’s first Finance Minister and Governor of the RBI, film star Kajol’s mother Tanuja who is daughter of famous erstwhile actress Shobhana Samarth. Nutan was her sister. Admiral Tipnis, Chief of Indian Air force; General Vaidya and many more such luminaries. If you look back to Shivaji’s time, his most remembered soldier was Baji Prabhu – a CKP.
See [2]
quote: CKP as a community has been known for its “writing and fighting skills”. Some prominent faces that it boasts as members are Baji Prabhu Deshpande, a fighter in Shivaji’s army, Ram Ganesh Gadkari, Marathi writer, B G Deshmukh, ex-chief secretary, Bal Thackeray, General Arun Kumar Vaidya, late army chief, and Tanuja and Smita Salaskar before they were married into different communities.
The website quote that you have provided about the CKP "writing and fighting" skills, talk, is an extremely specious one. Although the CKP themselves have been claiming warrior status for hundreds of years, there is very little historical evidence to support this. In fact, historian Rajwade has given numerous credible analyses in his works that suggests otherwise. Regarding BajiPrabhu, he was one of the many great Maratha warriors that were derived from many diverse marathi-speaking castes and communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Sonali Bendre is also CKP but her caste cannot be mentioned on wiki because she is a living person and has not self identified.
See [3]
quote(from her husband) :Sonali's family is CKP
I understand that a lot of last names in the literate communities of Maharashtra are similar but please be careful before adding names of notables.
Also, please do not add people unless they have a wiki page. Please create a page for them first so they can be added as notables. Adding names of living persons to list of notables is very difficult as it requires self identification. That is why Madhuri Dixit is in the list but Vikram Gokhale and Ashwini Bhave are not.
About Lokhitwadi, there is some confusion. I found different sources that say different things.
Ashwini Bhave is chitpawan - Bhave is a typical Chitpawan name - why does she have to self identify?
Why the need for self-identification? George_W._Bush did not self identify his roots: "Bush has English and some German ancestry, along with more distant Dutch, Welsh, Irish, French, and Scottish roots.". And that article is marked as Good article. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The article on Bush cites extensive _credible_ research done on his ancestry. It's not just about "His last name is Bush so he must have English/German/Dutch/Welsh/Irish/French/Scottish ancestry". And there are many other similar cases where the caste/subcaste of Indian celebrities has not been represented on their Wikipedia for precisely the same reason (Rahul Dravid/Bhimsen Joshi and many others).
@LukeEmily: Special rule for Indians and by extension South Asians, thanks to caste-mongering. The ones you mentioned above are ethnicity. Self-identification doesn't apply in that case, only require good source(s).
Dravid's ethnicity is only mentioned, not his caste which is likely Brahmin. And it applies to BLPs only. Since Bhimsen Joshi is dead, self-identification rule doesn't apply. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
One-sided view of Deshastha - Koknastha Relations
The Wikipedia on Deshastha gives detailed information and citations on the nepotism during the Peshwa era and the social and economic war conducted by the Kokanastha Brahmins on the Deshasthas. It's unfortunate and perhaps intentional that none of this is reproduced in the Chitapavan Brahmin Wikipedia, although there are numerous one-sided statements related to Deshastha-Koknastha relations that seem to be designed to convey the impression that the only major factor in the relationships was that Deshasthas were somehow envious of the rise of their Koknastha Brahmin counterparts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Go through the section "Deshastha Koknastha relations" on the Deshastha Brahmin wiki and you will find many sources, some of which are reproduced below:
Leach & Mukherjee 1970, "Elites in South Asia", pp. 101, 104–5.
Śejavalakara 1946, "Panipat", pp. 24–5.
Seal 1971, "The Emergence of Indian Nationalism", pp. 74, 78.
Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute, "Bulletin", 1947, p. 182.
Śinde 1985, "Dynamics of cultural revolution in Maharashtra", p. 16.
Michael 2007, "Dalits in Modern India", p. 95. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I read the article and some of it is reproduced here. Corruption and so on. Sources also say that Deshasthas are considered genetically close to the Maratha section who in turn are originally Kunbis and they even look like them. Sources also say that Chitpawans consider the Deshasthas intellectually dull. These factors might have caused the jealousy. LukeEmily (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC) - LukeEmily04:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Why not use genetics? It is interesting. From this academic press by Gadgil: "For instance, in western Maharashtra the Rigvedic Deshastha Brahmans are genetically closer to the local Shudra Kunbi castes than to the Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmans (Karve and Malhotra 1968)".[1]LukeEmily (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: Because there were multiple consensus not to add those in ethnic articles of people of the sub-continent. Besides these writers are not geneticists. They probably mean lineage and race when they mean genetics. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
'Gadgil', 'Karve' are Chitapavan Brahmins and nowhere close to being qualified in the field of genetics. The biases of the authors need to be taken into account, including those of many Wikipedia authors over on the Chitpavan Brahmin page here. Not that it matters but for the record, it's obvious on even a cursory look that most of the well-known Deshastha Rigvedi brahmins (contemporary as well as in the past) makes it clear that they look nowhere close to the Shudra Kunbi castes. The much-maligned pseudo-scientific racial superiority theories in Europe in early 20th Century that were pressed into service of colonialism have caused much destruction in the world. We all know this was one of the major factors in how the Maratha Empire was lost by the later Peshwas. The fact that some Wikipedia authors gleefully parade these discredited theories is an absolute outrage. The consensus is there for a good reason, it's not just some rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what exactly you found uncivil but I have altered one word (outrage instead of idiocy). Also, there is absolutely no representation in the article here of nepotism in the later Peshwa period that contributed a great deal to the rise of Chitapavans. I apologize for not assuming good faith here but it definitely seems that the edits in this article have been done purely to make Chitapavans look good at all costs, perhaps due to the author's own heritage. Lastly, with regards to this talk section, to selectively choose and attribute the supposed envy of the Deshasthas to essentially just the self-proclaimed looks and intellect of the Kokanasthas is quite astonishing.
Again, the issue here is that the nepotism during the Peshwa period that contributed to the rise of the Koknastha Brahmins. The para in question is 'Social Status'. "Peshwa offered some important offices to the Konkanastha caste.[104]". "The Konkanastha kin were rewarded with tax relief and grants of land.[235]". "Historians point out nepotism[236][237][238][239][240][241] and corruption during this time.". These exact lines do not have to be reproduced, however, a statement regarding this would convey a more complete picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, a large part of the section called "Deshastha-Konkanastha relations" in the Deshastha Brahmin article can be copy pasted to the chitpavan page.Most of the content has been there for at least ten years with good reliable sources.I contributed partly to both these articles and in the process have learnt more about these, and other communities of Maharashtra. Previously,I may have agreed that the Konkanastha monopolized state offices during Peshwai but then how does one explain the prominent position of Deshastha generals and courtiers such as the Vinchurkars, Sakharam Bokil or the Purandare family in the Peshwa administrations? regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
A bit tangential, however, this is similar to what many Tamil Brahmins are currently trying to sell about themselves (Success due to "Hard work" and "intellect" without references to any other societal factors). Besides more glaring examples, some more indirect references can be found at this recent article about Kamala Harris:
Regarding the Vinchurkars, Purandares and others, their patronage and power might have been carried over from the time of Bajirao or the earlier Maratha Kings, however a bit more unbiased research is needed on this. It does not seem that uniformity of intent can be ascribed to all Chitapavans in positions of power during those times. For example, it is well-known that Raghunathrao was very close to many Deshastha generals like his close friend Bokil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Have made some mild updates to the social status section. In particular it's important to note that relations between the two communities are not the same as they were during the 18th century. Please feel free to revert if not acceptable or add more context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72C8:3E00:514E:5C40:1E66:DA6A (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
As suggested by Jonathansammy, you should have proposed you changes here in the talkpage before adding it to the article. The new paras you added do not have inline citations. I've tagged them. Add sours that support your content explicitly. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Removal of content from Origin section
@Fylindfotberserk:@LukeEmily:@Jonathansammy: I propose removal of A modern scholar on caste and sociology mentions another indication of them having non-Brahmin or non-Dvija origin by quoting a paper on the Veerasaivas debate and a successful argument made by Viroopaksha Pandita during Shastrartha. This was regarding Brahmin purity and was cited in Nanjundaradhya(1969). this from Origin. If you observe the citation keenly it was a discussion about Lingayats and Brahmins. The person Nanjundaradhya is a Lingayat, he have put lot of alligations on almost all Brahmins in that particular quote. Since he is a Lingayat it is obvious that he won't support Brahmins. If we come to real sense then the Lingayat community itself is not pure in origin. It is a mixed community from various castes. How can they talk about purity of Brahmins. These words are coming only due to hatred. Anyways i don't want to get into these. I don't know why it was included here. What is your opinion guys? - MRRaja001(talk)09:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: Why is this necessary. Moreover the quote is not just about Chitpavan, the author had given a big list of Brahmin communities there. Literally he wrote all Brahmin sub-castes in Karnataka. That was a conflict story between Brahmins and Lingayats. Can you please explain why is this required here. - MRRaja001(talk)13:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:, The section is discussing non-Brahmin origin, hence this was one more opinion in addition to the Jewish heritage opinion. I don't know much about Lingayat - are they even brahmins? Wikipedia is not saying that this opinion is correct or wrong - neither is Ramesh Bairy. We can phrase it to show that it is POV due to dispute. It is already attributed to Virupaksha only so readers can draw the conclusion. Also, the text says that he won the argument and that he was a scholar. Yes, he is talking of most Brahmin castes in the area. But Chitpawans in particular are considered a caste that were Sanskritized in the Satavahana era i.e. they were not Brahmins before.( reference - The Changing Indian Civilization: A Perspective on India (Oroon K. Ghosh) page 282 quote: 'The Satavahanas were great Sanskritisers. It is possibly at this time that the new group of Chitpavan Brahmans were formed.) LukeEmily (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@MRRaja001:, I think we can remove the quote as it is unnecessary and has the word 'shudra' in it. citation does not require that a quote be provided. LukeEmily (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk:@Jonathansammy: Okay. No, Lingayats are not Brahmins, they are group of communities formed into one due to Philosopher Bhasavanna. They call themselves Lingibrahmana, since they wear linga in the thread. What is your opinion guys. - MRRaja001(talk)15:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk:@MRRaja001:@LukeEmily:, In my opinion Wikipedia articles on castes is digging up feuds from centuries ago, and giving them fresh lease. Unfortunately, it can not be wished away. As long as proper historical context is given for any content I am OK with adding it to the article or better still in a footnote.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we all agreed that we can have it with proper context. I was only talkin about removing the quote. The problem with most caste articles is that all issues are centuries old. They are generally always conflicts, that is why the caste system is considered detrimental to society. Such opinions are present on other caste pages too and if we cherry-pick articles to remove controversial content, it is very unfair to other castes. Hardly any caste organization these days talks about the varna or another caste(is it not forbidden by Indian law?). The only ones who discuss it are historians, anthropologists and sociologists. We cannot use Raj era sources, however, as long as a modern scholar mentions something that is centuries old, there is no need to ignore them as long as we give context. If a modern scholar considers them important enough to be mentioned in a post-independence source(2013 in this case), we have no reason to ignore. As long as proper context is given I think it is fine as Fylindfotberserk and Jonathansammy say. Since castes were formed centuries ago, and varna disputes happened across centuries, it is very difficult to have historians completely ignore anything before 21st century. For example, Rajput#Origins would be empty if we took away all information about the community prior to the 20th century. Jonathansammy, I completely agree with you that we cannot give old opinions a fresh lease. In other words, we cannot add a century old opinion to show that it is happening today. And if anything negative is added, we need to be very sure to give proper context. My concern with removing WP:RS is that we will be setting bad examples for editors to remove anything they find unpleasant or they personally do not agree with. The bottom line is we need to add proper context and word it carefully. My specialization is Sanskritization and Varna mobility which means anything I write will more or less be controversial. I do not specifically go looking for it. Also, see, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. In fact, even Raj era historians were biased generally and wrote to suit a narrative. That includes both British and Indian historians. Also see Nair#Social_organization and Jat_people#Varna_status as examples where centuries old disputes are added citing modern sources. I will add back with proper context. Please feel free to add more context. In this case, we have to specify the context that it was a dispute with the Brahmins of Karnataka. If wikipedia would have started with the rule that no controversial or offensive opinion should be added, then it would be very difficult to portray all sides to a story. I personally believe that all controversial content is OK as long as it is given proper context and well sourced.LukeEmily (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Added it back with some context about the case. If we want to expand it, IMO, it may be a good idea to add more to footnotes rather than the main text. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
What is the best way of determining the status of a community ?
The best way of determining the status of any community is to go and see their lifestyle in their native place, specially rural areas. Chitpavans are analogous to bhumihars, tyagis, and mohyals in the northern India. 122.162.151.35 (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I went through this line which features in the lead para :
Until the 18th century, the Chitpavans were held in low esteem by the Deshastha, the older established Brahmin community of Maharashtra region who considered the Chitpavans as Parvenus.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
While it is true that the status of Chitpavans in the Marathi society was lower than other Brahmin communities like Deshastha, but none of the citations use the term "parvenu" or "newcomers". So, this part of the line- "who considered the Chitpavans as Parvenus" should be removed. Pinging LukeEmily. Dympies (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dympies:, parvenu is the term used by Ravinder Kumar.
Upon the chitpavans who had come into prominence after the rise of the Peshwas they[deshasthas] looked down with scarcely veiled contempt as the parvenus, barely fit to associate on terms of equality with the noblest of the dvijas. A chitpavan who was invited to a deshasth home was a privileged individual, and even the Peshwa was denied the right to use the ghats reserved for deshasth priests at Nasik on the Godavari
It is quite well known - that is why there are several notable deshastha Brahmins in earlier centuries but hardly any notable chitpavan before the 17th century. For example, there are few Chitpavan notables (if any) during Shivaji's time. Deshastha Brahmins have notable saints even as early as the 13th century.[1]
@LukeEmily:, I too did read this but don't know hiw this particular term got overlooked. Anyways, only one out of seven cited refs say this; so the current version is certainly not the ideal way of citing. Secondly, should we give this much weightage to the parvenu term in the lead? I mean it can be used elsewhere. Lastly, prominence and presence are two different things. Chitpavans were not prominent before 18th century; this doesn't imply they were absent. Dympies (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dympies:, Parvenu is already mentioned in the body and it implies caste mobility. As per Sitush, we should not mention varna dispute in lead hence removed it. It is already mentioned in the body.LukeEmily (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily:, In your last edit, you replaced "nobles of dwijas" with "Brahmins". As the source says "nobles of dwijas", we can't do synthesis based on what we think and hence, it should not be changed. So, please self-revert your last edit. Dympies (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dympies:, Dwijas are twice-borns and noblest of Dwijas implies Brahmins. But dont want to spend time arguing. I cannot revert as it it too closely paraphased with source but will put it in quotes to say noblest of twice-borns.LukeEmily (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Untitled
Ethnicity-While all respect for the Semites (The Jews in this case) that is children of Ibrahim it is not possible to make Aryan Indians as Semites by fraud. These Brahmins are pure Aryans and circumcization and eating beef is blasphemy in the Aryan Hindu tradition. Indian history is too solid to insert an agenda in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:E300:8F00:58DC:8C41:6DD4:58AE (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Explaining my edits
I wish to explain my two latest edits which have been recently reverted by LukeEmily. In my first edit, I removed three citations. These books are easily available online and after thorough reading of the said pages, I came to conclusion that these sources don't say whats written in the line. Luke, if you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to come up with appropriate quotations from these sources.
In my second edit, I removed the content for using Raj era source. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I wasn't saying that Karve or Dorothy are Raj era writers but the person in question is Mr Bhandarkar whose work has been quoted by both the writers. Secondly, I want to apologise for using the term "fringe writer" in edit summary. Actually, due to similar names, I mistook R.G. Bhandarkar for his son, D. R. Bhandarkar who is considered an unreliable scholar. Anyway, R.G. Bhandarkar is also a Raj era scholar and hence too outdated to be used here.
@Dympies:Dr.Bhandarkar is a highly respected linguist and we are not using the Raj era source directly - we are using a modern source - that too an academic source from a professor. If the modern source mentions him, it is not prohibited. Please note that we are using Dorothy M. Figueira not Bhandarkar's source. We cannot consider a 2002 source outdated. Also, Raj era prohibition is generally applied to ethnographers who came up with their own absurd theories on caste. There are no modern opinions on the linguistic analysis of their names hence Figueira mentioned Bhandarkar. Also, please see WP:BRD before deleting existing content.LukeEmily (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: Policy on raj-era sources is very clear. Bhandarkar is outdated and belongs to the time of British era. We can find better sources than this today. One more thing. You said Bhandarkar did linguistic analysis. To be very honest, we hardly know what kind of analysis he did to conclude that Chitpavan names are similar to places in Palestine. Can't say if his analysis was linguistic or geographic! Dympies (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dympies:, you said Policy on raj-era sources is very clear Dorothy M. Figueira is the source not Bhandarkar. She has restated his opinion. The source is 2002. Anyway, the Palestine legend if also discussed by Ken Blady. We mention the opinions on Rajputs by Vaidya although he is called "hopeless" and a Raj era historian only because his opinion is mentioned by a modern scholar. Please see WP:RAJ and WP:HSC. In this case, we cannot call Bhandarkar's analysis as outdated unless there is a modern analysis that contradicts it.LukeEmily (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: I am not sure what you did on a different page but the information here you are adding is clearly fringe and not supported by scholarship of just any period. If we use your logic then we would need to ignore WP:EXCEPTIONAL, but that is not possible. Dympies (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dympies:, what text is fringe or exceptional? The jewish origin? There is nothing exceptional nor fringe about Jewish origin. Many Chitpavans themselves would use it at times to show racial superiority over other Indians. Of course, we cannot discuss race theories. LukeEmily (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: I am not referring to the Jewish origin theory but to the said similarity between Chitpavan names and places in Palestine. What is the base for this viewpoint? Where are the examples of such similarity? Just a passing mention of a Raj era writer's view cannot be enough here. Dympies (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dympies:, we are attributing it to the scholar and Figueira who is modern and not making any judgement on it. We are not saying in wikipedia voice that they are same. It would be incorrect to say, for example "Chitpavan names have similarities with names in Palestine". Hence we simply say these are the opinions of so and so scholars and do not pass any judgement. BTW, Bhandarkar and Palestine has been quoted by numerous writers including Sandhya Gokhale, who wrote a book on Chitpawans(her community). It is not negative nor provocative in any way. I have not added Vaidya on Rajput, but on the Rajput origin Asopa's and Vaidya's theories that are now dismissed have also been mentioned only because a modern scholar mentioned them. What I mean is that there is no blanket ban on Raj era historians being mentioned indirectly if modern scholars mention them. It is just that we don't (generally) quote them directly as some views change over time. What we definitely avoid are meaningless theories by Raj era administrators (xyz caste is between vaishya and kshatriya etc. The British administarors who had no training in caste or sanskrit came up with their own fanciful theories - and that is why Sitush said we should avoid them.) As per WP:HSC, it depends on context in history. Some things in history do not change. It is for modern historians, not editors to decide the validity of an old view. If a modern historian like Figueira mentions it, then there is no reason to avoid it since it is supported indirectly by other views. If there is a modern view that says Bhandarkar was wrong, we should add that too. There is no blanket ban on Raj era scholars unless modern research has proved them wrong. Please also see Bhonsale page. Rajwade(historian) is mentioned. You also removed the other source that mentioned Palestine as well as CHitpavans on the same page. It actually gave the reason why Jews from Palestine would want to come to India. Because Hinduism is a tolerant faith. Jews were made welcome in India. About Bhandarkar's specific names and examples, I can try to find information as I have contacts with scholars affiliated to BORI, but we cannot use the information I receive on wikipedia as it would be WP:OR. Nevertheless, I will try to find some examples only for your information on the talk page. But it is irrelevant as far as the article is concerned as the Figueira source is very reliable, she is a professor and the publication is State University of New York press.LukeEmily (talk)
LukeEmily, Why would a palestinian name make someone Jewish but not Arab? Just asking. To me, going by their appearance, not just Kokanastha, but a number of other Hindu communities such as GSB, CKP, Vaishya Vani etc. from Konkan, and western ghat area in general may have foreign, i.e. Middle eastern or Mediterranean heritage. Given the trade links going back many millennia it is not really surprising. Anyhow, this is WP:OR and i will not take this any further.Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Jonathansammy has a valid point too. This line is the point of contention:
"In addition, Dorothy M. Figueira, a scholar on history of religions has mentioned the opinion of Indian scholar Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar who has shown similarity between names of Chitpavans and the geographical sites in Palestine."[2]
I would like to reiterate my objections to this:
The quoted writer, R.G. Bhandarkar died in 1925. He was among Raj era writers who are generally discouraged for caste related articles per WP:RAJ.
The viewpoint of Bhandarkar that there is a similarity between surnames of Chitpavans and places in Palestine isn't reviewed in the source. It just merely mentions his viewpoint.
The source doesn't even point out when and where Bhandarkar expressed this view. No name of book, article or newspaper has been provided. The source doesn't give any examples of such similarity either. How can it be considered WP:RS for a volatile subject like caste?
Bhandarkar was a religious scholar and social reformer. His expertise on geographic locations of Palestine remains under question. He died in 1925 and we are in 2023 now. Not a single modern scholar provided any examples of such similarity in surnames of Chitpavans and places in Palestine. How is it even possible? The primary claim of Bhandarkar doesn't sound authentic at all.
R.G. Bhandarkar was himself a Gowd Saraswat Brahmin by caste. Maharashtrian Brahmins have a history of Gramanya disputes in which these communities tried to prove themselves superior to each other. It was convenient for other Brahmin communities to call Chitpavans inferior citing their said foreign roots. So, the angle of bias can't be ruled out here.
LukeEmily, you should remember that this is a caste article and you need to be responsible for what you add here. Mere mentions of dubious claims can't be made. Dympies (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
^Ravinder Kumar (28 October 2013). Western India in the Nineteenth Century: A study in the social history of Maharashtra. Taylor & Francis. pp. 41–. ISBN978-1-135-03145-9. Upon the chitpavans who had come into prominence after the rise of the Peshwas they[deshasthas] looked down with scarcely veiled contempt as the parvenus, barely fit to associate on terms of equality with the noblest of the dvijas. A chitpavan who was invited to a deshasth home was a privileged individual, and even the Peshwa was denied the right to use the ghats reserved for deshasth priests at Nasik on the Godavari
LukeEmily, I am referring to your content removal here citing reason that content belonging to other groups is WP:UNDUE. I wish to respond that the content is relevant as it talks about different locations where all the groups settled at Konkan coast and how Chitpavans had to settle for the least fertile regions of all. If mention of other groups are undue, then why does it mention Bene Israel and Kudaldeshkars at present? Please read the full page of citation. The author discusses all these communities in context of Chitpavans. Also, seeing your concern, I had already trimmed the content pertaining to other groups in here and removed names of particular locations of other groups. So, there should be no objection now. Dympies (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Why has this argument been going on for almost 1 year
@LukeEmily @Dympies this arguement although has changed subjects i still can’t understand why you both can’t come to a consensus i would recommend both of you disengage from editing this article for a couple weeks so both of you can (eventually agree) on a diff Everyone is a volunteer here•Cyberwolf•18:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Synthesis in Origin section
LukeEmily, I just noticed the following content in the Origin section:
The scriptures were also referred to in a 20th-century case related to the Veerashaiva rights to perform Rudra-abhishek. Bairy, a modern scholar on caste and sociology quotes a statement made by Viroopaksha Pandita on the Chitpavans non-Brahmin or non-Dvija origin by citing their scriptures. The successful argument was made by him during Shastrartha and was regarding Brahmin purity and was cited in Nanjundaradhya(1969). The opposing side, headed by Mr.Bapat was unable to argue the case – as reported by the Star of Mysore.[1]
The quotation provided in support of this content is as follows :
Most of the Brahmin jatis like the Chitpavana,[..others.]Shenave, Konkani, ...etc., were, not many years ago, part of Sudra communities such as Vyadha, Billa, Beda, etc., and only recently been elevated to brahminness, and this, their own scriptures point to. Most of these groups, even now, eat meat and consume liquor and do not have vedokta [veda ordained] samskara.[...] All these make it clear that they are not pure Brahmins….(Cited in Nanjundaradhya 1969: 32–41)References to this debate and controversy are found in many journals of this period. Nanjundaradhya, M. G. 1969. Pg 337: Veerashaiva Vedadhikara Vijayam [The Victory of the Veerashaivas to Perform Veda-sanctified Rituals]. Mysore: M. Mahadevaiah.
Its clear that the quotation doesn't exactly support the content. LukeEmily, would you please help us rephrase these 2-3 lines in accordance to the source? Whether its due or not, shall be discussed later.
@Dympies:, why do you think source does not support the content? The quote is partial(for the most contentious stuff) but the source is well cited. I think we can rephrase it it does not represent the source - but I am not sure why you think it does not. I can go through the book again if necessary. The origin had direct practical impact on another community and it was used in Indian courts for their cause. Seems very important but we can discuss that later. Please see the graph on WP:CONSENSUS as a side. Bapat is not mentioned in the quote but is mentioned in the source. If you need full quote, it can be added but if my memory serves me right - there is no synthesis. The scholar is also quite modern. Please can you clarify you concern and explain why you think there is synthesis?LukeEmily (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@LukeEmily, you need to bring in the missing quotes. At present, the content and the quotation are on different tracks. For instance, terms like rudrabhishek, non-dwija, Viroopaksha Pandita and Shastrartha are nowhere to be found in the quotation. Dympies (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
LukeEmily, would you care to explain this edit of yours? Please explain how your version is the correct presentation of source. Though its a very lengthy quote, but I see multiple castes being discussed and writer clearly using the term "shudra". There is no good reason to single out Chitpavans just because our article is based on them. Dympies (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cyberwolf, actually this matter isn't one year old. I started this discussion 3-4 days back. Prior to that, we had never discussed the content in question. My concern is clear. The content isn't directly supported by the citation. So, I am asking LukeEmily to fix it. Dympies (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the entire quote taken from pg no 150-152:
In 1924, local Brahmins filed a petition with the Nizam seeking to disallow Lingayats from officiating the offering of abhisheka (ritual bathing) to the sacred Linga of the temple. Their claim was that the Veerasaivas, being Sudras, do not possess the authority to learn the vedas; and that, consequently, any recognition of the right to offer vedokta rudrabhisheka [a ritual that involves bathing the diety with ghee. milk etc., the performance of which is authenticated by the chanting of vedic hymns] would be against dharma. The claim was accepted by local government authorities, who ordered that Lingayats should not perform the ritual. Vexed by what was termed as 'gross violation of tradition-honoured rights', Veerasaivas approached higher authorities seeking intervention. The government decided on a sastrartha to settle the issue, wherein experts and scholars from both the sides would argue their respective cases on the basis of the sastras. Even prior to this mode of resolution, a three-member commission appointed to look into the matter had upheld the Lingayat right to offer abhisheka. It ruled : "Veerasaivas are Lingi Brahmins [meaning that they are Brahmins who wear a Linga on their person, referring to the practice of the Veerasaivas of wearing a Linga on their person], and thus have a right to learn vedas. They are eligible to perform the abhisheka. (Mysore Star, 20 June 1925)." But the Brahmin contention was that while it is true that Veerasaivas do have a tradition of performing abhisheka, they do not use the vedic hymns during the performance; and that therefore they automatically become unsuitable to perform the abhisheka (ibid.). Since it became evident that such claims and counter-claims were irresolvable through the pronouncements of modern mechanisms like commissions, it was decided that a sastrartha be held to decide on the issue. While the Veerasaivas had a ready scholar in Swamy Viroopaksha Pandita, a Jangama who was the Vedabhashya Professor in Indore Province's Sanskrit College, to lead its case, the Brahmins apparently found it difficult to find a scholar to champion their cause. Finally, after much deliberation, a lawyer from Pune, Vishnutheertha Bapat, was hired to argue the Brahmin contention. Both parties began a major campaign soliciting help. The Mysore Star even alleged that two Brahmins from Parali went to Indore and told the Brahmin officials of the Education Department that it was their moral duty to stop Viroopaksha Pandita from taking part in the debate; otherwise they would be indirectly contributing to an activity that would belittle the Brahminness of the Brahmin community (Mysore Star, 8 August 1925). But Viroopaksha Pandita had decided to come even if it were to be at the cost of his job. The government also suggested three names, including those of Mahatma Gandhi and Sarojini Naidu, to act as arbitrator. But apparently the Brahmins did not approve of any of the names (Mysore Star, 8 August 1925), forcing the Nizam to appoint a former chief justice of the Hyderabad High Court as the chief arbitrator. The central issue here was one of proving (or disproving) the rights of the Lingayats over the vedas and consequently their claims over Brahminhood. For about six days the Veerasaiva scholars presented their case. On the seventh day, when the gathering was in place for the counter-argument, it was found that the chief pleader of the Brahmin side had left for Pune leaving a note behind stating his inability to argue the case (or so claimed the Mysore Star). The Brahmins tried hard to get a pandita (scholar) to plead their cause but in vain. The Mysore Star (8 August 1925) alleges that this inability in finding a Brahmin vedic scholar surprised the Government Commissioner. The Mysore Star (ibid.) even claims that the Brahmins finally employed an Aradhya (a high-caste Lingayat) to argue their case. Clearly, the Veerasaivas were keen on establishing that they had competent vedic scholars and were the rightful claimnants of rudrabhisheka. The Brahmins then furnished evidence for 15 days, but finally these were found wanting (ibid.). The Nizam's government, in July 1929, dismissed the case and restored to the Veerasaivas the right to perform abhisheka. The 'Brahmin' that the Veerasaivas constructed in the course of their defence can be found in the following summary of Viroopaksha Pandita's statements during the sastrartha: "It was proved with enough evidence from the sastras that Veerasaivas, who are the Lingibrahmanas, are Devabrah manas and thus it is they who have a greater right to perform the abhisheka and not the ordinary Brahmins who are alingi [without the Linga]. Moreover, such ordinary Brahmins, for they are the products of sankara [illegitimate inter-caste unions], can never attain suddha (pure] brahminhood. That they are not pure Brahmins is borne out not only by many an authority, but also from their ritual practices, the evidence regarding the origin of their founder Gurus and by the fact that their women are, even to this day, prohibited from worshipping the god, reciting the vedas, and receiving initiation. Most of the Brahmin jatis like the Chitpavana, Karhade, ...Shenave, Konkani [all referring to the Saraswat Brahmins], Ramanuja [Srivaishnavas). Madhyandina, Madhva, Saraswat, etc., were, not many years ago, part of Sudra communities such as Vyadha, Billa, Beda, etc., and only recently been elevated to brahminness, and this, their own scriptures point to. Most of these groups, even now, eat meat and consume liquor and do not have vedokta [veda ordained] samskara. Even their own sacred books admit that their founders, like Madhvacharya, were born out of wedlock, to a widow. All these make it clear that they are not pure Brahmins....(Cited in Nanjundaradhya 1969: 32-41)".
@Dympies:, it was just my suggestion that the word "Shudra" is unnecessary here. The offensive quote against Madhvacharya is also unnecessary. Inserting " Chitpavans and some other Brahmin subcastes" is OK. My suggestion is only to avoid Shudra (even in quotes) for Brahmin castes that have been recognized as Brahmins since the 12th century at least for ex. Karhade Brahmins, Madhva Brahmins. We dont have to use Shudra for Chitpavans either. The only message that the text is trying to convey is how the documented origin of Chitpavans and others was used in court to get rights to some worship for some other caste. The person who made the statement was a Sanskrit scholar and professor but he was hired by the Lingayats against the Brahmins. So we need to to take his exact quote with a pinch of salt. The essential message is "The non-Brahmin origin of Chitpavans and others as described in their scriptures was used in a widely discussed issue to give another Hindu community, rights to perform certain Vedic rituals that were being denied to them earlier". I only mean that we should make it as mild as possible.LukeEmily (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@LukeEmily:, after reading the full quote, I conclude that:
This entire Raj era case is about Brahmins vs Lingayats but we have wrongly presented it as Chitpavans vs other Brahmins.
The quotation we are using presently are words of an advocate/pandit rather than author.
The advocate grouped Chitpavans along with numerous other "ordinary Brahmins" and nowhere he gives a direct reference to Chitpavans alone. Also, he questioned the Brahminhood of these communities claiming Lingayats to be real Brahmins. This is not in-line with the modern academic sources.
Along with Chitpavans, the advocate took the names of Karhade, Shenave, Konkani [all referring to the Saraswat Brahmins], Ramanuja (Srivaishnavas), Madhyandina, Madhva, Saraswat, etc. and we have censored the names of other Brahmin communities to single out Chitpavans.
The arguments made in courts may be relevant for courts but not essentially for our platform. Also, we can't omit the names of other Brahmin communities just because we opine that they are established Brahmins. We have to go with sources per WP:NOR. Considering the above points, I don't find any reason for not deleting the entire story as undue. Dympies (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dympies:, After reading the Lingayat page, I actually agree with you on the WP:UNDUE issue on this page. We probably need to move it to Lingayat, where it is relevant. I originally thought that Lingayats or Veeerasaivas were a subcaste of Brahmins that worship Shiva. Looks like I was incorrect after reading the Lingayat page. But to address some of your issues.
It is not presented as Chitpavans vs other Brahmins.
The person Veerupaksha was not a attorney, he was a Sanskrit scholar. Unfortunately, the scholar does not give the names of the scriptures.
We do discuss Raj era or even earlier opinions also as long as the source discussing them is modern.
Lingayats are not Brahmins (again, I admit I was mistaken as I thought they were Brahmins that worship Shiva).
Also, he questioned the Brahminhood of these communities claiming Lingayats to be real Brahmins. This is not in-line with the modern academic sources.. Partially true. But the Brahmin claims of communities like Shenvi(subcaste of Gaud Saraswats of Goa/Konkan) has been consistently challenged by other Brahmins who *still* do not universally accept it. Not only Brahmins but modern academic sources also do not accept their Brahmin claim. Sitush has pointed out that Saraswats and Brahmins are listed seperately in plenty of academic sources - hence I started looking into that issue. Rajapur Saraswat is actually listed as an OBC community (they simply attach Brahmin in the end of their name). But that is better discussed on other pages. I have not found any sources that currently challenge the Brahmin claims of Karhade or Deshastha Brahmins.
caste system is not like Mathematics that does not change. Opinions keep changing. An early 20th century opinion can be listed as long as the time frame is correctly pointed out and supported by reliable sources. It does not need to match modern views. For example, in the 20th century, the Maratha caste claimed to be Kshatriyas although the Brahmins and scholars clearly classified them as Shudras. Now, Maratha caste organizations themselves state they are Shudras.
The main reason I agree with you for WP:UNDUE is because Bairy is discussing Lingayats and (west coast) Saraswats in his book, not Chitpavans. He only mentions Chitpavans and Karhade etc. in passing as part of someone else's quote and does not give his own opinion. The quote is suitable for the Lingayat page, not chitpavan or Karhade etc. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Staple food
I propose that we remove the sentence"Rice is their staple food" from the section on Diet.Majority of Konkanstha have been living away from rice growing areas of Konkan for centuries, and in present times they do not solely survive on rice as their staple cereal.Yes, there is a source and a quote from Singh's book on Communities of India attesting to rice as their staple, but doesn't that book regurgitate content from Raj era censuses? Comments? Thanks and regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Jonathansammy, I agree about removing rice is their staple food. As per Sitush Singh's OUP National series is reliable but the state series is not. BTW, I found a picture on wikicommons about Chitpavan food. LukeEmily (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
