Talk:Namasudra/Archive 1

Article name

I see no reason for this odd double name, that does not seem to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. The various Google Books hits suggest also that "Namasudra" is proper: compare the hits for Namassej and for Namasudra. Seems pretty clear to me, esp. given the scholarly hits in that Google Books search. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I am aware that some of the community have a dislike of it because of the "sudra" portion but certainly from an sourcing point of view it is correct. We can easily accommodate the debate about the name within the article, which is heading towards a total rewrite, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are Inspiring Hindu Apartheid . It would serve your purpose better if you actually revert back to "Chandala".Many many thanks.117.194.197.242 (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The query about the name has been here for months and no-one objected. Now, if you have a sensible reason why this is the incorrect title for the article then please explain it. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The most scholarly discourse is that of Sekhar Bandyopadhyay but could not say anything in regard to the origin of the "Name".The name notionally downgrades an avarna or an outcast( or emotive hatred bomb "chandala/charhal") to a slave .That is the reason behind this community's differing opinion.Do you have any facts about the coining of the term "Namasudra" , simply no. The educated part insisted for "Chandala" ( there could have been a revolution by them inless the British India Govt. would not have circulated an order of suspending the defaulters of use of the new term "Namasudra" .Same thing happened with the Mahishyas as well.Only from the written insignificant it is hard to understand the Indian society.117.194.207.81 (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient texts

Is the Brahambaibarta referred to in fact Brahma Vaivarta Purana, the difference being a transliteration issue? And could someone please elaborate of Sakti Sangama Tantra - I am aware of the Sangam literature of Tamil origins etc but cannot locate this particular term anywhere. Are there other spellings? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

-

• [Namasudra Movements in bengal(1872-1947) : R.K.Biswas :ISBN 81-88006-19-X: 2010: Progressive Book Forum,Kolkata]

The above reference which you removed as duped one , most probably a Ph.D thesis .Sekhar Bandyopadhyay is his research guide .Sakti-sangam-tantra reference is given in that book.Name of all 40 brahmin pundits who signed the vyavastha also given there. Yes Brahambaibarta referred to in fact is Brahma Vaivarta Purana.It is a transliteration issue.117.194.204.143 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The "duplicated" source will have to be left out unless and until someone can confirm the details: the discrepancies are too odd, with having an invalid ISBN, a duplicated title and a seemingly little known publisher. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Complete ISBN of the Above book is  : 978-81-8800619-9 . I hope this can now be be used as the ref of vyabastha. 117.194.201.161 (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The isbn does not appear to be valid - nothing at worldcat or even a general Google search. So you mean this? The end of the title is the same as the one you mention, but the author is different. This is a bit of a nightmare, as is the article, but we'll get there in due course! - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No not that one.The book mentioned is the Ph.D. thesis on the same topics by one of his Scholars.As the guide of the project he must have expressed his overview in the Book you mentioned but this excludes the mythologies.His scholar also differs in opinion in those matters.That is why the name is same.The publisher of the book I have mentioned is from Kolkta , The Progressive Book Forum ,not a famous one , the web addres is :http://in.local.yahoo.com/kolkata/progressive-book-forum-f9a9623709c1c9c97826cfe71c3db170/ . So it is not a nightmare.Thanks.117.194.201.197 (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am now completely confused. The link that you provide takes me to some sort of directory entry but with no reference to a book; you say that the publisher is not well-known (which might cause issues with the reliable sources policy); we appear to be talking about something that is not a book but in fact a PhD thesis, written by someone who shares the same name as another person who has written a book that shares the same title. You provided an ISBN that I cannot seem to find in the obvious places. It is crazy. Can we start over? What point is it in the article which you feel is incorrect? Or what point is it that you wish to see added? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No , no I don,t want to add any point. Same name is due to their work being on same topics and Dr.Amalendu De is Dr. Biswas's guide. I only thought that it could be added as the reference of Vyavastha. It is O.K. 117.194.193.25 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Genetic studies

It is not clear why the Y-Happlotype study results of the community have been deleted. It was done by Kashyap et.al. group under the supervision of National Academy of Science ,America .Only R2 and R1a1 type were detected.Astonishingly the tribal Happlotypes not detected. But I acknowledge these facts can promote caste apartheid in India .There have been some evidence.However I dont know the reason.117.194.202.110 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it was complete gobbledegook. I am not an unintelligent person but it made absolutely no sense at all, which is not the same as saying that it was wrong. For an article such as this we really need to consider the layman and write in terms that such a person has a chance of understanding. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You think it pompous. May be. But some communities are mentioning the data.And in spite of the fact that the % changed from less than 50 to more than 70 when institutes changed.So these so called abused -in -the -name -of -God communities may suffer from the illusion of God's hand of justice.Is there really no relation of race with those complicated procedures? Is it true with $ 50 one would become Dravida ( non-aryans) and with $500 one would become Aryans ? Is it really a Fun ? But how to control the discriminators then ? They are advertising it through wikipedia articles. Just take a journey.117.194.196.185 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, we have something here called other stuff exists. Basically, it means that it doesn't matter what another article says or does not say; all that matters is what this article says. We have 3.6 million articles and that number is rising fast. It is impossible to keep track of them all, to maintain consistency between them all and, yes, to check them all. We rely on something called the assumption of good faith in other contributors and also on consensus to determine what is in there. Obviously, there are other rules also but those will do for my point right now.

I have been working quite a lot on articles involving the castes and communities of India. You are correct that some do show these genetic points but the vast majority do not. Although it had never crossed my mind before, your comment about how DNA testing etc might be being used makes some sense, bearing in mind back in the days of the Raj censuses people used to regularly mis-state their caste for reasons to do with social aspiration. As a non-Indian it is even now difficult for me to comprehend how important all this is but I do realise that varna etc are deep-seated, centuries old concepts that have done much to define the people of the country both for good and for bad.

However, Wikipedia does not exist to fix social, economic, political and/or religious issues. We exist to provide information to the best of our individual ability and for the benefit of all. Advertising and purely promotional content is not allowed and if you come across examples of that then feel free to delete it on the spot or leave a note for me at User_talk:Sitush and I will take a look at it.

Coming back to your original point, if you could find a simple, accessible statement that is neutral, summarises the genetic information and is in a reliable source then I think it would be worth including. However, all the gobbledegook involving hapiotypes etc is, in my opinion, too complex and in many instances too uncertain to show here. As an example of the uncertainty, I recently removed some similar content which, it turns out, was based on a sample of 214 people out of a population which, as you know, is 1.2 billion. It was a research paper and even I could see that it did not meet the standards of statistical significance that a full-blown study would achieve (as I recall, it did not even use chi-square testing etc). Most people would have just left it there and assumed its correctness because, well, you can do all sorts of things with numbers.

Finally, comments such as this one should really be on a user's talk page. I cannot do that now because you do not have a registered name here and your IP address is dynamic. I really would encourage you to register - it is simple, costs nothing and reveals no personal info, but it makes some aspects of using Wikipedia much easier. Your involvement is and will continue to be appreciated. Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this link give wrong information or the data size is too small .Reminding you that for the demand of a group of > 70% frequency the data size is 39 only of a population of 5 million. The link : http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2006/01/11/0507714103.DC1/07714Table_3.pdf  :: This is the crude data of the paper by Sahoo et al ( http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full.pdf ) . Thank you for your comments and explanation. I am not an expert but now on the caste-line Indians are formatting the Genome analysis data .May be someday the money power and the political hegemony would take them to the same age-old destiny of hidden apartheid .The signs are very clear.Hope things dont go that way .117.194.201.65 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The crude data is no good because we are not allowed to interpret. The full article may be of use but I will have to read through it properly, when my brain can cope with the numbers etc! Give me a bit of time and drop a note on my talk page to remind me if it looks as if I have forgotten. Thanks for finding the info. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vyabastha

This is for our awareness.I would like to mention the Name of the Pundits signing the Vyabastha in 1901 .

Mahamahopadhyaya Rashmohan Sarbabhoum ( Nabadwip) And

1)Ramtanu Tarkasiddhanta(Burdwan) 2) Ramdhan Bidyalankar , Gangadhar Bidyaratna(Guptipara) 3) Krishnagopal Tarkaratna ( Shantipur) 4) Karticsankar Tarkalankar , (Halalia) 5) Harendranath Tarkabagish (Dainya) 6) Krishnasundar Nyaratna (Abadpur) 7) Jagatbandhu Srititirtha( Alishakanda) 8) Janakinath Bachaspati , Haranath Nyayabagish ( Binnafair) 9) Gangananda Siromani (Hatail) 10) Brahmanarayan Bidyaratna (Mamudnagar) 11) Baikunthanath Bidyaratna , Nabakishore Bidyabhushan (Deuli) 12)Trailokyanath Sankhyaratna (Mathuranagarbati) 13) Jagachchandra Sritiratna (Pathrail) 14) Shibcharan Srititirtha ( Kustia) 15)Brahmananda Siromani (Shikarpur) 16) Dayamoy Bidyaratna ( Shuvadya) 17) Chandrashekhar Bidyabhushan ( Mathuravarenga) 18) Dinanath Bidyalankar ( Lakhibilas) 19) Brajagopal Kabyaratna( Chonbaria) 20) Hargobinda Bidyaratna (Bakail) 21) Umashankar Kabyatirtha (Kalagaria) 22) Shivnath Chakrabarty( Daulatpur) 23) Bipinchandra Kabyatirtha , Sasi Kumar Siroratna , Mahimchandra Bidyabhushan , Bisweswar Tarkapnchanan , Dwarikanath Bidyaratna , Chandrakanta Tarkabagish (Kotalipara) 24) Sudarshan Kabyatirtha ( Salilgram) 25) Krishnadas Bedantabagish , Sambhuchandra Nyayabhushan (Chandsi) 26) Sashibhushan Sritiratna , Parbatinath Tarkasiddhanta (Narail) 27) Umakanta Nyayaratna (Duliadanga) 28) Janakinath Tarkachuramoni ( Nayakandi) 29) Bishweswar Tarkaratna ( Pansa) 29) Chandrakanta Tarkalankar (Sherpur)

This is the complete list.

Can the list be added ?117.194.196.114 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? What does it add to the reader's understanding of the subject? Where did you get the list from? Are any of the people listed actually notable in their own right? - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush , They are Brahmin pundits of that time ; their acknowledgement socially was very important for any change.You will find that The Kayasthas of North India also mentioned one such document signed by 90 odd Pundits of Venaras of U.P. which for the first time acknowledged them as non-sudra varna.Rashmohan Sarbobhoum most probably was the Chief of the Brahmin pundits in Bengal ; I am not sure.Nothing I do know about the social status of the other pundits mentioned here.Now I do not think this is that much important.Thanks.117.194.195.246 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Sitush,

The person who wrote the above comments is not well aware of the importance of "Vyabastha" of Indian society.This is the only document where an avarna community had been acknowledged as the descendants of a clan of first varna of varnasram.They took long hundred years to ultimately finalise the issue.Even before finalising they once cancelled the demand and further observations and evidences forced them to acknowledge the truth even if the community was in a dire state of economic and educational conditions.117.194.197.150 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pruning

I have cut this article right back. Feel free to rebuild it but if you do then please follow the procedures laid down in WP:Citing sources. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the references are mentioned in the book given in the Talk page( ISBN no. is of a pUblisher from Kolkata .But original documentations are hearsay of the community members : very few documented for some obvious social reason.117.194.203.138 (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Namasudra Movements in bengal(1872-1947)" : R.K.Biswas :ISBN 81-88006-19-X: 2010: Progressive Book Forum,Kolkata.

I am referring this book.It is written in English.It is a thesis.But no literature gives any clue to how the names were originated.The most plausible interpretation is that written in wikipedia.All other interpretations insist demeaning and that is the problem.If you wish the writer of the book may be communicated to send one copy to your address. I personally believe if there is confusion then that name is to be adopted which is free from social bashing( of course , fortunately here we have one option). Thanks. 117.194.202.63 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you don't accept Dr. R.K.Biswas's book as source .This mentions the complete version of the "Vyabastha" .And this was a very strong social acknowledgement and written document which ultimately lead to the name change from "Chandala" to "Nama(s)sudra".In Bengali the (s) is not omitted.This is indirectly acknowledged in Dr. N.R.Ray's Book.117.194.204.102 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

folk-tales

I do not know why the following folk-tales of the community cannot be included as such ::

At the 1911 Census of India, the community noted themselves as either "Namassut" or "Namassej". In Bengali, sut means son, so Namassut means Namas (name of sage) + Sut, i.e. "son or descendant of Namas". The other name has a similar meaning. Sreej in Bengali means "to generate or to originate". So Namas + Sreej, transformed to Namassreej, spelled Namassej, means "generated or originated from Namas".

The name "Namaswej" most probably first appeared on the Internet around the year 2000. The name was a part of a Declared Revelation called Smritokotha. In Bengali language there are two letters designated by the same symbol in Roman Script given by "b" and "wa or w". If there is a "w" then in the pronunciation, the previous letter becomes double. So according to that spelling, "Namaswej" becomes "Namassej". All the interpretations given by different community members were according to the version written in English or Roman script.

Currently many people of this community, and sometimes people of other communities, also designate "Namasudras" (or "Namassejas") simply as "Nama".

History

In the 11th century, Bengal was ruled by Ballal Sen, the third ruler of the Sen dynasty. At that time, the Brahmins were the second-most influential community after the king. Ballal Sen tried to implement a set of rules in favour of the king. A majority of Brahmins were not ready to accept these new rules. Eventually the Brahmins divided into two groups, one favouring the king, while the other group revolted against him. The second group fought a war against the king and lost. Ballal Sen punished them by annulling their right to be considered Brahmins. They were instead assigned the caste of shudra. After the defeat, this group of Brahmins left the realms of Ballal Sen and went to the south-east of Bengal. These people were considered as shudra, the lowest of the four Hindu varnas. But as they had originally been Brahmins, they were referred to with the prefix of 'Namashya' (Ben. = 'respectable').

It was an unaccepted community, forced to live in the swamps of the extreme south of current-day Bangladesh, until the emergence of British India. The socio-religious taboos of the Hindu and Muslim caste system, which had devastated their social life completely, also helped them not to be lost into the vast population, as they did not belong to any community.

With the advent of the family of Harichand Thakur, the process of enlightenment began within the community. The family inspired the Namasudras to establish more than 5,000 schools. From 1905 onwards, Sri Guruchand and the missionary Cecil Silas Mead[1] carried forward the mission, and created the path for exodus for this community. The exodus was politically carried forward by Jogendra Nath Mandal. However, this movement lasted only until 1947, when India gained independence as secular India and Pakistan, a theocratic state. The community was torn in two. In one part, the larger section became the lowborn beggar masses and, as refugees, was being made to settle all over India. In another part, they were lowborn of a different religion, later becoming independent as Bangladesh in 1971. That is when this community both greatly suffered and fought courageously. A very small section of this community managed to get higher education.

The Namasudra community, under the leadership of Mahapran Jogendranath Mondal, first organised the mass movement in undivided India (then under the rule of the British Monarchy) to eliminate the bashing based on the Caste system. As a result of that movement, "The Policy of Reservation" was achieved by different outcast population groups. Nowadays, the groups are going to be accepted as a general policy by most political parties for any kind of backwardness found among any population group. The success of an arrangement in general, however, is doubtful.

Vyavastha

Sakti Sangama Tantra, a Tantrik work of the 16th century, states that the Namasudras are offspring of Namas. Another work, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, refers to Kuder or Debal Brahmins. It is believed[by whom?] that they were the outcast Namasudras. Bengali writer Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay noted the Caucasoid characteristics of Candalas, as mentioned in H. Beverly, Census of Bengal, 1872, p.182. Also, C.J. O'Donell in Census of India, 1891, vol III, p.255-257, found nasal-index and cephalic-index traits of Namasudras more close to the indigenous North Indians. Similar observation was made by Dr. N.R. Ray. On the basis of all these findings and of scriptures and social histories of the Sen Dynasty, a Vyavastha was signed by forty Brahmin Pundits from across Bengal in 1901. The document declared that the Namasudras are not Candalas but rather are descendants of true Brahman sages, such as Namasa (from the Kasyapa lineage), and should not be categorised as (nama) sudras either.

Myth of origin

Dr. N. R. Ray first expressed his doubt in respect of the position of the Namasudras in social hierarchy. He told of the folklore of origin and of degradation that could possibly resolve the anomaly. Thus goes the tale. Brahman, the Parameshwar, is the Creator God. He begot Marichi. Marichi begot Kashyapa. Kashyapa begot Namas (also known as Lomasa Muni[2]). Namas was married to Sulochana, the daughter of Ruchi, the "spiritual son of Brahman". They begot Kirtiban and Uruban (most probably instead of Kirtyuruban, they together were wrongly mentioned as Ariban in Ssejsantokotha or it may be that in old handwritten manuscript it became simply "uruban → ariban" and the first part "Kirtyu" was omitted due to mistake or erasing due to being preserved in bad condition). They were twin brothers. Santo or Sage- Namas, went into a deep forest for meditation and did not return in 14 years. So Kirtiban and Uruban were "self-dikshatized" or "self-consecrated". They were married to the two daughters of the King Simanta. They begot eight children, and they were married to the children of Asamonjo, the eldest son of the Suryavanshi King Sagar. They are the forefathers of the Namasudra community.

It may be proposed that the name of the community should be "Brahman Kshatriya" because the father was Brahmin by birth, and the mother was a daughter of a king. But this argument is not applicable unless believing in varna or jatived or the caste-system. In monotheism and sannyasbadi Hinduism, as Sri Harichand told them, there is only gotra and the community name (not related to his by-birth profession of caste-based Hinduism). Namassejas née namasudras followed this in the beginning. So the question of being sudra or Brahman-Kshatriya or any varna name should have not arisen. However there is a strong myth that the community may contain a degraded Kshatriya clan.

This is the folklore of the origin of the Namasudras: the story they believe, i.e., the History of The People. Sri Harichand told them only to meditate the Parameshwar and take Him to be the origin of all that exists. He told also that they will be Self-Consecrated. However, his followers could not follow his path strictly (they got mixed up with Vaishnavism and with the path of the Bauls). His "twelve commandments" also show signs of later manipulations by his followers. Yet, his family became iconic. Also, recently from some corner of the community, a discourse, Smritokotha, is declared to be published which the editor foretold to be a complete guide to community-life.

There is no way of returning to the past.

But it is really astonishing why the acknowledgement was given and it being the only one. But the fact is In 1931 Census You will find That Brahmin population in U.P. , Bihar was 10% and it should have been so in Bengal also as it is the Same Ganga River Valley Extension : The Most sounding proof of this expectation is the percentage in Orissa (even if it is adjacent to the river valley and to some extent surrounded by forest and isolated tribal population) which was also 10% at that time.

But astonishingly in Bengal it was Just Half , 5%.14.98.212.146 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is mostly a copy/paste of content that was previously removed for the reasons then given. Almost certainly, it was removed by me. You are welcome to try (yet again) to challenge those reasons but the best way to do it would be to select one statement or paragraph at a time & provide a diff that shows the original removal, since that will also give the reason why it happened. Sorry, but I am not hunting through the history for this article and the various pov forks in order to find them, especially given that you must know where they are because you have just copy/pasted the info here.

Before you do any of this, please can you confirm that you have read the policies and guidelines to which you have previously been referred, eg: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:POV. You may also like to take a look at WP:IDHT and recall that there are sanctions in place for Indian caste/community articles. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Namasudra → NAMAḤŚŨDRA –. The original name is compounded of two Sanskrit words namely "NAMAḤ" and "ŚŨDRA" as is mentioned in History of Bengal ( Ancient Period ) by N.R.Ray translated by John Wood , Orient Longmann ,1993 , although on internet the word is commonly written as "NAMASUDRA" .But this has resulted in the interpretation as NAM-A ( by name ) sudra and for this should be written as proposed.Arniban Ssej 14:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Plain wrong, both in content and in capitalisation. There is consensus at WT:INB that we use IPA for pronunciation and avoid use of any form of script in the lead sections. Furthermore, read most English language sources of note and you will find the name spelled as Namasudra, as it is here. Therefore, WP:COMMONNAME applies. I am afraid that your proposal has the appearance of yet another attempt by you to whitewash some aspects of the community's past. On the other hand, if you wanted to quote Ray/Wood as a source for etymology then there may be no harm in doing so - is he reliable? - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As per linguistics the change would be justified.The name before this was "chandal" which till today is the original name , although this may also be true that this is a venomous abusing term.I cannot remember but most probably on some discourse I have read the interpretation of " By Name Sudra" based completely on transliteration in English as "Namasudra" .However wikipedia policy should be maintained. But definitely this is not a "Caste" , a community or Tribe.So another notice may not be applicable for this group.117.194.198.99 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The point about Chandal has been discussed time and again and formed a part of the previous recent attempts to change the title of this article. Since you appear to agree that we need to maintain Wikipedia policy, you may wish to rescind your requested move. I am afraid that I do not understand your last sentence but, taking a stab in the dark, if you are referring to the {{Castewarningtalk}} template that now exists at the head of this talk page then, yes, it is justified. Namasudra are a social grouping in India, regardless of the semantics of caste/tribe etc. They even have their own advocacy group established with the aim of social upliftment in a similar manner to, say, the Nair Service Society. An article relating to this group was recently incorporated into this one. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose MOS:CAPS -- 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT if wikopedia policy supports the move since one symbol present in the name can't be transliterated in English and for that J.Wood has deliberately used the spelling as "NAMAḤŚŨDRA" and a special consideration may be given for such words , specially those used for Naming.117.194.198.28 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - before anyone goes any further, please read WP:SOCK. IPs who !vote here may be suspected of sockpuppetry, and certainly there are grounds for suspicion with the two supporters who have done so far. The piling on may also cause who ever closes this discussion to query whether IPs are also socks of the person who originated the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Move is Not Justified" .The transliteration according to phonetics may be mentioned in the main article ( like "The name according to the phonetics should be written as 'NAMAḤŚŨDRA'[ref]which though astonishing means namasya( respectable) sudra or Namasa( clan name after sage Kasyap lineage ) (but) sudra.117.194.203.81 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.203.81 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 117.194.203.81 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suggested title is in capitals, which is unacceptable. We don't have the article about Barack Obama at BARACK OBAMA either. If the suggested title would be written in normal case I would reconsider. JIP | Talk 21:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT. Mr. JIP you suggest the name as Namaḥśũdra .If that may be done ( not violating wikpedia conventions) , becomes the best.It will remove all confusions regarding interpretations like Nama ( by name ) sudra.J.Wood have deliberately followed the phonetics in his transliteration.117.194.200.187 (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• NO Reason OPPOSING IT .There is no reason opposing the transliteration except the thing that it has become a usage ( a wrong one?) i.e. WP:COMMONNAME .Since the compounding words are from Sanskrit and the transliteration is according to Wikipedia Sanskrit IPA , so why and on what basis are we actually opposing the move?117.194.195.155 (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The only reason I'm opposing the move is because the proposed new title is in all capitals. If it were Namaḥśũdra as suggested by the anonymous IP user above I would perhaps be willing to support the move. I'm all in favour of spelling the names of Wikipedia articles correctly, and if "Namaḥśũdra" is the correct transliteration, then that's what it should be. This is because of the same reason I absolutely insist that the names of Wikipedia articles in non-English European languages have the diacritics spelled correctly, even though they might be linked to through redirects without the diacritics. JIP | Talk 19:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
    • There is no "correct" transliteration. Indic scripts can be transliterated in numerous ways. Honestly, I've had experience regarding this and related articles & I am pretty sure that, yet again, the anons are all the same person. That person has had a real problem with the Namasudra term because historically it had some less than glorious interpretations. It is, nonetheless, the common name. At the very least, he proposer needs to find a lot more than one source if they want this issue to progress in their favour. Registering as a user would probably also be advantageous because, sorry, I do not have a lot of AGF in situations such as this. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ref to NO Reason OPPOSING IT , I have clearly mentioned that "Namasudra" is the usage , so there is no question of one or more source.It is not Indic only any script can be transliterated in many ways unless some pre-determined conventions restrict them . Is there any such convention here ? Every person should have problem with less than glorious interpretations , here the problem is not that.That problem is related to the bashing term "sudra". These terms are added to introduce an emotive meaning which would invoke some kind of hatred or aversion. These are avoidable but that is a different topics .Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. Transliteration has nothing to do with these or any one's personal problem .Do you know there are large number of persons of this community those who think that it is great that they are considered as "sudra" and highlighting it in blogs and facebooks etc. Why Calcutta has become Kolkata  ? But in Govt. documents also it is "Namasudra". So in the main body the correct transliteration may be given as " The correct transliteration is "Namaḥśũdra" although even in all Govt. documents it is spelt as 'namasudra' ". No simplistic interpretation please.Even if I have a personal problem that does not become a strong reasoning for not to mention the correct transliteration somewhere in the article.thanks.117.194.194.82 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for confirming that you are IP hopping & that you are trying to censor the sudra word. Indeed, there is no reason why the transliteration cannot be shown in the article if it is used by several reliable sources. But that is not what your proposal is here. Your proposal is that the article name be changed. Now, if you want to discuss inclusion in the body then the sensible thing to do would be to indicate which of the above IP comments are yours & if it happens that the vast majority are such then seek an early closure of this discussion and start another one related to inclusion in the body. Would you be prepared to do that? - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Dont want article title to have characters that are not present on keyboard. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

COMMENTS unfortunately we have such articles : it should be a policy matter.Arniban Ssej 15:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talk • contribs)

Comment: With this logic, we should move about a third of the articles about people and cities in continental and northern Europe to names without diacritics, just so that it would be easier for native English speakers to type them. JIP | Talk 05:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alphabets like Å, Ø and Æ are available on European keyboards. So having them in the title is not inconvenient for them. But no keyboards have these Ḥ, Ś and Ũ thus making it inconvenient for all. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"COMMENT" Unfortunately we can access those ( e.g.Shrodinger) from our keyboards also.Google or any search engine gives enough options and there is no such problem.So that is a vague reasoning. We must accept the policy matter only.Arnibanssej.Arniban Ssej 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talk • contribs)

... and the policy is WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Namassej

The new name of the community .The tribe was wrongly christened as a "sudra" community although they lived outside four tire Varna system .The Christening as "NAMASUDRA" was a conspiracy for formal Enslavement.The community is now organising under this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.206.93 (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Vyavastha

It clearly signifies that the Community was not enslaved and was never a SUDRA, that means the name "Namasudra" is not justified .Actually this was an warrior tribe and was never accepted varna vyavastha neither was the communtiy was enslaved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.201.241 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A link

Arniban Ssej 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 117.194.203.222 (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.cdp.20m.com/indigenousppl.html --Bhadani 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add new threads to the end of talk pages, not the top. The entire naming issue has been discussed to death both here and at related articles. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and if you still think that you have a point then provide some reliable sources. Please note that we are bound to show all points of view provided in reliable sources, not just the one that you prefer. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonial era sources

Colonial era sources are generally not considered to be reliable. They were written mostly by gentlemen-scholars who happened to develop an interest in spheres such as ethnography or history, such as H. H. Risley and James Tod. They have routinely been rejected as reliable across hundreds of Wikipedia articles relating to castes etc and are rarely used (with the possible exception of E. A. Gait) in a positive manner by modern academics.

In the case of historical studies, the writers generally took an uncritical approach, accepting as fact the statements given to them usually via Brahmin intermediaries. Similar intermediaries and the effects of, for example, the now-discredited notion of scientific racism render the ethnographical works useless also. That these sources quite often cannot even agree with each other on basic fact is indicative of the haphazard and trusting methods employed. This is indeed evident in a paragraph recently removed from this article, where Risley and the author(s) of the Imperial Gazetteer disagree regarding the number of Namasudra gotras. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Documenta /authentication of mythology

A funny attitude we find here , people demanding authentication of mythologies.Is that at all possible? But yet does it not a part of a community identity?14.96.67.230 (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mythologies documented by reliable sources are ok. Anything else is original research. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Namasudra is Avarna :: Shaw is not a reliable writer :: Harijan terminology is no longer used and was never acceptable

Namasudras is definitely a misnomer : They are Avarnas not Sudra . They should not be categorised with the Mahishyas . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.202.236 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the article content will be based on the opinions as mentioned in reliable sources, and not based on what is acceptable to you or the community. Neutrality will be maintained and WP:NPOV will be strictly followed. It doesn't make any sense whether any terminology is acceptable to you or not; its all about whether the content is reliably sourced or not. Anyway, since you have expressed concern about the reliability of Shaw, I will check other sources as well. The article needs more content relevant to the Namasudras, especially the 'History' section. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to the source The Institutes of Hindu Law: Or, The Ordinances of Manu you have added in order to justify the statement you have introduced in the lead section neither mentions a page number or a url, and is not verifiable. Moreover there is a long-standing consensus that such old texts (1796 in this case) are not acceptable and we need modern texts (post Raj era) as reference. We are here to create or improve articles as per our policies; please avoid synthesis. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But The Chandala Terminology and Ctegorisation is after Manu . 117.194.214.202 (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You have to follow our policies. If you say "The Chandala Terminology and Ctegorisation is after Manu" and introduce some statements which are clearly unsourced, your statements will be reverted. You have to follow WP:RS & WP:V for reliable sources; also read WP:NPOV. I have already explained this, and your latest edits amount to vandalism. Stop this, and discuss here for constructive improvements. Ekdalian (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have enough education to go through "Manusmriti" English version , just read it.Their are many reliable Publications. do not get biased. Every Hindu (Varna) knows it.I am really astinished at your attitude , it is like denying Holocaust and stating like all are gossipings. I feel horrible.117.194.195.62 (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you accept Sekhar bandyopadhyay and Joya Chatterjee ? Those are also thesis and published as books . None of them has any first hand experience of the community . The sources I have used is used as reliable sources in other Wikipedia Articles.Both the sources are published books . How do you reject them? You are using some power and distorting the real facts . You have mentioned Joya Chatterjee's Statement and the Basis of that Statement you reject simply for that Joya Chatterjee has not mentioned it and for that another research scholar has mentioned it . Joya Chatterjee's book is also a thesis , and published .How do you dictinguish them as Reliable and not reliable ? I have read wikipedia pplicies , those are not violated in nay way. I have mentioned only the document on the basis of which the community demanded the status .What is your problem ? Is it that U r a Bengali?117.194.195.62 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Can you be clear about what makes you A.K.Biswas 's book as non reliable ? When other wikipedia articles accept it , then why you are so and even trying to impose it at any cost and even with a threat to me . 06:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.195.62 (talk)

Sitush has already explained you all through this talk page about our policies related to sourcing, and I have explained you during this conversation (see above). Manusmriti is not acceptable; we accept modern texts by reliable authors only, not Puranas or Manusmriti. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay and Joya Chatterjee are reliable authors and the url or page number provided here clearly verifies what has been mentioned in this article. While, the source url you have mentioned (Ratan Kumar Biswas) is just a 12 page thesis paper (Jadavpur University), which is neither considered a reliable text nor does it endorse your statement. Similarly, the reference by A.K.Biswas (no page number provided) neither mentions your statement (moreover, snippet views are not acceptable), nor does the statement applicable in the lead section. You are just engaging yourself in edit war without arriving at a consensus through discussions, as per norms. You are violating our policies for years, as evident from this entire talk page and the article revision history, and pushing your unsourced POV. This is an encyclopedia, and not your community website where you will promote your community; WP:NPOV will be strictly followed. Ekdalian (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The basic structure and all the terminologies of caste/Varna system is based on Puranas/Manusmriti etc in Indian Civilisation and you are terming these as not reliable. How do you cancell A.K.Biswas and R.K Biswas , and just say their theses are not reliable , simply for that they live in India and not in Newzeland or U.K. Can you submitt any evidence , that those scholars are not reliable. You cannot prefer one over another.Wikipedia never declares any policy like that . The thesis of R.K.Biswas has been published as a book . You live in Kolkata . Just colect a copy and read it. There cannot be any policy regarding its genuineness being based on from which country , it is being published .I need further clarification .Are you dividing you reliability on the basis of first world publications and third world publications? 117.194.195.62 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2015

I feel some personal whim is being used. I have gone through the reliable source criteria. What you are saying is not there.You are speaking like anyhting published by someone living in India is not reliable and then accusing theperson using them as vandalising and promoting . This is ridiculous.Is not that a selective mentioning by you is also a promoting attitude ? You accept mentioning a Community as "Chandal" for that Joya Chatterjee has written it in her book , wwwhere as The Founder of those Classifications not acceptable as reliable , and also any document counter to that is also unreliable !!Will it not ultimately be reduced to a hegemony then to burry the facts and lies being promoted ? 117.194.195.62 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You have not opposed my opinions and reasonings , you are just trying to promote that those mentioned by you are reliable. What you are trying to say is that only Shekhar Bandyopadhay and Joya Chatterjee are reliable . Every book is the author's slection to prove his points. They have a thesis and they present accordingly. I have mentioned only facts. You have written Vyavastha is not a reliable source .It is a fact that a Vyavastha was written . Do you mean to say that such a Vyavastha was never written? You have raised misleading question. I have no thesis like Shekhar or Joya . There is no need either . Facts have only been mentioned .Be assured that does not make a "Chandal' a Brahmin. What makes you so worried about ? You live in Kolkata.Be assured nothing is going to change.Even if the selective mentioning hides the facts it will remain , and those cannot be cleansed .117.194.195.62 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding one of your comments on R.K.Biswas's thesis , I am to mention that it is not the complete thesis , it is synopsis : but I have mentioned the Published Book , Year , Publishers and ISBN number , Jadavpur University is a reknowned University in India . You can verify if you wish , regarding thereliabilty . I think you may have a chance to meet the Professor also regarding the matter , whether a Vyavstha was at all written or not.I understand you are pre-occupied with a idea of me mentioning not a fact , andd trying to prove something with a false document . I think there is no need of it . 117.194.195.62 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The burden is on you, not me. Read WP:BURDEN. Ekdalian (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything I have written is reliable and mentioned clearly.There is no BURDEN .117.194.211.114 (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The dispute raised as non -reliable is for the sake of raising disputes only .Only some facts I have mentioned , and those are well documented and clearly mentioned and completely in accordance with wikipwdia criteria.The verifiability is beyond doubt.117.194.211.114 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Like racist and cleanser you are using something .You have lost all your logic so you need the power .Otherwise you would have left it for opinion from others .You have not nullified any one of my logic. You are raisng some out of context reasons.Your logic of "Modern Text" , a funny excuse.A clause without any meaning . Same rferences are reliable in another Wikipedia Article .What a holy racist policy .And still as an administrator you wil be questioning the integrity . That is where Human being becomes justified to let Fall the 2nd Atom Bomb . What you do , and Sitush , the ------ mind did is cleansing ,not Editing.117.194.204.73 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and such edits (amounting to vandalism), and definitely not as a sock. Everything has been explained to you all through this talk page, but you fail to understand or rather fail to accept the way Wikipedia works. Don't forget, this is an encyclopedia. Anyway, we are all neutral people, and Sitush is a very senior editor known for his contributions to India related topics and an expert in caste articles as well. Since what you did to the related article Chandala is called vandalism here, that's why I have reverted it to the last version by a reliable editor like Sitush. Don't worry, we will go through that article in details and devote some time as early as possible, and any issue (unsourced or unreliably sourced) will be resolved. You seem to be obsessed with these articles especially 'Namasudra', and taking this personally. In case you have any constructive suggestions, please mention in the talk pages. Ekdalian (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just observe what you have written in this discussion section " Since what you did to the related article Chandala is called vandalism here, that's why I have reverted it to the last version by a reliable editor like Sitush." And this contains the reference of Prof A.K.Biswas . I quoted from it in Namsudra article . You just deleted . You could have done that after verification of "unsourced or unreliably sourced". But you are so hypocritical.I know I am justified. Sitush did the same thing .I know what I have accused is in play here. O.K.carry on .Like anti-semitic , funny.117.194.203.136 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Let me tell you that there's no reason to think that we are trying to victimize you or reject your POV (point of view) without any reason. The major problem with you is the fact that since you are confined to 'Namasudra' & very few other related articles, therefore you have no idea about what is acceptable and what is not. If you look at other caste articles or the respective talk pages, you will find that different sources, statements & POVs have been rejected on valid grounds (though the one pushing for it usually fails to understand); also you will understand more about consensus, and how Wikipedia works. Your interpretation of verifiability is completely wrong and even you failed to understand the policy, WP:BURDEN. Coming back to this article, let me summarize what is acceptable and what is not:

1. The source Namasudra Movements in Bengal(1872-1947) by R.K.Biswas has been deemed to be unreliable. Sitush has expressed concerns and rejected your source and there's a discussion regarding the same above on this talk page. Similarly, I did not accept this text as reliable, and everything including the publisher and the url you had provided justify our action. Therefore consensus is that this source is not acceptable. Now, under such circumstances, if the Vyabastha that you mention is an important issue, why can't you cite any other source/text (a reliable one) which mentions the Vyabastha? Since caste articles are sensitive, you will find in other such articles that when we have an issue with a source, the editor provides more sources/texts which support the view. Why can't you do so and come up with such source(s) here on this talk page?

2. The statement attributed to the reference by A.K.Biswas has not been accepted not because the source is unreliable. The primary reasons are verifiability and the unsuitability of the statement in the lead section or elsewhere in the article. Therefore, even if the source can be verified later, such a statement related to the term Chandal is beyond the scope of this article, and is unencyclopedic as well.

3. You need to understand that we work on the basis of consensus; and there are some basic and long-standing consensus among senior editors on what is acceptable and what is not. Now, you cannot question that why is it so or this is illogical and all; because these have been arrived at after discussions and unanimity. One such consensus is we do not accept old texts like Puranas and Manusmriti. And for caste articles, even Raj era (British Raj) sources are usually not acceptable. That's the reason I had mentioned that "modern texts" are acceptable which means post Raj era sources should ideally be cited here. Anyway, any relevant statement from ancient texts like Puranas or Manusmriti mentioned and interpreted by a reliable author in the right context may be considered.

Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Enough is enough:: 117.194.195.74 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

VYAVASTHA -- The Complete Document

Irrelevant because the source is unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
VYAVASTHA 1901 The caste called Namasudra is Brahmin by origin being descended from great Brahmin Kashyapa and not “Chandal”. 1.বিপ্রতুল্যশৌচভাগিত্বাত্ মনূক্তচন্ডালত্বপ্রতিপাদক্রুরকর্ম্মাদিরাহিত্যাত্ তথা কেষাঞ্চিত্ পক্কান্নাদিনা শ্রাদ্ধকর্ত্তৃত্বদর্শনাচ্চ | তস্মাত্ সর্ব্বেষাঙ নমঃশূদ্রানাঙ কাশ্যপ গোত্রত্বাত্ কশ্যপবঙশজ ঋষিপুত্রোঅয়ঙ নমঃশূদ্র ইতি| এবমেতেষাঙ বিলোমজাতত্বাভাবাদপি ন অন্তজত্বম্ | The substance of the above is that the Namsudras are descended from Brahmin Kashyapa .They observe (uncleanliness) like the Brahmins.They do none of those cruel actions appropriated to the “Chandals” by the Hindu Law giver Manu.They use bioled rice for Pindas .All the Namasudras have the same Kashyap gotra .Thus having nosigns of low birth they do not belong to any low class . 2. ব্রাহ্মণী ঋষি বীর্যেন ঋতোঃ প্রথম বাসরে | ইদঙগর্ভে জাত পুত্র বনবাস বিধীয়তে|| তত্কার্য্য বিপ্রতুল্যঙ ব্রহ্মণ্যামৃষি দম্পতী| পিতৃ মাতৃ বিপ্র যস্য ন ঘৃণ্য জগতীতলে || ইতি মনুঃ| The son begotten on the first day after menses in the womb of a Brahmin woman by her Brahmin husband is doomed by laws to forest but he is entitled to conform in his customs and actions to the Brahmins.And a man whose parents are Brahmins is never degraded in the world ( quoted from Manu) . 3. উক্তঙ পরাশর পদ্ধতৌ - "সর্ব্বে শঙ্করজাঃ শূদ্রা অন্ত্যজাশ্চ বিলোমজা ইতি|" It is written in the Parashar Paddhaty -- “Those only are Sudras and thus belong to low class , who are of mixed birth .” 4. অস্মদ্দেশনিবাসিনাঙ নমঃশূদ্রখ্যাতিভাগিনাঙ ন চন্ডালজাতিত্বঙ|মন্বাদ্যুক্তলক্ষণানা ক্রান্তত্বাত্ এতত্কাল সম্ভাব্য চাণ্ডালবিরুদ্ধলক্ষণধর্ম্মক্রিয়াচরিতত্বাচ্চ|চাণ্ডাললক্ষণস্য -- চণ্ডালশ্বপচানান্তু বহির্গ্রামাত্ প্রতিশ্রয়ঃ‌‌‌‌| অপপাত্রাশ্চ কর্ত্তব্যা ধনমেষাঙ শ্বগর্দভঃ| বাসাঙসি মৃতচেলানি ভিন্নভাণ্ডেষু ভোজনম | কার্যায়সমলঙ্কারঃ পরিব্রজ্যা চ নিত্যশঃ| ন তৈঃ সময়মন্বিচ্ছেত্ পুরুষো ধর্ম্নমাচরন্| ব্যবহারোমিখস্তেষাঙ বিবাহঃ সদৃশৈঃ সহ| অন্নমেষাঙ পরাধীনঙ দেয়ঙ স্যাদ্ভিন্নভাজনে| রাত্রৌ ন বিচরেয়ুস্তে গ্রামেষু নগরেষুচ| দিবা চরেষুঃ কার্য্যার্থঙ চিহ্নিতা রাজশাসনৈঃ| অবান্ধবঙ শবঞ্চৈব নির্হরেয়ুরিতি স্থিতিঃ|| বধ্যাঙ্শ্চ হন্যুঃ সততঙ যথাশাস্ত্রঙ নৃপাজ্ঞয়া| বধ্যবাসাঙসি গৃহ্নীয়ুঃ শয্যাশ্চাভরণানিচ| ইতি মনুসঙহিতোদ্ধৃতবচনানি| The caste designated by the title Namasudra has none of the the signs of the Chandals as described by The Great Hindu Law giver Manu . According to him the main Characteristics of the Chandals are as follows :: a)The Chandals live outside the villages . b)Their wealth consists in dogs and asses. c)They put on rags gathered from dead bodies. d)They live vagrant lives. e)Their principal occupation is to burn the dead . f)They hang criminals by the command of the king . g)They are not touchables. As is easily seen in section (1) we can claim Brahminical origin being descended from the great Brahmin Kashyapa . As shown in section (2) we have firm claim to all Brahminical rites and observances and we have been practically observing them.According to section (3) we can never be identified with the Sudras . Our title “Namasudra” is only a current denotation. Section (4) shows clearly that we are not “Chandals” for none of the characteristics that are appropriated to the Chandals by Manu in his Manusanghita is to be found in us .We are quite a seperate and far superior class having originated from the Brahmins. The name of the Pundits who supported the above Vyavastha are  ::: Mahamohopadhyay Rasshmohan Sarbobhoum and 1) Ramtanu Tarkasiddhanta –Burdwan 2) Ramdhan Bidyalankar – Guptipara 3) Gangadhar Bidyaratna –Guptipara 4)Krishnagopal Tarkaratna – Shantipur 5)Karticksankar Tarkalankar –Halalia 6)Harendranarain Tarkabagish -Dainyathe effect 7)Krishnasundar Nyaratna -Abadpur 8)Jagatbandhu Smrititirtha –Alishakanda 9)Janakinath Bachaspati –Binnafair 10)Ganganando Shiromani -Hatail 11)Haranath Nyayabagish –Binnafair 12) Brahmanarayan Bidyaratna -Mamudnagar 13)Baikunthanath Bidyaratna -Deuli 14)Trailokyanath Sankhyaratna – Mathuranagarbati 15)Jagachchandra Smritiratna –Pathrail 16)Shibacharan Smrititirtha – Kustia 17)Brahmananda Shiromani – Shikarpur 18)Nabakishore Bidyabhushan—Deuli 19)Dayamoy Bidyaratna – Shuvadya 20)Chandrashekhar Vidyabhushan –Mathurabarenga. 21)Dinanath Bidyalankar – Lakhibilas 22)Brajogopal Kabyaraatna –Chonberia 23)Hargobinda Bidyaratna -Bakail 24)Umashankar Kabyatirtha –Kalagaria 25)Shivnath Chakrobarty –Daulatpur 26)Bipinchandra Kabyatirtha –Kotalipara 27)Sudrshan Kabyatirtha –Salilgram 28)Krisnadas Bedantavagish –Chandsi 29)Sashi Bhushan Smritiratna –Narail 30)Parbatinath Tarkasiddhanta –Narail 31)Sasi Kumar Siroratna—Kotalipara 32)Mahimchandra Bidyabhushan –Kotalipara 33)Bisweswar Tarkapanchanan –Kotalipara 34)Dwarikanath Bidyaratna –Kotalipara 35)Chandrakanta Tarkavagish –Kotalipara 36)Sambhuchandra Nyayabhushan – Chandsi 37)Umakanta Nyaratna – Duliadanga 38)Janakinath Tarkachurhamani – Nayakandi 39)Bishweshwar Tarkaratna ---- Pansa 40)Chandrakanta Tarkalnkar –Sherpur and the meaning of "Chandala" Chandala candala (Sanskrit) A member of a mixed caste, or people without caste, an outcaste. Especially in ancient India the term applied to one of the lowest and most despised status (sometimes described as being born from a Sudra father and a Brahmin mother). Commonly applied now to anyone of mixed caste "but in antiquity it was applied to a certain class of men, who, having forfeited their right to any of the four castes -- Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras -- were expelled from cities and sought refuge in the forests. Then they became 'bricklayers,' until finally expelled they left the country, some 4,000 years before our era. Some see in them the ancestors of the earlier Jews, whose tribes began with A-brahm or 'No-Brahm.' To this day it is the class most despised by the Brahmins in India" (TG 323-4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.201.199 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Who cares? We do not use sources from 1901 etc because they are not reliable. Please drop this because you're just cluttering up this talk page with irrelevancies. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that .The year is not important.Joya has not mentioned "The cause"behind the demand of Brahmin status by the "Chandala" but she has mentioned the effect . And since Joya Chatterjee did not mention the fact, it became not-reliable.The community actually demanding "not-included in Caste-based-Hinduism" status.I am well aware of the present situation.I mentioned for different reasons.My point is clear.117.194.195.148 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Lambert Academic Publishing (LAP)

Lambert Academic Publishing is pretty much a vanity press and do not check what they publish. Please do not keep introducing books published by them into this article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Outcaste and Namo-brahmin

Both my points are justified . No text in the references given mentions the community as "outcaste". Regarding Brahmin status , any community not belonging to brahmin always mentioned their link , like Rudraja Brahmin ( see wikipedia bengali brahmin page ) or Yugi Brahmin ( Debnath ) , so when Namshudras nee Namo( see Risely ref given ) demanded Brahmin status they demanded the name attached to their nick name 'namo' thus , Namo-brahmin. Jaya Chatterjee has not mentioned that . But You will find the acknowledged communities as Brahmin in British period are always , not simply Brhmin status but attached with a nick name also . ( Follow the wikipedia Bengali Brahmin or Brahmin page ) . Please follow . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.250.56.127 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not about logical conclusion. You are trying to use the term 'Namo-brahmin' and justify the reason for the same. Our plolicies do not allow such original research. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and provide a reliable and verifiable source which uses such a term. Regarding the other point, I will add another reference (reliable source), which mentions the Namasudras as 'outcaste'. Also note that in case any other Wikipedia article mentions such unsourced / unreliably sourced content, that will soon be reviewed by some senior editor and reverted back. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

--Ref 5 - is unimportant . Outcast is used in both the senses , as avrana (living outside the four tier)( this term is already there) or those who have been thrown out of the four tier system. There is no such reporting of chanadals being in four tier , so once you use avarna , there is no need to use the word outcast , that is the reason more reliable texts have not used the term. 117.194.199.169 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Namo-brahmin the actual document is the demand letter submitted to the then Govrernor of Assam and Bengal , both jointly and seperately to the the Governors of British India . In one representation they have demanded 'namashudra-brahmin' in another 'namo-brahmin'. However the matter is brahmin status.And it is more reasonable . Why can not we be more specific?117.194.199.169 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You are again applying your own logic and justification, and it seems you have already arrived at your own conclusion. You are violating our policies and probably you have not checked our policies related to sourcing mentioned above especially WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. Another serious offence is removal of a valid reference in order to push your POV, and engaging in an edit war. Please note that the way you are editing and reverting now amounts to POV vandalism. This is the reason why this sensitive article was kept protected for long. Ekdalian (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Namsudra ( Hearsay and Mythology)

It is also a part of history of a community . And The writer,Manoranjan Byapari, is a renowned Dalit Writer who got for Sahitya Academy for this Autobiograpjical Novel , and he is both nationally and Internationally recognised . Where else we can get a more reliable source of their own mythology and hearsay ?For other population groups also there is mythology and hearsay . The classification of Brahmins according to Gotra etc , all these are mythology , if we accept those as a part of their Community History , why not for these people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.29.12 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to this revert. The problem is, the Namasudra mythology you refer to appears to be sourced to works of fiction, not scholarly works etc. Works of fiction are not reliable for statements of fact, even ones about mythology. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Most humbly I would like to write here that all mythologies are fiction. It is not that a writer is not a scholar.Only the type og his discourse.In India the mythology of the People who were socially condemned , were never discussed nor written down always ; through Sruti(hearsay) the people maintained those. And after some person wrote those then only we get the scholarly discussion. Now if you say there is no scholarly discussion so these are not to be mentioned , but the same thing can be mentioned for the Brahmins simply for that they have renowned publishers and scholarly discussion, then it becomes a discrimination for this community . 59.94.29.12 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I'm afraid you're wrong. If we took your position then, for example, someone might write in the United Kingdom article that the country was successfully taken over by Nazi Germany during World War 2 ... because that is the story in Len Deighton's SS-GB. Ok, that's an extreme example but do you see the point behind it? - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point . But the writing of Manoranjan Byapari is not like that . It is not fiction in that sense. It is all that happened in his own life and in that context he mentioned the mythologies.And all the members of the community members know these stories. But these are not Historical facts.Here in India and I believe in every country , different population groups have many such mythologies and these are a part of their identity also.117.194.202.230 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The hearsay involves a Historical Personality , although some people say This Ballal Sen is not the King Balla Sen . But the story is well known.The book is written in Sanskrit language. And not only about this avarna community , there are stories of many varna(Caste) communities also. Some of them like Yugi,Nath ,Teli etc. were also untouchable. However the mythological story of Nams Rishi is known by every one .This has come to us through "Sruti" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.5.22 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not happy but let's see what others think. That aside, your other edits since that particular bit are also a problem - see, for example, WP:INDICSCRIPT. You will have to revert them because there is no way that is going in. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see Ekdalian has viewed the mythology stuff. I wonder what they think? - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sitush here. Such POV edits related to mythology are not acceptable. Anyway, if you are too inclined to incorporate mythology, please provide more source(s), obviously reliable and verifiable. Also read WP:INDICSCRIPT & try to arrive at consensus here. Please note that the last best version is a consensus version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to say that it is not POV . The Infobox did not include any new fact , only the name in Bengali Script . If you allow Sanskrit script why not Bengali script. What is the problem in it? I do not understand. There have two references. Both of the reliable and true , I know those are right. If your policy does not allow these , it is I think , surely , unfortunate .It becomes discriminatory.One of the book is in English . And another is well reviewed and a documentary as well as classic in literature.The only fault I find is with the writer . And that is ridiculous. 117.194.207.94 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Chandal/Avarna

Why not come here in Kolkata and verify youself what the Bengali Uppercaste Varna Hindus call . They call them "Chanral" yes that is what they call. The community was never called "untouchable" and it was never in 'varna' system , so the term "avarna' is justified.And "Chanral' is also untouchable , but there are others also like "Chamar" " Dome' etc. but they are not "Chanral" . Be rational and stick to what it is . 117.194.207.94 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:VNT. Loads of sources call them untouchable. We've had this conversation before on this talk page or that of one of the related articles that were deleted, I'm sure. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2017 (UTc)

What is your problem with my last edit . Is it necessary that everything should be written the way you like even if it means the same . You have cited "still untouchable " , I have written the same thing , but still you have reverted . Why?117.194.207.94 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Because (a) it makes no sense (very poorly written); (b) Chanral is not sourced; and (c) it is out of place. Avarna is untouchable, it's just that untouchable is a word that is more familiar to people outside India. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you will not accept Risely . But it is mentioned there . And it is true. All avarnas are not untouchable.In India these things are not uniform.Untouchable is familiar ; it is true . But this particular Untouchable community is also "avarna" that is also true. People will get habituated to this. Actually it is the Hindus( varnasram based ) who insists the usage because they want every population group to be under their fold of varnasram. And that is the reason for this particular term is not being used so much . And our interest is this that the term does not contain the sanction and hatred ingrained in the term "Chandal" nee "Chanral". However the varnasamaj does not prefer the last term ( Chanral) in their discourse simply because it expresses the hatred in a very strong emotive way. 117.194.196.37 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My English is not as good as yours but in my own way I have tried to change the construction slightly.You may not like it. 117.194.196.37 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. We just go off what reliable sources say. Avarna = outside the four varnas; untouchable is a Hindu who is outside the varna system (yes, I know about Dalit Buddhists etc). The Chandala/Namasudra have tried to sanskritise themselves - fair enough but it doesn't alter what the sources say. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about your English: if the info is worth keeping then the writing can be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"untouchable is a Hindu who is outside the varna system":: This statement is not always true . "Chamar" is an untouchable 'sudra' varna , so is "scavenger" ;thay are untouchable but belongs to 'sudra' varna , the 'Valmikis' are also untouchable but belongs to "sudra' varna , but "Chandal' is both "untouchable' and "avarna" . Many tribal population group are not "untouchable" but they are "avarna'. Even SC , the scheduled caste of Indian Constituion is not necessarily a Caste , any Tribe may also be so who are outside caste system or 'avarna'.There is no documentation in any writing or book that this Chandal people who later on got acknowledged as "Namasudra" belonged to 'Varna' or Caste system , and they were absouletly 'avarna" but treated very badly as "Untouchable.They are considered as per the scriptures as not befit of even to be a "sudra" 117.194.196.37 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that some so-called shudra castes are sometimes thought to be untouchable and that tribes deemed to be non-Hindu (also Christian "castes" etc) are not untouchable. However we do it, we need to get that into the lead section because it makes more sense to non-Indian readers who use the English language. If you want it to say that the Chandala/Namasudra were both avarna and untouchable then I won't object to that but I think it might be over-complicating things. We could, for example, say something like "They were considered to be avarna (|outside the traditional Hindu ritual ranking system known as varna) and also untouchable." I don't think we can use Dalit in this context because that is often assumed to mean much more that untouchable. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

NB: I don't think the Chamar are/were considered to be shudra. They may have claimed the status and there is the sat-shudra term that might apply (?) but that's as far as it goes. Of course, the British were massively influenced by the Brahmin view of the world, hence so many of the problems that continue in the present day. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sat-sudra is a higher status of the Sudras ( sat means good,better , honest) , chamars were considered as asat-sudra and untouchable . Untouchable itself is not a caste . Sudra means 'slave' according to the scriptures although varna-Hindus give a meaning like "assistant' but that is a lie ,a bloody lie . প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.194.60 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Mythology

""Manoranjan Byapari in his book "Itibritte Chandal Jiban" has mentioned the mythological story :: Thus goes the tale. Brahman, the Parameshwar, is the Creator God. He begot Marichi. Marichi begot Kashyapa. Kashyapa begot Namas (also known as Lomasa Muni?). Namas was married to Sulochana, the daughter of Ruchi, the "spiritual son of Brahman". They begot Kirtiban and Uruban ). They were twin brothers. Santo or Sage- Namas, went into a deep forest for meditation and did not return in 14 years. So Kirtiban and Uruban were "self-dikshatized" or "self-consecrated". They were married to the two daughters of the King Simanta. They begot eight children, and they were married to the children of Asamonjo, the eldest son of the Suryavanshi King Sagar. They are the forefathers of the Namasudra(Namassej) community.Some other book also mentions the same mythological origin theory.""

What is the problem with this mythology . Manoranjan Byapar's book "Itibritte Chandal Jiban" is a very reliable source.And this mythology is known among the community members for logn before even the Briteshers came. But as you know these are being people not allowed to avail of any facilities of civilisation , it was not documented . With regard to what being documented in Manusmriti is just a sanction and vindication like that being done to the Jews etc in addition to the prescription that they should be considered as untouchables by the entire society. And the impact is dangerous. Even the Marichjhappi massacre in 1979 ( which happened to be one of the worst mass murder) has no documentation , and the Uppercaste Educated Bengalis is absolutely tight lipped . Even the evidences in the nineteenth have gone completely missing . Under this circumstances you will no where find the the mythology of Namas except in this Book of Mr Manoranjan Byapari . It is due to Hindu Apartheid that these are not being documented. I think these sources have to be used otherwise another 100 years or more we have to be waited.117.194.216.66 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Manoranjan Byapari was a Dalit writer and well known for promoting Dalit literature. It would not be fair to accept his work as a reliable source in this context. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Infobox

May I know what is the problem with this infobox.

• Don't put an infobox on a talk page, please. I have commented it out. You've already been told what is wrong and yet you persist in reinstating it. Since you are obviously moving around IP addresses, what will happen if you continue is that the article will be semi-protected so that you cannot edit it at all. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • May I please add it without the Bengali Scripts? I think that is the Problem . Although I have found that in some pages the infobox includes Bengali/Hindi etc scripts.117.194.192.227 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I think there are other problems - infoboxes are subject to WP:V just like anything else. To be honest, they are not a compulsory thing and there are big arguments on Wikipedia regarding whether they should be used in articles or not. I prefer not to use them, especially on articles such as this one where there have been a stream of problems over many years because of (in particular) members of the Namasudra community trying to change the information without regard for our policies. Having an infobox is just one more thing that can be changed and that, therefore, consumes the time of the likes of me repeatedly having to fix it after some caste warrior has turned up and run a steamroller through our policies. The less there is for them to change, the less there is to maintain. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Many pages are found with infobox and in this infobox , what I found is that there is no new information , then you should allow it. প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just enjoy this

but Page "Namassej' can neither have an infobox nor may have a mythology.প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What did I tell you earlier here about adding infoboxes to talk pages? I have commented it out again.

There are lots of articles that have them and lots that do not. I've already explained my rationale for not having one here. All you are doing, both as a registered contributor and previously as an anon, is proving my point that this article has been and still is subject to a lot of tendentious disruption. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Belief of Ray

I've just copyedited this addition but it still makes no sense. "Closer" than what? Can someone provide a copy of the page(s), please. (Please read User:Sitush/Common#GBooks before telling me to look it up on Google). - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote sorted, thank you. I'm not sure how reliable Ray may be, given his book was first published in 1949, but I don't really care at this point. Why he thinks they are closer than the Kayasthas etc is anyone's guess. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, [1]] and p. 46 of the same book make me wonder whether the quote is being taken out of context. Bandyopadhyay seems to be suggesting Ray said the Brahmin, Kayastha and Baidya were the traditional higher castes but that pre-Gupta empire Indian society was not as compartmentalised as it became after the 6th century. That is going back some, and if I am correct then we are misrepresenting the source. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And that is interesting in particular because, apparently, Ray saw the period up to the Guptas as being a Buddhist society, not Hindu. See also pp. 59-60 of that biography. I'm now even more convinced that the quote is being misused. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Who is supplying you the information, please ask him to supply the context. It is unfair to say otherwise that Ray is not reliable firstly and then me as misusing .প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In the same discourse Ray has mentioned that the Namahsudras are called 'Candala' and also that there are 'Candalas' other than these community members . It is also a sanction term of the Varna-Caste based Hinduism or Hindu Apartheid system and was used against many communities .That has to be kept in mind as well.প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say Ray was unreliable - I queried how reliable for the point, which I've now satisfied myself about after seeing modern citations of his History. My problem now is that it looks like the quote is being misused.

I'm not interested in your continued carping about candala. If you are introducing Ray so as to get your POV in regarding that, you're going to find yourself in more trouble for edit warring because you keep adding that stuff without discussing. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with your view of 'being misused' and in respect to your second point , I wrote it for Ray used both words while mentioning different communities in the same sentence. However I understand your point.In a free editing page sometimes edit warring is there.I respect your sincerity and hard-work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রাকৃতনমঃস্বেজ (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)