Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 10

Caste system in India in the 8th century
Adi Shankara was a highly respected Hindu philosopher in the 8th century AD. His wikipedia page shows that he is held in high respect even today in India. (Most Hindus do not know about his views on the caste system, and his wikipedia page also does not make any mention of it.) This is what Shankara tells us about the status of the low caste Sudras in Indian society existing in his time: "And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda." The text is from George Thibaut's translation of Adi Shankara's magnum opus, his commentary to the Vedanta Sutras. The Vedanta Sutras are also known as Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara is telling us that the low caste sudras are not permitted to read or know about the Vedas under penalty of death and torture. This is a primary source; it should not be difficult to look up secondary sources on the subject. The term "twice born" used by Adi Shankara is a reference to the Upanayana ceremony which in Adi Shankara's time was restricted to the three upper castes with sudras (the lowest caste) being denied the privilege of participating in this ceremony. Soham321 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC) The sanskrit word for "twice born" is dvija. Soham321 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC). And these are some quotes from the Manu Smriti. These quotes need to be read together with Adi Shankara's commentary on the Vedanta sutra since Shankara gives quotations from Manu Smriti and declares the Manu Smriti to be an authoritative text. Again, this is a primary source. I am requesting others to join me in finding appropriate secondary sources. From the Manu Smriti(translator: Georg Buhler): "A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears....With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. If out of arrogance he spits (on a superior), the king shall cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urines (on him), the penis; if he breaks wind (against him), the anus. If he lays hold of the hair (of a superior), let the (king) unhesitatingly cut off his hands, likewise (if he takes him) by the feet, the beard, the neck, or the scrotum....(The king) should order a Vaisya to trade, to lend money, to cultivate the land, or to tend cattle, and a Sudra to serve the twice-born castes.(Some wealthy) Brahmana shall compassionately support both a Kshatriya and a Vaisya, if they are distressed for a livelihood, employing them on work (which is suitable for) their (castes). But a Brahmana who, because he is powerful, out of greed makes initiated (men of the) twice-born (castes) against their will do the work of slaves, shall be fined by the king six hundred (panas). But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmana. A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it? A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for, as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions.(The king) should carefully compel Vaisyas and Sudra to perform the work (prescribed) for them; for if these two (castes) swerved from their duties, they would throw this (whole) world into confusion." Soham321 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC) And let me now quote from the Vishnu Smriti, which like the Manu Smriti is a hindu dharmasastra. Recall that Adi Shankara had made a reference to "Smriti" in the quote given earlier in this section, by which term Shankara was referring to the Hindu dharmashastras like the Manu Smriti and Vishnu Smriti. Here is an extract from the Vishnu Smriti, the translator being Julius Jolly: "With whatever limb an inferior insults or hurts his superior in caste, of that limb the king shall cause him to be deprived.If he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be banished with a mark on his buttocks. he shall lose both lips; If he spits on him,If he breaks wind against him, his hindparts;If he uses abusive language, his tongue. If a (low-born) man through pride give instruction (to a member of the highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth. If a (low-born man) mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly, an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot)." I would like to appeal to participants in this talk page to join me in digging up the relevant secondary sources.Soham321 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Soham321, did you look for the book mentioned below, Caste and Race in India? It contains interpretation from a lot of Hindu scriptures. Please have a look on other works of G S Ghurye as well, which are available in internet. Will dig more sources and add soon. ABTalk 15:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed through it. Seems to be a good book. Will study it in more detail. We should also try to find more references reflecting mainstream scholarly opinion on the caste system. Soham321 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Another extract from Vishnu Smriti: "If a man has several wives of his own caste,he shall perform his religious duties together with the eldest (or first-married) wife.(If he has several) wives of divers castes (he shall perform them) even with the youngest wife if she is of the same caste as himself.On failure of a wife of his own caste (he shall perform them) with one belonging to the caste next below his own; so also in cases of distress (i.e. when the wife who is equal in caste to him happens to be absent, or when she has met with a calamity);But no twice-born man ever with a Sûdra wife.A union of a twice-born man with a Sûdra wife can never produce religious merit; it is from carnal desire only that he marries her, being blinded by lust.Men of the three first castes, who through folly marry a woman of the lowest caste, quickly degrade their families and progeny to the state of Sûdras. If his oblations to the gods and manes and (his hospitable attentions) to guests are offered principally through her hands, the gods and manes (and the guests) will not eat such offerings, and he will not go to heaven." Soham321 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again you are citing primary sources. Wikipedia only reports the contemporary scholars' interpretation of primary sources. Your interpretation of them constitutes original research. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia only reports the contemporary scholars..." Please provide a link to the policy you are referring, relevant to the quote. ABTalk 10:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY. The point being made by Soham321 is clear; yet, Shankara interprets an ancient Vedic text, which may, or may not reflect, the social reality of those Vedic times. If we want to know if this text describes the actual situation at that time, or what Shankara's interpretation says about Shankara's time, we do indeed need reliable secondary sources. I've read several times already that the texts on the varnas probably described ideal-types, not the actual social facts. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I was asking to Kautilya3 whether is there a specific policy as reagrds to WP only reports the contemporary scholars?
 * Yes, may be they (texts on the varnas) only describes ideal types or they may not be. The best thing we could do is to quote reliable secondary source(s) irrespective of whether it rhymes with or de-credits the primary source. Fundamental thing for us editors would be to look for the reliability of source, but not on the content discussed, according to WP:RS ??  ABTalk 13:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the contemporary scholars are expected to have taken into account all the older sources in arriving at their assessments. With time, the researchers make progress. So it is not proper to bring in older sources, especially from another time, to contradict the contemporary ones. Whether there is a policy about this or not, I don't know. But we often use this as a criterion in debates. The older sources are said to be "out of date." - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with Kautilya here. A section of the contemporary scholars may be churning out foolish ideas.Harvard's celebrated scholar Michael Witzel has written about a recently published book on a topic in Indian history which in his opinion was filled with inaccuracies. Witzel has also questioned the scholarship and credibility of the wave of scholars attempting to rewrite Indian history and whose views do not reflect mainstream views. According to Witzel: "Most scholars, after checking some of the "facts" presented in the book, would simply put it aside laughing or would shake their head and regard the principal author as one more, albeit blatant, example among the currently growing guild of fervent rewriters of history. The book, by its very improbability, further taints the present wave of revisionist writing (S.S. Misra, S. Talageri, K.D. Sethna, S.P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Choudhuri, A. Shourie, S.R. Goel, and their expatriate or foreign fellow travellers such as S. Kak, S. Kalyanaraman, D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Elst, K. Klostermaier)."


 * How many more times are you going to play this record? Umpteen people have told you that it is irrelevant. FWIW, you might want to consider the statisticians' aphorism that "correlation does not equal causation". That some Hindutva nutters have jumped on the bandwagon of serious scholarship is not a denial of the validity of that scholarship, as Kautilya has already told you. From their point of view, it is serendipitous and, like all good conspiracy theorists, they know how to take a little bit from here, a little bit from there, a smidgeon from somewhere else, then mix it up together and get people to squint through the darkness to produce their desired outcome. Please drop it.. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem unable to understand the difference between genuine scholars and the charlatans that write popular books for Hindutva nationalist readership. The majority of the latter are not reliable sources by Wikipedia policies. And once again, the topic of this page has nothing to do with Hindutva. So, please stop hankering about Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Very poor article
This article repeatedly tries to blame the British for the caste system, which is historically absurd. There is no section actually describing the caste system and how it operates in India. The history section contains no real history at all. The article falsely asserts that caste is found in other religions. (It's true that in India some followers of other religions have adopted caste from Hinduism, but that's not the same thing.) This article needs a complete rewrite by someone who knows Indian history and is not primarily motivated by a desire to deny that caste is intrinsic to Hinduism and to blame the British for it. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The parts regarding the British are high quality academic sources discussed many times in the archives.VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can write an article demonstrating whatever they want to believe, by selective use of sources. It's obviously nonsense to say that the British were responsible for the caste system. I will find some other sources when I get time. Meanwhile the other points I raised have not been addressed. The most important are that there is no actual description of the caste system and no proper history of it. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a certain school of academic scholarship, post-colonialism, which focuses on studying the contribution of colonialism to the ills of the third world. There are a lot of their ideas that are accepted as well as a lot that are not. Their ideas on caste system are on the borderline. The fault of article is not making it clear that this is a particular strand of academic scholarship, not universally accepted. To that extent, we are misrepresenting the academic consensus. I did try to fix it once but, unfortunately, there are plenty of editors here that share the post-colonial ideas and they keep deleting my fixes. Please feel free to reinstate them. Here is a pointer to the old discussion Talk:Caste_system_in_India/Archive_8 - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware of that school of historical interpretation. I have no objection to the article noting that such views are held by some writers. I object to their views being presented as facts. I also object to the same statement about the British being repeated at least three times, including in the opening paragraph. But as I said before my real problem with this article is that it provides neither a proper description of the caste system nor a proper history of it. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the articles cited for the British stuff is a review article. A review article summarizes the research of several scholars.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not locate the citation you are referring. Please provide the links. Thanks! ABTalk 17:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion on re writing the article. May be you are interested. Cheers! ABTalk 05:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream historical views of caste
I'm very pleased to have triggered off this discussion, but it's now far too long and complex and acrimonious for me to keep up with. But the problem seems to me to be a fairly simple one. This article needs to describe the caste system as it currently exists in India, and also to set out its history, and particularly its origins. The sources for those sections should be standard published works of mainstream history. That there are minority or dissident views should of course be noted (if properly referenced), but they cannot be allowed to dominate or to be presented as uncontested facts. So what is the mainstream historical view of the origins of caste? A quick hunt at Amazon turns up the following:


 * "Originally coined by the Persians to refer to the people who lived beyond the River Indus, the term 'Hindu' actually came into popular usage with the arrival of the Arabs and the Turks' ... It was even later in history that the Hindus called themselves by that name. In ancient India they had used the names of their particular sects or castes for self-description. They were always a highly diverse group, although their caste system, along with certain ritual practices and the teachings of their religious texts, legends and epics, provided them with the resource of an underlying unity." (India: The Ancient Past, Burjor Avari 2007, p2).
 * "Sanskrit soon became the language of the educated upper castes, amongst whom it remained a unifying factor throughout the sub-continent for many centuries. But, as it tended to isolate these castes from other articulate and significant sections of society who used other languages, it later became obscured. The caste system has survived in India for two thousand years despite frequent efforts to break its grip. Its role in determining political institutions, for instance, has been considerable. At the basic level of everyday life interrelationships between the sub-castes within the community were the most influential factor in village life, and this tended to divert attention from political relationships and loyalties to local caste relationships and loyal-ties. Central political authority became more and more remote. (A History of India, Romila Thapar, 1977, v1, p28)

I looked at three or four other recent histories online and they all say the same thing: caste is as old as Indian Hindu civilisation and has its origins in the power relationships and class structure of India around 2000 years ago. It may be true that the system was less rigid in earlier times than it later became, and it may be true that the British codified the caste system in a way it had not been codified before, but they certainly didn't invent it. The basic rule of British colonialism in India was not to interfere with "native" social institutions. They were there to make money, not "reform" the Indians. If they codified the caste system, that's because there was a caste system in place for them to codify. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect this mainstream historiography, and should not be dominated by minority or dissident views. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ivy League scholars, university publishers and review articles are mainstream.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A few quick comments:
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says that Wikipedia should report "standard published works of mainstream history." You are making up your own rules.
 * Burjor Avari is a good writer, but he is not a professional historian. Read the page!
 * Romila Thapar's book well predates the contemporary research on the British role in solidifying the caste system. So, it can't contradict the recent research.
 * Our article doesn't say that British "invented" the caste system. You are putting up a strawman in order to demolish it. That is not a sound objection.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the whole, however, it seems the debate is really about due WP:WEIGHT. So I suggest that both the sides start looking for evidence of weight for their points of view. This will be a long drawn-out debate, but it certainly can't be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People with IDONTLIKEIT points of view should drop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, user Kautilya3 understands the issue to be of WEIGHT, that's why probably the user is probably reverting my undoing of addition of that claim to the lead again by user JJ. please see the WP:ANI too see the discussion reported by me for concerted POV pushing by a group of editors.  ABTalk 10:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing?
My oh my... POV-pushing. Some editors must be laughing very, very hard now, appreciating the irony of JJ being accused of POV-pushing on thi sparticular topic. Well, it seems clear to me that the article, inclusing does not state that the British invented the caste-system; what is says is that the system, as it exists now, was enforced by the British. And for clarity's sake: be precise with what you mean with "caste". The term seems to be a European term; to use it for ancient India is an anachronism. I used to be sceptical, to put it mildly, on this claim of "British enforcement"; yet, for what I've read so far, it seems to be the mainstream scholarly point of view. But I've also included information on the origins of the jati-system, which existed before the British. And to be hinest: it seems to me that the POV-pushing is at the side of AB, not at Vic, Kautilya, or me. If he thinks that the the British did not enforce the system as it exists today, let him present reliable sources which contest this claim. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: I agree that the first two paragraphs could be merged somehow. But then, the realtion between varna, jati and "caste" has to be further explicated.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * English or the Europeans entered only after the fall of Constantinople. Somewhere in 1500s. So how do you get the term 'Caste' ( Portuguese in origin, from casta? )before they see it and call a name in their language? And after that, the term caste was and is used as a synonym of Jati. In indian languages the system is known as Jati- Vyavastha - ( Vyvastha being the Hindi word for system). So if you say caste did not exist before the Europeans, definitely true as regards to the word 'caste'. But to extend that and to say caste as a system did not exist would be ( what naive, foolish or cunning?) To be clear, caste is the English word for Jati, across the Indian sub continent. To deny this would be indulging in word play and deny the existence of caste altogether. To be very very clear, there are no native speakers of English in India. So no caste in real life eh? Beacuse English is mostly in official/press/literary usage, not in spoken form for day to day existence ( for more than 99% of 1 billion or so). Yea, lot of people must be laughing very, very hard now. Cheers. ABTalk 14:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're being disruptive here, or simply don't understand what's being written. I, nor the article, says: "caste did not exist before the Europeans". What's being stated is:
 * "The caste system in India is a system of social stratification[2] which has pre-modern origins, but was fully developed by the British Raj"
 * "Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial regime, which made rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration."
 * Please stop your POV-pushing and your edit-warring; I'm afraid WP:BOOMERANG applies to, which would be a pity, since I don't doubt your good intentions. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * why the insistence on addition of 'fully developed by British' ? Wait for a consensus. ABTalk 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, but you don't get it, unfortunately. Tru to improve the article by adding info, instead of edit-warring.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste an anachronism?
The term seems to be a European term; to use it for ancient India is an anachronism. I think otherwise. "Caste" is the term the Portuguese used for the phenomenon of jati they found in India. It was a pretty appropriate term, and the Indians have taken to using it as if it was a native term. So there is no problem there. As regarding varna versus jati, most Indians don't see any conflict there. They think of jati as being a refinement of varna but based on the same principles. The only difference, a rather technical one, is that varna has a religious meaning whereas jati is a purely social phenomenon. But now we get to a tricky issue. Is varna really a religious concept? Or is it a social phenomenon that has been appropriated by religion? Where do we the draw the line? In any case, the term "caste" being used ambiguously to mean both varna and jati doesn't pose any problems in practice. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"embodied within this system"
Anybody a better formulation for "embodied within this system" in "and is nowadays the focus of governmental and judicial measures to counter the social and economic inequality embodied within this system"? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Made a tweak.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Shouldn't Jāti and Varna (Hinduism) be merged into this article? Same topic, short articles; they can easily be merged. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - for reasons stated above.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Varna provides the broad theoretical framework of classification and/or stratification system as found in Hindu mythology/scriptures. Jati is often used instead of caste and is the translation of caste in  Hindi. Essentially both denote aspects of social stratification system found in Hindus of Indian sub continent. ABTalk 15:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think of Jati and Varna as religious/traditional concepts and "caste system" as sociological/scientific concept. I prefer to keep science and religion separate. We have enough complications already without trying to confuse the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Disagree on jati, that it is exclusively a religious /traditional concept. Jati is a synonym for caste, or more clearly, Jati was the term used before Europeans named it caste. The traditional/religious nature of jati, varna and caste is also discussed by the WP entry Caste system in India, as former two cant have a separate context devoid of religious/traditional bearings. Maintaining topics varna and jati as exclusively or predominantly religious/traditional concepts, would be to erroneously construct such new entities and hence may fall in WP:OR. AB'Talk 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sociologists/scientists call it caste. And, they use terms like jati and varna exclusively to refer to the traditional concepts. If you have read the literature, the distinction is quite clear. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are relying on my reading of the literature to clarify your point to me?. Sorry but not convincing. ABTalk 11:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: These are different concepts and should absolutely not be merged on this page. Also, a merger proposal requires you follow the guidelines for a merger proposal, which you have not done. Ogress smash! 21:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain why do you claim them as different concepts. Also, why do you say guidelines of merger proposal are not followed? How exactly?  ABTalk 01:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are at WP:MERGE; I've followed these steps, and copied the templates from this page, when I proposed the merger, so I'm puzzled what makes you think that I didn't follow the guidelines. I've even got a link to that page at my tools-page... Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Varna is based on a social system that was prevalent in the Hindu system. Caste is brought by the Europeans, and is umore based on race than the mindset of people. Varna is based on the mindset of the people, the capabilities of the people, and people can move change varna based on the what they do and how they improve (up/down). Caste more close to Jati, but ofcourse they are not the same. This should not be merged into one.Santoshsivaraj (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Jati and Varna are two different things. When we talk about Varna which is flexible is like post in corporates and with qualification a person enters or get that particular post & in Jati which is imposed by Colonial Britishers #REDIRECT [] which freezed the Varna System in to rigid Caste/Jati system which we see in India today.--M.akkiii (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is about the 'Cast system' in the "Mordern India" after British invaded in India and complicated the problem by attaching the casts to family name. But, the 'Varna' article is the classification of "Vedic Hindu Society" according to the work chosen by a person for his living not by his family name. See Herbert Hope Risley for further knowledge.Prymshbmg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment @ Santoshsivaraj, M.akkiii and Prymshbmg: "caste" refers to both varna and jati; it's an ambiguous term. Thanks for the link to HHR; that article raises new questions, though: "He is notable for the formal application of the caste system to the entire Hindu population of British India in the 1901 census." To apply "the caste system", there first has to be a caste-system, right? If you mean that there was the varna-system in the Vedic society, that subsequently the jati-system developed in medieaval Indian society, and that only during the post-Mughal a third system of social stratification developed, which is based on and incorporated the varna- and jati-system, yet was itself a new development, then the definitions in the article are still not clear enough. Thanks for noticing.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * there is a basic diffrence between varna and jati that; Varna belong to class like "Scholar", "Protector", "Businessmen" and "Workers"; But, Jati belongs to the guilds like "Carpenters", "Black-Smith", "Gold-Smith" etc.
 * The 'Cast System' is very different as it clings to one's family name or "Sur-name" and forces one to chose the same guild and be in same varna as his parents were.Prymshbmg (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Caste and jati both are terms used synonymously. Both are in common paralance and is used extensively in day to day life. Check through the online dating/matrimonial websites. Guild/varna connotation just signifies historical interpretations. As said before jati is the Hindi usage for caste, for all practical purposes. Likewise caste is the English usage in the layman, day to day life of Hindus in India ABTalk 06:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - As long as jati and varna have individual sections.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Caste is a social phenomenon like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(SC/ST) or Other Backward Class(OBC). When someone asks somebody his/her "Caste" then in reply you will get "SC/ST/OBC". Here "SC/ST/OBC" are not Jatis or Varnas but they are "Castes". When we ask someone his/her "Jati" then in reply you will get "Brahman/Mahar/Banjara/Chamar" etc. So don't mix "Caste" with "Jatis". Caste is not related to exclusively Hinduism, a person belongs to "ST" caste can be a Christian too or even a Muslim. Person belongs to "SC" caste can be a Buddhist. But Jatis or Varnas are exclusively related to Hindu scriptures and not mentioned in alleged divine holy books of other religions. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system discussion in early Buddhist texts
Reference: Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism, by Peter Masefield (2008), Routledge, pp. 148-151

Summary of caste situation in the Nikāya texts period of Buddhism (3rd century BC to 5th century AD):

1. Anyone could in principle perform any profession. The Buddhist texts identify some brahmins to be farmers, lay householders, and others. The text state that anyone, of any birth, could perform the priestly function.

2. The Chinese records of 7th century AD on India make no mention of any caste system, but mention many social/cultural practices in India. (This could mean either caste system did not exist, or that the system was identical to those in China so the authors couldn't care, or was a topic that did not interest the Chinese/Tibetan scholars who visited India).

3. The brahmin is able to take food from anyone, suggesting that strictures of commensality did not exist then or were as yet unknown.

4. The Buddhist Nikayas suggest that it was common for a brahmin to marry a non-brahmin woman, etc, implying that varnas were not endogamous.

Masefield concludes, "if any form of caste system was known during the Nikaya period - and it is doubtful that it was - this was in all probability restricted to certain non-Aryan groups". If these non-Aryan groups represented proto-castes, we nowhere find their cause being championed in ancient Buddhist texts. Masefield also adds, "there were attempts by some to claim divine origin", but this was neither a social system nor a historical record of a practice.

Paulmuniz (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up tag
Please specify: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs citation for many claims - which?
 * Does not reflect sociological literature or popular themes - what is the relevant sociological literature on this topic, and what are the "popular themes" which are not reflected now?
 * Total rewrite is suggested - why, and in what way?
 * This tag by AB is absurd.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why clean up tag ? Because I see a suspected POV pushing
Okay, let me put down why did I tag it for a rewrite. Please do note that I write this without proper citations. I am not asking the article to be written in this way either, but to suggest what to look and where to look if you have not got time for a preliminary reading of sociology literature regarding caste.

Why

The problem with the article is that of perspective. Curiously, that perspective is not any established academic nature.( Post-colonial literature? Nope, selective reading with some OR and it almost act like propaganda). It selectively cites sources, modify conclusions of OR etc.

I will be brief, what the perspective has done, with dubious and inaccurate citations.( sometimes from sources with questionable reliability) 1. It states post colonial position from OR - works of Dirks. ( It does not uses critical or validating reviews of Dirks' work,which would be an ideal RS for the article.)

2. It does not cite the vast literature previous to post-colonial literature. (Irrespective of the fact whether or not that has been conclusively refuted by Dirks and others). Unlike natural sciences, social sciences thrives on perspectives and sufficiently prolonged academic discourses require detailed mention here in the article.
 * -Early theorists who based their view of origin and evolution of caste on scriptures etc. Indologists and Risley, Hutton and others more Notably GS Ghurye. The articel entirely misses the debates of religious philosophical significance of caste prior to colonialism.

I do not know to recommend sources here how ancient, medieval kingdoms and rulers interacted with caste-sytems. Romila Thapar can be referred. Mughal empires had vst systems of administration and their law was basically religios laws - Muslims and Hindus were administered law differently. How law operated on different castes also would have references.
 * - Structural Functionalist tradition M N Srinivas - concept of Sanskritisation - Discussed inter caste mobility. How difficult/ not-so-difficult was inter-caste mobility. McKim Marriott's universalisation/parochialisation finds how tribes and their customs where integrated to caste structure.
 * - Structuralist tradition: following Levi Strauss' Dumont's Homo hierarchicus is a phenomenal work. Reviewed by T N Madan - harps on purity/pollution dichotomy ( values) and its significance of Hierarchy. Significantly, *Hirearchy* is missing from this entire article, which was the basis of apparent *discrimination*. For some scholars, like Dumont hireacrhy was the defining and unique feature of caste system in India.
 * -Economic significance of caste arrangements -I cannot find mention about Jajmani system. It has been a prominent theme in discourse Here is a random link. Caste and class has been debate for many sociologists. Ghurye, RK Mukherjee etc

3. Third is the over-emphasis on affirmative action. It is a significant aspect of caste and politics in India today. But, IMO not to have 2 prominent mention in paragraphs on the lead for caste system in India. It can also bee seen, the whole article is more about politics and caste. Harping on census data and legal policies, relying significantly on Nehru, Gandhi, Ambedkar who had their own political projects.

4. For me the article misinforms on term 'loose nature of caste system.' The article seems to have implied, before colonialism, mobility by individuals was possible. The loose nature of the caste system implied dynamic nature of caste as a system and not on the ascriptive nature of identity of an individual due to birth into a specific caste. Inter caste mobility within a generation was an very difficult if not impossibility. See sanskritisation by MN Srinvas for a detailed debate. (IMO, the article juxtaposes such description of loose nature of caste to the ideals mentioned in texts about Varnas). All this is again juxtaposed with Dirks position of Colonialism constructed caste as it is today. Here the OR about description about varna etc is given almost as facts.

5.Over emphasis on caste in other religions of sub continent. Eager to deny the apparent unique Hindu feature of caste?

6.Missing mention of birth of Budhism and Jainism as a counter-ideolgy of casteism and Hireacrhy.

7. Missing details on Hierarchy and discrimination. IMO this has been the single largest concepts It is interesting to note that while plenty of details given about the affirmative action nothing has written about what caused it - apparent or real conditions of social, religious discrimination. On parallels of racism and caste. [http://pantheon.hrw.org/reports/2001/globalcaste/index.htm#TopOfPage Here is A Report by Human Rights Watch for the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Durban, South Africa, September 2001.]

8. And most importantly, IMO, how caste is existing today. How individual life is defined or influenced by caste. Few important themes would be
 * 1)  Matrimony and caste, persistence of endogamy
 * 2)  Khap panchaayats and caste. How khaps are deifned by caste system.
 * 3) 'Honour Killing' and relations to caste system
 * 4)  Enabling nature of caste system as a Social capital mechanism
 * 5)  Inter caste conflicts and killings. Not only belonging to Dalit groups.
 * 6)  Religius significance as it exists today, of temple rituals and others

On the links I found two problems which are significant

1. Quoting Ambedkar on endogamy. Here is the google books. The quote is given in a page written by Ms. Sudanhan Patvil. M. Ed. M. Phil Education. (Reid.) Principal, a devotee of Yogada Satsangh Socety and Sri Daya Mata. RS indeed!! In anycase citation does not concur to the version in article.

2. Quoting Leonard and Wellners OR (here) article says "they report a striking presence of exogamous marriages across caste lines over time, particularly since the 1970s" Quite a claim,since the OR actually speaks about deline of sub caste endogamy within (the caste) Kaysths of Hyderabad.

There may/may not be many more inaccuracies in citations, but my point is an assumption of clear propaganda based perspective behind this article.

ABTalk 22:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, good job on analysing the state of the article. Since you seem quite knowledgeable about the subject, I am not sure why you are limiting yourself to sulking on the talk page instead of making positive contributions to the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed; those are good, and extensive observations. Now, who's going to write?...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a mammoth task, and I am particularly doubtful about my encyclopedia editing skills. Add to that so many 'protective' editors here who are very defensive about the article in the present form. Most importantly I'm not in a position to access the sources, and the internet is not very helpful in that regard.
 * Should I just add to the article or do we do a draft here? I'm concerned about some sections unnecessaraily being included. e. g.,
 * "According to Georges Dumézil's trifunctional hypothesis of social class,[47][page needed] ancient societies had three main classes, each with distinct functions: the first judicial and priestly, the second connected with the military and war, and the third class focused on production, agriculture, craft and commerce. Dumézil proposed that Rex-Flamen of the Roman Empire is etymologically similar to Raj-Brahman of ancient India, and that they made offerings to deus and deva respectively, each with statutes of conduct, dress and behaviour that were similar."
 * And Georges Dumézil is according to wiki article is a philologist who has been accused of being a fascist. I don't know how relevant the quoted portion is here in this article and how well Dumézil is acquainted with Caste.  ABTalk 06:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Varna-section definitely needs improvement; I remember that Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, has interesting remarks on it, and also on the difference between social stratification in northern and southern India in late vedic times.
 * Dumézil may be out of context, but the notion that the tripartite division has Indo-European origins is definitely relevant. So, maybe some info to replace Dumézil?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is relevant with due consideration to it's weight. For Varna section, Brian K Smith has written on how Varna was used as a classification system including for society. It has also sections on origins of caste. ABTalk 06:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit of caste system ' fully developed by British' ( in the opening sentence) on the basis of POV pushing. The older version was just fine. Also no body has cited a comprehensive review of Dirks to validate any widespread acceptability of his OR claim, that of colonialism constructed caste system in India. I am pinging two admins as well, as user JJ, in spite of the extensive talk page discussions seen here, has attempted to push a POV. Cheers. ABTalk 05:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * None of that is true.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 06:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

{{{ping|EdJohnston}} Please refer to the discussions above and take a view. I was not inserting or modifyinf the already existing article, but reverting a recent POV pushing by user JJ into the opening sentence of the article. I hope you could see through nefarious designs here. ABTalk 06:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing by editor ABEditWiki
The serious "POV pushing" - I assume this term means "point of view pushing" - here is by editor AB/ABEditWiki. AB's edits and comments are cherry picking text from sources, and misrepresenting the few sources he does mention. ABWikiEdit asks for review articles, but says "I don't like it" or ABWikiEdit dismisses the review already mentioned as being "does not conclusively talk about the idea". This behavior is one with POV or one who is inadvertently trying to do original research. Consider a few points, (his numbering above)

1. AB alleges, "It (the article) states post colonial position from OR - works of Dirks. ( It does not uses critical or validating reviews of Dirks' work,which would be an ideal RS for the article.)

Reality: Zwart is the critical and validating review, which not only includes Dirks' work on page 248 of his paper, it includes a review of over a dozen respected recent sociology scholars. AB has been distorting and deleting Zwart.

2. AB alleges, "It (the article) does not cite the vast literature previous to post-colonial literature." He includes RIsley in his distinguished list of "previous to post-colonial literature".

Reality: Risley is not a respected scholar. He is widely considered as one of the figures who helped "construct the caste system" during British colonial era. The so-called, "previous to post-colonial literature" means editor AB is considering pre-1947 literature as more reliable than last 60+ years of sociology research in peer reviewed journals and other secondary/tertiary publications. This view of AB is misinformed nonsense, and irrelevant to building a good encyclopedic article.

3 - 5. AB says affirmative action, politics and the discussion of caste system in other religion is worrisome. He alleges the article is, "eager to deny the apparent unique Hindu feature of caste?"

Reality: But isn't this an article on "Caste system in India"? These are due and relevant information. The allegation "unique Hindu feature" is pushing a POV, given the number of peer reviewed publications that describe caste system in practice to be "not unique Hindu feature". Some have called it a form of racism, a characterization that also has been disputed. This article should summarize all significant sides from reliable scholarly sources, without taking "the one POV side editor AB wants to push".

6. AB alleges, "Missing mention of birth of Budhism and Jainism as a counter-ideolgy of casteism and Hireacrhy."

Reality: All serious, scholarly work finds "no mention of caste system in India as it is known in 19th and 20th century publications", in early Buddhist or Jaina literature (at least till 7th century AD). See Peter Masefield (2008) book published by Routledge, for example. In fact, in all Arabic and Persian texts by Islamic historians during the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire, before East India Company came to India, there is "no mention of caste system in India as it is known in 19th and 20th century publications", even though there are huge chapters on "infidel idol worship, their festivals, their religious practices, their social practices, their temples, their villages, their poverty, their unwilling to pay taxes, their resistance to enslavement, their refusal to convert to Islam". These are some of the reasons why post-colonial sociologists have questioned whether "caste system as it is known and practiced in modern era" was a colonial construction.

AB's edits are attempting to push a non-neutral POV, some of which is seconded by cherry picking and misrepresentation of sources.

Paulmuniz (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have added a summary from Nikāya Buddhist texts on caste system in India before 7th century AD, elsewhere on this talk page. Recent scholarship on pre-10th century Jaina texts confirm these observations from early Buddhist texts.

Paulmuniz (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For all of their behavioural faults, AB also provided above a critique of the article that was in many respects sound. There are ways round some of these issues but people are taking firm stands on both sides, and that might include mutual cherry-picking. It really wasn't a great idea for JJ to make a mass of changes while things were blowing up because hitting a moving target is always more difficult. It also really isn't a great idea to be discussing the lead when the body is such a mess. As Kautilya3 said some days ago, the lead should fall out of the article, so the key is to get a satisfactory body and then amend the lead to reflect that.


 * I'm not really up to dealing with this at the moment but I think people need to stop editing the article, agree on some bullet points for a structure (which will essentially become section headings), then try to construct consensual material for each of those points in a draft form. As a suggestion for dealing with the issue of contemporary vs. older sources, while it is true that contemporary sources are deemed generally to be the most valid scholarly consensus there is nothing to stop us from having a section that basically discusses the changes in opinions over time. The proviso is that weight in the lead has to favour the current opinions.


 * This article has been a mess for years. once proposed at WT:INB that I should head a big rewrite of the thing and I think people generally were in favour of that but I just knew it would be trouble and I'm involved in so much of that here every day that it gets me down. The latest, lengthy spat on this talk page is just another in a long series of examples of why a considered, consensus-based rewrite is needed. The fact that it never works is in part because someone comes along every now and again, makes huge changes almost without discussion (Dumont/Dumezil theories etc were once massively over-represented, for example, by their fans), and then walk away having lit the fuse. Alas, it also isn't helped because the noise ratio and the poor formatting of newer contributors tends to make even reading discussions a real pain in the bum - there isn't much we can do about that one.


 * DRN is not going to fix this. The issues are too deep, too wide and too specialised. We've got to get a grip among ourselves and, if necessary, refer specific issues to DRN or some equivalent. Right now, we'd basically be referring the entire article and it simply will not produce a good outcome: DRN is basically mediation involving uninvolved people who historically have proven to be near useless at resolving Indic disputes. So, please can we all consider trying to pull together here? - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in my view, the problems are not just in our article, but in the literature itself. There are those that take the Hindu texts literally or at least as a reflection of social reality, and there are others who take a more "scientific" approach and look for varied forms of evidence. Left-liberals, who enjoy Hindu-bashing, fall into the former camp, even though as liberals they are supposed to be downgrading religious texts as evidence. Hindu nationalists who are supposed to uphold the religious values paradoxically side with the "scientists" because it helps them to show the Hindu society in a fairer light. Islamists and Christian Evangelicals want to interpret Hindu dharmashastras as a payback for the Hindu nationalists interpeting the Koran and the Hadith, or perhaps the other way around. So on, it continues in a topsy-turvy world.
 * AB, can't say which camp he falls into, after a brief spell of sanity, fell back to his old ways, accusing Nicholas Dirks et al of "OR." If he got a symbolic block for his first 3RR violation, he might have kept his sanity for longer. It never helps to excuse tendentious behaviour.
 * JJ has been making only cosmetic changes, in most cases softening the old text. I can't fault him for anything.
 * For now, I am basically limiting myself to reading and understanding what the various viewpoints are. It is true that the "traditional viewpoint" hasn't been represented well in our article, probably the influence of the Hindu nationalists that controlled vast swathes of Wikipedia until recently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD does not exist without a reason. In contrast to AB, I've shown the relevancy of adding easily available information and sourced info, adding relevant info on the origins of the castes, reflecting both sides. Had I solely spent my time here arguing ("discussion" means there's an exchange of ideas) with AB, the article would still have been in the same shape. Instead, I've shown that AB's sole emphasis on pre-British social stratification is not entirely incorrect, but that the British influence also can't be denied.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, AB has also been told several times that he should find the sources for the material he favours and add it. I am not entirely confident that his analysis was "sound," but certainly there are no objections to him adding well-sourced new material even if we don't agree with it. Instead he was hell-bent on deleting the existing sourced material, which is always much easier to do than to write new material. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean what I said as a criticism of you, JJ. It was just an observation, based as much on experience at other articles as what is going on here: subjects such as this often do become mired in arguments about semantics, so even softening the existing text creates a moving target. Well, that's my opinion anyway - you don't have to agree with it. We can't do much about any problems in the literature itself - bound as we are by RS, V and so on - but we should attempt to show all sides. Kautilya is right to suggest that things may have become skewed because of the Hindutva coterie who were significant for a while here; some are still active, alas, but they are spewing their dangerous nonsense elsewhere at the moment. I do feel that AB's critique regarding coverage etc was basically valid and I notice that some others were sympathetic to the analysis also. The problem is, AB's stuff has to be sourced and AB mistakenly seemed to believe that NPOV only applies selectively, hence the block. We've got to show all reliable viewpoints, as we who are more experienced than AB already know, and there is a way to incorporate some of the more modern viewpoints that do not coincide with the Dirks school of thought. An overview of the changing interpretation/analysis is not unreasonable in an article such as this, provided that we do end with and give somewhat greater weight to the current school of thought. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Indo-European "varnas"?
Domezil's trifunctional theory and other analysis shows commonalities between the three-fold division of the society in many Indo-European cultures. However, there is a difficulty in ascribing this varna system to Indo-Europeans in general, viz., the fact that the Rigvedic people had only two varnas: Aryas and Dasas. So, to say that the trifunctional division was an Indo-European idea, it seems that one would need to postulate that other Indo-European tribes entered the Vedic society between the Rigvedic times and the later Vedic times. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dumézil's work has been very strongly criticised; use him carefully. I don't mean his politics here, I mean his scholarly works. (I mean his politics sucked, but I mean specifically his obsession with threes.) There's some citations of authors at Trifunctional hypothesis. We probably don't want to rely directly on him, either, as he wrote quite a long time ago and consensus has moved on even as it absorbed or rejected his ideas. His most important monograph on the subject was written in 1929. Also, yeah, some criticism of his ideals are of a romanticised ethnic nationalism based on his admiration for fascism. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's interesting: Geoffrey Samuel also writes that this "ritual kingship" also had only two "classes": unpoluted, the largest group, and polluted, the outsider-group. Samuel also notes that this model may have been prevalent before the four-varna system. And he writes that the Kuru Kingdom gad a decisive influence on this system; this is several hundreds of years after the entry of the Vedic religion into India. Kautilya3, have you got soirces on this? it's interesting. For those wh are interested in the Kuru Kingdom, read . NB: Samuel also mentions Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. I guess we should give it a read. By the way, I removed Domezil, didn't I? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references; I've just downloaded the 1980 article, and tapar is somewhere at my book-shelves. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The trifunctional hypothesis has been squeezed into this and the related generic Caste article on a few occasions, usually by editors with an interest in sociology rather than anthropology or history. It isn't a great fit and I got very pissed off with one person who was swamping an article with it. Obviously, it needs to be mentioned but I wouldn't go overboard with it and I'd make sure that any mention sticks to the Indian context rather than wandering into the wider sphere, which is what has tended to happen in the past. While I'm here, we also need to emphasise how north and south India differed in their treatment of caste in the pre-colonial period. Basically, in the south, caste was a group of people who coalesced either through family ties or occupation, and the Brahmins, who were blow-ins from the north, struggled to import their native systems - that the two middle varnas were pretty much absent from south Indian society is a massive difference and it impacted on the wider notion of caste. That then leads into what happened in the colonial period, where an explosion of caste movements developed, most notably in the "lunatic asylum" of Kerala (Caste system in Kerala). - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)