Talk:Dalit/ Archive 1

Are there any more citations needed?
There aren't any 'citation needed' tags in the main article. So should the refimprove tag for citations and unverified claims be removed? Emw2012 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Groupism i.e., Caste origin
The origin of groupism i.e., caste seems to have started with people trying to refer to themselves as one group. There was no divisions and sub divisions until different people started competing for the same resources and had to organize themselves into groups to improve their chances in competing.

Lathead 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Subdivision origin
Another reason for groupism came from the profession followed by the differnt groups. As people changed professions, they also had to change names to reflect those professions. However they needed to differentiate themselves from people who were already using those professional names. So as people took up farming they had to call themselves Vellala. However since other groups were using Vellala as title, different groups with additional names were created. Thus were created the various groups of Vellala.

Lathead 9:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD THE FACT THAT ALL WESTERNERS, especially whites, are DALIT UNTOUCHABLES as well. Those idiots think that only the dark-skinned Indians are dalits and they get discriminated against like the whites discriminate against blacks in the west. WESTERNERS, especially whites, are DEFINITELY UNTOUCHABLES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims
The following paragraph is highly biased and lacks legitimate sources: "Attempts by Christian Missionaries to convert Dalits to Christianity still continue, often illegitimately. Since the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom and their right to choose their religion, the conversions have gone unimpeded. However, controversies related to mass-conversions have led to laws being passed against them in some states in India. Several Christian converts have also reconverted back into Hinduism as the conversions did not award them the financial rewards that the missionaries lured them with ."

The one reference given here is not a conclusive study nor does it even state clearly that the recoverted people were lured to their conversion, only that one VHP Hindu activist said that he thought that they did. That does not pass muster. I have added text that more accurately reflects the situation. Benjaminmarsh 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove reliably sourced text and replace with links to hate sites and hate propoganda.Please keep nonsense racist propoganda off of wikipedia, thanks. India Rising 06:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about HATE? This is a legitimate link. The report in question is recognizes by the British Parliament. I am going to change the paragraph again because your link is NOT APPLICABLE. When you read the article you useage of it amounts to HEARSAY not an actual fact.Benjaminmarsh 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Blaming everything on Hindus, including acts by Christian Fundamentalists is hate speech and does not belong here. AICC is a hate group that demands that all Hindus be murdered and violates WP:FRINGE India Rising 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are blatently lying. AICC is not a hate group and does not advocate that all Hindus be murdered. I am reverting this change because you are not following Wikipedia Guidelines.Benjaminmarsh 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And you are vandalizing by removing sources and replacing them with hate. India Rising 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * please please please identify the hate I am using. Please. Benjaminmarsh 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The hate is where you use words like "Hindu Fundamentalism". There is no such thing as Hindu Fundamentalism. There is Hindu Nationalism. Fundamentalism is a concept that applies only to Abrahamic religions (historically with Christianity but later Islam) and does not apply to Dharmic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism. "Hindu Fundamentalism" is a fake term invented by Christian Fundamentalists to deflect attention from their atrocities on Hindus. AICC is definitely a hate group (they spread hate against Hindus so they are a hate group just like Bajrang Dal is a hate group) and not reliable in theface of the many reliable news sources cited before you vandalized it.India Rising 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hindu fandamentalism is a term - use google. It is in widespread use beyond evnagelical Christians. RAND corp. had a report on New Religious Movements and highlighted Hindu Fundamentalism. I can email it to you. Also, The US State Dept. and UK Central Office have reports on religious violence and cite Hindu fundamentalism. Also, AICC is not a hate group. Where in their documents or speeches or in media can you identify that they are a hate group? Also, please tell me how you are not using the articles in question as hearsay? 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please remember that alot of people readingt his article do not live in and have very little knowledge of India or her politicians. In the section marked 'Dalits and Religion', some fairly inflamatory comments are made and attributed to 'some politicians'. Which politicians? You have to cite exactly who has made these comments, or else it will be presumed that these are mere 'weasel words', and therefore will be deleted. Wandering Star 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess only modern day untouchables prefer the word Dalit to Harijan. The article may give the impression that untouchability is still in practice, while it is banned. This article needs to be developed further.

Comments for the above statement: To say that untouchability does not exists since it is banned by the Indian constitution is to say that racial discrimination does not exist in US because the constitution says all men are equal. While it is true untouchability is banned by Indian constitution, the practice is still rampant. Please refer to CBS 60 mins video on google - "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3966452794541360953" .. it is 7 years old but you will get the idea.


 * Google search and google video is not a reliable Source. There are many articles on AICC web site that say that Hindus are filthy people and should be converted by force if necessary. AICC is supported by the Christian Coalition in America which is a hate group that has demanded that Hindus be ethnically cleansed. India Rising 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

_________________

This article and most articles on the caste system are confusing. They don't clearly mention if today the caste system is still being used in India or other places. Is it?
 * It's not really possible to give a clear answer to the question, as the situation itself is unclear. As the article itself states, caste descrimination and the enforcement of old customs regarding ritual purity are more likely to be maintained in rural areas, while the growth of cities has weakened those prohibitions in urban environments.  Most Indians still maintain some sense of caste 'identity'- they consider themselves to belong to one of the traditional caste groupings- but the extent to which they act on that identity varies widely from person to person and family to family.  If you look at personal ads in Indian cities, people looking for a spouse will often indicate their caste and indicate whether caste is a consideration for them- it's part of the transformation of the tradition of arrainged marriage.  More traditional (often high caste) families may continue to insist that any partner be of the appropriate caste, while others may not include it as a consideration- particularly because the changing economic landscape has blurred the caste barriers considerably among urbanites.  The caste system has no legal standing, outside for the efforts to promote equality among the scheduled castes and tribes- somewhat similar to the U.S's affirmative action system, but the scheduled caste system actually includes quotas and reserved slots at schools and public employment, something that AA system doesn't do. --Clay Collier 23:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Solution
Casteism is a historical social injustice. India needs a social solution to social problem.

Reservations in education and employment is an temporary economical respite. The original social injustices will never get solved with reservations.

The would suggest 3 phases solution to the problem.

1. Amend the constitution saying that reservations will be scraped when 85% of marriages in India are inter-religious or inter-caste.

2. 85% of people in India are working poor in an informal economy to earn $2 a day so that they can feed a meal for their family. Their lives oscillate between fear and frustration.

Ensuring a government backed credible Guaranteed minimum income system will bring in dignity instead of desperation.

3. Imposing inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion among people living in India.

Alternatively: 1.Make all reservations on the basis of economic standing, a dalit child of a senior government official does not need reservation more than a poor brahmin kid.

2.Get rid of OBC reservation and increase it for dalits,the dalits have been discriminated against but the OBCs are effectively ruling classes in large part of the countries.

3.Have a finite time period for reservation I mean it has been almost 60 years and little progress.

POV
I understand that this is an issue that is emotionally sensitive. However, there are many many such issues at Wikipedia (e.g. Rus' (people) and Armenian genocide), and Wikipedia is guided by the principle of NPOV, which is non-negotiable. This is an excerpt from Indo-Aryan migration:
 * A 2001 examination of male Y-DNA by Indian and American scientists indicated that higher castes are genetically closer to Western Eurasians than are individuals from lower castes, whose genetic profiles are similar to other Asians. According to [Bamshad et al. (2001)], higher caste Telugus have a higher frequency of haplogroup 3 (R1a1) than lower castes. Haplogroup 3 is also characteristic of Eastern Europeans. In the study, Bamshad and his team wrote, "Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes."

How can this article possibly claim that the foreign origin of the upper castes is debunked? I also strongly react against the article's claim that the most common perception of the spread of the Indo-European languages is racist.--Wiglaf 12:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the article is making either of these claims anymore. Further, from the introduction to the same paper that is cited in the Aryan migration article:
 * Previous genetic studies of Indian castes have failed to achieve a consensus on Indian origins and affinities. Various results have supported closer affinity of Indian castes either with Europeans or with Asians, and several factors underlie this inconsistency. First, erratic or limited sampling of populations has limited inferences about the relationships between caste and continental populations (i.e., Africans, Asians, Europeans). These relationships are further confounded by the wide geographic dispersal of caste populations. Genetic affinities among caste populations are, in part, inversely correlated with the geographic distance between them (Malhotra and Vasulu 1993), and it is likely that affinities between caste and continental populations are also geographically dependent (e.g., different between North and South Indian caste populations). Second, it has been suggested that castes of different rank may have originated from or admixed with different continental groups (Majumder and Mukherjee 1993). Third, the size of caste populations varies widely, and the effects of genetic drift on some small, geographically isolated castes may have been substantial.
 * The statements in the article at present claim that there isn't a clear biological basis for Dalit/untouchable status. The differences between different Dalit groups- particularly geographically disperate Dalits- are probably as great or greater than the differences between a Dalit group and members of the local Shudra population.  This study helps confirm the idea that Indo-Aryan speakers from Europe inserted themselves at the top of the caste system; it doesn't do anything to answer questions about the pre- or post-Aryan origins of the Dalit class, or establish a clear biological basis for determining who is of Dalit origin. I think that the NPOV notice should stand, particularly because of problems with the verification of a lot of the statements on the current status and government attitudes towards Dalits, but I'm curious what you think about hte biological arguments as they currently stand.  --Clay Collier 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that caste system is well and alive in India. It is a part of National conscience and psyche. Inter caste marriages do occur in India but only amongst upper castes. Caste system can be best defined as both racism as well as stringent class system based on birth origin. One's caste will remain the same for all future generations. Indian laws and constitution do outlaw caste system based discrimination (not caste system) If there were no laws oulawing discrimination the government would not be able to function in face of the sheer opposition and allegations of racism within India and internationally. But the bottomline is the unwritten laws and conventions. Caste system gets its backing from the people not from the Indian constitution. Legitimacy of the Caste system is in inverse contrast with Britain where there is no written constitution but still democracy works so well. In Indian there are those unwritten laws of religion and society that establish caste system. Caste system is as much alive among Indian diaspora living in UK, USA, Canada, Fiji, Trinidad etc.


 * Caste system is bad only for outcasts, not for the ones it grants the privilleges on grounds of birth origin. People, who want to ransack Indian history, ancient texts can find that Caste system has been buttressed by many Indian texts, Bhagvad Githa being one of them (you may buy one from Hare Krishna sect in the West!) Manusmriti is the book that lays the unjust foundations of caste system and also includes several diktats for the outcaste whose sole purpose in life is to serve the ones with higher castes. Interestingly, Indian constitution does not outlaw these much revered and loved texts in India though Germany (a free country) has banned Mein Kemph.


 * But to those who want to go to the intellectual depths may find nothing. Because caste system is nothing intellectual. Faith in it is as real as Muslim terrorists who blow themselves up think they're gonna get 72 virgins in heaven! As for modern dalit political leaders, well, they acquire power only by crying foul about the caste system and thus benefit through it. Dalit masses are as abused, messed around and forlorn as ever. In fact, the very day caste system is removed from the Indian mindset, their (dalit political leaders) hugely successful citadels of 'dalit power' will collapse leaving them jobless and powerless. But that is as impossible.

Cleanup and NPOV
I went through tonight (after posting the above message) and cleaned up each section of the article as best I could, trying to blunt or remove some of the more POV language and cut out the unverifiable sections. There's still a lot of expansion that needs to be done, but I am wondering what people think about the cleanup and NPOV tags. Are they still needed here? If so, what needs to be done to get this article in better shape. Not particularly talking about expansion here, except where that affects NPOV. --Clay Collier 08:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Untouchability
Why does untouchability redirect here ? Untouchability is not a dalit only phenomenon was practiced against other castes too. Tintin Talk 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Life of a dalit
The article gives an impression that caste discrimination does not exist in the urban India. This is far off from the truth. A Dalit has to face the discrimination day in and out, whether it is through discriminatory language or through actions which intend to show him in an inferior capability, with the sole purpose of humiliating him. Despite whatever others may claim, most of the marriages in India take place within the same caste. The biggest evidence can be a look at matrimonial section of any newspaper. Sagar Toor (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This article needs more details on how the Dalit are treated, for they do exist even if not legally. I feel this article makes it seem like it is not an issue. Because of this article I thought that it was not much of a problem anymore however I have fallen upon a Dalit who has said his story, which showed me otherwise.
 * I agree. If nothing else, this article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/67483) in Newsweek certainly demonstrates that discrimination persists against members of the Dalit community, who it reports are commonly regulated to horrible jobs earning very little money due to their class. There are laws against discrimination in many countries, but it doesn't mean a whit if people continue to be denied educational opportunities and jobs and/or forced into denigrating positions by systemic prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.148.65 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion check
An anon has made some |removals from the article without explanation. Can someone who knows anything about the outcaste check if they were valid? --Kizor 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dalits are not out of caste system
I think there is a confusion between SC, ST and Dalits here. Scheduled castes are part of the caste system. They are the fourth caste. Scheduled tribes are outside the caste system. Both might be called Dalits. Many of the scheduled castes were traditionally 'untouchables'. I am not sure about the scheduled tribes though. Untouchability was related to the work they the castes did. That's why I am not sure how the ST's fit in the untouchability concept. But I am very sure that the SC's fit in the fourth caste and are not non-castes.

Also, the following sentence is misleading 'Before the freezing of lands and territories during the British colonial period, it may have been possible for Dalits to move up the ladder as Shudras or higher castes.' Shudras traditionally were the fourth or the so called 'low' castes. The sentence gives an impression as if they were the traditional so called 'higher' caste


 * Can you clarify this? The fourth caste is Sudra, right? Are you saying that all Dalits are either ST or Sudra? I didn't think that was the case, but I'm hardly an expert on this subject.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ST (Scheduled Tribes), SC ( Scheduled Castes) are legal/constitutional categories of lowest castes. Though to the best of my knowledge all dalits would be outcasts, falling out of the four classes, including last one, Sudra which should include petty farmers, artisans but not outcasts like leather workers, undertakers, cleaners, slaves etc. Not to mention even if few outcasts today may not be doing work that defined their caste, they still belong to that caste. It is more or less a system where, in ancient times, your work used to define your caste but now your caste defines you, no matter what you do at present. Eternal trap, you may say.--- August 28, 2006

more European lineage
This is not supported by the reference provided:
 * While at least one study found some association between caste status and genetic markers seeming to indicate a more European lineage, no clear biological basis for caste distinctions has been conclusively revealed.

The study claims higher-caste people are more genetically similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans; it does not claim that the higher-caste people have European lineage.

In particular, if the current migrational model inspired by linguistics is correct and corresponds to the actual genetic ancestry of the population, East Europeans and higher-caste Indians have a shared ancestry somewhere in West Eurasia, but not in Europe. --Saforrest 03:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

foreigners
I think it has to be acknowledged, as well that although there are claims that there is some tenuous link between Europeans and the "higher" castes, I can attest that foreigners are also considered, according to the strictest Hindu rule, outcastes and are likely to be barred from many temples, however this is not widely known or practiced by the common man. AaronCarson (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dalit and Religion
India is Democratic and Republic Country. Dalit is byproduct of religion. Any direct or indirect support to religion means support for untouchablity and Government and Head of the Government should not support the religion. The President of India and Prime minister of India shoud not support the religion directly or indirectly.
 * Perhaps, but as per the the talk page guidelines, this is not the place to discuss it. --- Wonderstruck 09:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WHy is their skin color not mentioned?
Is it just a coiencidence that dalit undercaste status and their centuries oppression is closely linked to their skin color? Am I just imagining things? It's just random chance that they are darker, get treated badly, and the Rig Veda has references to these things only as "symbolism". Come on let's hear it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. I think maybe it is because the modern world has come to acknowledge racism as universally horrific in nature. If people were to begin associating the caste system with racism, I think international pressure would begin to build on India, and India would have to abanadon the caste system altogether in order to relieve that pressure, sort of how South Africa had to abandon apartheid in order to relieve the burden created by economic sanctions. Wandering Star 15:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And that's why it's not in Wikipedia? Your answer is off-topic. Wonderstruck 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a common misperception among westerners. Although there is a cultural affinity for light-skin, skin color doesn't really identify caste. There are very dark-skinned Brahmins and light-skinned Dalits. 136.183.152.253 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting question. I do have some understanding of it though. True, in Vedic times, Aryan invaders wanted to differentiate dark skinned Indians from them and invented caste system. Though, it must be noted they were not downright racist as in Nazi extermination of Jews. It was not uncommon for Aryans to marry and have families with the natives. That initial caste system was a lose and simplistic one. It became more and more complex in the later stages where caste had more to do with the work than color of skin.

Though it was also true that people with fair skin usually used to be high castes. It is still true in modern India. Fair skinned brides or bridegrooms are eagerly sought after. There is a whole cosmetics industry that promises skin creams and products that make skin color lighter etc.

But coming back to the question of skin color and caste. It is true that most dalits (including tribal people) are very dark skinned. But North India maybe an exception where it is not so uncommon to see quite fair skinned dalits and darker skinned higher caste people. This confusing picture is due to caste system's intricate history and possibly marriages or illicit sexual relations with people belonging to different castes but their children becoming dalits because one of the partners might have been a dalit. Thus dalits are not genetically a race (but a motley of races and even ethnicities speaking different languages/ dialects) but still anti- dalit discrimination is racism as it has all the characteristics of racism and worse. Discrimination or even persecution of dalits is a form of an intricate racism.-- Ember Inuit.- August 28, 2006

I dont think the color is always related to the caste. In southern india you would find many people of darker skin even in the so called higher caste. Kaveri 17:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the color distinctions among Indians is not significant enough to warrant classification. Most Indians are light brown/dark brown kinned owing to the tropical climate. Those Indians in subtropical climates (such as Punjabis/Sindhis) are slightly fairer, but Dalits in Punjab are reasonably fair-skinned also.Hkelkar 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Dalit (outcaste) → Dalit – This is certainly the most common use of this term. Dalit is currently a disambiguation page and should move to Dalit (disambiguation).

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support per my nomination.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Reasonable; although a dab header may be enough. Septentrionalis 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Dekimasu 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A quick Google search doesn't seem to return anything other than this usage. Wonderstruck 09:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Page has been moved per consensus above. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 'the week 'of feb 3 explains how dalits are still treated in maharastra.dalits woman was raped and genitals were mutilated with sticks before they were killed in public view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.82.245 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dalit Muslims and Christians

 * With deference to the "to-do list" item in the beginning of the talk page, I have added some stuff on the problems faced by Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians.I have also added information about Bama Faustina, a Dalit Christian author who has criticized the caste practices of the Catholic Church in India.However, I suspect that vandals will revert it or something so I request serious editors to monitor/expand the tests.Hkelkar 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

More Cleanup and NPOV
Cleaned up some sections after recent posts, including adding citations, spacing between periods and removing repetitive text. POV issues include unquoted language like "backward" and "slavery" which are either opinions or disputed. Also there are problems with balance, with the paragraphs on Muslim and Christian discrimination taking up half the text of the social background section. This implies that religious minorities make up half the the Dalit problem when it is generally understood that both it's origin and it's continued propagation in India largely comes from traditionalists in the Hindu majority. Need to expand the first half of the origins section to address this imbalance. Gprimos1 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOR and WP:V.As long as edit are verifiable any allusions are irrelevant.Hkelkar 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "backwards caste" is used in official language in India, used by the government to identify certain groups of people refer to the WP article on Other Backwards Class.

Dalit Muslims and Christians Dispute
"They also face economic and social hardships due to the discrimination by upper-caste priests and nuns." This line is not justified based on the linked 1992 study. Let's review what the article actually says about the economic and social hardships:

Economic discrimination: There is not one word in this section referencing priests or nuns.

Educational discrimination: "A lack of economic resources of Christian dalits is one of the main reasons for the poor showing as seen from the survey. The attitude of priests and nuns in our Christian schools is not helpful to the cause of the dalit Christian students." This clearly indicates that the main problem is economic. A bad attitude is not enough to keep dalits from being educated.

Church Resources: "Non-dalit priests occupy 92.3 per cent of the offices in the five Catholic dioceses. The lack of dalit representation in the administrative and consultative bodies means lack of opportunity to present their cause at the decision-making level." This sentance does support the original assertion but the causation is indirect. It argues more that not enough Church resources are being allocated to assist dalits rather than that the church priests and nuns are directly responsible for their hardships.

In summary, the article seems to be saying more that priests and nuns are complicit in discrimination by the local Catholic population than that they are responsible. You may want to consider rewording this line to emphasize neglect more. I suggest the following: "They also face economic and social hardships due to neglect by Church authorities, 92% of which are non-Dalit."

Alternatively, you could find a source which more directly supports the claim that church priests and nuns are responsible for dalit economic and social hardships. Even then, you may want to balance that by adding some more about some of the actions taken by Hindu religous athorities earlier in the article. Gprimos1 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Working on finding alternative source..Hkelkar
 * Regarding Hindu religious authorities, could you elaborate?Hkelkar 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article has been heavily vandalised. I have no time to correct this at the moment, if anyone else does, please do. --Brideshead 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to a (biased?) source
An interesting article that may have some reference material on the Dalit situation. However, because it doesn't seem to be NPOV, I'm not going to post it on the article. A more experienced Wikipedian can determine its appropriateness: http://www.newint.org/features/2005/07/01/combatting_caste/ -- Earth Sprite &infin; 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Distinct Ethnic?
The article said Dalits of often thought of as a distinct ethnic group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they just discriminated against because of their proffession? And to raise another issue, How can they be consider related to East Asian in the south when their were no east East Asian in the south? Someone should cite this. CanCanDuo 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

POV
Removed the statement from the beginning of the 1st paragraph contrasting the Hindu scriptures' non-exclusion of Dalit with "exclusivist agenda of Semitic (Abrahamic) religions." Left the part about the Hindu text giving better-than-one-might-suppose treatment of Dalits, as I'm not knocking that point, only the uncited, clearly biased and not NPOV blasting of Judaism, Islam and Christianity in one sentence. Thanks, Keumkang 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

you did right. though there is more than a kernel of truth in the exclusionism and the-ONE-&-only-true-path view of each of those 3 religions, i shouldn't even make the futile attempt of hinting at that in an encyclopaedia dominated by editors adhering to them.Brihas 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Brihas

There are many readings of the texts of those religions, some of which are exclusionary, others are not. A statement should not be included that essentially identifies one reading as the correct reading. Furthermore, there is a huge difference in declaring one's faith the true path, which nearly every practitioner of a religion believes their religion to be, and intolerance or degradation of other faiths.

Why are random words in all caps?
This article is hard to read, which is something a Wikipedia article shouldn't be. It is extremely confusing. Please clean it up :) --68.231.55.138 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Nepal?
Untouchability exists in Nepal too. Until the last half of the 20th century it was a matter of law as well as custom. Certainly law, but also customd may be somewhat different in Nepal. 76.80.9.100 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

More European Lineage?

 * One study found some association between caste status and Y-chromosomal genetic markers seeming to indicate a more European lineage of the higher castes.

This is highly suspect. Its more likely that any higher incidence of genetic similiarity between higher castes and Europeans would be due to a higher incidence of coupling between the higher castes and Europeans when they happened to come across each other (because Europeans probably only intermingled with higher castes if visiting India, and only higher castes would be travellers likley to come across Europeans outside of India.)

I'd have to look at the study, and I'm to lazy to right now. But if they didn't account for that, and still drew that conclusion, its go to be a crap study. And besides, since when are Europeans some standard, more european lineage? As if the European lineage is a given? I've never heard of any widely accepted human dispersion model that goes from Africa->Europe->India. If anything I would think it was more like Africa->Middle East->India (of course any real dispersion model will not be so linear, with peoples going back and forth, 2nd wave migrations mixing with first wave migrations, basically a mess that kind of makes the idea of someone having more European lineage meaningless. Why isn't it that Europeans have more hindu upper caste lineage instead? Of course both contentions are suspect in the same way, but just to make the point. )Brentt 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Answers I'd like to have
As someone who knows very little about this subject, here are some questions that occurred to me as I was reading the article:

How along ago did the Dalits originate? How did others know that they were Dalits? Did they wear special clothing that identified them? Did they have an identifiable accent? Are there "Dalit surnames"? Special Dalit cuisine? IOW, is "Dalit" an ethnicity? Some time ago I noticed that Air India gives hiring preference to Dalits. How could one prove one was a Dalit to take advantage of this? Amity150 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amity150 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The theory behind the caste system is this: When the Aryans invaded India a sort of informal caste system was already in place in their own culture, but it was not as strict as it later became. It was more the "my father was a cop so I became a cop" principle. There were three basic castes. The Brahmins were their priests, the Kshatriyas noblemen and warriors, and the Vayshnav, worked the land or were merchants. The Shudra Caste are supposed to be those indigenous people who converted to the Aryan religion and perhaps reaped some benifits as a result. The Outcastes are supposed to be the people who never converted. Now, this was all so long ago, that no-one can say for sure how true this theorey really is. It would be fanciful to assume that the outcastes we know of today, are still practicing the religion of the indigenous peoples and not the Vedic religion. Most of the people I know from various different castes practice pretty much the same religion. Where I live in the Himalayas, the caste system is quite confusing. Surnames are indicative of caste, for instance Sharma and Thakur are High caste surnames, but it is unclear wether they correlate to Brahmin and Kshatriya, or if they are subcastes of one of the two. I have a friend who is reputed to be "Harijan", but I don't know if this means he is an outcaste or a Shudra. He has adopted the surname "Singh" for himself which was originally a Kshatriya surname that later became part of the Sikh tradition. The caste system is reputedly not practiced in Sikhism and those who convert to the religion, automatically become "Singh" which could indicate that the name has taken on a sort of neutral-caste connotation. Most of the "low caste" people I know have adopted names like this for themselves but a few still use the surname "Das" which is supposed to be a Shudra name. "Harijan" was also a surname used by people from the "lower castes" but I couldn't tell you if they had surnames before Mahatma Gandhi's time or not. It was my understanding that the word "Dalit" referred to people from out of caste and so did the word "Harijan" and not to the Shudra caste but this does not appear to be agreed upon. It also been suggested that out of caste people don't, officially, exist. When I ask my friends in India about "Outcastes" I certainly get a blank look. Bear in mind that all this is only what I know from where I live and by no means authoritative. The topic is quite a hotbed, and the caste system is currently in flux, so there is bound to be a lot of prickliness.AaronCarson (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Matanga
Deleted the following text. The information is not correct. Matanga was one of the so called untouchable community but that is not another name for Dalit. "Another term used for the Dalits was Matanga named after Maharshi Matanga, a Matanga Bhil and guru of Bhakta Shabari. In fact, Dalits are often addressed as ‘Matanga ’in passages like Varaha Purana 1.139.91." --Kaveri 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions
Perhaps the article could have included parts of the text from the linked web pages referring to India's failure to meet its international obligations. Can't help but notice the sheer hypocrisy of the Shilpa Shetty business while India behaves as it does. Sporting sanctions would help, starting with cricket. That could be followed by boycotts of companies that outsource to India.

194.46.249.128 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words you want to racially discriminate against Indians in the name of interfering in our internal affairs like you did when your country colonized us. Spoken like a true british racist. Keep this up and we will settle old scores by conquering britain. India can now swallow britain without a hiccup, though we have no intension of doing so because of our support of ahimsa or non-violence. (I assume you are in UK from your IP). 121.247.13.209 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Down-rotten"?
The article defines 'dalitoddhâra' as "upliftment of the down-rotten" -- is this correct? Not "down-trodden"? —Christian Campbell 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

removed anecdote
I've removed a poorly formated anecdote. I'm preserving it here in case someone wants to revise it for inclusion: In Mathura, a six-year-old Dalit girl was pushed into a burning heap of waste for entering an upper caste locality.

The girl Kamlesh is now fighting for life with 50 per cent burns.

Soudan, Kamlesh's father said, My daughter was going to the fields and my wife was following her, then sunny stopped her, and Kamlesh came to a halt, then he yelled at her and pushed her into a burning fire.

Sunny, who pushed Kamlesh into the fire has been arrested.

But the matter isn't over, the tussle between the two communities is old and Kamlesh is its latest victim

Naveendra Kumar, a Dalit Villager said, We have a small basti next to the area where the Thakurs stay, they keep cutting the phase of our area and disrupt the power supply.

Vimla, a Dalit woman said, Women go to the fields nearby and they keep stopping us on the way, sometimes they even block the road so we cannot cross it.

This incident is also a crude reminder of the fact that despite Maywati's accession to the throne in Uttar Pradesh, such crimes against Dalits still continue

Mylakovich (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

i am dalit myself, i would like to be incharge of this article. there are a lot of inaccuracies in this article
could anyone let me know if i can be incharge of this article. this article requires a lot of cleanup. can anyone let me know thanksArjuna316 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan
I'm not sure who added the information on the "caste system" in Pakistan (under the Muslim section) but it is incorrect and unsourced. Serfdom is not the same as the caste system. There is a feudal society in rural Punjab and Sindh but it is not related to castes. Also, Muhajir is not a caste, it is a term for Indian Muslims who migrated to Pakistan. Incidentally, Muhajirs are primarily in urban centres (Karachi and Islamabad) and not in rural areas or under feudal lords. If someone wants to add this information back to the article, please have a (neutral) source for it. Inf fg (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

yes you are right about the pakistan section
that was sourced wrongly by someone else. there are a lot of inaccuracies in this article. dalits are regarded as low caste not outcast. outcast refers to pariahs and can be any foreigners since they are pariahs(foreigners or outcasts) Arjuna316 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WHO IS INCHARGE  OF  THIS  ARTICLE????
this article should be in the hands of south asians. i dont understand why it is not given in the hands of south asian. who is incharge of this article?? there is a lot of mistakes in this article. this article should be in the hands of an indian and should be moderated solely by indians since it concerns only indians and no one else. wikipedia needs to clarify this immediately and put an actual indian person incharge of this article. Arjuna316 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WE are ALL in charge of this article. Wikipedia is a world-wide phenomenon. No one owns the articles. --Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA is CHEATING indians
this article should be moderated by indians. there are people who are not of indian descent who are writing fake nonsense into this article just for the sake of making themselves feel better. i have no problem with people contributing to this section but it does not mean that they keep on changing things even after people have proved that it is wrong, this is unfair. how many times should i keep on changing the article?

there are people who are incharge of other articles where locks are placed or removed on those articles. this article should be moderated by a proper indian who knows what he is doing.

who said that dalits are not regarded as a caste OFCOURSE they are a caste. the britishers who came to india are regarded as pariahs or outcasts. the dalits were never regarded as outcasts.

there is no comprehensive data on dalit population - this cannot be put in the article.

wikipedia no wonder your standards have gone so low. u should have a proper moderation in place to ensure that nonsense is not written but u have failed badly.

people are more interested in dividing and ruling indians thats what they always wanted to do. i am here to talk about unity for indians but other people definitely dont want unity for indians.

wikipedia you need to make sweeping changes or i fear no one will take wikipedia seriously anymore. it has become more of a joke. sad really sad. Arjuna316 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arjuna, you have deleted sourced material that was referenced. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india) and (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1)and (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html) Please take the time to read these referenced articles. I, myself, only made one claim of Dalit population which came from the referenced NatGeo articles, (also the 2/3rd rural mention). The other population figures came from somewhere else and only caused confusion. If the Dalit article states that atrocities are only occurring in rural areas, the reader should be made aware that the majority of Dalits are rural. Im sure, if we research, there may well be comprehensive, accurate data on population. Just to say there isn't doesn't sound accurate. Please note that in the last NatGeo article above is a mention of the four castes and Hindi. Which one of the four caste's do the Dalit belong to? None, right?
 * Perhaps it is true...the Dalits are not considered outcasts in Indian Society liguistics. I think you are misinterpreting what is happening and what fellow editors are trying to do.. I completely respect the Dalit's and I am surprised that there seems to be an attempt to lesson the centuries-long history of these people. I'm not saying that is what you are doing...it just seems to be an under current that is present. If this article was about America...be sure that The Civil War and all the atrocities of slavery would HAVE to be there. If it was about Belgians in the Congo, some editor would want to include the fact that Africans were mutilated in order to get them to work. My point is...there is a history that comes with the Dalits. To deny it would be a NEW atrocity. Reverting the edits of a fellow editor prior to discussion is bad form. While I am tempted to undo your reverts, I am willing to discuss. You and I and any other editor that wants to get involved...WE ARE WIKIPEDIA. Consensus and Truth and Good Faith editing should be our standard.--Buster7 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

im assuming buster7 that you are of african heritage? let me mention that comparing dalits to the african struggle makes no sense. dalits are totally different and have their own unique struggle that needs to be addressed properly. europeans and africans are two different races, hence the struggle of africans deals with another race altogether. this is extremely different to the struggle of dalits, majority of the indian population is genetically identical (except for north east india -which is tibeto burman people). hence the struggle of dalits is not against a different race but against a social structure.

the four castes are:

The Brahmins -- those engaged in sacrifices, and priestly functions

The Kshtriyas -- Rulers and warriors

The Vaishyas -- Merchants, farmers and tradesmen

The Dalits/shudras -- laborers/servants, cleaners, craftsmen, peasants etc.

the caste system has been abolished and very few people actually know what their original caste was. we indians do not go around asking each other what our caste is. only in terms of marriage does this caste nonsense come up but even then it is on a complete decline and within a few more generations it will disappear altogether. frankly it just doesnt exist, i havent seen any indian who goes around asking other indians what their caste is thats just nonsense.

i dont understand what u mean when you say 'trying to lessen the atrocities'. i have mentioned a million times that dalits are genetically the same as the remaining indians, i want to extinguish the flames not try to fan the flames of hatred which seems to be what u are trying to do!!!

we will have to wait till atleast 2011 when the indian government conducts a comprehensive census because there is absolutely no agreement on the accurate number. i seriously doubt that national geographic can be referenced on such an issue. a large number of dalits have converted to other religions and a gigantic number of people have claimed dalit caste status as a means of gaining benefits from the government.

might i also suggest that we archive this talk page so that we can start a fresh new archive. thanks. Arjuna316 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
No need to archive at this time. The light of day is always refreshing......Please do take the time to read the articles that I used as references...... Also, just so you are clear where I stand. A core belief of mine is the brotherhood of Mankind. The rock POV that I have built my life and family on. I was born a Belgian. That is why I mention Africa, The Congo. I would be very happy if my birth-countries envolvement with the Congo would be wiped from the History Books. It is embarrassing, it fills me with shame, I despise the travesties that were done to souls by my fellow countrymen. Now, I am an American. The full-blown history of slavery in America is tragic. Again, as a white American, souls were harmed/trampled/killed in my name. I think the plight, the history, the damage to a people (the Dalits) needs to be a part of this article...... You removed "social stratification for 1500 years." That is a well accepted and verifiable fact. Its not a comfortable fact. None of the manner in which the Dalits have been treated, for many generations, should be comfortable, to anyone...... The only race I care about is the Human Race. An African that was killed because his rubber harvest was low is the same, and just as dead, as the Dalit that dared to talk back to a Brahmin......BTW..I'll be honest..I don't quiet know what your "comefrom" is. You include the Dalits in you response to me about the four castes. Interestingly, they are the only group Not capitalized. If that is true (that the Dalits are now included with the Shudras in the fourth caste,(Which I doubt!))it is only a very recent change in the mindset of the typical Indian citizen. Historically, they were without a caste--outside the Body of India. From the way you are editing this article it would seem that you would rather not represent any negative history. That may be impossible! You want complete control of this article, by an Indian. Why is that? Specifically. You hint, somewhere, that you have a Dalit ancestor. Let HIM be our guide. Let HIM control this article. After all is said and done, it IS about HIM.--Buster7 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

change picture
could someone add a new picture of dalits in present indian society. i wanted to add the picture of one of our famous politicians who was a dalit (i forgot his name i will search and add his picture later). this would show the world how we as indians have come together and united.

no one no matter who can divide us indians. remember united we prosper, divided we fall. Arjuna316 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction maybe?
There is a line in the article that says "Discrimination against Dalits is limited to the Hindu community", however the in the later portions it has been clearly mentioned that discrimination against Dalits happen in Christian, Sikh and Muslim communities too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.142.178 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

change picture
could someone add a new picture of dalits in present indian society. i wanted to add the picture of one of our famous politicians who was a dalit (i forgot his name i will search and add his picture later). this would show the world how we as indians have come together and united.

no one no matter who can divide us indians. remember united we prosper, divided we fall. Arjuna316 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But an encyclopedia is not the place to present India as you would like it to be. All of your edits need to have a reliable source behind them. I'm sorry if you know better than what this article says, but we can't go on your word alone. This is true for all Wikipedia articles. kwami (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA is CHEATING indians
this article should be moderated by indians. there are people who are not of indian descent who are writing fake nonsense into this article just for the sake of making themselves feel better. i have no problem with people contributing to this section but it does not mean that they keep on changing things even after people have proved that it is wrong, this is unfair. how many times should i keep on changing the article?

there are people who are incharge of other articles where locks are placed or removed on those articles. this article should be moderated by a proper indian who knows what he is doing.

who said that dalits are not regarded as a caste OFCOURSE they are a caste. the britishers who came to india are regarded as pariahs or outcasts. the dalits were never regarded as outcasts.

there is no comprehensive data on dalit population - this cannot be put in the article.

wikipedia no wonder your standards have gone so low. u should have a proper moderation in place to ensure that nonsense is not written but u have failed badly.

people are more interested in dividing and ruling indians thats what they always wanted to do. i am here to talk about unity for indians but other people definitely dont want unity for indians.

wikipedia you need to make sweeping changes or i fear no one will take wikipedia seriously anymore. it has become more of a joke. sad really sad. Arjuna316 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna, you have deleted sourced material that was referenced. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india) and (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1)and (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html) Please take the time to read these referenced articles. I, myself, only made one claim of Dalit population which came from the referenced NatGeo articles, (also the 2/3rd rural mention). The other population figures came from somewhere else and only caused confusion. If the Dalit article states that atrocities are only occurring in rural areas, the reader should be made aware that the majority of Dalits are rural. Im sure, if we research, there may well be comprehensive, accurate data on population. Just to say there isn't doesn't sound accurate. Please note that in the last NatGeo article above is a mention of the four castes and Hindi. Which one of the four caste's do the Dalit belong to? None, right? Perhaps it is true...the Dalits are not considered outcasts in Indian Society liguistics. I think you are misinterpreting what is happening and what fellow editors are trying to do.. I completely respect the Dalit's and I am surprised that there seems to be an attempt to lesson the centuries-long history of these people. I'm not saying that is what you are doing...it just seems to be an under current that is present. If this article was about America...be sure that The Civil War and all the atrocities of slavery would HAVE to be there. If it was about Belgians in the Congo, some editor would want to include the fact that Africans were mutilated in order to get them to work. My point is...there is a history that comes with the Dalits. To deny it would be a NEW atrocity. Reverting the edits of a fellow editor prior to discussion is bad form. While I am tempted to undo your reverts, I am willing to discuss. You and I and any other editor that wants to get involved...WE ARE WIKIPEDIA. Consensus and Truth and Good Faith editing should be our standard.--Buster7 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

im assuming buster7 that you are of african heritage? let me mention that comparing dalits to the african struggle makes no sense. dalits are totally different and have their own unique struggle that needs to be addressed properly. europeans and africans are two different races, hence the struggle of africans deals with another race altogether. this is extremely different to the struggle of dalits, majority of the indian population is genetically identical. hence the struggle of dalits is not against a different race but against a social structure.

the caste system is actually nonsense if u wanted to go by ur 4 caste basis it would be something like this the four castes are: The Brahmins -- those engaged in sacrifices, and priestly functions The Kshtriyas -- Rulers and warriors The Vaishyas -- Merchants, farmers and tradesmen The Dalits/Shudras -- laborers/servants, cleaners, craftsmen, peasants etc.

but in reality this is nonsense because there are literally 1000s of castes and subcastes in india. frankly speaking the caste system is just plain stupidity.

the caste system has been abolished and very few people actually know what their original caste was. we indians do not go around asking each other what our caste is. only in terms of marriage does this caste nonsense come up but even then it is on a complete decline and within a few more generations it will disappear altogether. frankly it just doesnt exist, i havent seen any indian who goes around asking other indians what their caste is thats just nonsense.

i dont understand what u mean when you say 'trying to lessen the atrocities'. i have mentioned a million times that dalits are genetically the same as the remaining indians, i want to extinguish the flames not try to fan the flames of hatred which seems to be what u are trying to do!!!

we will have to wait till atleast 2011 when the indian government conducts a comprehensive census because there is absolutely no agreement on the accurate number. i seriously doubt that national geographic can be referenced on such an issue. a large number of dalits have converted to other religions and a gigantic number of people have claimed dalit caste status as a means of gaining benefits from the government. Arjuna316 (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Please do take the time to read the articles that I used as references...... Also, just so you are clear where I stand. A core belief of mine is the brotherhood of Mankind. The rock POV that I have built my life and family on. I was born a Belgian. That is why I mention Africa, The Congo. I would be very happy if my birth-countries envolvement with the Congo would be wiped from the History Books. It is embarrassing, it fills me with shame, I despise the travesties that were done to souls by my fellow countrymen. Now, I am an American. The full-blown history of slavery in America is tragic. Again, as a white American, souls were harmed/trampled/killed in my name. I think the plight, the history, the damage to a people (the Dalits) needs to be a part of this article...... You removed "social stratification for 1500 years." That is a well accepted and verifiable fact. Its not a comfortable fact. None of the manner in which the Dalits have been treated, for many generations, should be comfortable, to anyone...... The only race I care about is the Human Race. An African that was killed because his rubber harvest was low is the same, and just as dead, as the Dalit that dared to talk back to a Brahmin......BTW..I'll be honest..I don't quiet know what your "comefrom" is. You include the Dalits in you response to me about the four castes. Interestingly, they are the only group Not capitalized. If that is true (that the Dalits are now included with the Shudras in the fourth caste,(Which I doubt!))it is only a very recent change in the mindset of the typical Indian citizen. Historically, they were without a caste--outside the Body of India. From the way you are editing this article it would seem that you would rather not represent any negative history. That may be impossible! You want complete control of this article, by an Indian. Why is that? Specifically. You hint, somewhere, that you have a Dalit ancestor. Let HIM be our guide. Let HIM control this article. After all is said and done, it IS about HIM.--Buster7 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

i have kept the part about discrimination BUT IM NOT going to keep.....
i have kept your part about discrimination OFCOURSE i agree there is discrimination my forefathers who were dalits have suffered discrimination. but i warn you again and again that i will not accept this nonsense about outcasts. i have told you again and again that dalits are a low caste which is labourers /servants/ cleaners/ peasants. the term dalit simply means suppressed/oppressed it has NEVER meant outcast. STOP quoting national geographic, what do they know about indian history??
 * Your opinion alone isn't enough to establish the legitimacy of the National Geographic one way or another. - Vianello (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

you have not provided any reasons for adding it back into the article. why? for some reason you are trying to paint me as the villain when all that i am guilty of is trying to unify my people.

also if u want to mention about the 1500 years of caste system (i have no idea who gave u this figure) u can put this under the caste system section of india.

also dont forget to mention how the egyptians treated their slaves worse than animals when building the pyramids and dont forget to mention how the europeans treated the poor peasants in the middle ages (i could go on and on), that is caste system as well no? Arjuna316 (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The brush is in YOUR hand, not mine!--Buster7 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

u have still NOT given any reasons
i am warning you.

you have still not give any reasons regarding your changes. you cannot make changes to articles without giving resons.

what do you mean dalits are not similar to any of these "higher" castes??? now all of a sudden shudra is "high" caste. you are making up information as you go along. you have not provided any reasons for your changes.

and why are you changing my sentences now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

REASON for edit of 4 caste
http://www.kamat.com/indica/caste/

u can check in that website, there is no such thing as a 4 caste system. it is just nonsense interpretation by afrocentrics or black supremacists like runoko rashidi. you can literally count 1000s of castes and subcastes in india. the above website also dispels some myths of the caste system. it would do you well to go through it.


 * Arjuna...The referenced article, (kamat.com) is very informative. I suggest you read it. It seems to prove my point:4 BASIC castes which do NOT include the Dalits...Also, for the third and last time, please read the NatGeo articles that I used to reference MY edits. I know you have not read them since you continue to argue from a position of non-flexibility...Also, it may benefit you to read Lead section and Writing better articles...Also, this has been a running conversation. It is better to indent onto what you are responding to rather than starting a new section all the time. That way your attacks are focussed and future visitors know who you are talking to. And, other editors can also respond without added confusion.--Buster7 (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll post here since it seems you won't stop reverting things. The page you linked, http://www.kamat.com/indica/caste/dalits.htm, actually serves to back up what was originally there. "The Dalits are the collection of all the communities of India who were denied a status in the traditional Caste System of India."
 * "They were considered even lower that the lowest caste, namely the Shudras."
 * "In various parts of India, it was considered unholy to even touch the Dalits (hence the name asprushya or untouchable), and the Dalits could not use the same public facilities (such as well, or a restaurant) frequented by the upper-castes."
 * Those quotes are all taken from the site you linked to.
 * Of particular interest is the final section of that page, which states:
 * While a lot of progress has been made to improve the status of Dalits, the reform has not transformed the Indian orthodoxy. The Indian newspapers often report incidents when Dalit women are abused, Dalit kids are expelled from schools and the like.


 * A new generation of Dalit leadership has emerged in India. However, due to other problems of India, their agenda gets twisted, misinterpreted, and even ridiculed. Many Dalits do not wish to be identified as Dalits for obvious reasons, and the Dalit community is losing valuable leaders to neo-brahmanism.


 * A new form of literature has emerged in India, consisting of prose and poetry written by Dalit writers. They document the stories of India, hitherto untold. (see: Uchalya, the caste of the thieves)


 * Dalits are getting caught in the crossfire between the religious fervor of Christian missionaries and Hindu fundamentalists who are bent on opposing conversions in India.
 * If anything, the "4 accepted castes" should only be changed to something along the lines of "there were originally 4 accepted castes" or similar.


 * Removing referenced text, especially when it's actually backed up by the very link you provided, is basically vandalism and POV-pushing. If you keep it up without actually giving a decent link that shows it's wrong, you'll just end up blocked. Terrifictriffid (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FINAL section created for DISCUSSION of two lines
buster7 this will be the final section created for the discussion of the lines that u want to put into wikipedia. you CANNOT add lines into the article unless there is an agreement by me (i am indian and dalit by heritage). we will have to first discuss about these issues and you will have to make significant changes.

i am not sure as to why i was banned for 1 day!!! anyway i feel that first you and i will need to have a proper discussion before you can add anything to the article (i dont want random usernames made by the same person to come and act as a different person, im not accusing anyone im just saying)

the one person that actually should re-read the link that i have posted is you. you have still not understood that class and caste are the same. what kamat is trying to say is that there is a myth of 4 castes because as the professions/jobs increases so too the castes/classes. that is why intodays india where there are doctors, lawyers, teachers, waiters, cleaners, police officers, cooks, mechanics, butchers etc. etc. there are literally 1000s of castes which just goes to show the stupidity of the caste system. kamat is trying to explain that foreigners have never understood that the caste system is a joke and makes no sense. that is why kamat explains there is no such thing as 4 castes and more than 4 castes have always been in "vogue". that is why i have removed ur line when u mentioned that there are 4 "accepted" castes in indian society. there are not just 4 "accepted" there are 1000s of ACCEPTED castes in indian society. the only thing it does is show the stupidity of the entire caste system.

also the word dalit is a word that was newly coined in the 1950s and has not existed prior to that, before that for so many centuries "dalits" came under low caste category. either way u have been forced to admit your mistake earlier when u said that dalit were "outcasts" now you are forced to admit that they are "in" the caste system.

the lines that you added are:

There are four accepted castes in Indian society creating a social stratification that has existed for 1500 years. Dalits are not included in any of these castes. They are considered a fifth caste--The Untouchables.

you will have to discuss with me thoroughly and you will have to make significant changes before we add lines into the article. u CANNOT simply add lines into the article from your perspective. indians are smart now and i highly doubt that the divide and rule policy of the british will work with us again (im not pointing fingers at anybody).

i have removed the population number that you have given (160 million??), there is NO consensus on the actual dalit population. we will have to wait till atleast 2011 before we can get any real values, even then more than half of the people who claim dalit status were NEVER dalit to begin with and are simply stealing benefits meant for actual dalits (i know because i have seen them do it). i have also removed the 2/3rd mention, this is mentioned in the main article on "india", why does it need to be mentioned over here?? millions of people move from rural to urban areas every year, anyway this article is talking about dalits not rural/urban population and migration patterns.

i said it before and i will say it again. i understand that you are african and you want to claim dalits as belonging to your struggle. but this is not the case. the dalit struggle is against the stupidity of my own people(the indians) and is not against any foreign race like africans or europeans. also please do not take references from black supremacists/afrocentrics like RUNOKO RASHIDI.

you will need to DISCUSS (note: DISCUSS) things before you can add them. i am extremely busy for the next couple of days. but like i said you will have to properly discuss it with me (i am indian and dalit by heritage) before you decide to add anything to the article. if you add anything to the article without discussing it you are going AGAINST wikipedia policy and will have to be banned from making further edits.

good day. Arjuna316 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arjuna...Please comply with normal editing and talk procedures. Use indent (3 Colons in a row before you start) to continue a conversation. Do not begin a new section. It only confuses things. And they are confused enough...#1) When you see username Buster7---That is me. When you see ANY other User name or IP # that is ANOTHER editor. Not Me. I am not a Trinity... #2) I am also not African American. I dont have any idea where you came up with that. As I said in my reply, I am a white American, born in Belgium... #3)The value of referenced Material is that it provides another viewpoint, preferably verified. Like the 3 NatGeo ref's that I am still sure you have not read... #4) Contrary to what you might think, an editor can not just "take over" an article. This is not a dictatorship. It is a COLLECTIVE effort. Consensus is the norm... #5) My feeling is you have no interest in achieving a balanced article and you will, for the moment, stand in the way of any progress toward that end...#6) Myself and other editors are not in competition with you. You were banned because you continue to revert verified references from reliable sources. The only reason you seem to give is that you don't like them. You broke the 3 revert rule. I'm sure it was clearly explained to you but you refused to understand. Just like you don't comprehend Concensus... #7) The collective opinion of every editor currently involved with this article is that the facts (two lines) that I added to the lead were valid. The fact that other editors are undoing your reverts displays their conscious affirmation of my initial entrys...#8) The 2/3'rds is mentioned to counterbalance an implication, in the article, that atrocities are only happening in rural areas. But, that is a good point.(as far as editing). I did NOT remove the other editors statement. I merely gave the our reader another viewpoint...#9) I stand by my edits. They were done in good faith and with NPOV.--Buster7 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

u have given national geographic reference, I HAVE GIVEN KAMATS REFERENCE READ PROPERLY WHAT KAMAT HAS SAID. there is no such thing as 4 "accepted" castes, there are 1000s of accepted castes.

WHY ARE  U  NOT  READING  THE  LINK  THAT  I  HAVE  POSTED?????

read the link and understand or else discuss, i highly doubt national geogrpahic written by westerners is going to be more credible compared to articles written in kamat by indians.

by links are just as CREDIBLE as yours. it is not me that does not want to achieve a consensus -it is you. you are still running away from the questions that i posted answer them.

i have created this topic as a final discussion with you regarding the lines that you want to put in the articles.

i am not sure about the multiple users part, people these days can just as well go to another location and log in as a different user (again not pointing fingers at anybody)

i highly highly doubt that you are white american. majority of the whites that i have met have the deepest respect for indians. majority of the african americans i have met had the deepest hatred of indians and would do anything to divide indians based on black supremacist/afrocentric people like Runoko Rashidi.

answer all the questions that i have asked. you have still not answered any of the questions that i had posted. Arjuna316 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will only have discussions with credible editors of this article.--Buster7 (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

again you are running away and not willing to discuss. and you have again changed the article. i seriously did not expect such childish behaviour.

on the whole wikipedia is a total joke. i cant believe that at one time i actually thought that wikipedia was a "good" website. not only is wikipedia a hopeless website but it does the added function of spreading lies. Arjuna316 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"you CANNOT add lines into the article unless there is an agreement by me (i am indian and dalit by heritage)." Wow. I... didn't realize you (or anyone) had special editorial priveleges above other editors based on heritage. And to answer your quandary, you were banned for WP:Edit warring. At any rate, as I already stated, and as you have chosen to ignore, if you have sourced information that disagrees with other sourced information, the better course of action is to add the disputing perspective, not to arbitrarily delete the one you disagree with on the assumption your source is correct. You have not obtained consensus to remove this information. Continuing to do so constitutes edit warring and possibly outright vandalism. You're welcome to add new information or disputes you have come across, but attempting to censor legitimately cited material because you have arbitrarily and personally denied the source's credibility is unacceptable. Your impassioned rhetoric on this issue demonstrates a strong possibility of a conflict of interest that interferes with your objectivity on this topic. At any rate, the edit history clearly indicates consensus is not in your favor, and continuing these removals will be responded to as contnuing to edit-war. If you think Wikipedia is "spreading lies", then add information that you feel will clarify the situation in an objective fashion. If you can't do that, your contributions are not helpful. - Vianello (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out a certain irony in your insinuations that this is some conspiracy by a single person, when you yourself have rather transparently hopped back and forth between an IP and an account. There's nothing innately WRONG with that. Sometimes people forget to log in, or can't, or what-have-you. But it's something to contemplate. - Vianello (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

final edit done everybody should be happy nowArjuna316 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's on First
The third paragraph of the Lead starts with a list of occupations. It is possible that a reader might mistakenly assume that this is a list of the cheaters that were talked about in the previous paragraph. Is the editor of that section available??? I would seek to clarify to remove ambiguity.--Buster7 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done...--Buster7 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Social Reform and Origin
Please give a reason why this section was removed. Wholescale removal like this requires concensus--Buster7 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

what are u talking about? i didnt make any changeArjuna316 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So...why respond?...I am asking the editor that made the removal.--Buster7 (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

oh yea that paragraph thats me, its just that sometimes i forget to log on. anyway u mention later on that more studies were done and proved the previous studies wrong. so i thought there wouldnt be any need to mention the previous studies. but if u want to u can put it in there. i might put a sentence later on saying that the previous study was found wrong.

they have already conducted large numbers of genetic testiing in india already. the result always comes out the same no difference between indians. Arjuna316 (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Never or Ever
BTW...The difference between the use of "ever" or "never" is subtle. "Ever" just works better in the sentence. The statement itself needs verification. The fact that you claim "more than half", suprisingly, is not enough. Proof is needed for inclusion. Also. #1)...The exclusion of 'population' in the rewrite is because "population census" is an oxymoron. It is redundant...#2) Subtle has to do with fine-tuning. Not hiding the truth. For instance, adding a comma is subtle. If anything, it enhances truth...#3) In the words of Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the Truth."--Buster7 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

frankly speaking i was just mentioning the truth because i am dalit, i have seen many indians wrongfully claim dalit status to get money. heck i have even seen upper caste people do it. the villages that we went to the dalits did not know how to read and write. so you ended up with a large number of other indians who would just claim dalit status and get money. whereas the minority of actual dalits had to go hungry. thats an actual fact but people dont want to say that it happens. even though everybody knows that it does. that is why i mentioned more than half because in reality it is "more than half". as soon as the indian government started handing out benefits everybody wanted a piece of the pie. that is why the minority of actual dalits continue to remain in poverty whereas the majority of "fake" dalits happily go around counting their money. its a sad situation, when there is money involved people can change themselves within minutes without any regards to people who are actually suffering.Arjuna316 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal observations are valid. The more you have explained them (above) the more real they seem. The problem is...they need to be verified or they risk exclusion. It's just encyclopedic standards, nothing personal. Verifiability has become the buzz word. It prevents ambiguity and personal prejudice. If what you say is prevelent, someone must be reporting on it or recording it. No one is saying that it is not happening, we just need to see it from another source. Note: You still refuse to use colons to make following a conversation easier. Please see how other editors operate. It will make your editing easier.--Buster7 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dalits in the USA
I would agree with this entry that Dalits are in fact discriminated against in the USA. I live in a major U.S. city with a large Indian/Pakistani neighborhood nearby. I have seen it first-hand.--Buster7 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

i have never in my entire life heard of anything like this, can you please cite sources. i am dalit myself, most of the indian kids in america had no idea what their caste was and the parents in america didnt really bother with such stuff. marrying inside the indian race is a big thing. but i havent heard of cases where people cared what caste the indian was?

i havent heard of anything like this, more importantly majority of the indians that i met in america had no clue what their caste was, majority didnt care. they were more interested in making money.

considering the fact that all indians are genetically the same. indians in america are very big on marrying within their race and they wont marry outside the indian race. however i have never heard of any situation where indians have discriminated against one another in america.

unless your talking about religious hindu/muslim issues cos yea thats a bit strained among indians.

maybe these indians that u met were trying to earn a quick buck. and were trying to guilt u so that they could get money out of you? u have to be very careful any indian can claim any caste status considering that majority of the indian castes look more or less the same. Arjuna316 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1500 Years
@ Arjuna, This article must present fair and unbiased viewpoints on the topic. Obviously, there are many sides to such a provocative history. It is a referenced edit, from a reputable source, that pertains to the Topic of this article. If anything< I will look/read the India article and include it there, as well as here. Actually, if you read the sentence, it is a coverall statement for all the caste's: the Dalits were stratified lowest, the Bramins were classified highest, with the other's somewhere in the middle. Why should it not be here?--Buster7 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * its just that it made more sense to put the article in the indian "caste" section. if u want to put the reference in, u can put it in. but calling it reputable is a joke. an article on dalits written by a bunch of westerners or africans just to make themselves feel better is a total joke. they have no knowledge at all about indian history. they just want to make up facts as they go along. Arjuna316 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My editing friend...calling NatGeo reputable just means that NatGeo has a favorable reputation and, in encyclopedic work, it is accepted WORLDWIDE as reliable. Also, just some friendly advice. You should temper you verbiage regarding africans. Some may consider your views as prejudicial and question your veracity here...and elsewhere. Also, notice how I used colons to differentiate our conversation...me....then you....then me...(I had to add 2 colons to the front of your reply.--Buster7 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

so i should not say anything bad against africans???

if a person hates me and wants to bring down my culture, regardless of wether he is a black supremacist afrocentric like runoko rashidi or a white supremacist or anybody else for that matter. i will speak out against him.

expecting me to be good towards one group and hate another group is called RACISM. u may want to check urself buster7. Arjuna316 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Genetic differences
It is quite possible that Dalits do no constitute a separate genetic group. But the statement that Indians are genetically the same is incorrect. Please see the first paragraph of the Demographics of India, where there is a referenced claim to the contrary. It is simply impossible for such a large set of people to be genetically the same. Please make the appropriate modifications.

Also, the reference in this page talks only about paternal heritage, so that does not rule out genetic differences by any means.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What works best at WikiWorld is for the editor that discovers a need for modification to either make the modification or discuss it prior. Proceed!--Buster7 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

there were no genetic differences found. i changed the word similar to same because that is what the genetic testing has uncovered that there is no genetic difference. what the article proved was that it was impossible to differentiate between indians genetically because of the similarity between all the indian groups. indians are said to have originated from a common ancestor living in india 1000s of years ago.

what the article is trying to prove is that the overall genes that make up indian people are the same. there have been several gentic tests that have been performed that have shown negligible genetic input from anywhere outside india. that is what the scientific journal paper proves. also ur statement that it is impossible for such a large population to be the same. then what about the case of china? it is considered a fairly homogenous country.

i can change the word from same to similar. but i dont think this would do justice to the excellent scientific journal on indian genetics, which i have put as reference.

u can also check the wikipedia section "genetics and archaogenetics of india" it explains the genetics of india in better detail. thanks. Arjuna316 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arjuna316, since you are a Dalit and probably have a lot more knowledge than I do, I will not edit this page till we reach a consensus. I am not saying in any way that the basis of untouchability is genetics, in fact, to my knowledge the Brahmins increasingly segregated a section of the village population as impure to emphasize their own purity. Not only that, the Dalit population has not remained static, communities of people (usually based on their profession) have moved in and out of the Dalit category. However, this implies that a Dalit in Tamil Nadu is not genetically distant from a Tamil Brahmin, it certainly does not mean that Dalits (or for that matter Brahmins) in Tamil Nadu are genetically similar to Gujjars in Kashmir. Do you understand what I am trying to say ? Your wording needs some restructuring thats all, to makes sure you re talking about genetic differences between castes rather than geographical or linguistic groups. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that this genetic discussion is quite confusing and seems to be a bit out of place at the beginning of this article. I understand, Arjuna316, that you are trying to explain that the Dalits (and castes) are not based on genetic differences, which is fine. However, the statement: "Genetic testing further indicates that as a whole, Indian genetic groups do not show a great affinity to any non South-Asian groups" seems pointless to this article. Also, your claim that genetic differences are negligible in India is not convincing. Note that the "Genetic landscape of the people of India" Journal of Genetics article (2008) states: "We note that the people of India are referred as ‘Indian’ in many population genetic studies. The implication of such usage is that the Indian population is genetically homogeneous, which, as the results of our study indicate, is evidently not true.". This seems to be the newest study referenced, and it disputes your argument. In addition, I would like to suggest that genetic definition of race and the historical definition of race (and the source of racism) are not equivalent, which is further discussed in other Wikipedia articles. Pythn (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The given link in this article makes no single reference to any difference in Dalit genetics from that of others. - Power Curve Surge —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Good to know that you have finally decided to discuss the issue. But please understand that any discussion has to achive consensus before the changes can be reintroduced. Please be patient and wait for other editors to respond to this discussion before changing the section again. The section does not claim to speak about Dalit groups in particular, nor do the links. But it does talk abut hte differencences in upeer and lower caste groups rather than just one particular goup. What is the problem with that--Deepak D'Souza 08:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We can also find many more RS sources to back it up, which I will Taprobanus (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article talks about the differences between upper-caste groups, but doesn't even mention anything members of Surda castes, or even more backward castes. It has nothing to do with the Dalits. - Power Curve Surge
 * If you keep reverting without consensus, I will now report you to ANI as well as 3rr violation and bring in admins. Your use of anon account to do the same will get you in more trouble than. Please refrain from abusing our willingness to talk to figure this out. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very stubborn and I don't believe you will allow the removal of these contents, even if any concensus is reached. - Power Curve Surge —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Pariah
Does this word only have a similar meaning as Dalit outside of India? I never heard of Dalit, only knew Pariah. Thanks Mallerd (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, The article on Pariah does not specifically state that they are Dalits, but I guess they are Dalits. If my understanding is correct; in English the term simply means "outcast". Dalit is a lable for all members of the lowest caste in Indian society who are also "outcasts" from traditional society. Outcast in the sense that they weren never treated as equals; their presense was treated as polluting to upper castes. It was their responsibility to ensure that they did not cross the path of an upper caste, and mostly lived on the fringes of vilages or in seperate villages. I hope I have cleared thing a bit . --Deepak D'Souza 09:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnentic and Non-Genetic origins of the caste system
I had rewritten the section on the origins of the caste system to inclode both points of view : first that its origins were rooted in the Aryan migration to India and the secondview that it was a social construct. In my opinion both theories are equally true. The Aryans had a stratification system even before they arrived in the subcontinent which got cemented over the years into the present caste systme. There were low castes even before the arrvial in India but the pre-existent tribes were also included into the caste system at the lowest level. ie even below the lowest strata in the Aryans.User:Arjuna316 has a different point of view. --Deepak D'Souza 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

aryan invasion has proven to be nonsense, why do you want to discuss hocus pocus. why not go with the given genetic evidence? that should be more than enough to prove that aryan invasion is nonsense. also note the word aryan is an indian word. it has nothing to do with outsiders.

a version of the aryans that is somewhat accepted is the aryan MIGRATION theory. on the basis of LIGUISTICS only. it does NOT involve any genetics. even this THEORY is in doubt and a lot of discussions are going on in regards to this.

also let me mention this again: i do not give a damn about hindus or christians. i am only interested in the racial aspect and if someone tries to divide indians i will not allow it. i have said this again and again every indian caste group looks the same. also caste practice itself is on the decline and will soon be non existent.

i will try and put back the intro that you have deleted. please make sure that you put the intro back. i do not understand why you have deleted the intro???

i have also saved this entire discussion page incase you try to delete this page. Arjuna316 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop using CAPS, it is very uncivil behaviour. Your statements go against the atmosphere of discussion and consenses and shows a distinct oprientation towards WP:POV. And please stop issuing orders. It is not civil behaviour. Can you tell me what are the problem is in the Intro so that we can work it out. Statements like "hocus pocus", "i do not give a damn", "if someone tries to divide indians i will not allow it" are very aggressive and not condusive to Wikipedia


 * I have taken a look at the Aryan invasion theory article as you suggested. It clearly mentions that the theory is only opposed in the RSS circles and has no academic backing. Lingusitics is just one of the aspects of looking at it. Archeological and antrhropological evidence also supports the theory. You are using just one single source to disprove a theory that has been validated by academicians. --Deepak D'Souza 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

i was just using caps to highlight the words. i did not mean to be rude.Arjuna316 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I ave added both versions, no need to white wash opinions here. Taprobanus (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

i think your intro and the way u have arranged the article is amazing. however i do not understand when u say i am white washing things? i am dalit by heritage, if i wanted to white wash things then i would say that indians are white but thats not the case. i was making the point that although india has genetic diversity, there is nil to none genetic input from outside south asia.Arjuna316 (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article ought to be a Good article or even Featured article. We owe it to the millions of Dalits throughout South Asia (not just India) to have a good balanced article about Dalits. Balanced and neutral means all point of view have to given prominence not just one point of view then we ought to publish all points If WP:RS sources say that. We cannot hide it in Wikipedia, because after all this is an encyclopedic project not a blog or website. Whether one is a Brahmin or Dalit has no bearing in editing Wikipedia. I edit all kinds of articles. Taprobanus (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

i am sorry taprobanus but in regards to this issue i will have to differ. several tests have been done very very very recently. but to quote tests that were done by "foreigners" a long time ago and show them as being credible makes no sense. we have already done countless tests and the same conclusion comes everytime no racial differences. since wikipedia is an encyclopedia we should go with what is the truth. i dont think there is a need to present the other point of view because the other point of view has already been disproven as lies. so they do not have any credibility. Arjuna316 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is wikipedia, as long as the source is reliable, it does not matter who did the test. For that matter I can argue that the tests done by Indians is suspect because it is biased. You are the only one here arguing to keep just one point. Everyone who has tried to edit has been sauying the same thing, that is we need to present a balanced perspective. Removing cited reliable material may be considered WP:VANDALISM and may result in a block. So please reconsider your stance.ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect; citations?
I have great respect for India, and realize that ideals are important. Nonetheless, I've asked for a citation (preferably several) about the claim that the "caste system has been abolished". Ideally, perhaps,(maybe even legally ??), but practically I'm sure it takes more than a few decades to erase old traditions. We Americans have our castes too, which we are always denying - but they're there for anyone to see. Namaskar Twang (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think what that refers to is that the Constitution of India abolished the caste system in 1947 and no organ of the Indian state may discriminate on the basis of caste. In fact, the Constitution provides for extensive affirmative action programmes to ensure proper representation of the lower castes in politics, administration and education. I can give details if you want. But of course, like you said this does erase old discriminations, they are prevalent especially in rural North India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me give an example, the state conducts the AIEEE exams to determine admission to the NITs, and reserves about 40 % of the seats for people of lower caste, as this document shows (Note: GEN means open seats, OBC, SC and ST mean seats reserved for various lower castes). Similarly during elections, a certain number of seats are reserved for the lower castes, meaning only they can compete for those seats. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

the caste system was abolished decades ago under the indian constitution. it is illegal by law in india to discriminate on the basis of caste.Arjuna316 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Statement on Indian Constitution
The article claims that the Indian Constitution abolishes caste system but the reference of it doesn't squares with the claim.Please source the statement of the Indian Constitution where it abolishes caste system.Princhest (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)