Talk:Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya

==Jogendera Nath  Bhattacharya's  Preface to the book Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religions  Systems==

PREFACE. In the last edition of mv " Commentaries on Hindu Law " I devoted a chapter to the Hindu Caste System which attracted the attention of the Publishers, and they suggested that the subject might well be expanded so as to be brought out as a separate volume. They suggested also that, in order to make the book complete, I should give an account not only of the Castes, but also of the important Hindu Sects, some of which are practically so many new Castes.

As I had been already engaged in writing a book about the history and philosophy of religions, the pro- posal, so far as the sects were concerned, was welcome indeed. About the Castes I felt very considerable diffidence ; but it seemed to me that, in a town like Calcutta, where there are men from every part of India, it might not be quite impossible to collect the necessary information. When, however, I actually commenced my enquiries, then I fully realised the difficulty of my task. The original information contained in this work has been derived from a very large number of Hindu gentlemen hailing from different parts of India. I here

IV PREFACB.

gratefnlly acknowledge the kindness that they haver shown in according to me their assistance. I feel very strongly inclined to insert in this book a list of their names. But the publication of such a list is not de- sirable for more reasons than one. To hegin with, such a list would be necessarily too long to be conveniently included. Then, again, the subject of castes and sects is, in some of its aspects, a very irritating one, and if I were to give publicity to the names of the persons who have assisted me, it might place them in a very false position. So I thank them generally without mentioning any names. "*

In connection also with this part the work^

I must acknowledge my obligations tc ' > works of Risley, Wilson and Sherring, and to M4 !' rsima- yangar's Report of the last Census of Mj. . As to the last of these, which is compiled by an educated native of the country, it is hardly necessary to observe that it is very reliable, though not very complete. Mr. Risley's "Tribes and Castes of Bengal" is an exhaustive treatise, and is, generally speaking, reliable also. If there had been similar works for the other provinces, then the task of taking a bird's-eye view of the whole would not have been quite so arduous to me as it has actually been.

With regard to the part of the book devoted to the Hindu Sects, I may mention that the greater portion of it had been written originally for my promised work on the philosophy of religion which I hope to bring out

PBBFAOB. V

before long. For the sake of many of my friends and relations near and dear to me I hesitated to ^ve publi- city to my views before ; but it seems to me high time now that I should speak out and do what lies in me to set forth the true character of the cults that the majority of those who profess to be Hindus believe and practise.

The religions of those who are not regarded as Hindus do not come within the scope of this work. But the position which I assign to Christianity, Maho- medanism, Zoroastrianism,&c.,must appear clear enough from what ^ ve said in the Introduction to my ac- count of it indu Sects, about the evolution of human faiths, an.(^ ut the different principles on which they may be - Jped. I have tried my best throughout to avoid ^ence and offensive expressions, and the

reader, who is not altogether blinded by orthodoxy^ will, I hope, admit that, even with regard to the worst of the abomination-worshipping sects, I have nowhere been harsher than the nature of the case absolutely required. Reverence ought to be by all means shown to persons and institutions that have a just claim to it. But nothing can, in my opinion^ be more sinful than to speak respectfully of persons who are enemies of man- kind, and to whitewash rotten institutions by esoteric explanations and fine phrases.

It is no doubt extremely difficult to get rid of the effect of early training and associations. But those who claim to be educated and enlightened will, I trust, give

VI PREFAOB,

me an impartial and patient hearing. However strong their faith in Saivism, Saktaism and Hadha worship may be, they cannot be altogether blind to the real character of these creeds. One of the greatest thinkers of modern times has, in connection with certain ques- tions of political economy, said :—

It often happens that the universal belief of one age of mankind — ^a belief from which no one wtu^ nor, without any extraordinary effort of genius and courage, covld^ at that time be free — becomes to a subsequent age so palpable an absurdity, that the only difficulty then is to imagine how such a thing can ever have appeared credible.

This, I am sure, will before long be the feeling of every honest Hindu with regard to some of the most important features of his so-called religions, and 1 shall feel I have performed an almost sacred duty if this work promotes in some degree that end.

JOGENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA AS EXPOSITION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM AND THE BEARING OF THE SECTS TOWARDS EACH OTHKB AND TOWARDS OTHER RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS. by JOGENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA ,Calcutta : THACKER, SPINK AND CO. 1896. CALCUTTA : PRINTED BY THAOKER, SPINK AND CO Intothefire (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Hindu Castes and Sects
A careful reading of this book is revealing ,......a Hindu Pandit - a scholar of Hindu Scripture ,.......ostensibly credited with  writing an authoritative book on Hindu castes......profoundly  relies ( although self admittedly)  on  content from (a) Evangelical Christian  missionary's   (b) British colonial officials and (c) here-say  on sources he self admittedly will not reveal,  to  fill his book. The book is majorly bereft of Hindu Scriptural sources. And when they appear, a jumble of source and his own opinion. Other places he showers abuse on various sections and sects - his opinion not scriptural sourcing. Intothefire (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of content from talk page
Sitush Do not delete contributions of other editors from talk pages as you have done here and on other talk page as well Intothefire (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think the text you added above is out of place here, because that is not what article Talk pages are for - they are for discussing the actual article and how to improve it only, and the material you added does not appear to do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of content from the article
Sitush please do not delete cited content from articles without discussion as you have done again, Revision of , as you did here on 27 November 2011 providing reasons for  one but actually also simultaneously  deleting off cited content from two books   entirely different author and book In the edit summary you say  ''Reverted good faith edits by Intothefire (talk): This is far too long a quote: paraphrase might be ok, but I am not even convinced that it is relevant" . Jogendernath is discussed here in the context of the very same book , out of which I quoted him attributing his sources and you delete it off saying its not relevant , if your comment then about the relevance of the quote is not false what is it ?
 * You supposedly delete off content from Jogenderanaths book with this content but in reality delete off another separate content as well viz Baij Nath Puri states that "The wrong concept about the status of the Khatris in Hindu Social hierarchy was initially brought forth by a pseudo pandit Joginder Nath Bhattacharya who was a dismissed employee of the Burdwan Khatri Rai" . He gave vent to his feeling ,under the influence of a personal grudge against Burdwan".
 * Next instead of attempting to discuss and paraphrase the " long quote from Baijnaths own book ", through consensus on the talk page , you simply delete it off -but I am not even convinced that it is relevant you state.

How civil is that to another editors contribution, or building consensus , or in line with Wikipedia policies.

In the same context you say on your page User talk:Sitush I know that Bhattacharya is not necessarily liked by Khatris - one of your pet subject areas - but that is no reason to rant on a talk page. You may like to explain this cryptic comment on a community, and weather this is your opinion or that of an expert , in the overall context of this discussion.

You yourself introduced this citation to jogendranath on the Khatri page see  [Citation no 8 on the Khatri article cites this page  has also been provided by you] ….very well  that s fair enough but then your misleading  deletions on this page coupled with broad brushing comments on Khatris is all a very long  distance from good faith. Intothefire (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee, considering your note above , would appreciate to see your response .Intothefire (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fixed your indents again. That is the last time. Repeat that problematic behaviour and you get no response from me. I have explained in detail why the Khatri comment and the lengthy quote are unsuitable, and I do not intend to explain it in detail again. The info is littered all over your own talk page and has been referred to here. Basically, undue weight, neutrality, abuse of sourcing, copyvio. As for your claim that I introduced whatever it is to Khatri, well, that is a misrepresentation of what I did. Nor is it even relevant, given that other stuff exists. - Sitush (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My response? Intothefire, you need to stop accusing people of bad faith. As for the actual dispute, it seems you added material, in the form of a very long quote, and Sitush reverted your good faith addition (See the way he even says "good faith" in the edit summary, but you accuse him of bad faith in return?), so now you need to discuss it and get a consensus supporting you before you can put it back again. And while I have no opinion to offer on the relevance of the content itself, it is generally against Wikipedia's style guidelines to create articles that disproportionately consist of quotations - in this case, your quotation was around two thirds of the entire article as you left it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please try to standardize your indenting to just one extra ":" per comment - indenting your replies halfway across the page makes discussions much harder to follow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee - your response is simply unbelievable, have you read my post carefully ? Intothefire (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The huge quote could have been paraphrased to something like: "In Hindu Castes and Sects, Bhattacharya noted his 'obligation to Risley, Wilson and Sherring, and to M4 !' rsima- yangar's Report of the last Census of Mj.'" The rest of the quote was simply not relevant, at least as far as I can see. The problems with even paraphrasing are that:
 * You copy/pasted that text and it shows in the garbled name beginning "M4". I took a look at the linked source & could make no sense of it there, either. That makes it a poor contribution.
 * It is perfectly normal practice for authors to acknowledge sources etc. It does not mean that they were influenced by them in any way. Indeed, nowadays such authors are often at pains to add "... but any mistakes are mine" & similar stuff. I read what I could of the cited source & simply could not see that the point was significant.
 * Regarding the other bit that I removed - and again I would stress that I have already told you this (ie: it was not sneaky in the way that you infer) - you quite clearly used a snippet view of the book. I looked it up myself and got the same phrases, which are scattered across three different pages. You concatenated three statements, for none of which you could possibly have had sufficient context. You do not know what preceded or followed each of those three statements & as such they need to be treated as "throwaway lines". Furthermore, unless you can find some sort of pattern then the stuff about Khatri is simply undue weight. His books were not about the Khatris specifically, and so emphasising one community at the expense of others makes a mockery of things. Also, the guidelines say that any criticism should usually be worked into the article and not just lumped together in one place, which is effectively what you did. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you have some sort of interest in Khatris and, in particular, the Khokhars who form a part of the Khatri community: that is fine, as long as you do not fall into the trap of POV-pushing etc. You need to consider the wider picture, both in terms of what you read (context) and what you write (neutrality & weight). - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Intothefire, you asked for my opinion and I gave it, and I can do more than that - and your rather drama-mongering description of it as "unbelievable" is really not conducive to collegial dialogue. If you don't want my opinion, don't ask for it. Or if you just want to deride it when I give it, all that will achieve is my ignoring your requests -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)