Talk:Marathi Brahmin/Archive 1

non Brahmin castes on this page
Hi Sitush, There are no citations on this page when a caste name is added. I am looking at page 26 of the book "The Chitpawans" by Sandhya Gokhale. She has given a list of Maharashtrian Brahmin castes. Many of the names on this page are not even listed there. Looks like people are just adding random names of communities here.Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I lived in Maharashtra for 20+ years before moving to the US but have never even heard of some of the names mentioned here as being brahmins -Acharya63 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree it needs to be sourced. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism videos - please avoid copying sentences/phrases verbatim. Please paraphrase or use quotation marks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly_AeHl4t5M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JwFWbPotBA (see part after 5 minutes to hear about quotation marks. This video is for kids but it applies to us as well :-))

Above videos explain how to avoid Plagiarism while writing. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

please fix links to Gordon and Britannica
, Thank you for your recent edits. Please fix the URLs. They do not seem to take us to the correct page. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Alcohol consumption
Hi Jonathansammy, I am afraid you are synthesizing or assuming stuff. We can discuss it here but it is very obvious from the second source Gupchup(name of the book is also "Bombay Social change") that the alcoholism issue is about Bombay presidency that included Pune in the British era and a law that was implemented before. The British used Hindu laws for Hindus including allowing child marriage. On page 166 she clarifies what she is referring to by Prabhus by saying she is referring to both ckp/Pathare(most sources clarify if they are referring to only CKP or Pathare or other) - then she proceeds to say on page 167 by calling them Prabhus. So I do not see any embellishment. Please can you clarify your modification? Please review the quotes. She is talking about both. Also, 99% of people (including in Maharashtra) will get confused by the name prabhus as most people use either CKP or Pathare Prabhu these days. Second, Ghurye's book is available on archive.org. He has cited (JBBRAS) "Journal of Bombay Branch of Royal asiatic society" for that quote. I am usually very careful when the name Prabhu is used and avoid google books completely for that word (as they could be referring to anyone or both and we cannot see all pages). But in this case it is clear. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Acharya63, Pathare prabhu lived in British controlled Mumbai during Peshwa rule so the alcohol ban would not have applied to them.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathansammy, Gupchup's book is about Bombay from 1813 to 1857(see the full title of the book). Ghurye is not very clear about what happened after Peshwaii ended. Also, British had Brahmin administrators(for example Natu, Thatte ) so that they could implement caste based laws when they started ruling Bombay. Since Gupchup is clear but Ghurye is not - I just added the details from Gupchup and simply mentioned Ghurye. Gupchup does not mention Pune at all in that section. Now it exactly reflects the sources exactly. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

page is a mess
IP editors have literally modified quotes and inserted text before citations, deleted citations etc to push their agenda.. There is no point reverting their changes since the version will be modified again by tomorrow morning so I am no longer working on this now. Good luck to the other editors. Maybe I will come back later but will take Sannyasa from this page for now :-) Acharya63 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Today it is 30 th Joshi punekar (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

racism or whatever it is
I've protected this as it looks like a battleground for cast warfare or something. Just reading the edit summaries is nauseating. Figure out a way to craft a neutrally worded encyclopedia article and leave your differences out of Wikipedia. There is no room for this here. if you can shed some light on this little corner of darkness, it'd be appreciated.17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * See, this is what happens when Sitush is off sick! Thanks for applying first aid, Dlohcierekim, but it's not "editing disputes" so much as caste promotion in defiance of reliable sources, and full protection doesn't seem the best remedy, especially for two whole weeks. Since you've called on me, I've removed the protection, blocked the most disruptive editor for a week, and handed out a couple of discretionary sanctions alerts. If more "new " editors arrive to promote their caste, I'll semiprotect. Does that sound good to you? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Thanks,, for fixing this. Figured it was more caste warfare stuff, which I did not feel suited to sort. The full protection was just a stop-gap-- like a first aider making a splint out of boards and string. thanks again.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, Dlohcierekim, protection is like our duck tape! Are you a Mythbusters fan? Teach you all about the uses of duck tape. (Reading our article Duct tape now, it looks like "duck" is at least as correct as "duct". I had no idea.) Bishonen &#124; talk 23:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

Majority of this books are not research oriented,that too some books are written by biased writers.Reason is quite simple firstly Madhwa and smartha disagreement in AKBM,secondly pancha Dravida and pancha Gaud division in which all south brahmins unite just saraswat Brahmins remains out. I can give books which have good projection of saraswath Brahmins written from research but not required I guess.If you quote 10% negative stuff I can post 90% positive once again it’s difference of perceptive. When coming to elelction matter just type “return of Peshwas” you will understand what actually it is.what ever may be perspective when shastras support this caste I guess no need to give other reference of biased writers. Connection is simple existence of Saraswat Brahmins,karade And Chitpavan are united by ksanda purana! Fine my intention is not to target ckp with negative stuff(Hope you know what happened to daivadnyas in gramanya?How Peshwas grated them?).If you want I can arrange negative citaions for Chitpavan ,deshastha and karade but do it really really required? That’s what I mean. I believe in constructive method not destructive Joshi punekar (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You have replaced saraswat with saraswath Brahmins that’s fine.The main intention was to avoid selective picking of citaion.Once again I am telling saraswath Brahmins means (Kashmir pandits,bhatta Brahmins,GSB ,RSB,CSB etc) basically they are not dravidas they are panch Gaud Brahmins(I can give dozens of research books for their arrival to south and social status in Goa then Portuguese attack ,leaving Goa moving towards other state including Maharashtra(Here where local Brahmins due to jealousy about their origin and success they started creating hatred comments but failed due to shastra support!))

Joshi punekar (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine I guess we have come to conclusion so better wind off ! I think this issue is dragging too much. Nice to meet you! By the way I am kobra not SB and I am from Pune too but socialist researcher.Just surname is Joshi I am not doing any sort of priestly work.But the existence of ours is dependent on saraswat Brahmins (Refer Skanda purana or konkan mahatmya). Thank you, Joshi punekar (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Summary of discussion that was long winded and WP:OR wtc(matrimonial sites) was summarized in the next section along with resolution.

not a disambiguation page - can we change the page info?
This link shows that it is a disambiguation page which is no longer true?(it was true earlier this year). Please can we change this? Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed Saraswat to Saraswat Brahmins
Hi, I have changed saraswat to saraswat brahmins. Please discuss here if there are comments ThanksAcharya63 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the previous section was too long-winded for most to read I will just add the references and conclusion here. If anyone objects to this change in the future, just point them to this section to explain the reason for the change. (As previously mentioned, I plan to slowly divert to religious pages rather than caste pages after most marathi castes are class B and focus on List_of_suktas_and_stutis and some pages that I had created as stubs but left incomplete - specifically Harivijaya, Shri_Ramavijaya, Shivlilamrut, AmbikaUdaya, Pandav_Pratap, Medha_Sūktam, Uttaranarayana_Anuvaka).

summary and observations: Previously, the word used was saraswats based on the following references(also writing citations in the correct format)

1.''Typical of his style was sponsorship of student hostels for almost all non-Brahman communities, in which the maharaja provided encouragement, sometimes a gift of land and grants where these were necessary, but would appeal to the rich men of the respective caste communities for basic support. These hostels included the Jain Hostel(founded 1901), the Victoria Maratha hostel(1901), ..., the Saraswat Hostel, the Kayastha Prabhu hostel, The miss clark hostel for untouchables''

2.Pathare Prabhu and Gaud Saraswat Brahman communities — two groups that had enjoyed considerable secular success and status in Bombay since the eighteenth century but whose ritual position within the regional varna hierarchy was inferior to that of Maharashtra Brahmans

3.''[A Brahman Sabha activist, an affiliate and local representative] of AKBMS, was rather categorical in stating, 'Saraswats are not Brahmins. That is why they are not part of our association''

4.''In the process of Brahminisation, other upper castes across the country tried to imitate the Brahmins and followed similar norms in the matters of marriage, divorce or treatment of widows. In Maharashtra for instance, the family norms among the Saraswats and the CKPs were similar to those of the Brahmins''

5.While Brahmins are found in all the districts of the state, the Saraswats and Prabhus,the two other literate castes of this category,are in significant number only in Mumbai city

6. Of the 52 elected candidates, 6 came from the so called upper castes (Brahmin, Prabhu and Saraswat)

7. Some irrelevant derogatory stuff. (However, derogatory mudslinging stuff can be found about almost every caste in maharashtra due to rivalries- and if it is temporary and rescinded later it can be ignored).

8. The Brahmins and the Kayasthas in the north;the brahmins the Brahmo Samaj and the baidyas in the east; the Brahmins, kayastha prabhus and saraswats in the west; and the Tamil Nambudari and Saraswat Brahmins and the Pillais and nairs in the south contributed more than their normal proportions...

9. This distinguishes between saraswats, CKps and brahmins while calling them the only educated communities in the 17th century

10.''Between 1827 and 1848, several schools of the Elphistone institution had started and 152 students had completed matriculation. Out of these 152 students, 71 were prabhus(CKP,Pathare?), 28 Parsis, 16 Brahmans, 12 Saraswats and 25 belonged to lower castes''

However, there are other academic references that use the term "saraswat Brahmins" for Konkani SB. For example see

The gazette also uses SB but govt gazettes are usually plagiarized from Raj era sources and generally not academic and are politicized(so I personally do not give them much importance for issues like caste). They are better for historic events. We should use them only when no other source for the topic is available. But even if we ignore them, there are plenty of sources where the words "Saraswat Brahmins' are used. Another example is.

conclusion Based on the observations it is possible that the earlier sources used saraswat as a short form for SB. Hence, as per Mr.Joshi's suggestion, we have changed the name Saraswat to SB so there is no confusion. Keeping the word 'Saraswat' instead of 'Saraswat brahmin' will add to the confusion since there is no 'saraswat' page on wikipedia. Hence, the logical conclusion is to change the Saraswat word to Saraswat Brahmin. Personally, I confess that I am not too familiar with SB but Mr.Joshi has explained that saraswats in these books/journals here means Saraswats Brahmins based on usage in the other books. Acharya63 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)(inserted by me later)

No comments since it is as per provided citation. Joshi punekar (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Brahmin population
The lede says"Brahmins constitute 9 - 10 percent of the population of Maharashtra".Three sources have been included but none of them are academic sources and claim by Ghaisas guruji should be regarded as POV.In the absence of a reliable source, I recommend that we remove mention of % population. Please comment.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. D.A.Ghaisas is a religious scholar but not reliable for these numbers. My suggestion is to use Rajendra Vora/Jaffrelot's paper as it is academic and written by modern scholars. Acharya63 (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you look at the 1931 and 1941 census data of the Marathi speaking areas of Central Provinces and Berar (later to become Vidarbha region of Maharashtra) and Hyderabad State (later to become Marathwada region of Maharashtra), you will find that the Brahmin population of these areas ranged from 2-4 %. I can not add this to the article because it will be considered WP:SYNTH or unreliable because it is from the British colonial era.Anyhow,all this points towards 9-10% brahmin population being an exaggeration.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

reverted racist information against Deshastha
Hi Joshi punekar, I do not know why you added so much negative stuff about Deshastha on multiple pages. Yesterday, I reverted racist information added by you about Deshastha Brahmin on this page and Chitpawan and Deshastha page. The additions were on this page and  on Deshastha and  on Chitpawan.

I do not know why you did this or what you have against Deshastha Brahmins. If you have some personal issues against any caste, please do not edit caste pages.

Joshi Punekar's addition was: '''As per research conducted by gurve,with respect to physical characteristics it was observed that Deshastha Brahmins were more closer to Mahar caste but far away from fellow Brahmins caste like chitpavans and shenvis with high DI(differential indices). '''

First of all his name is Govind Sadashiv Ghurye not Gurve. I think comparing Deshastha Brahmins to Mahars is very offensive, racist and intentionally provocative. Deshasthas do not have anything against the Mahar community but from the varna perspective it is not accurate to say such things. We cannot add such racist information to any of the caste pages because it is based on Genetics. Genetics is not allowed on Wikipedia caste pages.

In general, I think we should not add offensive stuff to any caste page unless it is of relevance and is not a fringe opinion and many other sources support that opinion with correct context. If any offensive stuff is added it needs to be supported by a lot of extra information and explained properly. We cannot just take offensive stuff and quote it out of context. Joshi punekar, please feel free to discuss in this section.

Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Acharya63, First of all don’t forget mahar is a caste of Maharashtra.comparing deshastha with them is not a offensive. Secondly this is not a genetic experiment go through the reference.Ghurye concludes with this that Deshastha Brahmins are near to Mahars than other Brahmins of that region.Is there any question on this?Joshi punekar (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC). One more thing to be remembered is this is no where offence since this is not scolding nor telling bad about some community instead keeping information if ghurye research(Non genetic) as it is.This indirectly tells that they are original inhabitants of Maharashtra rest of brahmins are migrated.

-Joshi punekar (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshi punekar, I am copying my reply from the Deshastha Brahmin talk page. We can continue discussion if you like on only one of these pages. The reason your statement is violating Wikipedia policy is it is using genetics (high DI). Plus it is very provocative. Although wiki is uncensored, such WP:FRINGE statements will attract a lot of edits. Technically, all humans have similar origin. And different castes in same area will have a better match that similar castes in different areas. For example, Punjabi Brahmins will be genetically closer to (so called)Punjabi low-caste rather than Deshastha Brahmins. This is only because they are from the same area. This has been shown by Ghurye and it actually shows that the caste system is man-made. I do not think that anyone literally believes that castes came from different parts of Brahma's body. Evolution is a proven theory. I will show you some statements from some sources (including academic ones) that have other opinions. In the book by Sandhya Gokhale(see below) Deshastha(and two other marathi castes -Chitpawan and CKP) are classified as Aryans by British and Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya(historian)(I know race theories have been rejected but this classification was done based on nasal index being more than 113). Please see some quotes(with references) regarding looks of the Marathi castes below. You will notice that none of them are used on the caste pages. Also some of them do not match with each other. The point is that even in the same family everyone can have different features.


 * 1.Anthropologist Singh(Oxford Univerity Press): The Chitpavan, Deshastha, Prabhu( Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu and Pathare Prabhu) and Saraswat share grey-hazel and light brown eyes which are not to be found in other castes. Similarly these three groups have reddish brown or brown hair, while other people have dark brown to black
 * 2.Sandhya Gokhale in "the Chitpawans": According to historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, Deshastha, Chitpawan, Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu(CKP), Punjabi Khatri and Nagar Brahmin were classified as Aryan due to their nasal index being greater than 113.
 * 3.Sandhya Gokhale in "the Chitpawans":A typical Chitpavan is usually fair of complexion, has a sharp nose and steel grey eyes
 * 4.newspaper article: As Anuradha and I explore the park's elegant fringe, she's greeted every foot of the route by light-eyed, sharp-nosed (features typical of Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu and Saraswat Brahmin communities) morning walkers.'
 * 5. Irawati Karve: In case of Marathas, Anthropologist Karve says that their skin color is generally medium brown and marathas from Khandesh have very dark brown skin. She says many other things about their looks(see Anthropometric measurements of the Marathas by Irawati Karve - it is available online). The entire book is about their looks, nasal indices, hair color, skin color etc.


 * One of the above sources is Oxford University press. But we never add physical characteristics of a caste to caste pages. It gets a little too close for comfort to genetics and as per a consensus (by some senior editors), genetics is not allowed on caste pages.
 * Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Acharya, Every what ever you wrote it is supporting my claim .It clearly indicates deshastas are near to other Maharashtra caste like Mahar ,fisher caste etc And yes saraswat,citpawan,ckp doesn’t share any similarities with deshastas since all are Aryan origin except deshastas . But yeah I don’t want to go for genetic data but DI in the sense differential index which is no where related to genetics.I have even not mentioned deshastas as low caste any where(So my article is neutral).
 * -Joshi punekar (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Acharya, Everything what ever you wrote is supporting my claim .It clearly indicates deshastas are near to other Maharashtra caste like Mahar ,fisher caste etc And yes saraswat,citpawan,ckp doesn’t share any similarities with deshastas since all are Aryan origin except deshasthas. But yeah I don’t want to go for genetic data but DI in the sense differential index which is no where related to genetics.I have even not mentioned deshastas as low caste any where(So my article is neutral).It is not to target any caste but mentioning fact which is not genetic nor racist(Coz no caste is degraded or no one is superior).
 * Joshi punekar (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I have one question for you.
 * What is the reason you want to add this particular information about which brahmin community is closed to which non-brahmin?
 * once you answer that I will be able to respond well.
 * thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 *  QueerEcofeminist .Thank you for understanding my concern,Since the Brahmins in the region of Maharashtra doesn’t belong to same stock of origin highlighting that statement is very important,if not obviously those who don’t have this knowledge will start comparing among them self which doesn’t make any sense. Mainly Wikipedia is available throughout world they don’t have idea about variance of these group.So for identifying diversity that statement which is not genetic by research orientational topic is very important.Ex: British are not one instead they have variant in that like Anglo sexon.Knowing this is one sort of knowledge sharing.
 * Regards,Joshi punekar (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshi punekar, is "high DI" not related to genetics? Sorry, I do not understand much about genetics but it seems like it is related. Also I have indented your messages. You can use ":" to indent your posts so they are more readable. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Acharya63,”high DI” is no way related to genetics.I think you got confused with “BI and DI”.This is general observation for random people of whole region without genetic considerations.

 Joshi punekar (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope my justification is fine,If you have still more questions please do ask.If it is fine revert back my info in all the pages. Thanks, Joshi punekar (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see it useful anyhow. additionally, marking Debra as the local and indigenous community and other brahmins as outsiders is no way useful.   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! Already they have mentioned deshasthas as original inhabitants of Maharashtra(Even mentioned some statements which affects neutrality of article) and others Brahmins as outsiders,so this statement doesn’t give any additional statements atleast it will maintain Neutrality of the article by stating others as North Indian origin Brahmins.So to maintain neutrality this paragraph is very important(Also It is not violating any of wiki policy)

Regards, Joshi punekar (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Percentage Brahmin population in Mahatashtra
Hi Acharya63, why did you change the Brahmin percentage in Maratha MRRaja001 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi MRRaja001, I have not removed the value(10%) you added. I kept both values shown by both sources. In wikipedia, Christophe Jaffrelot is considered a very reliable source. I think what it means is that the population was initially low in Maharashtra but due to migration it is probably close to 10%. As per WP:RS, the academic source( by Vora and Jaffrelot) is considered much more superior to newspaper sources as we generally do not know the background of the person who wrote the newspaper article. Secondly, academic articles are peer reviewed whereas newspapers could be opinion pieces. Please see Reliable_sources for this discussion. Wikipedia generally relies on scholarly sources but newspaper sources are OK too. If you do not agree with the change, we can discuss here and use proper wording for the statements. I am OK if you want to change it to 10% although I have mentioned this number already on that page. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * But this reference is saying that in 1963 itself the population of Brahmins in Maharashtra is 8%. "The Brahmin who form about 8% of the population of Maharashtra" - (Book: ) . MRRaja001 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is because of the years. I will update it to 10%. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Again Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, published a book in 2007 with the updates of population. (Book:). MRRaja001 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with you. I think that 4% is some old value. Hence I have updated the Maratha page to show that the modern value is 10%. Acharya63 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm glad we could figure this out. :) - MRRaja001 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about Maharashtrian brahmins being 10% of the state's population or the number  also includes brahmins immigrant  resident in Maharashtra? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathansammy, the reference says about only Maharashtrian Brahmins, and doesn't include brahmins immigrant resident. MRRaja001 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2019
 * Hi MRRaja001, does the reference explicitly say that Maharashtrian brahmin form 10% of the population of the state of Maharashtra or is it 10% of the Marathi speaking population of the state? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathansammy, The quote is "While comprising only 9% of the Maharashtrian population, the eight endogamous Brahmin castes studied by Karve and Malhotra)". It does mean the Maharashtrian Brahmin population (not only Marathi). MRRaja001 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi MRRaja001, I am confused. Maharashtrian brahmin is synonymous with Marathi brahmin and Maharashtrian is synonymous with Marathi people, and not all residents of the state of Maharashtra.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathansammy, "The eight endogamous Brahmin castes" means Deshastha (Rigvedi,Shukla Yajurvedi, Madhyandina, Kanva)  Chitpavan, Karhade, Saraswat, Devrukhe Brahmins. Previously Rigvedi,Shukla Yajurvedi, Madhyandina, Kanva were all calculated separately and they used to maintain endogamy but now the intermarriages are quite common. So this does mean that the 9% Brahmins mentioned in the academic research book are Maharashtrian Brahmins. MRRaja001 (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * MRRaja001, 9% brahmin population of Maharashtra would mean about 12-13% of Maharashtrian brahmins in total Marathi speaking population.I have not come across any serious academic source which indicates the Maharashtrian brahmin population being that high.If you have a source then please include it in the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MRRaja001 Let us continue this discussion on the talk page of the article rather than on User Acharya's talk page.I am copy /pasting the thread on the article page. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MRRaja001 In the absence of census data on castes, how did your sources come to the 9-10% for maharashtrian brahmins?Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathansammy, - This was academic research by Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, published in 2007 with the updates of population. (Book:). MRRaja001 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MRRaja001, If Iravati Karve was right, and the figure is indeed 9%, then I am surprised that the brahmins and other forward castes have not been able to use their clout in Maharashtra politics. Even in the supposedly brahmin stronghold of Pune, it is not always that a brahmin gets selected for parliamentary elections. I am not trying to change the subject here but the political reality makes me think that 9% is a high number. However, you have a reliable source from no less than the Deccan institute and therefore let us close this thread.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jonathansammy - Thanks for concluding!. If possible please update the figures on the page too. Thanks MRRaja001 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MRRaja001, although earlier we agreed to 9%, we do not have a source on how Karve estimated it to be 9% in the absence of a census.Please see whether you can find that information and put it in a notes section.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Dear Jonathansammy and MRRaja001, sorry for eavesdropping on your private conversation. I have access to a couple of good university libraries and will try to get some more information about this in a few days. MRRaja, do you have the quotes around the text where Karve says it is 9%? She might have given how she estimated the value. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Acharya63 (talk).BTW, this is on the Talk page of the article and so everyone is allowed to weigh in on the issues raised. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathansammy and MRRaja001, I was able to get Karve's book as well as another book that has Lele's paper. page 9 of "Group relations in a village community" does say that it is 8% but she gives no reference nor any indication of how she arrived at this value. She only says on page one that she had 6 investigators(students). I will give the text around that 8% quote mentioned by MRRaja. (page 9)" In each village the agricultural castes like Maratha, Kunbi, Mali, and in case of Ahupe Mahadeo Koli form the largest percentage of the population. While in the plateau villages of Varkute and Ahupe they are in absolute Majority, in Karul, Bhois who are hereditary fishermen and Boatmen were a very important minority. The Brahmin who form 8% of the population of Maharashtra, were represented only in one Village, the coastal village of Karul. The scheduled caste population is between 9 and 10% in Maharashtra"
 * The other book is "dominance and state power in modern India- decline of social order" and has the paper by Jayant lele. Rajendra Vora refers to this paper and its numbers by Lele and says The upper castes, composed mainly of the Brahmins, constitute around 4 per cent of the total population. While Brahmins are found in all the districts of the state, the Saraswats and Prabhus[only CKP and Pathare prabhu -see note below],the two other literate castes of this category,are in significant number only in Mumbai city. Lele clarifies that by Prabhus he means only C.K.P and Pathare prabhu. Obviously Vora is referring to 'upper caste' in ritual sense(those who have thread ceremonies i.e. Brahmin, Saraswat, CKP, Pathare prabhus) since some other castes that are not OBC are not considered upper caste by Vora.


 * Based on this=upper castes= Brahmin+ PP+CKP+Saraswat = 4%. On page 120 (of the OUP book),  Lele does not give the population of Pathare Prabhus and Saraswats but he gives the population of Deshastha, Koknastha and total brahmins and CKPs.
 * Koknastha: Konkan(1.8%), Deccan(0.6%), Vidarbha(N.A.)
 * Deshastha: Konkan(0.5%), Deccan(2.3%), Vidarbha(N.A)
 * Total brahmin: Konkan(4.2%), Deccan(3.9%), Vidarbha(3.2%)
 * CKP: Konkan(0.4%), Deccan(0.1%), Vidarbha(0.1%)


 * Based on the above, I am confused how Karve came up with 8%. But she does mention it. So maybe it is possible that a lot of Deshastha brahmins from outside Maharashtra moved to Maharashtra after independence.Acharya63 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now the question is whether we keep that number or not ? Second option would be to keep both Karve's and Lele's numbers.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathansammy, I do not have access to the other book that MRRaja referred to right now. Have you read how Lele estimated the 1990 census based on the 1931 census?I have not read that paper yet. I am referring to this edit here: . Perhaps we can look for more sources? Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Acharya63, He used the the 1931 census figures from all the Marathi speaking districts of the erstwhile Bombay, Central provinces and Berar, Hyderabad states and other princely states to come up with the numbers.I do not have access to Lele's paper but do have it for Dahiwale's paper.Do not always expect Iravati Karve to be right.Ghurye, under whom she got her PhD, criticized her work in a book he wrote.He particularly did not like her not calling the Madhyandin brahmins as Deshastha Yajurvedi. Anyhow, as I have long maintained, 9% is high number for brahmins anywhere in India with only some northern states having a large percentage of brahmins.Have a look at these source. Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, I agree with you about Karve. I have also noticed she often uses phrases like "may be" or "could be" quite a lot in her writings. I do not rely too much on her either. Just checked-out a new book from the Univ library from one of her students about study of marriage patterns in Pune based on caste. Will see if I can find something there. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, that book is good and has a lot of analysis of marriages status o women etc. but I did not see any text on the overall population. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Acharya63 What is the title of the book? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, It is "Some Social Aspects of Marriages in Poona District" by Dr.P.R.Mokashi, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, 1968 . Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article needs a complete rewrite, preferably by people who are not involved with the Brahmin community. As my recent edits show, there is oodles of source misrepresentation, copyright violation, unreliable sourcing, ignorance of our style guide etc. It is one of the worst articles about Brahmins I have seen on Wikipedia and that is saying something as most of them are pretty awful. - Sitush (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if I could be bothered to work out who has been inserting the copyright violations since about this time last year, I'd ask for those people to be blocked. It is terrible. - Sitush (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Occupation in present times
we need good sources on the occupation or even general status of Maharashtrian brahmins in present times.PLease help. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Expanding content
I believe a lot of content from the page on Deshsatha brahmin can be used to expand the culture section of this page because many of the sources refer to Maharashtrian rather than Deshastha in the descriptions.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming article
Should this article be renamed Maharashtrian panch-dravida brahmin? I ask because the content is mostly on Deshastha, Chitpavan(Kokanastha), and Karhade brahmins who fall under this category.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's better to change, because Saraswats culture is also entirely different from Deshasthas, Chitpavans and Karhades. MRRaja001 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

By default Maharashtrian Brahmins are Pancha Dravida. We can do that.

Let's discuss about demographics too. MRRaja001 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Name Change to Maharashtrian Brahmin
This article has the communities of both Pancha Gauda and Pancha Dravida Brahmins so its better to stick to the current name. Thanks Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Maharashtrian Brahmin → Marathi Brahmin – Caste articles like this better be based on linguistic affiliation than state name since Maharashtra includes people belonging to diverse linguistic groups Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marathi Brahmins seems better IMO. It is based on the linguistic group rather than the state name. Similar to linguistic Brahmin groups like Maithil Brahmins, Kashmiri Pandits, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The region of of present day state of Maharashtra has been called Maharashtra for centuries and so the term Maharashtrian predates the formation of the  state.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I also completely agree with Fylindfotberserk.LukeEmily (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I also completely agree with Fylindfotberserk - MRRaja001 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my personal experience, the adjective Maharashtrian is more popular even amongst "Marathi brahmins" than Marathi when introducing themselves. On Google scholar, I got 282 hits with "Maharashtrian brahmin"and only  100 with "Marathi brahmin". Having said that, at the end of the day, I will go with the consensus. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with Maharashtrian is that it greatly increases the communities claiming to be brahmins as Sitush rightly points out above. It is like saying "London Brahmins" - that might also include castes like Bhumiyars who simply append Brahmin after their name. The issue with this generalization is that many comments that are appropriate only for (Deshastha, Koknastha, Karhade) get erroneously applied to a large group and then are no longer accurate. For example, Marathi Brahmins(Deshastha, Koknastha, Karhade and probably Devrukhe too) were strictly vegetarian and all studied vedas and produced great vedic scholars. Focusing on a smaller group will make content more accurate. LukeEmily (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LukeEmily Well, that is why the article was renamed Panch-dravida Maharashtrian brahmins but then again got shortened to Maharashtrian brahmins.If we are going to change the name then change it to Panch-dravida Marathi brahmins to give a narrow scope to the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree - Pancha Dravid Brahmin would have been fine too. But Marathi Brahmin achieves the same purpose and is simpler for a non-Hindu to understand. We can add at the top that Marathi Brahmins are Pancha Dravid Brahmins once the name gets changed. It seems that all of us(including you) are in consensus with Marathi Brahmins. We need some way to indicate to admins that there is consensus. The technical issues arose as the Marathi Brahmin page already existed with a redirect.LukeEmily (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This request was recently closed in good faith with the bold-typeface result: "All involved editors Fylindfotberserk, Jonathansammy, MRRaja001 and LukeEmily are in consensus to move the page to 'Marathi Brahmin'...". Unfortunately, a move request cannot be closed by a participant and should usually stay open for at least seven days. Best to everyone!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Communities present
Aside from the Saraswat issue mentioned in the preceding section, we appear to have some selective sourcing going on. We should never cherry-pick sources because that is contrary to WP:NPOV. Thus we currently cite pages 2079 and 2082 of, with quotes, for matters relating to diet but for some reason have ignored p 2085 which seems to state There are three main divisions among the Maratha Brahman, namely Kokanastha, Deshastha and Karhade. Now, I freely admit I can only see that source in snippet view but something looks wrong given that we list a lot more in the lead section, doesn't it? It is something that is further complicated by what we say in articles to which we link from this (and also, perhaps notable by omission, Konkanastha Brahmin). We've go to find a legitimate way to resolve such prima facie inconsistencies, even if it means abandoning a source entirely on the basis that the source itself is inconsistent.

Meanwhile, this source suggests 12 communities! I'm no expert on Brahminism but it hasn't taken me long at all to shred this article, which has been painstakingly curated by a small number of people who are very interested in Brahminism. It gets me worried. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As another example of cherry-picking, before my changes today, the article said Saraswats eat fish as part of their diet, while all others are vegetarian. For this, it cited, amongst other things,. Go read that page of that book, where it clearly says fish and meat. It also explains that marriages between Saraswats and others were rare until recently because of this dietary issue. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sitush, Chitpawan is the same as Koknastha hence it is not an omission. LukeEmily (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Saraswats
We seem to have had a whole bunch of sources that distinguish between the Brahmins and the Saraswats, so they end up with phrases such as "Brahmins, Kayasthas and Saraswats". I've just removed one pending discussion, but there are others still in the article and there was at least one other that I removed because it appeared to be talking of the Saraswats in Goa. (Goa by the way, also has nothing to do with Maharashtra and will confuse the reader further unless we introduce the concept of the Maharastrian Brahmin diaspora: this is why articles such as this one and Marathi Buddhists etc are such a bad idea - they're far too vague as terms for us to define a scope that makes them somehow "different" to similar communities elsewhere.)

This is all very confusing to the reader because as far as Wikipedia is concerned, both with articles such as Saraswat and the lead section of this article itself, Saraswats are Brahmins, so there should be no need to name them separately in such sentences. Something smells a bit wrong about this contradictory treatment but I'm not sure what it is: poor sources, my misunderstanding of them, or a poor Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sitush, I like your honesty. Its the latter two. *All* these academic sources cannot possibly be wrong.LukeEmily (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sitush, see, I found this and is talking about a Saraswat community post independence i.e. present tense. The author is an anthropologist and she is clearly saying Saraswat is different from Brahmin. You are correct that wikipedia is wrong.

"A pure Brahmin woman frequently sent plates of batata wada to a Maratha couple upstairs for their morning tea. The Maratha woman filled the plate with sweets on returning it .A Saraswat woman frequently had tea at a pure Brahmin's apartment [....]Although the pure Brahmin occasionally had tea at the Saraswat household, I never saw her eat anything but sweets. In both these cases, and many others , the higher caste gave cooked food ( which carries pollution easily ) to the lower caste . The lower caste individual provided sweets which usually are ritually neutral"


 * Karen L. Michaelson is an anthropologist and the publication is also high quality. It is very clear that she says that Brahmins(Koknastha, Deshastha, Karhade) are ritually higher than Saraswats. As Sitush says, several sources distinguish between Saraswats and Brahmins. She is talking about their status post-independence and is clear that they are not Brahmins. It is not their status in the British era. This is why wikipedia is confusing. It is obvious that Saraswats are not uniform, in the north they are Brahmins, but for other regions it is not true. They may append Brahmin after their name just as the Shimpis append Kshatriya. But if they neither studied Vedas nor were priests like the Kashmiri Pandits who are real Saraswat Brahmins of the north - then they are obviously different. Sitush thanks for pointing this out. I think they are like Khatris or Rajputs we have in the north - they have different status everywhere. Thoughts?LukeEmily (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And here,

Name change and reducing scope of the article.
I propose the article name should be changed to Panchdravida Maharashtrian Brahmin.this will reduce the scope of the article to Panchdravida brahmin communities of Maharashtra, namely, deshastha, Kokanastha, Karhade and Devrukhe brahmin.GSB do have a separate page and they come under Panchgauda group. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's better. MRRaja001 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * MRRaja001, Just change the name to Marathi Brahmins. That will solve all problems. Many descriptions apply only to Marathi speaking brahmins(Chitpawans, Deshastha, Karhade) LukeEmily (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, user had changed the name to Maharashtrian Brahmin, let us see what he says about this. and  what is your opinion on this. - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, The name works well. Marathi Brahmins is also pretty old name as all other Brahmin groups have articles based on language. You won't find article names like Tamil Nadu Brahmins or Goa Brahmins. Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, You're right. Let's wait for the opinions of and  - MRRaja001 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marathi Brahmins seems better IMO. It is based on the linguistic group rather than the state name. Similar to linguistic Brahmin groups like Maithil Brahmins, Kashmiri Pandits, etc - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, done! - MRRaja001 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to move the page to Marathi Brahmin. Can you try moving it. - MRRaja001 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm not a pagemover either. Marathi Brahmin is a redirect. Would have to request a page mover personally or request it in the relevant place. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to request. Can you please do it. - MRRaja001 (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , MRRaja001, I have removed the redirect tag from Marathi Brahmin page for now. It should be easy to move this page now or even merge it with it since the Marathi Brahmin page is empty. LukeEmily (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope, only the talk page moved, the main page would require admin or pagemover access. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , I am revisiting Sitush's comments. I think we changed the name from Maharashtrian to Marathi so we could keep only Marathi speaking brahmins here. I think we had decided to keep only Marathi speaking groups on this page(Deshastha, Koknastha, Karhade, Devrukhe), maybe I am mistaken? Their Brahminhood(Karhade, Koknastha, Deshastha, Devrukhe) is accepted universally by Brahmins and modern scholars. Unfortunately, there is too much controversial information on Saraswats - specifically the Shenvis(GSB). Deshastha Koknastha and Karhade were united against their Brahmin claim and had filed cases against them. Unfortunately, these issues were not resolved by the Brahmins(unlike the Yajurvedic deshastha case) so we cannot call them temporary disputes. Many modern sources also contradict their Brahmin claim of the Shenvis. Even 20th century Marathi Brahmin scholars such as Bambardekar (a scholar on Konkan) had dismissed their claims to Brahminhood. This is probably not applicable to the vegetarian Saraswats of southern Karnataka but the the issue now is that the caste is a mixture of several groups. Because the Brahmins scholars of Maharashtra explicitly classified some groups of Saraswats as non-Brahmins (under Duncan), and some modern writers (other than Karve) list them as a separate community from Brahmins, we find the observation that Sitush has righly made on the talk page. Some of the history is not applicable to all only to the Marathi speaking Brahmins. Rather than adding controversial stuff or exceptions everywhere on this otherwise clean page, I recommend that we keep only Marathi speaking Brahmins on this page and use the existing Konkani speaking Brahmins page for mentioning saraswats so that we can leave out unnecessary controversial information from this page. Please let me know your opinion. Also, check this source , I know it is not high quality but here Rajapur Saraswats are called a Dalit community in Kerala! but on wikipedia they are Brahmins!!LukeEmily (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * LukeEmily (talk) As I said two years ago, naming the article Pancha-dravida Maharashtrian /Marathi  Brahmin takes care of all your concerns, and narrows the scope of the article to Chitpavan, Deshastha, Karhade, and Devrukhe only.I hope this helps. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, I agree with you. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , since this page name is changed from Maharashtrian Brahmin to Marathi Brahmin is is fine if we move Saraswat to Konkani Brahmins page? They do not speak Marathi AFAIK, they speak Konkani. Plus their status is clearly a bit disputed by sources although MRRaja001 does not agree.LukeEmily (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Many Saraswat brahmins from Konkan do consider Marathi as their native language, and so Marathi Brahmin will not work. Adding the prefix panchdravida is the only way you can reduce the scope the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks. What is the difference between GSB and SB of Konkan. GSB speak konkani but they are from Goa and Karnataka . I understand most disputes apply to GSB not to SB (like the Kashmiri Pandits). What is the difference between SBs of Maharashtra and Karnataka and GSBs?  When Ramesh Bairy says (page 194 of "Being Brahmin Being modern", by Professor Ramesh Bairy(2010). )Quote : At the level of the community as a whole, Brahmins might not be incensed by the Saraswat claim to Brahminhood. But a non-Saraswat Brahmin family will not be very keen on proposing marriage with a Saraswat family. Within the association, the latter are accepted; whereas in Dakshina Kannada, they are officially not part of the Brahmin associations. Another quote from same book: Saraswat claim to Brahminhood is still strongly under dispute, particularly in the coastal districts of Karnataka. Does he mean GSBs? When I am looking at the literature by Deshpande(2010) and Gupchup(discussing disputes), they seem to be centered around GSB not SB. Gupchup also mentions that the sections of GSBs that served the Maratha rulers in the administration were Shenvis(non vegetarians) not other GSBs. When I looked at the paper deleted by Sitush(he says pending discussion in the history of this page),  the Paper treats Saraswats as a different community from Brahmins but he does not mention Gaud Saraswats. But it is clear that he means Shenvis since he is discussing the Maratha empire and Goa. I think the confusion is because all these sources use GSB, SB, Saraswat, Shenvi rather loosely.LukeEmily (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Marathi, Marathi speaking or Maharashtrian?
I believe we need a clarification on what "Marathi brahmin" means. Does the scope of the article include only those whose native language is Marathi, or does it also include all brahmins who are native to Maharashtra? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Abhira Brahmins? Did not come across them in sources.
, do you you know about this subcaste?Someone added this subcaste called Abhira. Is there more information on this? Why are they not mentioned in any other sources? There is a page :Abhira tribe. What does this have to do with Marathi Brahmins? What are the typical surnames of Marathi Abhira Brahmins?. LukeEmily (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , No i didn't but now I do. Here is what I found from a paper by G. B. Joshi. "Anna or Eakpankti Vyavahara with low castes was supposed to pollute the most. Slight laxity concerning the ritual status of the person concerned was permissible in the case of ekapankti sitting to dine in the same row- as suggested by the settlement of the dispute of the Madhyandin and Abhir Brahmins of the Khanddesh area. Madhyandin Brahmins stopped the practice of Ekapankti-Vyavahars with Abhir Brahmins and even objected to their - carrying out priestly functions at their houses on the ground that they were lower status people. After holding an enquiry, the peshwa declared that the charge made by Mandhyandin was without base; they should therefore continue to practise ekapankti with Abhir but it should not be insisted  upon in case the other party was reluctant"
 * , Thank you dear Jonathansammy. For some strange reason, did not see your ping.LukeEmily (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)