Talk:Pancha-Dravida

Inclusion of Gurjara Brahmins in Pancha Dravida
Gujarat is not South of the Vindhyas. So they should be removed from Pancha Dravida or at least allow to mention that this classification is incorrect for Gujarat. Why are all attempts to make a change to this being blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.35.69 (talk • contribs)


 * First of all, Kalhana's Rajatarangini does not mention Gujarat at all. It mentions the term Gurjara Brahmins. According to the text, they resided to the south of the Vindhyas, which is what the article states. The article doesn't state that Gujarat is located to the south of the Vindhyas; it states that "According to Kalhana...", which is a fact.
 * Secondly, "Pancha Dravida" is a historical definition. Judging by modern use of the terms 'Dravida', 'Gujarat', 'Gurjara', and 'Vindhya', the definition would be entirely wrong (e.g. Gujaratis and Maharashtrians are classified as Indo-Aryans, not 'Dravida', at least linguistically). But, all these terms have had different historical meanings. E.g. 'Dravida' was not originally used to refer to the South Indian linguistic group, 'Gurjara' did not refer to modern Gujarat, 'Vindhya' covered a lot of mountains, including those to the immediately south of the Ganges (see Vindhya Range).
 * If Gurjara did not refer to modern Gujarat, why are modern Gujarati Brahmins included in this? And from my understanding Gurjara refers to Rajasthan and Gujarat combined, in which case it is definitely not south of Vindhyas. 192.171.35.69 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines do not allow synthesis. So, if you want to state something like "Kalhana's definition is wrong", you'll have to find a source that explicitly states that. Alternatively, if you have a source that mentions a different definition of "Pancha Dravida", feel free to add it to the article. utcursch &#124; talk 22:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The following source states that that the five Pancha Dravida were Andhra-Purva Desatha, Dravida Desastha, Karnataka Brahmins and Desastha Brahmins. (Andhra and Purva are two categories.) It also explicitly states that Gurjara Brahmins are one of Pancha Gaudas. This source is much more modern than a 12th century source, I think it should be used to change all content on both Pancha Dravida and Pancha Gauda page. 192.171.35.69 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Good find -- I've added it to the article. We can't simply "change all content", though. This is not a scientific theory, which can be superseded by a modern theory. It's simply a social classification scheme, which changes with time. utcursch &#124; talk 01:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for organizing the new edits. But I still say Rajatarangini source should be removed or put as a second source on both pages as I also found other more modern sources with the same definition of Pancha Dravida that Kaifiyats gives. The first one lists Gurjara Brahmins under Gauda Brahmins. The second does not list Gujarat as a state in which Pancha Dravida Brahmins are found (Gurjara Brahmins may not always have lived in Gujarat but they now do). 192.171.35.69 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're presenting sources selectively. There are plenty of other sources. The earliest references to the terms 'Pancha Gauda' and 'Pancha Dravida' all classify the Gurjaras as Pancha-Dravida. These include Kalhana's Rajatarangini as well as the Skandapurana. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' here: the meaning of term has changed over time. Like I said, this is not a scientific theory: in fact, one could argue that the more ancient a source is, the more 'authentic' it is in this case. utcursch &#124; talk 05:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rajatanagari and Skandapurana both mention the identical line (कर्णाटकाश्च तैलंगा द्राविडा महाराष्ट्रका: । गुर्जराश्चेति पञ्चैव द्राविडा: विन्ध्यदक्षिणे ||), so they should be counted as one source. Every modern source that refers to Gurjara Brahmins as Pancha Dravida goes back to this one line and are thus secondary sources. However, I provided three secondary sources but they all refer to different primary sources - Kaifiyats, British Era records, and Indian Anthropological Association. It eventually comes down to three modern sources vs one (or at most two) old sources. I said nothing about "authenticity" - all sources that have yet been mentioned are equally authentic per WP:RS. But modern sources are much more relevant to modern times, so sources should be listed in order of when they came out per WP:RS. The one-line Rajatanagari and Skandapurana source is no longer true, since like you yourself said the definition of Vindhyas has changed and modern Gujarati Brahmins do not live south of the Vindhyas. Thus the old source should be removed. But to be correct the policy does not state it has to be removed WP:RS. But policy does say is it is less significant than other sources so if it remains it should be put below modern sources. A145029 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point is it is an assumption per WP:OR that Gurjara Brahmins in 12th century necessarily has any connection to modern Gujarati Brahmins. Rajatanagari does not make a reference to Gujarat as you yourself said. The root Guj- is used throughout South Asia. Gujjar community in Jammu and Kashmir and Gujrat district Gujranwala district in Pakistan also uses it but there is no proof they have a connection to Gujarat, there are just interpretations that they might as per their Wikipedia pages. So if the Rajatanagari source is kept then even you cannot attach a link to Gujarati Brahmin page unless you provide a source. (But note, from the sources I provided the British Era source explicitly calls Gurjar Brahmins as being from Gujarat state and Indian Anthropological Association refers to the modern states only.) A145029 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to change the order of sections, sure go ahead -- I've no problem with that. Although personally, I think of these as historical definitions. This isn't a scientific theory, an official classification scheme or modern analysis of a historical event. WP:RS doesn't apply here. The various classifications should preferably be mentioned in chronological order.

By the way, for the purposes of Wikipedia, the British Raj-era anthropology books are not considered acceptable sources (more information about this). That said, even the 1896 source you cited claims that even at that time, the Gurjara Brahmins (in context of Gujarati Brahmins) were classified as Pancha Dravida, although a section of their castes appeared to be Pacha Gauda. A direct quote from page 455 of The Tribes and Castes of the North-western Provinces and Oudh:



And once again, you are simply disregarding any source that disagrees with your assertions. Your 1978 source doesn't mention Gujarat or Gujarati Brahmins at all, either in context of Pancha Dravida or Pancha Gauda. On the other hand, the page that I linked to above lists plenty of more recent sources. To quote one - Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India (1990), page 16:



Even if all these 20th / 21st century sources are simply based on Rajatarangini and Skandapurana, that actually makes their definition more worthy of inclusion in the article, not less notable. utcursch &#124; talk 21:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't bring British raj source or any vanity source here
Maratha kaifiyath explains classification under Maratha rule(particularly region) where there is no reference of other parts of India.These type of reference are called secondary reference(Partial vanity reference).So at present keeping whole undivided india into account only kalhana's words seems unbiased so please go through Wikipedia rule once before doing selective editing. Madgaonkar (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)