Talk:Ramdasia

Citation

 * Google Book Links citing that Ramdasia are the same as Chamars: http://www.google.com/search?q=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&prmd=ivns&ei=Zoa1TbSyKYL50gGU6KnVBA&start=10&sa=N&biw=1093&bih=550

bal537
 * Google citation hunting makes for poor articles. Ramdasia are Weavers or Julaha caste. Chamar are Leatherworkers or Ravidasia. Two distinct professions and two distinct social castes. Thanks --S H 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the link above shows countless books showing that Ramdasia and Chamar are the same people. The occupation of people (weavers or leather workers) is not relevent, since the Caste of the people is the same.

Read the countless links above to see why Ramdasia's are the same as Chamars. ~bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Err no, you cannot by pass WP:VERIFIABLE. This is a prime example of a search for books done on google and none of them being verifiable. Thanks--S H 12:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said they are not Veriable? They are all verifiable and valid. And there are not one but countless books. Also, profession does not negate the root caste. Bal537 (talk)bal537 —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Indian Caste System is based on Profession. And Profession-wise Weavers(Ramdasias) are different from Leather Taners(Ravidasias/Chamars). Books can and have gone wrong in history countless times and merely reflects the knowledge of Author on the subject.  Sikhartist (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that books are wrong and you are right? I am sorry, but I only believe in sourced material and all the sources state that Ramdasia were originally Chamars and are still Chamars, no matter how much they deny it. Bal537 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)bal537


 * Your claim is based on author's understanding which Totally Contradicts the Indian Caste System, which is based on Profession.Social History books are most often contradictory. In your case, it contradicts the the very logic on which Indian caste system is based, thus clearly false.


 * One more major distiction between Ramdasia and Ravidasia sect is that only Sikhs are Ramdasia while both Sikhs and Hindus can be Ravidasia.--Sikhartist (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My claim is not based on one book but countless books (numbering more than 100), which all say that Ramdasia are Chamars who took up weaving. The links to the books are listed above. Provide any source that contradicts the above.

Ramdasia being only Sikh and not hindu has nothing to do with the caste. I know a muslim Jatt who converted to Christianity but he is still Jatt. I know a Sikh Jatt with turban who goes to hindu temples, but he is still Jatt. Similary, Ramdasia are still Chamars, no matter what profession or religion they have chosen in the last 200 years. Bal537 (talk)bal537 —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Differences Between Castes

 * 1) Ramdasia - Weavers by occupation and followers of Bhagat Kabir
 * 2) Chamar or Ravidasi - tanners by occupation and followers of Bhaghat Ravidas.


 * The sources added are not reliable. One is a website that it is not a reliable source and the other is a 100 year old book that has been removed as source from other articles. Also, why are the Govt, of India sources not being recognized? TimesGerman (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, you are skirting around the real issue here. People can belong to different religions or Saints or have the occupations, but this does not change who the people really are. Who were the people who took to weaving and who were the people who took to tanning? So many sources and even your own source on page 307 says that these people came from the Chamar caste. The govt of India lists of castes classify the Ramdasia as the same as Chamar. TimesGerman (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those articles you have cited fail, because of WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:OR. I've reviewed the sources and they don't stack up. Rose has been used on many articles, hence why I quoted the actual article.S H 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are taking this so personally. Please see WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NPOV, WP:DISRUPT and WP:OWN. TimesGerman (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Err yes. Whatever you say. S H 14:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rose is a dubious source, at best. We should not be using him. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree Sitush, but the section on Ramdasia's is pretty well written and the least confusing of all the articles I have sourced. It's also confirmed verbatum by HS Singha. Definitely less confusing than Raj Kumars footnote that was misquoted here before. Thanks S H 14:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not even understanding what Mr Sikh History is trying to say anymore. Your own source HA Rose on Page 307 states: "In the North and centre of the Eastern Plains a very considerable number of Chamars have embraced the Sikh religion. These men are called Ramdasia after Guru Ram Das". So your own source is saying that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars.


 * Here are more Modern sources that you that Ramdasia are Chamars who belong to the Sikh religion.


 * The Growth of Religious Diversity - Vol 1: Britain from 1945 Volume 1: Traditions by Gerald Parsons (Dec 2, 1994), Page 227: "Ravidasis are to be distinguished from the Ramdasias who also belonged to the Chamar caste in Punjab bit who were converted to the Sikh community, according to tradition, during the guruship of Ram Das". Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=vM--pQp5qBUC&pg=PA227&dq=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VVRUUdPvM7Hk4AOn8ICYDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=ramdasia%20chamar&f=false


 * British Untouchables A Study of Dalit Identity and Education by Paul Ghuman, Pub. Date: May 2011, ISBN: 075464877X, Publisher: Ashgate Publishing, Limited,Page iX: "Ramdasia   A name used for Chamars who convert to Sikhism. Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=eQZcI3FCxlEC&pg=PR9&dq=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c1FUUbCREcvB4AO_jYGQAQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=ramdasia%20chamar&f=false


 * Profile of scheduled castes students, the case of Punjab. Dept. of Sociology, Panjab University, 1980 - Social Science, page 3: "The Addharmis have the largest representation in the samples. They are followed by the Ramdasia/Chamar in both samples.Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=k98cAAAAMAAJ&q=ramdasia+chamar&dq=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pE5UUceILujE4APIpYHQDg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAjgK


 * Caste and Race in India by G.S. Ghurye (Jan 15, 2005), Page 322, "The Chamars of Jaupur described by B.S. Cohn are moving directly towards the main stream of the great tradition of orthodox Hinduism. Among the alternatice names assumed by this caste group figure not only Ramdasia, Satnami and Raidasi"... Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=nWkjsvf6_vsC&pg=PA322&dq=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c1FUUbCREcvB4AO_jYGQAQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=ramdasia%20chamar&f=false


 * Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India: v. 6 by Sanjay Paswan and Paramanshi Jaideva (May 1, 2002), Page 67, "9. Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi" Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=NpRWawgKz-8C&pg=PA67&dq=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pE5UUceILujE4APIpYHQDg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=ramdasia%20chamar&f=false


 * 'Criminal' Tribes of Punjab by Birinder Pal Pal Singh, The whole Report is devoted to the issues and concerns of and information about two dominant Scheduled Castes - Balmik (Bhangi) and Chamar (Ramdasia/Ravidasia)". Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=tSKmZ7b7MEsC&pg=PT58&dq=ramdasia+chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pE5UUceILujE4APIpYHQDg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCTgK TimesGerman (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what the articles are aluding to are that Ramdasia's are a combination of Chamar (i.e. those people who were tanners and took up weaving, which is seen as a less degrading profession) and Julaha's (those who were weavers proper). This is similar to the Tarkhan group that appear to be comprised of Tarkhans proper, Lohar's and Jatts. Thanks and try not to be so rude in the way you write.

S H 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Here's one of the sourse you used earlier Raj Kumar History of Chamar Dynasty page 634 'of any other Guru: but it is more usually applied to a Chamar or Julaha who has taken the Phullpura from the Master.'

Chamar, Julaha, or whatever
Look, the pair of you, it is entirely feasible that different sources hold different opinions regarding the origins of this community. In that event, we should show all reliably sourced opinions and not make a decision as to which is "right" and which is "wrong". The standard of editing here over the last few days has been atrocious, given that neither of you are exactly new to Wikipedia. Can we please try to bring some order to proceedings? - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you've noticed thats why I have been getting research papers from Leeds University and others to get some decent references. Thanks S H 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in terms of correct use of the authorlink parameter, WP:REFPUNC, MOS:ITALIC vs MOS:QUOTE etc. It is a long time since I bothered to use tools such as ProveIt but I cannot recall them screwing the basics up in this way without some human instruction. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that the editor Sikh History is only using one line of a source selectively to match his agenda. If you read the entire paragraph, it actually supports what I am stating. For example: This is what he wrote from his own source:

''In an interview with a Ravidasia community leader Khalsi notes the claim that some Chamar's claim to be Julaha's but have reverted back to be Chamar ''

But if you go to his own source and read the entire paragraph, it does not even match what he is stating. This is the entire paragraph.

''but Julaha Sikhs prefer to be called Sikhs only. In Punjabi villages their houses are located next to the chamardlis (colonies of Chamars). Commenting on the contribution of the Julaha Sikhs to the British armed forces, Satish Saberwal says that The Ramdasia Sikhs - traditionally weavers or leather workers, another low caste - have also been drawn into the army, especially in times of active fighting, as in 1857 and during World War Two, and were discharged afterwards (Saberwal 1976:12). A leading member of the Ravi Das Sabha explained the distinction between the terms julaha and Chamar. He said that We are all Chamars (landless labourers and leather workers) - some families chose to take up weaving, they were known as Julahas''

He is clearly hell bent on showing some-how the Ramdasia are not Chamars but his own sources such as the above as well as the old one he used (HA Rose) say that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars who took to weaving. --TimesGerman (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My gut feeling is that both of you are selectively using the sources that you cite and ignoring those that say otherwise. This is at the heart of my opening comment in this section. Alas, I am far too tied up in other stuff right now to take on the task of untangling this particular web. I'll do what I can but it will not be a lot. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your gut feeling is wrong Sitush. Read Kalsi's research. It's an interview with a RAVIDASIA community leader, not a RAMDASIA community leader. That is the point!! Ravidasia's or Chamars see themselves as Ramdasia's or Julaha's, but Kalsi could get no Ramdasia's to say they were Chamars. See the point Khalsi is making? My own feeling is, some Chamars have been adopted into the Julaha birardri. Thanks S H 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you have this article as well as the Chamar locked for some time TimesGerman (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone could ask an admin to do that but I think the solution here and at Chamar is probably for everyone to exercise a little more restraint. It is not as if there are a dozen people messing around with the things. Perhaps try not to edit the articles at all for now - there is no deadline - and concentrate on discussing the points on the talk pages instead. If nothing else, displaying a collegial approach will likely win you some kudos if things were to get tricky later on. If all else fails then this goes to dispute resolution because there are more than two people involved. However, I do think it likely that the issues can be fixes without that, although the outcome will probably not be 100% to the satisfaction of any particular party. Instead of editing the article and (hopefully) providing a source to support that, why not ask the question here first? Start a new section for a source, say in that section what it is you want to use the source for and see what comes out of it. I am quite concerned that people are becoming entrenched here and, of course, battleground mentalities are not a good thing. There is also the issue of our sanctions for articles such as this, which could well result in someone being topic-banned unless they can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am quite willing to discuss on the talk page, but the other editor just goes about deleting sections without discussion and you can see his statements above that he is not interested in discussion. TimesGerman (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see if they are willing to change their approach as you have said you will. If not then you will in fact likely have the upper hand in whatever happens somewhere down the line. This might sound bad but there is an element of politics to contributing on Wikipedia, precisely because there are policies: anywhere in life, where you find one then you find the other. I'm not talking Machiavellian stuff but rather fairly basic common sense, influenced by a respect for the wider community's consensus on how we should all collaborate. And "collaborate" is the vital point: we may disagree but there is a framework in place within which those disagreements can be dealt with. I am off to bed soon: I hope that you do not feel patronised by what I just written here because that is not my intention. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Source published by Guru Nanak Foundation
Another source showing that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars Perspectives on Sikh Studies by Jagjit Singh (1985, published by Guru Nanak Foundation, Near J.N.U and Qutab Hotal New Delhi 110 067) http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/per-sikh-studies.pdf on Page 75 the author writes that "The Ramdasia's or the Sikh Chamars occupt a much higher position than the Hindu Chamars". On page 77 the author writes that "By changing their name to Ramdasias, the Chamar Sikhs could alter positon in the Sikh case hierarchy, becoming Sikhs and refusing to marry or interdine with Chamar Hindus. TimesGerman (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just moved TimesGerman's post above into a new section, for convenience. Hope you do not mind. Who or what is the Guru Nanak Foundation? (I've heard of it but have no idea what its purpose may be etc) Do we know anything about the author? - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the author Jagjit Singh biography can be found here: http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/abtauthor/Abt_Authors.htm and the main page http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/index.htm. The Guru Nanak Foundation is a thinktank related to Sikhism. They publish Sikh publications and run Sikh schools. As well I think run the globalsikhstudies website. More information about them here:http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikhism-faqs/sikhism-faqs-what-do-you-know-of-guru-nanak-foundation-new-delhi TimesGerman (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These are quotes from Ibbetson -Punjab Castes. Ithought we were dismissing 100 year old texts? Jagjit Singh is an excellent writer and his books the Sikh Revolution" and "The Dynamics of the Sikh Revolution" are excellent reading, but, even he admits in his footnotes that these are texts from 100 year old sources. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H  16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote on page 75 is not attributed to Ibbetson but to I.P Singh. The quote on page 77 is attibuted to Ibbetson, We are dismissing 100 year old texts as a single source but author performs a critical analysis on Ibbetson's book and finds it valid enough to quote in his own book. Also, I am not able to find where the author discusses the '100 year old' sources in his footnotes. As you mentioned above, Jagjit Singh is an excellent author and writer, and he is intelligent enough to believe what he wrote on page 75 and 77 of his book. TimesGerman (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not make further edits to the Ramdasia since I am ok with the edits that Sikh-History has made so far.  TimesGerman (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank Bhaghat Ravidas and Guru Ram das for that :). Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 16:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

New Source on Ramdasia Chamars
Caste in Punjab: Political Marginalization and Cultural Assertion of Scheduled Castes in Punjab Author: Neeru Sharma Publisher: Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal/v19_1/2-NeeruSharma19_1.pdf

Please review this source and discuss if it can be used as a valid source/

TimesGerman (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this sentence relevent to the article?
"He further notes that Julaha social status is higher than that of Chamars and that Julahas do not marry outside of their endogamous group.[6]"

These days intercaste marriage is common among Sikhs and Punjabi's and this sentence contributes nothing towards the article. It is like saying White people's status is higher than Non-White people and they do not marry outside their group.

TimesGerman (talk)


 * Since
 * almost the entire caste system was predicated on endogamy
 * you haven't provided a source for your alternate opinion
 * the Julaha do seem to have some relevance here generally, given the reinventions typical of sanskritisation and similar social jostlings
 * Yes, it contributes something. It may not be something that the Chamar community likes but, hey, we do not exist to please them. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you think of about the reliability of this source: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal/v19_1/2-NeeruSharma19_1.pdf
 * Specifically this source mentions the following (Page 30):
 * The Ad-Dharmis are predominant among Chamars and are mainly leather workers. Chamars (including the Ramdasias and AdDharmis)
 * and Mazhabhis (including Chuhras and Balmikis) together constitute nearly three-fourths of the total scheduled caste population in ::Punjab. Consisting of 37 scheduled caste sub-groups, these SCs form a heterogeneous category. The Mazhabhis are numerically the ::largest scheduled caste group, having a population of about 2,220,945, constituting 31.6 percent of the total scheduled caste ::population, followed by Chamars who constitute 26.2 percent of the total scheduled caste population with Ad-Dharmis as the largest ::group among them comprising 14.9 percent of the total Chamar population (2001 census).

TimesGerman (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems ok to me. A peer-reviewed journal. I'm gradually homing in on a real mess connected to some of the names that are mentioned there: the relationship between Chamar/Mazhabi/Chuhra/Balmiki etc is not dealt with particularly well in our articles but doubtless we will get there in the end!


 * By the way, I'd much prefer a bit of prose like that from the journal to a table of populations. I think it makes the same point in a more useful way. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will see what I can take from this research paper and post it here for review before posting on the main page. I will see about removing the table from the Chamar, I am still waiting from the official results from the Census of India for 2011. The Indian goverment has for the first time included caste in the census and this should provide exact figures for each caste and also how they are classifying the different subcastes of each caste. TimesGerman (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will be adding the followng text to the article. Please let me know if you have any feedback regarding the changes:


 * The author Neeru Sharma in her book Caste in Punjab: Political Marginalization and Cultural Assertion of Scheduled Castes in Punjab, states that ″The other segment of the dalit Sikhs consisted primarily of the Chamars. The Ad-Dharmis are predominant among Chamars and are mainly leather workers. Chamars (including the Ramdasias and AdDharmis) and Mazhabhis (including Chuhras and Balmikis) together constitute nearly three-fourths of the total scheduled caste population in Punjab". She also states that "The Congress state government under the leadership of Giani Zail Singh introduced a classification among the scheduled castes for jobs reserved under the quota system. The concessions were granted to the four major Sikh scheduled castes - Ramdassias, Kabirpanthis, Mazhabhis and Sikligars."  TimesGerman (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OBC etc lists as sources
It isn't usually a good idea to use government lists of SC/STs, OBCs etc as sources. They are primary documents and are known to be ambiguous. It is also known that completely unrelated communities exist in India which nonetheless share the same name. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ramdasia caste is sub caste of chamar community . On government websites its claerly mentioned ghat julahas and ramdasia are diffrrent caste.
 * http://welfarepunjab.gov.in/Static/Sccastes.html


 * http://haryanascbc.gov.in/list-of-scheduled-castes Dev Mahey (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * But I've already explained that such sites are not usually ok to use. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-waANxsEciMC&pg=PA63&dq=ramdasia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbx__7m_3aAhVFmZQKHf6PC9M4FBDoAQguMAI#v=onepage&q=ramdasia&f=false Dev Mahey (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That is a useless link here. Who wrote the book? When? What do you think we should be using it for? - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I notice that you had previously tried to add a POV fork - see Articles for deletion/Ravidassia/Ramdassia Sikh (Chamar). You need to familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV because at present you are not only using poor sources but are removing statements with valid sources. In the event that you find decent sources for your opinion (and you really should not be searching for things to support your own opinion), that doesn't mean we remove existing content. Instead, we would show both opinions. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)