Talk:Shudra

Notable Shudra
If the definition of who is Shudra is correct then most non-brahmin Hindus would fall under that category. This basically would be 90% of Hindu population of India or around 75% of total Indian population. I am including the "untouchables" amongst the Shudra, however other definitions may put them outside the varna system: So how about: 1. Shivaji maharaj and his descendants (Maratha) 2. The Shinde (Maratha), Gaikwad (Maratha), Holkar(Maratha Dhangar) royal families 3. Swami Vivekanand (Kayastha) 4. Lal Bahadur Shastri (Kayastha) 5. Amitabh Bacchan (part kayastha) 6. Royal families of Vijaynagar (Kuruba/Dhangar) 7. Bal Thakaray (Kayastha, more specifically CKP) 8. Mahatma Gandhi (Bania)? 9. Sant Tukaram (Vani) and most bhakti saints) 10.Kalidasa 11. Bhimrao Ambedkar (Mahar)

I could go on and on by basically excluding brahmins, muslims, christians etc. from the list of Indian Notables and that would be the list of notable shudras.

Having said that, in day to day life, nobody, except some brahmins and a few academics care about the Varna system and certainly, no one likes to describe themselves as shudra. For example, someone belonging to the Lohar (iron-smith) caste does not put Shudra as the prefix before lohar when describing his /her caste. A number of castes would like to be designated "backward class/caste in order to receive preferential treatment in jobs and college admission but they would most certainly be vehemently opposed to being described as shudraJonathansammy (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the notable sub-section.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is too late to reply to this but I do not agree with you at all, Jonathansammy - some of the people(1-10) you mentioned are formally considered twice born - by brahmins as well as modern scholars. It does not make sense to call any community who has a tradition of wearing janeu, (and has been approved by Brahmins ), anything other than "twice born". Even if a certain historian disagrees/agrees, it does not matter.

Another point, Kunbi and (so called 96 kuli) Marathas have been shown to have same origin but Marathas do not accept that generally although both the Brahmins and historians agree on their Kunbi origin. The sonar case in maharashtra is a bit strange, Brahmins do not approve the vedic rituals but the Sonars wear the thread anyways and call themselves Brahmins. ckp/saraswat have vedic rituals that are approved by brahmins (in writing literally) and modern scholars clearly agree that they were ritually high castes. So adding Bal T is incorrect from both Brahminical POV as well as historical POV. historians agree that Sonars might have brahmin ancestry also- so what do we do?. And according to the Puranas, no Brahmin exists in the Kali Yuga due to loss of dharma. See So then who performs the thread ceremonies? So does every hindu caste including brahmins become shudra? In non-Maharashtrian subcastes there has been no formal classification into varna in most cases. Other than Brahmin, Saraswat, CKP and pathare prabhus - every marathi caste has been formally classified as shudra. But we cannot add the word on every such caste. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) The following Maratha names should be added much before most of the above like Amitabh or great scholars like Shastri or Vivekananda. There seems to a consensus among scholars that the name-calling(for example against Bengali non brahmins) was due to competition in jobs and not because of facts. In case of Marathas though, it was not because of jealousy or any politics. The following should make the Shudra list from both brahminical and historical perspective much before any of the previous names are added- which are incorrect anyways. 12.Yashwantrao Balwantrao Chavan (maratha) 13.Vasantdada Patil (maratha) 14 Shankarrao Chavan (maratha) 15.Sharad Pawar (maratha) 16.Narayan Rane (maratha) 17.Patangrao Kadam (maratha) 18.Vilasrao Deshmukh (maratha) 19.Madhavrao Mehere (maratha) 20.Prithviraj Chavan (maratha) These days scholars make a distinction between name-calling and facts.

Whitewash
I see some people use that term, no doubt referring to the British, who not knowing about the Indian Caste system could easily be led astray. Be in no doubt that such caste are readily apparent in British society, the colour of our skin is but an arctic adaptation, we are otherwise like brownwash 146.199.68.79 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No agreed etymology?
No agreed etymology? --82.132.230.74 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of "off-topic" content
I do not understand the reason for the reversion of content about the role of Shudras during the Vedic period. The Vedas category was lumped together, so I created two subcategories to reflect the changes between the Rigveda of the Early Vedic period, and the other Vedas of the later Vedic period. I expanded upon the references to Shudras in Vedic texts and how their role developed from rival Dasas, to cattle possessing Shudras, to labouring Shudras. Additionally, I cleaned up parts that were poorly written, and gave the updated numbers for the composition of the Rigveda. The Vedas section as it was previously was a poorly lumped together collection of references in the texts, and did not give a clear picture at all on the development of Shudras over the 1,000 year long period. Surely a time period that long deserves greater attention and detail that what was previously written? All of the statements I added were backed up by reliable sources that were on the topic at hand, so I am not really sure what is meant by going "off-topic"? The text that I added gave a clearer picture of the development of the Shudras during the Vedic period, and how they were viewed by the Vedic texts and how historians have used that to determine their status and occupations through time. This concern about the incompleteness of the Vedas section was also noted by an IP in 2018 as seen here [], and User:Kautilya3 stated that it was still in need of expansion, so I am baffled on how the text is considered "off-topic". Keep in mind that I still was not done finished with editing the section, and still was going to edit more and make it more clearer. Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you made too many changaes at one go. So it wasn't possible to write a sensible edit summary to cover everything. The criticism of "off-topic" refers to you bringing in "Dasas", dasavarna etc., which are off-topic. We have no idea who those people were. So saying Dasas became Shudras is quite meaningless.
 * Then you added a section on the other Vedas, but your text didn't contain anything about the other Vedas. It is not known that there are any other references to the varnas in other vedas except the Atharvaveda. R. S. Sharma says:
 * If we believe that the later three Vedas developed more or less in parallel, it was only towards the end of that period that the varna system arose. It is conceivable that the "brahma-kshatra alliance", as Witzel calls it, would have formed in the interim, but the ideology of arranging them into four classes only happened towards the end. So, it is a mistake to create an entire section saying you are discussing what occurs then the other three Vedas, and say nothing about the topic.
 * It is also not clear that things should be split up that way. RS Sharma is clear, and most scholars agree, that the Purushasukta was a late addition to the Rg Veda. So it could also have been added at the same time as the Atharvaveda addition.
 * I suggest that you read through the coverage in RS Sharma, who did a thorough historical study of the issues, before you attempt any extensions. I know that what exists right now is not very good, but it is passable. But extending it in the same vein will make it worse, not better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read through the coverage in RS Sharma, who did a thorough historical study of the issues, before you attempt any extensions. I know that what exists right now is not very good, but it is passable. But extending it in the same vein will make it worse, not better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will go through the sources again and have another slower whack at it. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading opening language "Appears in the Rgveda ..."
Upfront, the article states that the word 'Śudra' appears in the Rgveda. Then only in the relevant section is it mentioned that the Puruṣa Śukta is a later insertion. The reader who just wants to skim, will get the wrong info. Suggest rephrasing.