Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This artcle contains a mis-link. The word 'Varna' is linked to Bulgarian city of Varna. Maybe disambiguating page is needed.

NPOV

I am very surprised by what seems to me clear bias in favor of the caste system. I am not Indian and know little about the subject.

The bias manifests itself in at least two ways: an overly academic tone, inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, tends to obscure what must surely be the essence of the caste system. Also, from an outside point of view, it is frankly almost impossible to justify a system of this nature, yet the section on criticism of the caste system leads with an attack on those who would use the caste system to denigrate Hinduism. That hardly seems fair or legitimate. While passions may run high in India, there are clearly many, many reasons to be critical of the caste system that have nothing to with bashing Hindus.

The entire content is biased, False, and misguiding, Please guide me. I am getting warning of getting banned for adding useful content from a bunch of editors who want to deliberately misguiding, taking off articles, writing rubbish, not sourced. What should be done? There are many examples written in the content which are objectionable and not actually mentioned. I can point out giving examples. When I started screening the content looks like it is written favoring certain communities in India. On protesting I am getting warning to be banned. I have mentioned below few references below on how the Important Epics in India are misinterpreted to favor certain communities. I understand you may find me a bit annoying. But seeing this content it is really hurting my consciousness. BalanceRestored 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait for discussion here or contact them on their user talk pages. Please put new sections at the bottom of the page. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-written

I've re-written the article. The diff is here. Some changes that I've made:

  • Split the article as it was 53 KB long, which is way bigger than the size recommended by the guidelines. The split-up articles require much expansion. But, I feel that splitting will make dispute resolution and editing, in general, easier. Here the are the products of the split: History of the Indian caste system, Caste system among South Asian Muslims, Caste system among Indian Christians, Caste-related violence in India, Caste politics in India (actually a new section written by me, which I later decided to develop as an article)
  • Re-organized the sections for providing logical flow and structure to the article
  • Cleaned up external links -- no need to include every piece of news item here. Also, I've removed some links that have already been covered in the references. Some links such as http://www.murnis.com/culture/articlenamestitlesandcaste.htm have been moved to other articles.
  • Cleaned up "Further reading" (earlier "Literature") -- removed books that have already been covered in references, and provide a "See also: references" link.
  • Trimmed down sections such as The status of Untouchables and Aryan immigration stuff. Instead, provided a link to the main articles -- there's no need of repeating the content here.
  • Removed unnecessary unicode characters
  • Removed dubious unsourced statements (please feel free to re-add with sources)
  • Remove RfC on Caste system among South Asian Muslims. The section has been moved to a new article after a split. Some of the parties involved have been banned for a year. Please file a new RfC (if required) for the new article.

I know the article is not perfect. As an atheist, and somebody who is against the caste system, I've made the edits in a neutral way and in good faith. Please feel free to put {{disputed}}, {{npov}}, {{globalize}} or other tags if required. Thanks. utcursch | talk 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


NPOV regarding reservation

However, the total elimination of caste system seems distant, if ever possible, due to recognition of certain castes by the Indian Government and caste politics.

Isn't the very purpose of the reservation system to long term remove caste from the social structure of India? I think this may need to be rephrased. --Tirsen 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement is not about reservation. It's about recognition of castes by the Government of India and caste politics. utcursch | talk 06:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Caste Groups

This section associates castes with occupations -- something that's not valid in modern contexts. The data is based on 1891 census. I think the information should be moved to History of the Indian caste system article. utcursch | talk 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Status of the Untouchables

Apparently the Untouchables live on the outskirts of villages because "they eat shit". Erm.... Gjb3 10:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Was vandalism. Reverted. utcursch | talk 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Who doesnot eat shit? A majority of Hindus eat Shit (meat he means). To few Hindus who donot eat shit all meat eaters like Charistians, Muslims, Sikhs and others are untouchables. They are probably unaware of the food chain. Nobody can go beyond one's food chain. What would untouchables eat when nothing is left for them to eat. It is learnt that everything including cattles were either snatched away or stolen by theives from poor untouchables. They therefore had no access even to milk. Moreover they were made to do very hard work round the clock. From where do they get energy to produce food for touchables? Anybody can go for eating whatever is accebile and digestible when one doesnot get food from other sources. Rajputs, Sikhs, Muslims also used to eat meat but nobody dared to curse them unlike untouchables as its consequence would have proved to be fatal to the nonesense causer. But it was untouchable alone who was subjected to such heinous crimes of which the entire earth (except those what one call them in civilised terms) is ashamed of today. It will not be exagerating to say if one call SHIT to all that literature and thoughts which sinfully justify heinous crimes against innocent pure hearted gentle people. The siblings start hating other people without thinking even for a while as such a dirty and sinister feelings has been imposed upon them by virtue of inheritance of such sinful thoughts....roserwilson


A suggest: can some one look into the suitability of citing a reference of this news item: http://in.news.yahoo.com/070309/137/6d3vz.html ਅਜੈ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਟਵਾਲ 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I made some changes -- to begin with, cleaned-up the introduction. Secondly, I moved some content to respective articles (this article was oversized). Please note that this article serves to provide just basic intro to the caste system -- it's not supposed to give detailed information about jati/varna/history etc. There are separate articles for these topics: jāti, varna in Hinduism and History of the Indian caste system. utcursch | talk 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Critique

Another critique: the article assumes a great deal of knowledge about India and about the caste system itself. I found it almost impenetrable. 198.93.154.20 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I've deleted the line "The Indian Constitution has formally outlawed the caste system." because that's not true. Indian constitution has outlawed caste based discrimination but not the caste system itself. Had that been the case how would the reservations take in effect? Even though I gave a reason why I deleted this line, user Bakasuprman added that line again without providing a reason. Please provide a reference for that statement.John.Knott 20:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I think these two lines should also be deleted "The caste system is gradually declining, especially in urban areas and in the public sphere where it is all but nonexistent. However, it is still a major part of Indian societal structure in the private sphere, and caste practices are strongly adhered to in the rural areas[2]". I have checked the reference and it doesn't say anything of the above. Please comment.John.Knott 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

History Part

Why is there only one quote given from Manusmiriti, which indicates that the caste system might not be non-hereditary. What about other quotes, which condemn Shudra's to gain knowledge and asks to give punishments just because he is from a lower caste? Please read this: "VIII – 270. A shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin." Doesn't this tell a different story that it might be impossible to move to upper ranks? If the quote which currently exists in this article supporting non-hereditary theory of caste system, other quotes which support impossibility of non-hereditary theory should also be presented.John.Knott 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are reading a poor translation of Manusmriti, no current versions contain any of that anti-Hindu slobber. Perhaps you have not read an actual part of Hindu canon (Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, Ch 34, v 41.,Taittiriya Samhita V 7.6 3-4,Mahabharata, Vanaparva, Ch 216, vs 14-15.). Remeber the distinction between shruti (God's woord) and smriti (man's word). God > Man, so Mahabharat is quotable in this regard, manusmriti is a violation of WP:Undue weight.Bakaman 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand. I'm contesting the quote which is already present in that article. That is from Manusmriti too. So either it should be removed (according to you it is a violation) that or other quotes be added too. BTW, I read Manusmriti from http://www.hindubooks.org, so there is not question of anti-Hindu slobber. What do you mean by current versions? And since when Mahabharata became a Smriti, wasn't it written by Vyasa? According to Wikipedia:Śruti has no author; rather, it is divine recording of the "cosmic sounds of truth", heard by rishis. but Mahabharata had an author and proceedings of Mahabharata were not heard by him.John.Knott 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This entire article on caste is logically flawed. The flaw is that you are "assuming" a relationship exists between "texts" and "society". It may be true in Christianity or other Abrahamic religions but it is not true in hinduism. How many hindu refer or referred to manusmriti to decide punishment? none. how many lower caste people had their tongues cut off?? it is not known so may be none or very insignificant. so trying to locate laws in some ancient books and assuming relationships between them and society is a futile excercise.

--SV 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SV, are you talking to me? I never assumed anything. I am contesting the quote which exists in this article. Either remove it or add some other quotes John.Knott 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The status of Untouchables

This paragraph, Even among Dalits, there's discrimination. The social status of Dalit sub-castes such as Bhangi has long been a source of contention within Indian society. Upper sub-castes among Dalits like dhobi, nai etc. do not intearct with Bhangis, the lowest order among the dalits. They are called untouchable among the untouchables. This is an example of deep set roots of caste system in the Indian psyche[10]. gives a reference of a documentary review. This review doesn't even talk about discrimination by Dalits. A proper source should be provided for this statement "Upper sub-castes among Dalits like dhobi, nai etc. do not intearct with Bhangis" or it should be deleted. John.Knott 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Reforms

The practice of untouchability was formally outlawed by the Constitution of India in 1950, and has declined heavily in independent India. << there is no source provided for the last part.John.Knott 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Caste System among non-Hindus

Last line in this paragraph While some scholars have asserted that the Muslim Castes are not as acute in their discrimination as that among Hindus,[22][30] Ambedkar argued otherwise, writing that the social evils in Muslim society were "worse than those seen in Hindu society" is not entirely true. Dr. Ambedkar also argued that Again it must be borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus and But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration; but among the Hindus most decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a sacred institution. They did not originate it. With them it is only a survival. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the Hindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not compel the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. from Annihilation of Caste, Chapter 19.

Why is there deliberate attempt to quote Dr. Ambedkar when criticizing or describing caste systems in Muslims or others but not when describing Hindu caste system?

I think that quote by Dr. Ambedkar should be removed or the above lines should be added.John.Knott 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Criticism

In the first paragraph it says, In many cases, anti-Hindus have exploited the controversy to rake up prejudices against Hindus and Hindu culture. Typically, radical elements of other religions rake up caste issues to delegitimize the right of Hindus to practice their faith. references please???

Why this article seems to be favoring with the caste system? Where is the NPOV?John.Knott 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Historical criticism

Early Dalit politics involved many Hindu reform movements which arose primarily as a reaction to the advent of Christian Missionaries in India and their attempts to mass-convert Dalits to Christianity under the allure of escaping the caste system (however, the Caste system among Indian Christians remained in full force even after conversions).

What?? How is this historical criticism?John.Knott 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Contemporary Criticism

Many Hindus point out that the caste system is related to the Indian society, and not Hinduism (as is evident by presence of caste among Indian Christians and Muslims).

Why that line is being suggestive? Shouldn't that be left to reader to decide whether caste system is a part of Hinduism or Indian society?John.Knott 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... What? The line just says that's what many Hindus make note of. It doesn't say that's the pure and unadulterated truth.--24.22.147.202 05:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ok, please provide reference where Hindus do point that and also, "as is evident by presence of caste among Indian Christians and Muslims" is the author's comment and doesn't speak for Hindus.John.Knott 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Indian constitution and the caste system

I've deleted this line 'The Indian Constitution has formally outlawed the caste system." twice and it has been reverted back. I had also initiated it for discussion with the user Bakasuprman and on the article's discussion page. I was never offered a reason even though I presented the fact that Indian constitution doesn't outlaw the caste system but it does outlaw the caste based discrimination. Why there is an attempt to twist the facts?John.Knott 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read articles 14 to 18 under Right to Equality from the Indian constitution, which clearly states the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and Abolition of Untouchability, but it never talks about the abolition or outlawing to caste system itself. The Indian constitution is available online, http://lawmin.nic.in/coi.htmJohn.Knott 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Incompatability of Varna System with Ashrama system of life

The Varna system as explained by certain distorted or misconceived texts is not at all compatible with the division of life into four spans of 25 yers each of human life. According to Asharma theory everybody irrespective of his caste has to engage himself in studies and observe celibacy during Brahamcharya Ashrama (first 25 years of age). Therefore everybody is a Brahman (i.e brahamchari man..or..pure mind with celibacy). Similary everybody is a kshatriya, shudra and vaishyas from 25th to 50th year of one's age. And similarly the third and fourth stage of life (Vanspratha and Sanyas asharama) leads one to total devotion to the God irrespective of one's caste or creed. Varna system on the other hand expects a Brahmin to maintain celibacy and bear no children, a kshatriya to engage in wars and quarrels since the day of birth, the shudra and vaishya accordingly. The Asharma system seems to be more realistic than the Varna system as all the occupations have equal importance for the society. The varna system emphasize creation of a larger battalion of unproductive minds, idle/unemployed hands, cheats, misappropriaters and beggars etc. etc.The system therefore need to be reviewed and illusion creating unproductive thoughts needs to be cleared away to avoid major psychlogical havocs bound to occur to many at the interface of reality and myth in a real world. ....roserwilson

Clippings from kashatriyas however reveal a diffrent story suugesting that sudras and dalits are product of something else

The Manusmriti, written about 200 AD states that the Sakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Ionian, Indo-Greeks), Kambojas (Central Asians), Paradas (Sinkiang), Pahlavas (Persians), Kiratas (Nepal, Assam), Dravidas (Tamil,Pandiya Kula Kshatriya Mara Nadar), and Daradas were originally noble Kshatriyas but were relegated to the Barbaric (Vrishala) status due to their neglect of the Brahmanas as well as due to their non-observance of the sacred Brahmanical codes (X/43-44). Anushasanaparava of the Mahabharata also views the Sakas, Kambojas and the Yavanas etc. in the same light. Patanjali in his Mahabhasya regards the Sakas and Yavanas as pure Sudras (II.4.10).....roserwilson


quote from main article

The creation of the modern caste system was through political corruption and general trends in society. In all societies, the sons of kings are labelled princes and thus remain royalty despite whether they merit royalty or not. Similarly, within medieval India, the son of Brahmins were expected to be Brahmins by taking up their father's jobs. The sons of outcastes in the original varna systems were treated by the next generation as outcastes like their parents. Thus, varna became hereditary and transformed into the caste system. Some people, especially those of the forward castes, understand this political system as a way to propagate their children into a better life.

If son of master was labelled as master and the son of servant was labelled as servant than why do all those forwards who served as servants and gulams/slaves to the Arabians and Europeans still retain their ancient caste titles so arrogantly? The article on Indian castes has proved to be highelly biased as it contains malicious views against right minded poor gentle people. Poor people alone know as to what level of moral and ethical worth do the forward or rich people own. If scornful stinking stockpiles of unearned wealth is the basis of the so called forwardness and upperhood then it bears no moral sanctity in the international community. If children's future could be made bright by inculcating bad sanskaras than the future of the world is certainly gloomy becouse hybrids of dishonesty and cleverness are bound to be uncontrollable anti social elements with clean outward appearance.


The creation of the modern caste system was through political corruption and general trends in society. In all societies, the sons of kings are labelled princes and thus remain royalty despite whether they merit royalty or not. WHAT IS INTENDED TO BE PROVED BY THESE SUPERFLUOUS VIEWS. IT SEEMS THAT EVEN THE CHEAPEST VIEWS OF SOME PEOPLE GET INCLUDED IN THE TEXT WHILE SCIENTIFICALLY ANALYSED VIEWS FROM SOME OTHERS GETS DELETED WITHIN NO TIME. MOST OF THE SCRIPTURES ARE PEICES OF LOW MENTALITY AND MANY OF THE SAGES (THE SO CALLED LEARNED PHILOSOPHERS) ARE WORSE EVEN THAN THE MOST FOOLISH PERSON TODAY. ONLY ONE LESSON WAS MOST PROMINENTLY TOLD TO THE PEOPLE, I.E, DONOT DO ANY WORK BECOUSE ALL THOSE WHO DO WORK ARE LOW CATEGORY PEOPLE.iT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT BEG BEG AND BEG TILL YOU DIE. AND THOSE CASTE NAMES HAVE NOW VIRTUALLY BECOME MOST HATED WORDS IN THE VOCABULARY OF BROADMINDED COMMON MAN. Similarly, within medieval India, the son of Brahmins were expected to be Brahmins by taking up their father's jobs. The sons of outcastes in the original varna systems were treated by the next generation as outcastes like their parents. ........... ...roserwilson

Castes? Hierarchy?

I have to second Anonymous' opinion that this article seems to assume prior knowledge of Indian castes. While the academic and encyclopedic nature of this article is certainly meritable, you can't write an Encyclopedia article on the "Orange" without saying it is a fruit.

As someone who ran a search for "Indian caste system" looking for basic information, I can point out that the two main faults I found were:

1. The failure to note which are the more common castes (ie, the ones which take up the largest chunk of the population). While there is an article called "List of Indian castes", there is no way for the layperson to know if some castes make up 99% of the population, or if most account for just 0.01%.

2. The failure to sketch a brief hierarchy. While this article makes it very clear that the Dalits are at the "bottom of the rung", it doesn't mention who's "above". The relationships between castes is one of the great sources of curiosity to someone without any knowledge of the system. Do all Indian presidents hail from the caste on the tip of the pyramid? How far up the pyramid are Indian actors/mathematicians/doctors/musicians? Where does Gandhi fit in? Do some castes emigrate more than others?

All these are questions that pop to mind when a non-Indian hears about castes. Mip | Talk 12:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article and tried to address your queries:
  1. Modern India doesn't have a caste census (though Census of India collects data on Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes). Various estimates present different figures -- I've included a graph showing these figures in the article. The figures from the British Raj can be found here. utcursch | talk 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. The traditional hierarchy is now clearly specified in Caste and social status. Note that there is no acceptance for this hierarchy in modern times (officially, at least).
It would be nice to know the parts of the article which are difficult to understand for somebody who doesn't have some background knowledge, so that we can work on them. Suggestions are always welcome. utcursch | talk 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I second the request for a clearer article, as its pretty hard to understand. I think many readers are interested in knowing the current status of the caste system and how it can be seen in daily life.
How people are categorized to belong to a certain caste? Is it part of their name, tattooed on them, part of official records? Couldn't a person just change his/her caste to another one? If there is no official data about caste of a person, wouldnt that mean end of the caste system and discrimination as no one could ever check the real caste of a person? what is the official stance of government on the caste issue? Most importantly, is it considered backwards and not part of developed society? Is there connection between the caste system and economic growth? In which caste children of inter-caste marriages belong to? Do the foreigners in India belong to a certain caste?
Also the first chapter of the page could be a little bit easier to understand. It uses many difficult terms, which are not well known for a common reader. --Maxim reality 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical criticism

Removed the paragraph :[A prominent example of personalities exploiting the Caste system to spread prejudices against Hindus was Periyar Ramasami, a Tamil rationalist, who claimed to fight against the caste practice of Brahmins but was regarded as Anti-Hindu.Ambedkar was also regarded as an Anti-Hindu by some of the more orthodox elements of society but his supporters argue that he was not against Hindus per se, but against the orthodoxy of the Hindu Caste system (as evidenced by his not singling out Hindus for criticism but attacking the Caste system among South Asian Muslims as well).] as this doesn't fit in historical criticism. John.Knott 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary criticism

Removed first two lines:[The caste system has been often used to criticize Hinduism and India, in general. Often, the criticism decays into anti-Hindu prejudices]. What is this? A fourth-grade English essay? No references and using weasel words. See: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_wordsJohn.Knott 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel template

Hi Utcusrh, I added weasel template because there are numerous occasions where words like "many" "several" without citing these sources. If I were to add weasel tag for every word I see, the whole article would be filled with it. That is why I had that template on top of the article. Consider for example: Several critics of Hinduism state that the caste system is rooted in the varna system mentioned in the ancient Hindu scriptures.[11] However, many groups such as ISKCON consider the modern Indian caste system and the varna system as two unidentical concepts.[12][13] Many European scholars from the colonial era regarded the Manusmriti as the "law book" of the Hindus and thus concluded that the caste system is a part of Hinduism, an assertion that is rejected by many Hindu scholars, who state that it is an anachronistic social practice, not a religious one.[14][15][16][17]

Although many Hindu scriptures contain passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of the Hinduism. The Vedas place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only rarely and in a cursory manner. In the Vedic period, there was no prohibition against the Shudras (which later on became the low-castes) listening to the Vedas or participating in any religious rite[18]. Later scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita and Manusmriti state that the four varnas are created by God.''

Please commentJohn.Knott 13:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing these unsourced statements in a few days (say a week), if nobody bothers to provide the sources. utcursch | talk 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
ok, that sounds reasonable. Thanks.John.Knott 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

British and Caste System

Added this section to understand and gather the negetive rote of the British Government in Lawfying the Indian Caste System....

It is also requested to the scholars to cite references for the same. Also request to editors to allow the post to remain there for sometime. I am sure there will be people who know the details.

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22No+Dogs+or+Indians%22+British&btnG=Search+Books

We've found enough references but don't know the right way to place these citations.

People are removing this section under the pretext that there isn't enough references for the same. It is a well known fact that "Dogs or Indian not allowed" was an ethnic slur used by the British openly through out India, during their un-presidented rule in India.

Now when this topic is being posting at Wikipedia, it is getting removed. Kindly help retain this topic

{helpme}

BalanceRestored 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm new comments go at the bottom of a talk page (it is an easy mistake to make :-)). I'm not sure that {helpme} can help you with such a complicated case. Perhaps try the Help desk or wait for a reply to your question here.--Commander Keane 08:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Also a Google search result page should not be used as a reference because it represents original research. References need to be made to reliable sources. Will (aka Wimt) 08:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
BalanceRestored, I don't see how "Dogs or Indian not allowed" fits in this article on caste system. By the way, as per your request, this time, I didn't remove the text added by you. The text was removed first by John.Knott and then by Buddhipriya.
Your edits are welcome, but I encourage you to go through WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution. utcursch | talk 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New comments by BalanceRestored

The following comments were added by BalanceRestored but done via a diff that removed prior comments: [1]

We need to add this section to understand and gather the negetive/ positive role played by the British Government in Lawfying the Indian Caste System.... We need to see the practical implementations done by the British Government in eradicating or actually getting the caste system inside the scope of the Indian Law. It was in the PRE-Independence era when the un-required Caste System came inside the scope of Indian Law. It is due to them the caste system got a recognization. Again wiki's this is a thought based on the things I've been hearing and applying my personal logic over the matter. So, please help me expand over this. If they have delebrately done this as their ever existing ploy of divide and rule. it must be actually brought out.

As a previous user said to you:

Your edits are welcome, but I encourage you to go through WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution. utcursch | talk 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give those policies a read, as they cover the procedures for citing sources. Buddhipriya 08:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New Citations Collected

Copy Pasted from History_of_the_Indian_caste_system

British rule

The caste system was first exposed to the modern Western world during the Portuguese occupation and rule of sections of India. The word 'caste' in this context is derived from the Portuguese, 'casta'. Later, other European empires, including the British, occupied parts of the subcontinent.

The earliest use of caste as a basis for interpreting social and demographic data arose from British officials' concern to stamp out female infanticide[1]. Later, the use of caste to classify the population formed a basis for British attempts at social engineering. According to certain British laws (such as the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871), many castes and tribes were described as habitually criminal, and adult male members of such groups forced to report weekly to the local police[1]. The caste-based classification (moneylending, agricultural or martial) was also used for other purposes such as legislation controlling land transfers, the grant of proprietary rights, the regulation of rents, recruitment to the armed forces etc[1]. British anthropologist Herbert Risley's The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, published in 1892, was one of the first works on the caste system in India written by a Western scholar.

The earliest forms of classification in the British censuses of India (1865, 1872 and 1881) were based on the varna system, with the population being divided into Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Denzil Ibbetson, in his introduction to the 1881 census of the Punjab, argued that the Indian caste system was more of a social than a religious institution, and that conversion from Hinduism to Islam had not necessarily the slightest effect upon caste. He stated that the varnas had no present significance. The 1891 census was based primarily on castes as occupational guilds instead of the varnas.

The caste system was lawfully brought into the Indian society by the British Government, If we are in a caste hell, it is due to them. This system of classifying people was not present in any of the Indian Epics. So, getting them inside the Law is absurd. We Indians are now falling prey of this law and tactful practices of the British RAJ. RAM, Krishna and all other important characters in the Important Indian epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata advocated against these. So, how the Hell the Britishers made it a law and we Indian fools are still following them and are still falling to their traps for our own selfish causes. At first the so called upper caste got a Status advantage and they readily accepted the caste system and now the so called rich backward caste are getting various advantages under the name of caste discrimination. And Hats off to the British for using heir evil brains successfully, But I strongly believe in GOD and TRUTH, they will always prevail. BalanceRestored 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of Debatable Headings

Started a new section, kindly comment

It is a debatable topic as how Indian Government Lawfully classifies the socially molested sections of the society with the following headings

OBC Other Backward Caste
SCST Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe


"Other Backward Caste", Does this heading not authorize a section of Indian Society lawfully termed as BACKWARD, How does the Government want to eradicate caste system, by lawfully classifying sections of Indian Society as Backward? Should they not have headings

Socially Molested Sections 1a
Socially Molested Sections 1b
Socially Molested Sections 1c


I really do not understand the wiki policies. What I wanted to state is the title used to represent socially molested sections of the society is as follows OBC (Other Backward Caste) is very controversial. It is like a couple of guys raped a women, and the end the justice, the judge declared the following.

People who raped the women = Higher Class People, so no advantage to you. Since you are a majority in the Indian Parliament, no punishment to you.
The women who got raped = Lawfully termed "Raped Women" (instead titling is as "The Women who was raped by BAD men"). So, now after labeling lawfully "Raped" she has to live with that and the next generations to come will be called children's and linage of "raped" women.

Sorry Keane, I am a very weak writer and really don't know how to represent things. It will take a long time for me to get this article out there as the number of people from the educated higher class are more. The Gov of India has already made a blunder and further generations will be actually called generations of the lawfully "BACKWARDS". I hope you understand what I wrote. If you need further clarifications I will wait and explain. It is wrong to call someone BACKWARD, and INDIAN GOVERNMENT is actually classifying sections of society as backward on the pretext of getting advantages to them. It is required that the Government apologies for the mistake committed and change the title BACKWARD to something better.

This is nothing but an old saying "Muhu per Ram, Bagal Me Chura" another tactful ploy. These things have not happened unknowingly. They are deliberately brought into the law so that the molested sections of the society be further molested and the country be further divided.
BalanceRestored 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. utcursch | talk 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please specify what is not clear may be I research you those topics

Help Requested

I brought out a serious issue that's is prevailing in the Indian Caste System. The above stated are facts. A user with the ID Buddhipriya is warning me. I do not know if a wiki user had the those rights. It looks like she is actually the one who is doing the unwanted.

I am referring the details of the above statements.

Should I be ignoring such warnings? Please let me know if I am going wrong anywhere. Am I not free to express my opinions?

The subtopic I just posted with heading is a very well known fact in India, so I thought adding references is really not required.

Again, she has posted warnings at my talk page. I am really bit nervous about those. Kindly guide me.

Still, I am now posting references to the issue raised by me, from well known Government of India websites.

This is list of scheduled caste that's actually in a "gov.in" website. http://www.kerala.gov.in/dept_sc/listofcastesinclud.htm

Why are people belonging to these surnames lawfully termed a lower caste?

1. Adi Andra 
2. Adi Dravida
3. Adi Karnataka
4. Ajila
5. Aruthathiyar
6. Ayyanavar
7. Bairava

...
This is nothing but an old saying "Muhu per Ram, Bagal Me Chura" another tactful ploy. These things have not happened unknowingly. They are deliberately brought into the law so that the molested sections of the society be further molested and the country be further divided.
BalanceRestored 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. utcursch | talk 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I had good reasons to raise this issue. Why should be the government lawfully naming sections of the society OBC (OTHER BACKWARD CASTES), SC (Scheduled Caste) if it really wanted to remove the caste system. So, I put them in the criticism. Now, this user Buddhipriya did not only remove those but also warned me. I am surprised.

She looks to me someone among the community who has been among the molesters so the articles annoys this person of being exposed. So, if she is upto a mischief please let me know what's to be done about her.

{helpme} BalanceRestored 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes explains how to deal with it. Even if a fact is well known in India you still need to provide reliable sources. Make sure you cite reliable sources in all of your edits, that may help the dispute.--Commander Keane 06:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Keane what I am trying to bring out at the content is already present at the very article. Definitions are already clearly present in the body of the article Indian Caste System and they already referenced below very clearly. Should I take the above article to the main page. BalanceRestored 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly do not understand exactly what point you feel needs to be changed in the article. Can you say it another way, and state clearly what the point is in the article that is wrong? What language in the article needs to be changed? Also, please do not delete comments made by other editors on this talk page, as you did here [2] which deleted another warning to you regarding the need to comply with WP:CITE. Buddhipriya 06:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you have not edited the same. Is what I quoted incorrect? Why did you delete the same? Buddhipriya I am pretty new to wikipedia and it is really frustrating when I wrote such a lot and you did not even consider talking to me before deleting these. I am at my office and am doing this. You too knew it was right what I wrote. SO, if you had been good you should have considered editing my mistakes. Deleting things looked to me like u are pasting a bandage on my face and asking me to SHUTUP. BalanceRestored 06:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still am having difficulty understanding what point you are trying to make. In addition to the general guidance that you have been given regarding mediation processes, you may want to look into the Association of Members' Advocates where you may be able to find someone who can assist you with making your points in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy. Once again I request that you read the guideline on Wikipedia:Civility and focus on the content of the material of the article rather than on other issues.
Regarding reversion of unsourced content, two different editors here have been trying to get you to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability which says that "Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." The purpose of the talk pages for these articles is to discuss possible changes to the articles. If changes are controversial, the debate can take place here, hopefully reaching some agreement on how the article should be changed. If you want to make a point but do not have sources for it, you can raise the issue on the talk page and ask others to help you find sources. If you can clearly state here what point you are trying to make, perhaps someone can assist you in making it. Buddhipriya 07:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think {{helpme}} can help anymore. Perhaps starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment could be a way to get more opinions for the issue. Also please make it more clear what changes you think should happen in the article, it is not clear to me.--Commander Keane 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion to get a Wikipedia:Requests for comment is excellent, thanks for making it. I think I will proceed with that unless another editor objects to the idea. Buddhipriya 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard section layout

I have adjusted the section arrangement to follow the standard order at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I think it would be good if we made a formatting pass to try to get the article references more strictly into compliance with WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Verifiability. When inline references are used to books, those books would be listed as References, which becomes a list of works cited. So I will begin an editing pass just for format to try to get the books that are actually already cited into the References section. Does anyone object to the use of more consistent referencing? Buddhipriya 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "Other Backward Caste"

I really do not understand the wiki policies. What I wanted to state is the title used to represent socially molested sections of the society is as follows OBC (Other Backward Caste) is very controversial. It is like a couple of guys raped a women, and the end the justice, the judge declared the following.

People who raped the women = Higher Class People, so no advantage to you. Since you are a majority in the Indian Parliament, no punishment to you.

The women who got raped = Lawfully termed "Raped Women" (instead titling is as "The Women who was raped by BAD men"). So, now after labeling lawfully "Raped" she has to live with that and the next generations to come will be called children's and linage of "raped" women.

Sorry Keane, I am a very weak writer and really don't know how to represent things. It will take a long time for me to get this article out there as the number of people from the educated higher class are more. The Gov of India has already made a blunder and further generations will be actually called generations of the lawfully "BACKWARDS". I hope you understand what I wrote. If you need further clarifications I will wait and explain. It is wrong to call someone BACKWARD, and INDIAN GOVERNMENT is actually classifying sections of society as backward on the pretext of getting advantages to them. It is required that the Government apologies for the mistake committed and change the title BACKWARD to something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceRestored (talkcontribs)

The above unsigned material was added by BalanceRestored in this edit: [3]. Since it appears to be a specific content point, I have moved it to the bottom of the page as new material and have opened a topic header for the issue. Buddhipriya 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understand the point you are trying to make it is along the lines of: "The term 'Other Backward Castes' is controversial, and may be considered demeaning." Is that right? If so, perhaps we can assist in locating references that would either confirm or deny that in WP:RS. Buddhipriya 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BalanceRestored, you may have a valid point in stating that labeling people "Backward" is not necessarily a good policy. Unfortunately though, wikipedia is not the place to protest the action of the Indian Government. Please see wikipedia's basic policies, which lay down that wikipedia is not a soapbox.
So please use the article's talk page to discuss the article's content, and not its subject. If you want to include relevant material from reliable sources into the article, feel feel free to (1) specify exactly what content you wish to add, (2) what published references support your submission. Thanks Abecedare 08:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept the article as diplomatic as possible. I hope it does not now cause any problem.BalanceRestored 10:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I had to revert your addition. As stated my multiple editors before, the problem is not that your statements are necessarily wrong, but rather that they are unsourced original research/personal commentary and therefore go against wikipedia's established goals and policies. Please find one or more reliable published sources that make the point that you are stating and then we can discuss how to include the content in the article, while being careful not to give it undue weight. Abecedare 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
As this user has received multiple warnings and requests to comply with various policies such as WP:RS as well as NPOV and Civility, I feel that if there is continued edit warring on this point in the article that an RfC should be opened regarding disruptive behavior by this user. Buddhipriya 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, looks like people like Buddhipriya want to hide the truth, I am surprised seeing this entire article. Also, most of the sourced stuff is also unseen. What about those. There were many killings in the name of caste system, even the reasons why Government of India is give many facilities to the exploited communities is not mentioned. Also, Buddhipriya you are of a Indian origin don't you know what has happen. Why all this content is saving the wrong doings of the Exploiter community. Are you ashamed. Again don't warn me of getting banned etc. GOD is with, GOD wil show me the way. Google Forums are there, Blogs are there, Millions of places on the internet are there for these discussions. I am sure I will be adding sourced Stuff. The only problem is I am a little unaware of the wiki policies which you are taking advantage of. But, the truth can be never hidden. It is a air bubble inside water. It will come out. Also, madam, I know internet far better than you know. If at all you ban my current ID on the name of MISTAKES there are million ways to make MILLION more IDs. I am really surprised. WHY IS THIS ARTICLE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHY INDIAN GOVERNMENT FELT IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FACILITIES TO THE SOCIALLY MOLESTED POPULATION OF INDIA? WAS THAT NOT IMPORTANT?BalanceRestored 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also I did not know WIKI was a place for seeing HALF truths. Or is it? There where so many thousands of articles in the Established Indian News Papers with clear photographs and things showing all the wrong doings of the Exploiters, Why is this article so Biased?BalanceRestored 05:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Indian caste system is the traditional system of social stratification on the Indian Subcontinent

It is written "The Indian caste system is the traditional system of social stratification on the Indian Subcontinent, in which social classes are defined by a number of endogamous, hereditary groups often termed as jātis or castes. The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes. Within a jāti there exist exogamous groups known as gotras, the lineage or clan of a person."

There is no Place for such Classification of the Indian Society. What ever it is, it is made my a bunch of selfish humans of their own. Also this is not sourced.

The primary Indian Book is Veda, which has been told to be narrated by GOD. Where is all this mentioned in it. Now I have a objection on this. So, why don't we remove it. Again we follow the Gita Upanishada, which is also naratted by GOD, where is such a classification mentioned? BalanceRestored 05:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

the Brahmins (teachers, scholars and priests), the Kshatriyas (kings and warriors), the Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (agriculturists, service providers, and some artisan groups).

the Brahmins, I can agree

the Brahmin = (teachers, scholars and priests) some one has written this is written in Gita, can you please show me where?

The things written in the bracket are personal quotes. Please remove them

The definition of Brahmin is as follows

A brahmin simply means one who spends his/her life span in the service of GOD, and one who follows the following below

"Adhyaapanam Adhyayanam
Yajanam Yaajanam Tathaa
Daanam Pratigraham Chaiva
Brahmanaanaamakalpayaat"

Teaching, learning, performing Yajna, make performing Yajna, accept Daana, and give Daana are the six duties of a Brahmin. A way of life that is free of all selfish desires.

the Brahmin = (teachers, scholars and priests) is certainly not naratted, So please do not misguide the readers. A teacher can be a teaching how to STEAL, a Scholar can be a SCHOLAR in Raping science, Scholar in Making ATOM BOMB, and these examples does not make a Scholar a Brahmin. A Priest can be a person who is performing all the necessary rituals inside a temple but can be something else in his personal life, not a making him a Brahmin. So, GOD will not certainly mention them. Also what's written is also not sourced in Gita.

Please do not misguide the readers.

BalanceRestored 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI report filed

I have reported disruption by User:BalanceRestored at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_User:BalanceRestored. Editors who wish to comment on this situation are encouraged to check the report and help figure out what to do to stop unproductive exchanges. Buddhipriya 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Outcome was a prompt block for 31 hours. Buddhipriya 07:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Poor fellow tried to speak too much of truth at a time. FOOL. Roughandtough 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: Roughandtough has been blocked as sockpuppet of BalanceRestored. utcursch | talk 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jati and Varna are different

Jati is nothing to do with the varna. Person of a belonging to a jati does not necessarily follow the varna. The main defination was edited Roughandtough 14:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Brahma is the creator of all human beings. =

It is very clearly mentioned in the veda that Brahma Created us all. So, The root linage of all human being has started from Brahma.Roughandtough 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything else is a history

All human beings are same. There where many selfish men who out of their own accord tried to create similarities between Jati and Varna. Remember Veda is narrated by GOD and all other unwanted stuff is written or narrated by unknowledgeable humans who clearly conflicted the Veda and the Upanishad teachings. Roughandtough 15:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Conflicting Narrations

Manusmriti and some other shastras mention four varnas: the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas, and Shudras . Offspring of different varnas belong to different Jātis. Another group excluded from the main society was called Parjanya or Antyaja. Passages from scriptures such as Manusmriti indicate that the varna system was originally non-hereditary.[10]

Several critics of Hinduism state that the caste system is rooted in the varna system mentioned in the ancient Hindu scriptures.[11] However, many groups such as ISKCON consider the modern Indian caste system and the varna system as two unidentical concepts.[12][13] Many European scholars from the colonial era regarded the Manusmriti as the "law book" of the Hindus and thus concluded that the caste system is a part of Hinduism, an assertion that is rejected by many Hindu scholars, who state that it is an anachronistic social practice, not a religious one.[14][15][16][17]

Bold quotes are conflicting, kindly consider editing. Either of it can be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughandtough (talkcontribs)

I'll tell you the conflicting narration. Religious hogwash put into a rather good article.Bakaman 18:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).