Talk:Dalit

A thought?

"Caste In Sikhism" can be a new article on wiki. Although theoretically they don't acknowledge it, the practice clearly exists. Thoughts any one? I have drastically improved the talhan conflict with references. If we were to explore caste in Sikhism here the sikh sub section would be too long. Hence a new wiki page dedicated for "Caste in sikhism" would be needed in my opinion. (Smith012 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Aborigine Kings

As per anthropological survey of India, Mahadigas aka Dalits aka Harijans aka Girijans aka SC/ST are the Indian Aborigine Kings, and they were the first Rulers of Indian land. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mahadiga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadiga (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahadiga (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Few Points to note before discussion

please read the topics before starting a new discussion on the discussion page or making changes to the main article.

this can stop people from repeating things over and over again.

thanks Thqwk (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination based on physical appearance is possible with Dalits!

dalits can be distiguished very easily from south indian brahmins. south indian brahmins are pure dravidian whereas dalits have considerable amount of australoid admixture.

dravidians migrated to central, eastern and western regions during aryan invasion. south indians brahmins are pure dravidian/swarthy caucasoid and carry the highest frequency of L and R2.

north indian brahmins are part aryan and carry R1a. They are pale skinned, have mediterranean features and are taller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.226 (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Using color and complexion for ethnic classifications is outdated, racist and unacademic. You cannot determine the ethnicity of any caste group in India based on how people look in a series of photos. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete hokum noone can tell just by looking at me that I am a dalit. only by my last name and family history can this be ascertained.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New image

I wish to replace the Ambedkar image used with a collage of prominent Dalit personalities. But however, as the article is protected, I cannot make the changes. Hence, I am providing the modified infobox template here with my suggestions here. Thanks.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dalits

Looks good except Birsa Munda is not a Dalit but an Adivasi and and the Indian consitituition recognizes the Munda people as ST not as SC.Taprobanus (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How about File:Tbio.jpg and then we ask permission from the admin to add the pic ?Taprobanus (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tbio.jpg

Are you sure that this one is a fair-use image? I feel it is more likely that the uploader would have found the image at some website. And, by the way, I feel it is better that we avoiding adding present-day politicians to the infobox. As far as Mayawati is concerned, she is a national-level leader and a possible PM candidate. But as far as Thiruma is concerned, I find it difficult to even regard him as the undisputable leader of Tamil Dalits. There are other leaders like Krishnasamy who are in competition with him for the position. I personally feel that it would be better to have someone else. There are too many politicians and legendary figures in the infobox. Maybe, we shold have some sportspersons, scientists or non-political individuals.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree Taprobanus (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing suggestion-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

other literal outcastes?

Here's something I've always wondered, where do non-Hindu, non-Indians fit in with the caste system? Under strict Hindu law, technically isn't every non-Hindu an outcaste too? Would they be referred to as Dalits? Or is there some technical/theological term that can be used? --86.135.177.132 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

they would be called pariah or videshi. its not an offensive term, its just a term that means foreigner in hindi. Thqwk (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

According to strict tradition, Non-Hindus occupy an ambiguous space: not untouchable to the same degree as a tanner or "sweeper", yet not fully touchable either. Their touch or even mere presence may be considered to pollute water and cooked food. Orthodox Hindus may decline to eat with a non-Hindu, or not eat the most pollution-susceptible foods (foods cooked with water). LADave (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a line from Dale Carnegie's famous book. It went something like this: they wont touch the food your shadow has fallen upon. Of course this was at the early 1900s and today things are much different. In the past Hindus would also associate with other members of the same caste status belonging to different religions but never accord them the same status. FOr example: One account of a Goud Saraswat Brahmin mentioned how his orthodox father would only meet GSB-origin christians at the gate, never inviting them in ; and then taking a bath to cleanse himself after the meeting (inspit of the fact that there was no physical contact). Regardles of this, the treatment meeted to lower castes, Hindu or not, was always the same. -Deepak D'Souza (talk)

template

at the present time there is no need for a template since the article has neatly summarised all the relevant information. Thqwk (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Being a social construct and there being discrimination are not mutually exclusive; being a social construct does not stop there from being discrimination. And putting information in about the discrimination without mentioning the positive steps that have been taken to change things is very misleading. It's inappropriate to write African American as if it were Racism in the United States so why do this for India? Anyway, it's well cited. If you want to take up issue with the citations, take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. Munci (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

its not well cited that is the problem. i was the person who initially put the statements along with the references but if you check the references you can see that it does not talk about the statements that i put in. we already have a section that deals with genetics. the caste system is widely practised in india. the current intro is fine. it mentions that there is still widespread discrimination against dalits and also mentions the steps being taken. there is no need to make the intro any longer. Thqwk (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the version you want does state enough about steps having been taken because it doesn't state the fact that the Indian constitution bans the treatment of people as untouchables. On the genetics, there doesn't seem to be anything in the document so that errs on the side of removal. I found another document which says different though:[1]. tl;dr:It says that the forward castes have more often haplogroups the same as those in Europe and the Middle East than backward castes do. Munci (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Caste System

I would like to respectfully point out an error I noticed right of the bat when I looked at this article. In the first sentence of the second paragraph under the heading 'Dahlit' the statement "While the caste system has been abolished under the Indian constitution" is erroneous. According to the source cited, Excerpts from The Constitution of India, the Indian constitution set in place "Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth" and "Abolition of Untouchability". However it does not abolish the caste system as whole, which I would argue is still very much alive in India and has a large impact on peoples lives to this day.

    I hope you will consider making a revision to the afore mentioned statement concerning the caste system in India.
        Many thanks.
           -Ishmael77 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Lowest Caste but the Bending Ones

Originally the Dalits were the Humble Ones, set apart and consecrated - and that is why they could not be touched. As usual, the original ones have been supressed and things turned around. These were the ones who Crushed to Pieces the Enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.70.121 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I dont like the way the lede jumps right in with "traditionally regarded as untouchable". that's out of context and sounds disparaging. i want to change this to "Dalit is the self designating term for a number of castes of peoples within India, who are traditionally identified by the caste system of India as "untouchable". If no one objects, i will do so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It will be better not to use the word "untouchable" as it is considered derogatory. And for the information of all, Dalits were not the only untouchable ones. The definition of an untouchable varies from place to place. For example, in Kerala Malayali Brahmins considered Tamil Brahmins as untouchables. Axxn (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding the point that other groups besides dalits were untouchable, the phrase "among others" could be added to what i proposed. I know that untouchable is highly derogatory, thats why dalit and harijan were proposed/chosen. but its also a word that nearly every english speaking person in the world learned as an indian caste word for certain people, at least those educated before the last 20 years or so, i might guess. We could remove it from the lede, but we cannot expunge its use, as a historical reality, from the article as a whole. Where should it be mentioned in the article, if not the lede?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... it seems that there is no other choice. If no one else objects we can go ahead with the lede which you proposed. Axxn (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to consider this change. to be absolutely honest, i would prefer to hear from more users, particularly from people directly familiar with Indian culture (as you are, and as i am not), before i make this change, out of respect for the subject. you may speak for more people than you realize, and i want to respect that. i have only linked the word untouchable to its article, which seems like a neutral addition for now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I find no fault with the present wording but Mercurywoodrose's proposal is very reasonable and I will support it. I am not sure if "among others" is valid. The term Dalit is more commonly used today as opposed to "achut"(literally: untouchable) which was used till a century back, for people who did occupations that were considered as "polluting", such as cleaning faecal matter. It is not the same as the example given by Axxn which is very common social behaviour in India. Traditionaly Indians have been averse to any form of physical contact, even within the same caste, but this rule was enforced with members of other castes. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the term "untouchable" is widely understood and used outside South Asia, I believe it was a mistake to get rid of it in the introductory section. Just saying dalits were not allowed to form personal relationships gives a very fuzzy idea of what they had to endure. Also the body of the article doesn't describe restrictions pertaining to mundane matters like food, water, access to education, marriage prospects and so forth. LADave (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Social Status Today

This article is on a sensitive and debated topic; the status of Dalits today is a complex issue with many sides. While some Dalits have undoubtedly become integrated into modern society, others continue to struggle due to lingering caste feelings. As such, we must present both sides with relatively equal standing. I think the article currently does a good job of doing this (both sides arguments are presented, with facts and sources, while neither is argued for). However, some editors have tried to change the wording to throw off this balance. Please maintain NPOV and do not attempt to undermine neutrality with biased word choice. JakeH07 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. The article uses weasel words like "acknowledged" instead of the neutral "claim", and cites a partisan source not known for it's exhaustive fact checking (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch) to justify some bizarre claims, like 89% of crimes against Dalit folk go unpunished. Is that so? How does HRW know? Did they do a sample study? Where is their data for such a study? Reliable sources are required to publish this. Why is it that there are no other sources making this remarkable claim? What about the Indian judiciary? They don't log cases on their docket on the basis of the caste of their victims (which is against the law in India)? What about the Indian government? They collect census data on various castes, so surely they must have some stats to back this up? The HRW thing is Bollox and does not stand the test of reliability.117.194.201.202 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, I have tried to remove every so-called weasel word (despite my own misgivings) and have backed up every one of my facts with four citations from well reputed sources. Please stop deleting the information I have included based on your personal beliefs. As I said, it is fine for an article to display both sides of an issue, especially an article on a complex and dynamic issues such as this one. However, by belittling one side you are not presenting a fair representation of the issue. JakeH07 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bogus pseudo-activism! The ohcr link you cited pertains to Nepal, not India, so does not apply to the section on Dalit folk in India. Secondly, the wsj link does not exist and is a dud. If you are from some propaganda/activism group sent here to twist wikipedia into furthering a political agenda, then please see WP:COI.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My purpose of editing this article is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. I can, and have, provided many citations from a wide variety of very well-respected sources. Now you are simply denying the facts based on your own opinions. You can find your own sources and provide support for your side of this dynamic issue (keep in mind, we are talking about a group of over 170 million people, they are obviously not all in the same boat). But please stop deleting well-cited information for no reason. JakeH07 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, and WP:COAT. Please stop adding text that is impertiment to the relevant section. Please stop disrupting mainstream editing of this article with sources that violate WP:FRINGE.117.194.194.3 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You seriously must be kidding me. I have absolutely zero personal interest in the Dalits. I do, however, as a human being, feel for their cause. I can show you dozens of well-reviewed studies on the subject which validate my edits. You can refuse to believe them, that is your prerogative, but you must allow both sides of this story to be told. I have no doubt some Dalits have integrated into modern life; however, there are also millions who have not. Please do not dispute well-sourced facts. JakeH07 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not an attack site for advocacy or propaganda.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

117.194.194.3, please stop making silly allegations. COI is specifically related to "personal interests" such as a musician puffing up his article on Wikipedia. This certainly is not COI. Discrimination exists even if it may not be very overt as in the past. While it is more visible in the rural areas; even in cities it manifests itself in forms such as honour killings and forced marraiges. Even the "integrated Dalits" often face discrimination in subtle forms. For example: A Dalit entrpreneur's housemaid left his service abruptly when she discovered that he was from "that caste". --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and how is that relevant to this article? This is not supposed to be an attack site.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This certainly is not an attack site and this certainly is not an WP:ATTACK. Do read the rules in detail before throwing them at others. All you are doing is finding irrelevant rules from wikipedia in the hope of dodging solid references. If you dont have any references to back your claims please stop. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

References now include Harvard, UNESCO, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and BBC, all added on to the original Human Rights Watch citation. Please read (not skim) the page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You will notice that scholarly sources (Harvard and UNESCO), and mainstream news sources (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and BBC) are considered amoung the best sources. Now, while HRW is more activist, they have a generally good (not perfect) reputation. However, the added support of all these sources is more than enough to verify the information I have presented and prove this information is a mainstream issue. Your continual deletions of this information is vandalism; please stop or I will will be forced to go to administrators with this issue. JakeH07 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I have requested semi-protection as a first resort to anons repeated reverting of constructive edits. If you insist on continuing with your disruptive behaviour, you will be blocked altogether. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please some one knowledgeable add some factual research data on how present backwardness in social status (in spite of reduction in stigma) as result of centuries of segregation and lack access to resources and education. 173.3.39.109 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual error

I think there is a factual error in the sentence "Ezhava in Kerala are dalit, because of education because they were Buddhists", laid out in the section, Historical attitudes. According to my knowledge, Ezhavas are not dalits, since they belong to the backward castes and are classified as OBCs by the state and central governments.Also, the sentence does not make much sense either.Kindly, correct.

(Mksuraj (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

good job. take care of. --CarTick 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Change: Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes.Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the [[Sikhs]] who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. [[Kanshi Ram]] himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village [[Gurudwara]] near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between [[Jat]] Sikhs and [[Ravidasia]] Sikhs. The Different Sikh Dalits are [[Ravidasia]] Sikh and [[Mazhabi]] Sikh. Recently, there were news that in some village in Punjab, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.

To:

Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes. Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the [[Sikhs]] who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. [[Kanshi Ram]] himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village [[Gurudwara]] near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between [[Jat]] and [[Mazhabi]] Sikhs and [[Ravidasia]] Sikhs. Recently, in a Punjabi village, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.

Also, I note that there are no references cited in this section. This is especially grave considering the allegations being made here.

189.189.255.82 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Goodvac (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

I wonder what the Jews of India (Bene Israel and the like) think of Dalits. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian-Americans

What do Indians in America think of Dalits? What attitudes or opinions are out there? Curious about that, too. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.164.143.111, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} A Dalit is not an outcast

Ejebil (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —GƒoleyFour— 03:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor but glaring error

"There are many different name proposed..." should be "There are many different names proposed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.48 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a clearer introduction. It states (1st sentence) "Dalit is a designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as Untouchable." This statement is very ambiguous. It led me to believe the dalit were more akin to nobility instead of serfs. Being untouchable invokes a picture of being above the law. I believe, it was used to illustrate that the `upper caste' does not want to touch them (because they are lowly and dirty). I have no problem with the use of the term `untouchable' (because it is accurate and used for this caste) but would like to see this context elucidated a little more to avoid confusion. Newtonsghost (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} Change :In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have revolutionized politics{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} to

In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have revolutionized politicsPai, Sudha (1994). "Caste and Communal Mobilisation in the Electoral Politics of Uttar Pradesh". Indian Journal of Political Science (Indian Political Science Association) LV, No3 (July September 1994): 307 - 320. 

Thank you. Dalit Llama (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages. Baseball Watcher 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Many details not correct

The article says that most dalits are oppressed which may not be true. consider the following points:

• It is said that dalits were/are alwalys involved in doing dirty work like cleaning toilets.

This point is not totally correct because even today 70% of indian houses dont have toilet facility. Anyone can know what may have been the condition 100 years ago. So all dalits cleaning toilets of upper castes dont arise. Its only in some large cities where they are appointed by none other than government to do these works.

• Dalits are/were alwalys regarded as untouchables

This is also not totally correct because in most indian villages this so called untouchability is mutual. This means while the so called upper castes dont touch dalits, so does the dalits dont touch upper castes. This is mutually agreed and not enforced by anyone.

• Dalits are not allowed into temples.

This is also not correct because most temples in every village is small and only some temples are large. Therefore only one or two can enter into the temple and the rest have to stand out. So only priests enter the temple and all others including uppers caste people stand outside.

• Dalits are not allowed into villages.

This is again not correct. Only those who have not seen villages in india can say this. Because in villages there will be only few streets and each is occupied by members of particular caste. So dalits will have their own street and saying that they are not allowed into village is not correct.

• Dalits are not given water.

How can someone live without water. This again is based on prejudice and wrong reasoning without any idea of how life goes on in india.

So the arguments made to show that dalits are being oppressed is not correct. But sometimes we see such incidences being reported and it is only applicable in those particular cases and not everywhere in india. Wherever these happen it is the responsiblility of local administration and police to see that such incidences dont happen. The media often blow it out of proportion and depict a wrong picture of the country and its people. 223.177.31.141 (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)