Talk:Kayastha

The Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus or CKPs of Western India should be removed from the list of subdivisions of Kayasthas from across the page. CKPs are listed in Gazetteer and other ethnological sources to have been a division of the "Prabhu" castes of Western India, with Pathare Prabhus being their sister caste (as mentioned on the main CKP page). CKPs aren't considered as a subdivision or subgroup of Kayasthas anywhere in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.157.187.130 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"... a Mathura inscription of Vasudeva I, composed by a Kayastha Śramaṇa."

Under the heading "History". A Śramaṇa is a Buddhist monk according to the Pali manuscripts. Buddha was a Śramaṇa, so were his brethren. 62.131.49.208 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Kayastha surname Das is not due to marrying with Sudras

The eminent historian DR Bhandarkar was the first to point out that surnames used by Nagar Brahmins between 6th and 8th centuries A.D. It has been suggested that Nagar Brahmins along with present date Bengali Kayasthas are the purest form of this type. In ancient copper decoration plates the following Sharmans of Nagar Brahmins are mentioned - Bhav, Bhuti, Das, Dutt, Gupt, Ghosh, Dev, Nand, Mitra, Verma and Vrat 103.199.180.212 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Kalitas of Assam are also Kayasthas

Kalitas of Assam are from Baro-Bhuyan family and by caste Hindu Kshatirya/Kayastha. Sudarshan Dutta (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sudarshan Dutta - what reliable, Independent sources can you cite to support that claim? - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

VyasSmriti

According to Vyassmriti Kayasthas are shudra, add that also. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/RamaInExile/status/1606333280697073667 he is a very knowledgeable person. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please provide modern (post Raj era) reliable and verifiable source(s) supporting your claim! Ekdalian (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No, not to you. Bye, will be back in few days. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Why you are asking me for post 1947 sources? this article itself has pre 1947 sources NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare here are the sources

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41152132?searchText=Cultural%20and%20Social%20Radicalism%20in%20Medieval%20Orissa%20BASANTA%20KUMAR%20MALLIK&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DCultural%2Band%2BSocial%2BRadicalism%2Bin%2BMedieval%2BOrissa%2BBASANTA%2BKUMAR%2BMALLIK&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Afaa735d8983bc9bb3c8fb37e8ccd522a page no 54

2. https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.13287/page/n483/mode/2up page no 434 NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE, please share relevant quotes from these two sources! Don't worry, everyone including Abecedare is watching this talk page! Ekdalian (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

1. "The earliest reference to the Kayasthas is found in the Smriti of Yajnavalkya and the Veda Vyas Smriti includes them among sudras."

2. "The Vedavydsa Smriti includes the Kayastha among sudras along with barbers, potters and others."

dont cherrypick scriptures give all informations. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We generally avoid direct quotation from primary sources like smritis! Is any interpretation available in your sources? Our article anyway mentions shudra in different contexts like court rulings, etc. What new information do these sources bring to the table? Anyway, read WP:PRIMARY; we avoid quoting primary sources or equivalent without any scholarly interpretation unless we can derive some really important information! There's nothing new about their shudra classification! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Vyas smriti kayasthas belonged to the same position of Barber and potters, how this is not important when we are discussing a Hindu caste? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, after all, all shudras are equivalent, be it Kayastha, barber or potter; no new information in spite of using direct quotation from a primary source or equivalent! We have already mentioned Shudra in different contexts; you want more? Sorry! Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I citing directly Vyassmriti here? Jstor is not reputably published? thats why I told you to read the rules. @Abecedare sorry to ping you again but discussion with Ekdalian will not go anywere if someone else dont come in. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't plan to weight in on the content dispute per se since this is not something I have offhand knowledge of, and because I am involved as an admin at this page. However, I'll ping @TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, Satnam2408, and Sitush: who have been active here or at Bengali Kayastha, where a somewhat related debate is ongoing. I'd suggest that you all wait a day or two to see if anyone joins in and, if not, try a third opinion or mediation. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Further I would say the scriptures have been used in many caste articles such as Rajput, Yadav, Mahiswa and many more to describe their origins and positions. I dont see any exception not to use them here. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE and Ekdalian I think under WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:SECONDARY, the above sources should be considered as secondary source; however, 'shudra' is mentioned in the article. If you want to refer to scriptural defination, you must follow WP:NPOV. If I am not wrong, some other scriptures have given them a high status. All of these can be incorporated in a summarized format, usually in one or two lines. We should wait for LukeEmily, an experienced editor for their opinion. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Though the user NC has cited secondary source, but since there's no interpretation of such unreliable smritis (read the article to know more about their unreliability) by modern scholars/authors, they are as good as primary sources (equivalent)! I have removed several such quotes citing primary source equivalent (secondary sources without interpretation) from many articles including Brahmin, Charan! Abecedare, as an uninvolved admin, please note that the user is clearly a WP:SPA with the agenda of negative POV pushing! We have hundreds of such smritis; is this one adding any value to the article, when the article clearly discusses regarding the Shudra classification including court rulings. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean all Hindu scriptures which are in written form are problematic? BOLD CLAIM indeed! Kayasthas were mentioned in hundred of such smritis? another BOLD CLAIM. If you want to give the origin information of Kayastahs from scriptures then follow neutral point of view. Do not cherry pick scriptues. I think Satnam2408 also said the same. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Responding to a ping. Abecedare, I am really growing very tired of these never-ending Baidya/Bengali Kayastha caste wars on wikipedia. I wish we could add and emphasize 'Sudras' mention in the lead of both Kayastha and Baidya castes so these wars would stop - it would be accurate since Bengal has a two-varna system anyways. Coming to the main issue, the court judgements were already based on smritis and religious scriptures as the sources say(see Legal Limbo and Caste Consternation:Determining Kayasthas’ Varna Rank in Indian Law Courts, 1860–1930 CUP) Hayden J. Bellenoit - i.e. Smritis are implicitly referred anyways. It is clear that Kayastha is not a varna nor a caste and that each regional group differs by ritual status(varna) and is quite distinct. I am not sure which subgroup is being referred to here in Vyasa smriti. Mujamdar is discussing this in the "History of ancient Bengal" in the context of Karana Kayastha. I also checked the english translation of Vyas Smirti by M.N.Dutt. He has put "userer" to describe the Kayastha - this means "money-lender" which is actually a Vaishya profession. Incidentally, Vyasa Smriti also puts them in the same bucket as traders/Vanik(Bania?)(which it calls one of the lowest). On the same page, Mujamdar gives other interpretations(like Kayastha descent from Sage Kashapa) - without giving any context to which group he is referring to. Secondly, the same Vyas Smriti is used by Sinha and Lucy Carol Stout to show quotations that argue them being twice born. The basic issue is that this is a functional group and we need to know which group is being referred to here - what is a money-lender Kayastha?. If we want to add smritis, I can come up with a suggestion after going through a few sources. But as I said before, the Smritis were already implicitly referred to in the court findings. My point is that we need to be specific about the group as different scriptures will naturally refer to different groups. Based on my reading, some of the kayastha groups are definitely Shudras(maybe they had twice born origin and later were degraded or maybe they were shudras to begin with). Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Has the conflict started after TB revamped the Baidya article? If it's so, I guess the reason might be that the contents, tone and flow of these two articles hugely differ, despite both being non-brahmin upper-castes of Bengal.CharlesWain (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

LuKeEmily, I appreciate your input. Not only R.C. Majumder but scholars like Basanta Kumar Mallik and Sanghamitra Saha also mentioned VyasSmriti, which linked the Kayasthas with Shudras. In that case, I think Sinha is fringe. In the Bengali Kayastha page, Ushana Smriti has been used to give them a high origin! Although, according to many scholars, Ushana says completely different things about them. Rabindranath Chakraborty is a classic example of WP:FRINGE. Is it right? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE, some sources here have mentioned them as Shudra and they are included in the article. Other mention them as twice born caste, they too need to be included and recent edits have done so. It seems balanced as of now. What's special in Vyas Smriti ?.-Admantine123 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Vyas smriti is a Hindu dharma shastra. If other dharma shastras claimed they are even Brahmins then we should give that also. I see a huge ammount of cherry picking while discussing Kayastha's history mentioned in scriptures here. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have gone through that section, and I can't see that there is any claim regarding [they] being Brahmins. Brahmins are not the only twice born castes, and it's a harsh reality that Kayasthas are twice born. If some sources says it, then what's objectionable here. Anyways, you should provide us quotation from modern post independence sources that have interpreted Vyas Smriti, as we avoid WP:RAJ era sources.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Please check the sources again. Mallik, Majumder, Saha they are not Raj era sources, Rather Jagendra chandra ghosh, Kane are(which are present in this article). NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Majority Source mention modern status of Bengali Kayastha as twice born

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily and Ekdalian Hopefully a majority of modern sources call Bengali Kayastha as Twice born as mentioned here[1]. Actually, it's true that their varna status is disputed but I am not sure about the edit.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408, this rare form of presenting information in caste articles is nothing new; let me give you an example. Almost 10 years back, I had proposed a similar edit in the article talk page of another caste article, and the same was accepted by Sitush! If you check the article on Kulin Kayastha (represents the consensus version), you will find the following statements: "Likewise, the original varna status of the five attendants, accompanying the Brahmins, according to the legend, is also a subject matter of debate. Majority of sources mention them as Shudra servants, many others refer to them as Kayastha attendants, and very few as Aryan Kshatriya consorts." The objective is to provide all views as per NPOV along with DUE weight. Hope you understand! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekadalian, I have read many sources related to caste in Bengal. So, I can say that the sentence the original varna status of the five attendants, accompanying the Brahmins, according to the legend, is also a subject matter of debate. Majority of sources mention them as Shudra servants, many others refer to them as Kayastha attendants, and very few as Aryan Kshatriya consorts.",approved by Sitush is correct. Kayasthas were regarded as servants of Brahmins for a long time and hence brandes as shudra (according to the long lasting tradition of Bengal). In Bengal's caste system, all castes except Brahmins were classified as Shudras. So, this edit is no exception. Even in many books published nowadays, Bengali Kayasthas are called Shudras. Now, in the sentence "Majority of the modern scholarly work consider the present varna status of Bengali Kayasthas as 'twice-born'", how many sources do these mean? All sources have we been able to read? When you are referring to Sitush, I think they can shed some light on this. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)