Talk:Bania (caste)

Bania name history

According to Various census of India the word Banya is derived from sanskrit banijya or trade; and as the name implies,lives solely for and by commerce.Banias hold a considerable area of land in the east of the provinces; but it is very rarely indeed that he follows any other than mercantile pursuits.The commercial enterprise and intelligence of the class is great ,and the dealings of some of the great banyas houses of Delhi, Bikaner and Marwar of of most extensive nature.However the banyas of the villages are mostly poor.

They r true citizens of nepal????? WTF! NPOV!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.25.208 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Various census of India Page cxxviii

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=OJuJTZmRGpHirAeNsIDcDg&ct=result&id=RwEJAAAAQAAJ&dq=ahirs+of+bikaner&q=bikaner

Merging with Vaishya not recommended

Just like Rajput and Maratthas are two distinct subcastes of Kshatriya; Baniya is a subcaste of Vaishya ; coming mostly from West India and descended probably from Baniya kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.114 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone did an unattributed copy/paste of a section of the Vaishya article recently, and then other communities were added to that list-paragraph that were not even in the sources (eg: the source for Arya Vaishya referred to those in Jaffna but ended up here as those in a multitude of states). I've just now removed it. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Assam

An anon has added this (twice) because they think the Assamese Bania should not be confused with the caste referred to in this article. They are, apparently, a distinct community. This is entirely possible but, if so, they should have their own article and the confusion is averted by using one of the many {{Other uses}} templates at the top of both articles. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Image

Images like File:KITLV 87170 - William Johnson - Bania women in British India - Before 1860.jpeg were imperial tools of knowledge production, that borrowed from scientific racism and were often grossly inaccurate. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Better to discuss that at WP:INB and build up a consensus there, since many ethnic articles use British era images, for example Rajput. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well some image is better than no image. @TrangaBellam:, I linked the image above. I don't see any problem in this image. Why do you find it problematic? --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read-

'Race, Caste and Tribe in Central India: The Early Origins of Indian Anthropometry' by Crispin Bates.

Pinney, Christopher (2013-06-01). Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78023-152-5.

Gaskell, Nathaniel; Gujral, Diva (2018). Photography in India: A Visual History from the 1850s to the Present. Prestel. ISBN 978-3-7913-8421-4.

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Ok, I will read when I find time. If you have already read it, perhaps you can summarize in a few lines what your objections with this image is. Your comment in the beginning of this thread is a general comment that may apply to some images, but I dont see how it applies to this particular image. To be clear, I don't see any problems in this image, like you are saying and I am against removing this beautiful pic. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I will quote the relevant parts. Give me some time. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, a summary from you will be even better. I am not sure if copy posting the quotes for this is worthwhile. It is up to you though. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the reason be, if it is necessary, the discussion should be at WP:INB. We can have a sitewide removal of images from the British period if the consensus gets us to that. Lets not cherry-pick being antagonistic to this specific image. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I am against removal of this image. or any site wide removal of images. Reeks of censorship to me. Folks are free to discuss this whereever they like, I will oppose it there. A discussion on this page is necessary for content related to this article. So we are talking on the right place. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: Well make it two then, I'm in support of removal neither. I was suggesting a possibility since TrangaBellam was like......imperial tools of knowledge production, that borrowed from scientific racism and were often grossly inaccurate. That would include many images and articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, ok. I have no doubt that such a proposal will "go down like a shot dog". Walrus Ji (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

...Early photographic projects in India took form within a much broader museological discourse which created parallel registers of images, artifacts and records of behavior...

...There were also many enthusiastic amateurs who took ethnology as their subject. The Indian Amateurs Photographic Album, which was issued in twenty-four parts between December 1856 and October 1858, contained a section on the Costumes and Characters of Western India. Many of these later appeared against montage landscapes in William Johnson’s The Oriental Races and Tribes,Residents and Visitors of Bombay: A Series of Photographs with Letterpress Descriptions (two volumes, 1863 and 1866)...

...Johnson’s anthropological quest for difference is made clear in the title he chose for the work. The volumes contained ‘numerous representatives of almost all the races and tribes of the Indian Continent and islands’ and he signaled that one of his concerns was with systems of identification that included physiognomy and, in the case of Hindus, bodily marks, and, among Parsis and Muslims, costume...Johnson also provides short notes on how best to recognize Christians, Bene Israel, Chinese, Malays, Arabs, Persians and Africans...

...The illustrations in this work showed exemplars or ‘types’ and the lengthy letter presses gave lists of identifying features, which included costume and material artifacts. Particular attention was devoted to markers of difference, to visible signs which could be tabulated against group identities. This quest for difference tended to make the women of a group of more interest, since their costume and material culture were identified as being more resistant to change...

...William Johnson had referred – in his Oriental Races and Tribes – to the distinct physiognomy of different groups. Such ideas concerning the readability of physiognomy derived in the short term from the work of Lavater...Lavater suggested that individuals’ moral beauty could be judged on the basis of external characteristics, what he called their ‘corporeal beauty’, and he ‘went back to the ancient search for occult analogies between physical characteristics, moral qualities and animal forms, attempting to reduce physiognomics to an exact science’...
— Pinney, Christopher (2013-06-01). Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78023-152-5.

Also, this etc.

The photographer of the photo is William Johnson and the source is The Indian Amateurs Photographic Album. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Thanks. Interesting read. I believe we all agree that an image is needed in this article. if there are better more encyclopedic images to replace this, I would be interested to look at them. Until that proposal is put forward, I would let this image remain. This image is highly informative in my opinion. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree; the concept of imaging people of different castes is weird in itself. Assuming you believe that images derived from scientific racism/eugenics are good enough, I will let the images remain. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is "the concept of imaging people of different castes weird in itself"? Of course, if you like to pretend caste isn't an issue in Indian culture, you might think that. Otherwise, it doesn't seem especially wierd in itself. As so often, historical Indian issues are being projected onto the nasty British, as though they invented them. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Invention - nah. Please refrain from irrelevant ad-hominem attacks and (maybe) read the last few decades of postcolonial scholarship. Or, please provide sources that rejects Pinney. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not either irrelevant or an ad-hominem attack. I think you are misunderstanding Sitush's purpose there; "the last few decades of postcolonial scholarship" are often quite as unreliable as Victorian Raj ethnographers, with their own agendas. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You want Marxist scholarship, stating these same facts? I can provide them. Any other variants? I am sure that the Lead Curator of the British Library has some agenda, as well.

Anyways, you need to provide reliable sources that claim Pinney/Edward's accusations to be wrong. The books have been subject to very positive reviews, I see. So, .....

My area of scholarship is centered on castes; very feeble chance that I will fail to understand something. Susan Baily (mentioned over Sitush's essay) is a post-colonial scholar. As is Metcalf. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You are roping in all sorts of people with the claim that they share your view that "the concept of imaging people of different castes is weird in itself". I very much doubt this is the case. Analysing & criticising what they made of these images is a very different thing. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We are not having a discussion about whether its weird or not to put any image. We are discussing an image published by a certain 19th century person named William Johnson and I have presented three sources that take a negative view of his photographic ventures and links them to scientific racism. There are also issues of accuracy because the actual author is unknown and WJ chose of the hundreds of images (often anonymous), mailed his way. You started off on a tangent about how I believe that caste is a British invention, how Pinney and others critiquing these imperial projects ought be not given much weight (??) because they are postcolonial scholars with "some agenda" and are continuing in the same vein.

Once again, I hope that you have sources which rejects arguments by Pinney (and others) and you choose to present them over here. It will be a learning experience for me. If you have some photograph of Baniya from within last 30-40 years, please feel free to replace with it. I won't object assuming that the new source is a RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, User:Sitush/CasteSources#Writings_of_British_Raj_administrators that I found on a caste-talk-page is quite nice. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I will let the image remain, as it shows the picture of 2 bania ladies from 17th century. As simple as that. If there are 'arguably' better images than this, I would like to discuss the replacement. This discussion seems to have run its course. I would suggest we focus our energies at other places where help is needed. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's see. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)