Talk:Kulin Kayastha

Shudra

I am aware that the Shudra classification causes much angst on caste/community articles where it applies. In this instance, it really does appear to be pretty fundamental to the identity of Kulin Kayasthas. It is intrinsic to the difference between the Kulin Brahmins and the Kayasthas, and it is bound into the origins of the various clans etc. There are numerous reliable sources that refer to the point.

It is true that the varna system is no longer officially recognised by the government, although they still effectively acknowledge it via the OBC lists etc and even use the terms themselves. But as a matter of historical record it is valid, and in this instance central to the theories of origin etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha and Shudra are self-contradictory

It is needless to mention that Kayasthas are one of the highest castes in the Indian caste system. As per Wikipedia's article on Kayastha, though their exact caste status is a subject matter of debate, they are consistently ranked between Kshatriyas and Brahmins. Obviously, the five families who came along with five Brahmins, were not arbitrarily accorded the status of Kayasthas by the King, and that too of Kulins i.e. highest among the Kayasthas. It is obvious from all historical citations that the five Brahmins came with five learned Kayastha disciples, who were therefore accorded the status of Kulins.

Moreover, as per this article on 'Kulin Kayastha', 'The Kayasthas are regarded in Bengal, along with the Brahmins, as being the highest Hindu castes that comprise the upper layer of Hindu society'. Again as per Wikipedia only, Kayasthas are one of the most forward castes, and definitely not 'Shudras'. It would be relevnt to point out here that as per www.vedah.net, which is one of the most authentic Veda related sites, Kayasthas are considered as just another Brahmin community (http://www.vedah.net/manasanskriti/Brahmins.html). Though this may be a subject matter of debate, definitely Kayasthas are anything but Shudras. And this obviously applies to the Kulin Kayasthas, who were considered to be superior among them

Pal subhojit (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We have had this discussion recently at Kayastha. You have only told a part of that story here, and you are ignoring a specific source that is used to support what this article says. It is entirely possible for a subcaste to be ranked differently from the generality of the caste. Indeed, that still goes on today with the OBC/BC/ST/Sc/FC classification system. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You latest contribution, changing Shudra to Kayastha, is a misreading of the source. Since the Kayasthas have to originate somewhere and this section is supposed to be explaining their origin, it is not possible that the Kayasthas originated with, erm, the Kayasthas. And your source does say that the Kayasthas were shudra. You also screwed up the formatting - please read WP:REFPUNC. And stop this warring, please: you are not going to twist history to suit your own puffery purposes. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you are the main contributor, you must know that the Kayasthas originated much early, and were popular as a caste or sub caste in Northern India. Kayasthas exist even in the Puranas, this migration refers to history which is less than thousand years back. Therefore, your objection is totally invalid. I have not misread, rather I have just quoted, as mentioned in the source. I would like to request you not to twist history Pal subhojit (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Stating the facts

I have been watching this page for sometime, and the recent war of words between Sitush and Pal subhojit. I am new as a Wikipedian. But I understand that this is a place where we should attach importance to facts. I have been through several sources related to this topic, and also checked related pages from 'Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture' by Inden, Ronald B. (1976). The point raised by Pal subhojit is factually correct, though I do not agree with the way he has replaced specific words. My point is, we should not forget that Wikipedia is meant for editing, so that it becomes more & more accurate, in terms of facts. So, neither should we be rigid about an existing article, nor we should attach more importance to one reference over another, and allow editing, obviously based on merit. But at the same time, you just cannot replace specific words, which indicates that your opinion may be biased. Calcuttan (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Shudra label came later

I will like to draw the attention to people here that the Shudra label came later from a ruling in Calcutta high court (see discussion page in the Kayastha article). The verdict was eventually overruled in Bihar and UP (United province back then). Ballal sen stories, no matter how popular they are, have no concrete evidences. Please delete lines from wikipedia articles that talks about folklores that have no palpable direct evidence. One book talking about such a story is not enough either. Please keep this article objective free of prejudices. Kayasthas existed long before Sen dynasty in Bengal. Even if Ballal Sen did bring the five Kayasthas from Kannauj, that does not say anything about their caste, precisely because in the land where they come from (UP) they are not considered Shudra. What happened in Bengal later, is a different story, but then using that (which happened way in the future during British rule) to label the five kayasthas as Shudra servants of the five Brahmins is anachronism. I hope that the people responsible for moderating this article will take action or at least respond. If not, I will edit the article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.46.160 (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to verify your comments above? Please note that court documents are primary sources and are not usually acceptable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Court documents are far more accurate than stories that have been passed around for generation. Possibilities of distortion is maximum in these cases. My suggestion is to complete do away with controversial issues regarding the subject. It will only create chances of vandalism. The sources that you give are even less reliable than the court statement (which can very easily be gotten from google search). The main Kayastha article's talk page will give a lot of clue in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.46.160 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We should not use the court statement, even if you actually provide a reference for it. What we can use are secondary sources that refer to the court statement, provided that those secondary sources complies with our policy regarding reliability. I understand that this may seem silly but it is a long-established consensus and it is in fact a part of the very foundations of Wikipedia. We are not experts and we are therefore limited to stating things that are verifiable by citing other people who are considered to be reliable. Sure, in real life I may be an expert in Indian law, or in genetics, or history, linguistics, social theory, fixing Ford cars, brewing beer etc ... but as far as this project is concerned I am merely a conveyor of information, a go-between. Do you know of any secondary sources that we could use? - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources will be books or articles that cite the court verdict. You might need to do a google search on that. I am not sure how much literature is available. But a quick search showed me this article that mentions about that incidence. http://www.satyaguru.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/WHO_WERE_THE_SUDRAS.331135705.pdf However, I am curious to know why are you in favor of keeping the shudra attribute of Kulin Kayastha while you too do not have any significant evidence except words of mouth from stories that have been passed around. If you have evidence for neither (i.e, they are Shudra or they are not Shudra) should it not be wise to refrain from making such statements in an article like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.46.160 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your last point first, the shudra stuff appears to be reliably sourced. I do not understand your "word of mouth" phrase - are you doubting the source? Regarding your first point, it is not for me to find sources to support your opinion. I do a lot of sourcing and a lot of reviewing of sources provided by others, but the burden is on you in this situation, not me. The link that you provide is unlikely to meet WP:RS. Furthermore, you may not be aware of our attitude regarding balance and neutrality. This basically means that we should show all opinions that are verifiable using reliable sources. Thus, even if you were to provide some decent sourcing for your statement, that does not mean that the current statements would be removed. It is a question of judgment, based on consensus etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning your ability to source. I do respect your efforts. Testimony of that fact is that I chose to discuss this matter first before making any changes. Your source is a book by Thomas J. Hopkins. It talks about one king Adisura. Now it is just a benign question from me. Do you think it is a reliable source that talks about five Brahmins and five Kaysathas (Shudras) that came from Kannauj, that populated the entire Kulin samaj in Bengal? Is it scientifically possible? Genetical bottleneck reaches even if you have population of the order of hundred. The progeny of just five people (not even five actually, but just one, cause we are saying that each one started a clan that exists even today) would have been eradicated long ago because of inbreeding. If the entire race of Kulin Kayastha is from such a small entity of ancestors there will be an extremely strong genetical correlation. Something that will be easily traced by Y-cromosomal DNA analysis. That would have been a very interesting study indeed. But I never heard of any such studies. Now, the more I talk about it, more it will sound speculative. So I will not go in that route. All I am saying is that this whole thing sounds more like a legend than of any factual evidence. If you continue to believe that source is reliable then I will leave it at that. I just wanted to draw your attention to something I believe that has no factual evidence. About wikipedia policies, you know better so I will not argue with you one that.

It is not for us to query the veracity of someone who is more than adequately qualified to make a statement of that nature and whose work is published by an academic press - see this short bio, for example. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My recent reverts of anon contributions

So far this month I have had to revert contributions by IPs in a narrow 117.* range on several occasions. Almost certainly, it is the same person who keeps adding unsourced statements and removing sourced information. Please can that person (a) read up on our policies regarding verifiability using reliable sources; and (b) explain here what their problem is with the sourced content that they keep removing. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Less & half hearted facts than stories

             First of all i like to thank wikipedia for providing such a good platform to findout the the origin of bengali kayastha, but i beg to differ with Mr.satish_talk about his view and presentation which is more personally decisive rather discusssion whish also is an act of vandalism, by ignoring other's point of view, & creating confusion within a community.I will definately going to give detailed evidence about the court verdict and all the summery of diffrent manuscript quoted by eminent lawyers at that time. But first of all lets analyse the matter with logic:
Its written under the heading "Kulin Kayastha" that "It is traditionally believed that at this point a Hindu king brought in five Brahmins and their five Shudra servants, his purpose being to provide education for the Brahmins already in the area whom he thought to be ignorant." Now, in vedas & puranas it was clearly written that brahmins were condemned to stump on the shadow of the sudras, and if that happens then they had to took bath or rathyer purify theselves.Secondly, brahmins condemned to drink water from the hand of a sudra, so, how could brahmins had sudra servants?According to puranas brahmins can olny be served by the lower cast of brahmins or rather khsatriyas, who came to the Gurukul(teacher's house)for learning.While learning under a certain brahmin guru he had to serve him by helping his wife(Guru Maa)in her household activities.So, the line written under "Kulin Kayastha" not only lack evidence but also iilogical.

Now again,five kayasthas who came from Kannaj(Kanhakubja)with five brahmins cannot be sudra because kayasthas in Kannauj at a present day does enjoy the status of khatriys and not sudras.It can be produced by the persons who believe that kulin kayasthas are sudras that they doesnot follow the rituals of "upanayan". this is because the social evolution of bengal took place in a different way from north india. Benagl was influenced by buddhism, islam in such an extant which is uncomparable with nothern india.Due to these emmense influence kayasthas who used to the hing rankig officials of the king's court started adopting the king's way of life.