Talk:Caste system in India

70% of Indians are urban-wtf? This must be a misquote

"Caste barriers have mostly broken down in large cities,[2], where 71% of India's population resides." I think they meant to say caste barriers have broken down in large cities, (but not/but also) in Rural India where 71% of India's population resides.

India's population is overwhelmingly rural, so this quote can't be right. But the bbc article cited didnt work and i dont care to look for a new source right now, so i didnt want to edit it. But this is a pretty big mistake. In other words i dont know what im talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.210.29 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How?

How are the castes chosen? One cannot choose a chaste. One is simply born into it, like fuderal status. Also, how do 'they' work out who you were in your past lives? I'd love to work these things out about myself too, simply out of interest however. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In India the caste of an individual dont change because it is by birth, but the changes happen in the four fold division. One can choose how he lives and what work he does and then he will come under different varnas. Varnas are just categories of people and has nothing to do with caste. Everyone confuses varnas with castes and there lies the problem. Caste may be rigid but not varna because anyone can get into any varna. 223.177.31.141 (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

do you know what the caste syestem about let me explain its about going up and down the system so is your good you go up and bad dowm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.18.26 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

92.*, I think you may be referring to a different concept here: perhaps Buddhist philosophy. In any event, this is not a page for general discussion but rather for discussion of improvements to the article. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognition

Also how do you decide whether a particular community is a caste and not a tribe and vice-versa

u figure that out with the surmame in most cases brahmin surmanes are(there are many more):Sharma,chatterjee,Iyengar etc trading caste surnames are:Gupta,Aggarwal etc,Kshatriya surnames are chauhan,khanna etc this is just a small percentage much like you in the west try to place people among whites with their surnames i.e schneider is german heritage,di caprio means italian,smith means british heritage,sirkosky means east european etc its very similar.There are some generic names where it is impossible to tell the caste such as kumar(which means son of..) and chaudhry etc which are titles conferred upon by kings which have morphed into surnames

How can one tell which caste a person belongs to?. Is it language, appearance or name etc?Muntuwandi 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) upper castes are usually fairer and taller but there are any number of dark upper castes and light brown lower castes.A low caste hindu in a cold himalayan climate will be fairer than an upper caste hindu in the south(on average).So there is no way of being sure but usually someone who is taller,fairer and more caucassian looking than most of his community is upper caste but the fingerprint proof is always the surname provided it isn't masked by something generic like kumar,chaudhry,bahadur etc.

Unlike "caste", when we say "tribe", we are not talking about social stratification -- we are talking about socio-political groups of people. Eg., in a conservative backward rural area, people belonging to two different tribes won't mind eating together, but a person belonging to "higher" caste will not dine with a person belonging to "lower" caste.

A tribe will usually consist of people who share common ancestry, organization and culture. Tribes generally inhabit a particular area or territory.

On the other hand, "castes" in modern India refer to social stratifications, often associated with social standing, and at times, classified under varnas. Castes are often indicative of ancestors' occupations rather than culture or territory. In Indian context, the difference between a "caste" and a "tribe" is a complex one, since a few groups are classified as both, and the caste system is undergoing changes in modern times.

In few words: "caste" refers to units of social stratification, unlike "tribe".

As about belonging to a caste, neither the language nor the appearance denotes a caste. Castes are determined by birth -- the caste of a person born in a CasteXYZ family belongs to CasteXYZ caste (although a few people "change" their caste to gain higher social standing). Surnames are often indicative of caste, but this is not always true. The conventions for last names are different in different parts of India. Also, some people change/drop their surnames because they don't believe in the caste system (eg. Lal Bahadur Shastri was born "Lal Bahadur Srivastava", but dropped his surname).

A person belongs to a caste, only as long as s/he believes to herself or himself to be the part of that caste. If a person doesn't believe in the caste system, s/he doesn't belong to any caste. utcursch | talk 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Utcursch. But looking deeply at the system, I believe all the 2000+ castes in India really are tribes, including the brahmins. Look at the number of subcastes within the brahmin group. Even appearance wise they can look different. The social stratification can take place within "traditional" tribal societies too. Ask that to anyone who knows bout Rwanda in Africa and that will clearly tell you what I mean. Recently there was a news item about why Sunni tribes are fighting Al Queda in Iraq. That was because Al Queda fighters wanted to marry Sunni tribal women from particular communities and that was a big no no with tribal elders. In essence, social stratification revolves around "NO Roti (Bread) or Beti (Daughter)" with people belonging to different castes or tribes. I guess the restrictions about roti went away long time ago but the beti part may stay in one way or other because people want marriages to take part between "Social Equals"and we also have to reduce this system . Shakher59 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with you (though I won't say that all the castes are tribes), but unfortunately the term "caste" is used by most, including the Government of India[1][2]. The term "tribe" is generally not used for social stratification. utcursch | talk 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian caste system (Main Defination)

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.

The following scored topic is not neutral. Can someone help me to understand the policy regarding neutrality? This sentence is probably hurting sentiments of many citizens from India and Indian Origin. This is a very contradictory statement. Below are objections/discussions raised by many important personalities with regards to Varna and Caste. These will help you understand what the topic is all about.

Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi's Different views about caste and varna
WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS
Mahatma Gandhi

Please see the meaning of Varna, Caste. Varna and Caste are entirely different. People's minds where physiologically made Bonsai with that very sentence. Sections of society where made stay away from education for decades on the name of caste. So, please help me to understand the policy of neutrality to keep this very sentence away from wikipedia at least.

Sections of society in India say

The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes.

and Sections of society will object the same.

Since the sentence is a not neutral can someone kindly revert back with Ideas in this direction? BalanceRestored 08:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please site a WP:RS for a specific point that you wish to make? The various opinion pieces that you are citing on web sites are not reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. I would like to suggest that you pick one specific point at a time and try to focus on that rather than bringing up a whole range of points at the same time, otherwise we will be back to the same problem with disruption that we had before. Buddhipriya 08:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It says "The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes." Can I get to know the source for the same. It says "OFTEN CLASSIFIED" BalanceRestored 08:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, there will not be any problem this time. I now understand what you were talking all the while to me. I am pretty new to these policies, but I am trying to go by them as much as I can.BalanceRestored 09:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian caste system (Main Defination). Source of original narration looks unknown.

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.

Can I know if the scored out sentence is from a reliable resource? If yes, kindly mention the about the same. I have this query because it says "often classified", it looks more like a personal view. BalanceRestored 09:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a fact tag on the sentence which you are trying to draw attention to. A fact tag is a call for a citation. It is less drastic than cutting the material completely, and alerts other editors that material may be under dispute. I am still not understanding exactly what point you are concerned with regarding the language. Are you saying that the jatis are not based on birth (i.e., hereditary)? Or are you making some other point. The word jati is based on the root meaning of birth, and sourcing can be added to demonstrate that the jatis are based upon birth. Or are you saying that including jati within the concept of varna is incorrect? If so, I think you are probably correct and that point can be sourced as well. Please clarify which issue you are trying to deal with. Buddhipriya 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The term Jati is not related to Varna. I am trying to draw attention at this very point. Jati is hereditary from my understanding too, as you have wisely mentioned. Varna (Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, Brahman) is related to the present Karma (action, work, and deed) of the person. The Jati of a person is fixed and Karma is unfixed and can change. How can two opposite terms be related? BalanceRestored 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the article contains a subsection for "Varna and jati" and the point which you are trying to clarify may involve edits that need to be made to that subsection. The following quotation from a WP:RS seems to me to pertain to the point you are trying to make, if I am understanding you correctly. It establishes the difference between the terms jati and varna as those terms were understood in early India, which may differ from how the terms are understood today in common usage:

"Jati comes from the root meaning 'birth', and is a status acquired through birth. Jati had a different origin and function from varna and was not just a subdivision of the latter. The creation of varnas appears to be associated with ritual status, a status denied to the shudra who was debarred from participating in all rituals. Whereas the three higher varnas were said to be strict about marrying within regulated circles, the shudra varna described in the normative texts was characterized as originating in an indiscriminate marriage between castes, creating mixed castes - a category abhorrent to those insisting on the theoretical purity of descent. This sets them apart and they were often labelled as jatis." (reference: Thapar, Romilar. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 2002. ISBN 0-520-24225-4. pp. 123-124.)

Buddhipriya 10:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the author you cited a valid source to comment on our religion? I presume you are a hindu.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13

The Lord says:

"The fourfold Varna (In Sanskrit it is written Chatur Varayana) has been created by Me [[3]]

(At many online websites instead of varna, caste is written. [[4]])

according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"

You want to say what's written in Gita is wrong then? BalanceRestored 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not become argumentative. Quoting scripture is not an effective method for resolving Wikipedia content disputes. I am familiar with the scriptural passage that you cite. If you re-read my comments, you may see that I am agreeing with your main point, not disagreeing with you. If the difference between jati and varna is in fact the point you are trying to make, I agree that these ideas are distinct and that there is often confusion between them. If you agree that this is the issue, I would be willing to look for additional citations that will nail that down. Please note that fixing content issues of this type often takes time because it involves some work to research an issue in academic sources that meet the test of WP:RS. I hope you will be patient and set a goal of improving this language within the next week or so, which will allow some time for research to take place now that the question is clearly defined. Other editors may see things differently, and we need to hear their views as well. Buddhipriya 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I will change my method a bit then. I did not mean to be argumentative. Just wanted to make sure that the right message is written. What is the general policy if there are two different meanings and one is correct. Which one should be taken? We will either need to consider Thapar, Romilar or Lord Krishna. I would consider the later by all means. I agree that it will take time to change things. Jai Hind BalanceRestored 10:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence, It is probably doing more wrong. Thousands could be reading wrong. If it is necessary to be brought back. Please comment.BalanceRestored 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The removed of such unsourced material is permitted by Wikipedia:Verifiability which states: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Particularly if a fact tag has been applied to the sentence, giving other editors a warning that the material may be challenged, removing it is fair game. I personally do not think that removing the sentence from that portion of the article is a bad thing, as it is not central to the issue of the article. I think the statement is true that the terms varna and caste are often confused with one another in modern discussions, and I have found a citation which supports that fact. The issue of language used for these ideas is covered in John Keay, India: A History. Grove Press. New York, New York. 2000. ISBN 0-802103797-0. He discussed caste issue in several places, and on p. 54 says: "The term used for caste in the Vedas is varna, 'colour', which in the context of the arya's disparaging comments about the 'black' dasa, is often taken to mean that the higher castes also considered themselves the fairer-skinned. This is now disputed.... In Buddhist texts, and in common parlance even today, the more usual word for caste is not varna but jati. Jati derives from a verb meaning 'to be born'...." I think the significance of this passage with regard to the point you are bringing up is that it shows that in at least some sources, the concepts of caste and varna are conflated. So the sentence which you removed is probably true, but since it was uncited, removing it is permissible. Personally I am strongly in favor of having good citations for all content that is debated. Buddhipriya 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"The term used for caste in the Vedas is varna, 'colour', which in the context of the arya's disparaging comments about the 'black' dasa, is often taken to mean that the higher castes also considered themselves the fairer-skinned." I am dark color, Krishna was dark color. I love my skin color. Surely during my childhood days I used to feel a bit bad when I was being teased by my friends. But, now when grown up man, surely things are far different. There are others who feel dark color very attractive, specially my wife. Again, I am sure these are things those are more or less personal views. Everyone has their own way of interpreting things. As far I feel the Varna is the GODs way of classifying people on the basis of merit and not what they received from their ansistors. If I was a professor I will surely give less grade to the pupil who did not do well in the exam. Just because he is white does not give him an extra mark. If I build a university I will surely not take professors whom surely will compare VARNA to COLOR, other wise the university will surely have a big problem. How can GUNA of a person be equal to color of a person??? Can you again show me a single line from any of the important texts that's known to be from the GOD contains such a narration. That one was really so ................ ha ha ha. If GOD appoints you to do things for him for a day, Put your self in his situation. Would you do that? BalanceRestored 05:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know how to respond to the above material. The editor seems to have taken the citation from a Western academic WP:RS as a personal attack. Buddhipriya 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, It was not taken as a personal attack, Just gave few examples to clarify that the citation was incorrect. Any one can interpret any thing. Should we have to consider everything that was written? It is good if western academic sees it that way. I expressed what I felt. I generally do not read a lot. I only put myself into a situation or the person who debates otherwise in to the situation and generally ask if narration is appropriate. It is my way of understanding things. If you feel that's not the right way and against the policies here. Please let me know. I will narrate things in a different way. But, personally I feel it is easier to understanding things putting oneself in to the situation and analyzing if it could be correct. If my way is against any policies. I will correct myself.BalanceRestored 06:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding I feel most of the western academic have been weak in Sanskrit and have authored important books and epics on the basis of translators who had interpreted things for them. I've read the translations of important authors and then read the exact Sanskrit verses, I really felt like laughing at some. For my understanding it is very clear that the western authors did not know Sanskrit, It is very prominent looking at the translations. Anyone researched in this direction as how the initial western authors translated the Indian epics? Did the author mastered Sanskrit and then translated the epics or they used the above method I just wrote? Still I will always respect these authors and they atleast did try the best to pass the important knowledge to the mass. Otherwise India would have been in a even worser position.BalanceRestored 07:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

British Divide and Rule

Finally found the citation that was requested. British where behind this caste system. http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/apr/24guest.htmBalanceRestored 09:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added this article, editors kindly make the required adjustments. I've placed the reference in the main document. But, do not know if that was correct. BalanceRestored 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Want to add Divide and rule to See Also SectionBalanceRestored 12:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locating the reference. However there are three issues with your recent edits:

1. The link is an online opinion column written by a Guest Columnist, whose only stated qualification is "The author is a Chennai-based Chartered Accountant." As such the article can neither be taken as an authoratative source for facts on the subject, nor as the opinion of a notable academic, scholar, or even public figure.
2. Cutting-and pasting half the column goes well beyond fair use, and is a copyright violation.
3. The language of the addition violates wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view and wikipedia is not a soapbox

I therefore have reverted your recent edits and recommend that you read up wikipedia's core policies WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOT. Abecedare 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion and providing the details about reverting the article, But, then what the editor wrote is that incorrect? Is there any research done in this direction. Again from the article it appears very clearly that the author should have valid reasons stating the same. Why not add a small addition to the main article and let see what other researchers have to say about the same. Rediff is not a small place again.BalanceRestored 07:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Found another citation I think that's a well published book. It says "Although we do not subscribe to the view that the British invented caste or religious community identities in India, it is clear that British policies of enumeration, and divide and rule, did much to harden these identities in the seventy or eighty years before Independence" It is available here "Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular Democracy" authored by Stuart Corbridge, John Harriss. Can that book be used at least as a valid reference now?BalanceRestored 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be an acceptable reference for wikipedia. What do you propose we should add in this regard to the article ? Perhaps it will be useful to discuss and decide the language here on the talk page before changing the article itself, so that we avoid unnecessary edit/reverts. You may also want to take a look at the History_of_the_Indian_caste_system#British_rule where the issue is discussed in greater depth. Abecedare 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Divide and Rule, is an army strategy, British used the same strategy with India. They Identified warring communities and used the same to get around and rule India. This fact is well known. So, the hardening of the unnecessary caste structure today we are in, is due to the army's ploy. I think mentioning it after 1.3 Reforms, under history would be an appropriate place. May be we can have a short article summary at the Indian Caste System article and point an anchor text to the healthy discussion you just discussed. Role of British in India is an very important topic. We all knew the caste problem in India, but we never knew who made that a law and for what. BalanceRestored 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the "Reforms" section as per the above reference. Abecedare 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for your time Abecedare I've seen all your recent edits to the page. They are exactly what I was mentioning. BalanceRestored 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added your edits under History section as it talked more about the history. BalanceRestored 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that Britain in fact united and ruled. Prior to Britain's conquest of India is was divided and there was no Indian nation, nor Indian national identity. India was already divided, and after Britain left the split in to multiple states still left a more unified nation than that in the Pre-colonial era. This division is credited with helping Britain conquer rule India with Indian troops. Britain used the caste system and recruited from certain castes they thought martial. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

--False, the concept of Indian national identity stretches back far beyond the British. The concept of 'Bharat' existed long before some white guy thought of drawing together a bunch of states under one name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.192.78 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is as meaningless as claiming that there has been a "European Nation" for millenia due to the fact that the term Europe has been used for Millenia. A geographical term does not make a social unity. I think, actually, that some "white guys" indeed did think of drawing the Indian subcontinent (or the greater part of it) into a political unity- albeit one ruled from London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.18.65.192 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Castes of Wikipedia users

Please add a section giving statistics on just how many computer users or Wikipedia users or readers are in what castes: one wonders if all those reading and writing here are only in the upper castes after all. Jidanni 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Caste no bar.Bakaman 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I want to know more about Deepa Sankar :) Almithra (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Barkhuni's changes

• Used BBC to note that the constitution outlawed caste
• Noted the results of the caste=racism bs the conference of victims tried to pass in South Africa
• Adds a published book discussing the caste = apartheid allegations.
• Notes Andre Beteille's opinion (beteille is an eminent sociologist)
• Gives Ayesha Jalal's opinion (for what reason I don't understand)

I have seen that there have been 6 undiscussed reverts. The content on the page right now with the noting of the BBC, Beteille, results of durban provides a more balanced view of the situation.Bakaman 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My revert was based on an incorrect reading of the massive changes which made it appear to me that cited material was being removed. Since the new material consists of additions of cited material, probably they should stay, and their merits can be discussed indivisually. User:Barkhuni's edit history of making massive changes to this article as his or her first contributions, with no discussion whatsoever on the talk page, and very aggressive reverting when challenged by multiple other editors, suggests that a sock may be at work. Buddhipriya 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What Mahabharata Says

sthito brahmana-dharmena
brahman yam upajiva ti
ksatriyo vatha vaisyo va
brahma-bhuyah sa gacchati
ebhis tu karmabhir devi
subhair acaritais tatha
sudro brahmanatam yati
vaisyah ksatriyatam vrajet
na yonir napi samskaro
na srutam na ca santatih
karanani dvijatvasya
vrttam eva tu karanam

"If one is factually situated in the occupation of a brahmana, he must be considered a brahmana, even if born of a ksatriya or vaisya family. "O Devi, if even a sudra is actually engaged in the occupation and pure behavior of a brahmana, he becomes a brahmana. Moreover, a vaisya can become a ksatriya. "Therefore, neither the source of one's birth, nor his reformation, nor his education is the criterion of a brahmana. The vrtta, or occupation, is the real standard by which one is known as a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, ch. 163)

Source: [[5]]BalanceRestored 09:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So, originally there was discrimination on the basis of good or bad deeds, but discrimination based on the basis of birth was introduced later on. BalanceRestored 10:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

E.g. to this was Vyasa muni was from a fisherman community. Vishwamitra a well known sage was a Ksatriya.

Caste as culture distinction

My relatives told me that individuals of separate castes are of separate cultures. Somewhere I had read that different castes are actually different cultures within the same society. That would explain why they do not intermarry. It would be nice if someone could find a source to expound on that, if true. I do not live in India and the Indians here focus more on which state they came from than which caste. 4.239.234.150 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is quite true, for example the lower castes have their own epic literature, by the name of Dhola. Look it up online. I will write a wikipedia article on it soon. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted changes as mere opinon

That part about indian poverty being a consequence if British suppression is well known. Many including Nobel Laureate Sen have documented this. I have also cited Mr. Andre Frank.

That a Hindu doesn't need to beleieve in God is well known. I now cite Dicovery of India. If do have newspaper clippings where even a Hindu Priest has written this same opinion.

Pl. do NOT remove these changes wityhout a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.62.74 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Few changes

Added an OR tag for this line: "Though inter-caste marriages are now relatively common in India." No citation given. Deleting second paragraph of the article. It has nothing to do with this article, and it doesn't offer any citation either. "It should be noted that the word for Religion is "matam" in many Indian Languages including Sanskrit and Tamil. "Matam" means opinion. And Hinduism gives the right to opinion to everyone. As a result of "right to opinion/matam", there is great diversity in the versions of God, in the religious books, customs and other rituals that the Hindus follow. If a Hindu, out of his or her own intellectual pursuit, decides there is no God, he or she does NOT cease to be a Hindu. In Discovery of India, Nehru notes that some Upanishads have questioned the existence of God." John.Knott 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with this article because many blame Hinduism for the caste system.

If Upanishads question the existence of God and it is part of the religious texts, then clearly

this religion allows poeple to follow their right to opinion.

Most religious texts in Hinduism are written in a style that parallels modern day research articles

with both others' opinon and the authors opinion outlined clearly.

Ok I put "discovery of India" in a citation format. —Preceding unsigned comment :added by 67.124.38.234 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV. Who blames what is not wikipedia's concern. Please do not insert your POV here. If you want, you can create a section on "defense of caste system" and put it there. Several other authors have already created sections on castes in other religions. Read the first line of second paragraph.John.Knott 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "matam" stuff is clearly irrelevant to this article. Nothing to do with the caste system, or varna. utcursch | talk 12:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First you seem to have misunderstood the main point. The third paragraph simply does NOT defend castes. Second, I take NPOV seriously. I will go through wiki's guidelines on NPOV by Sunday evening and get back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.84.22 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In that third paragraph, a few facts were stated (like matam means opinon and

upanishads question the existence of God) - these are NOT POV. facts like "Plato is a philosopher" can be stated as per NPOV guidelines. AT the end of the paragraph there was a "logical deduction" ( "If a Hindu doen't need to believe in God, he or she doesn't need to believe in caste as well" ) was made. I didn't come across any NPOV guidelines on deductions i.e. whether deductions are allowed or not. I will take the more experienced users assertion that deductions are POV. Thank you John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.134.201 (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation given for this paragraph "With most Dalits and non-Dalits[38] changing their names to caste-indistinguishable names, the effect of this study on real life discrimination based on caste is debatable. For eg. current Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Balakrishnan is a Dalit as is former President of India Hon'ble K.R.Narayanan. Their names cannot reveal their caste identity. Nor are their castes visible on their appearance" is meaningless. This is POV and OR. This material will be removed unless proper references are provided.John.Knott 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This objection is well-taken. Please confirm if the modification meets NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.86.106 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

75.19.86.106, your reconstruction of previous statement is not true. "This study did not provide details on the percentage of Dalits having a name that can identify them as a Dalit." If you read the study, you'll know that equal number of applications with identical qualifications were sent out. For each job there were 4 sets of applications sent out. If the requirement was low, they sent one application from uppercaste sounding name, one from Muslim sounding name, one from dalit sounding name, and one from dalit sounding name with higher qualifications than uppercaste sounding name. If the requirements were high, they sent one application from uppercaste sounding name, one from Muslim sounding name, one from dalit sounding name, and one from uppercaste sounding name with lower qualifications than dalit sounding name. In short, the percentage of applications sent were equal. If you have not already, then I encourage you to read the study itself. http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/11136.pdf

In addition, your statement "As a result, the statistics provided in this study cannot be extrapolated to infer the amount of discrimination faced by Dalits in real life" is again your POV and OR. Let the readers decide if the study can be extrapolated or not. It is not encyclopedia's job to aid in passing judgments, or to create certain views. For now, I will add an or tag.John.Knott 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the second line can be POV. Removed. But you have misunderstood the previous line.

That study did NOT provide the percentage of Dalits in India who have a caste-distinguishable name. This sentence does NOT talk about the names used in the study. It talks about the names of real Dalits in Indian Society.

anyway this Shudra (worker who can be fired at will by his or her boss) doesn't have much time to debate. Thank you Jim for all the discussions. And I mean it. Others do NOT even discuss. They just edit away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.35.202 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I would never remove any relevant material without talking out first. The percent of Dalits in India are irrelevant in the study. It does not matter how many Dalits are in India, as long as they are sending out equal number of applications for each category.131.123.28.202 16:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Utcursh, why do you think that this is NOT POV or OR? "In rural areas and small towns, the caste system is still very rigid. The total elimination of caste system seems distant, if ever possible, due to caste politics." We might speculate that it is rigid or annihilation of caste may be distant, but we cannot be sure without any evidence. John.Knott 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I said it is not POV or OR? utcursch | talk 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not say it, but you reverted a TAG that I added. Anyway, I will add the tag again.131.123.28.202 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, 131.123.28.202 is me John Knott. I thought I was logged in.John.Knott 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I must have removed the tag while reverting other edits by the "matam" guy. utcursch | talk 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User Goldenhawk 0

You are calling me a vandal?? You removed the material, without discussing, on that study on discrimination in private industry, which was cited. I did not remove anything.John.Knott 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting your changes.John.Knott 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

I suggest moving this to Caste system in India. Relata refero (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, that's a better title. utcursch | talk 04:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto. Good catch! Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Identify the territorial entity. ChemTerm (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Varna and jati - remove 'weasel words'?

I just read the article and found this section to be neutral with what appeared to be a reasonable set of citations. If there's still something objectionable, seems it should be tagged specifically. JWBito (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

hi i am abhinav,i want to ask a question from the net users. this is my question. how can cast system remove from india? please email the answer at ranu100@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.59.157 (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Brahman and Brahmin

I believe the name of the highes is spelt Brahman, not Brahmins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.248.17 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of the varna is spelt as both Brahmin and Brahman. The Wikipedia article Brahman is about the concept of "unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality" in Hinduism. The article on the varna is located at Brahmin. utcursch | talk 04:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Criticism Bias

does anyone else think there is a bias against the "anti-Hindu" critics listed in the first part. They are simply described as anti Hindu and attacking Hindus. It would be better to quote some criticisms of the caste system by these people and groups, instead of painting them as radicals who seem to hate Hindus for no reason. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, I agree. also, the main body of the article is very defensive which reduces the credibility of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.130.13 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sri Vaishnava not spelled right nor linked

The mention of the Sri Vaishnava sect in South India was not properly spelled nor was it linked the corresponding wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vaishnava the current incorrect spelling in this article I believe is Srivaishava. Nityanandaram (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Nityananda Chandra Das

Section: Caste system among non-Hindus

This section appears the work of apologists; cherry picking simpler things from other religions and amplifying them by calling "caste" based to justify social evils like untouchability in Hindu society in India. At the same time practice of caste which is in worse from in Hindu society has been toned-down to make it look legitimate and acceptable. This article needs to be watched very carefully as its under constant propaganda attack. Through this section I would also like to discuss with Tripping Nambiar why s/he has problems with my edits which s/he is calling "twisted words" in the edit summary. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge is back to edit-warring. Why don't you come to talkpage and discuss rather? You either don't take part in discussion or just come there to barrage personal attacks on other editors and to create confusion by taking tangents on the topic. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop Attacking editors, Disrupting wikipedia to make a point, Trolling and actively engouraging prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against certain ethnic groups. Actions like that are severely frowned upon here.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Extremely baseless name calling and allegations. You are making no sense at all. Care to substantiate your baseless allegations that you use to evade discussions? Be on topic here and create different section to substantiate your allegations if you can. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Try to contribute constructively by Citing sources, instead of removing citations, and non-trolls will take you more seriously.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Another baseless allegation. That citation is wrongly used, try proving the point by using appropriate citations. Such use of citations is dishonest. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop saying "baseless allegation" as though it is some mehl chant.Removal of citations without specification is blatant vandalism (in this case, khalistani hatemongering vandalism, a double-whammy).Goingoveredge (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section should emphasize the fact taht Sikhism does not have a varna system like the Hinduism. And that Sikhism openly rejects any kind of castes. It is true that many Sikhs consider castes while marrying etc., but this is only because of the past Hindu influence. Please see all the results on the google books for sikh castes. This clearly shows that Sikhism has rejected the castes.

Please go through the resources mentioned in this comprehsnive bibliography on the Sikh castes. All these sources state that Sikhism officialy rejcts castes. The only problem is many adherenets violate this rule. This happens in all the religins. No Christian follows everything mentioned in Bible, no Hinud does all the things that the Gita says. Sikhs are no exception.

Caste is basically a colonial construction - Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community. Also, many of the caste issues in the Sikh society are politically motivated. Please read and the caste question. People claming to right for the rights of "Dalit Sikhs" and "Mazhabi Sikhs" are just politicians.

The ENcyclopedia Brtiannica artlce is titled "Sikh practice » The rejection of caste" This emphaizes that Sikhs reject th caste system. It just says "In two areas of Sikh society, however, caste is still observed. Sikhs are normally expected to marry within their caste: Jat marries Jat, Khatri marries Khatri, and Dalit marries Dalit. In addition, Sikhs of some castes tend to establish gurdwaras intended for their caste only. Members of the Ramgarhia caste, for example, identify their gurdwaras in this way (particularly those established in the United Kingdom), as do members of the Dalit caste." Please note that in Punjab and other areas of India, castes, tribes and ethnic groups are not always mutually exclusive. So, actually Sikhs marry within their ehtnicity, which also happens to be their 'caste' in the traditional Hinduism.

Also, the caste rivalries in Sikhism are usually a result of politics or fight for the control of shrines, and not of discrimination like HInduism:

• Caste and Sikh Temple Politics May Be Behind Fatal Shooting
• Talibanisation of Sikhism by Madanjeet Singh ji.

"The institution of langar — the common community kitchen, which Guru Nanak established to break the discrimination of the caste system — has been undermined as separate gurudwaras have mushroomed in Punjab for lower-caste Sikhs, while higher status elitists frequent exclusive langars where they are not obliged to sit and eat as equals with Dalit Sikhs. Many Sikhs have started flaunting their higher status by adding caste suffixes after their name Singh, a practice strictly prohibited by the Sikh Gurus."

Now please note that true Indian Sikhs do not follow these practicies. The promie minister of India Manmohan Singh ji does not add any suffix to his name. The great Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh does not do this eithr. The Jatt Sikhs who support caste system are mostly Khailstani extremists who want to separate from India saying that they are racially superior "scythians". Only Khalistani extremists like Gurmit Singh Aulakh add their caste to their names. These are minority and should not be used to describe all of Sikhism. You do not base the article Hinduism on bad things doen by Vishwa Hindua Parishand. Then why base this article on bad things done by extremist sikhs who don't follow Sikhism truly?

Please add this line prominently to the article "Sikhism rejects the caste system completeldly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.179.5 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits/war

Both Tripping and Khatri need to see some guidelines. Both of you are engaged in an edit war, which, may I remind you, carries a ban if continued. Khatri, I have undone your citation. It is not needed and it is POV in some areas. Just keep it out of the article. It's just a rewording of what is previously stated, but from a different person. If you can find a better way to include the source and the information, please put it here first or, if it's significantly different, put it on the page. Tripping, you need to seriously rethink your edit summaries. They are starting to become hateful and that is not tolerated. If you revert something, post a real reason why. Don't just say "Crap doesn't belong". I've requested a full protection of this page until this little conflict dies down. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Undead Warrior, where in my addition to the article do I provide a POV statement? Also, it is not reworded or previously stated as you indicated. TrippingNambiar has provided a cited addition that states "Khatris" to be of something else then what I am saying they are. So all I am doing is providing support for another claim or alternate view that is also accepted

Please read the exact addition below of what I wanted to add. Thanks

START However, according to H.A. Rose in his book "Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N.W. Frontier Province", he says "Khatri appears to be unquestionably a Prakritised form of the Sanskrit Kshatriya". END

referennce - "Glossary of the tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N.W. Frontier Province.",vol. 2, p. 501, by H.A. Rose,First ed. 1911

Now tell me, where is the POV that I am personally providing? I am merely giving a reference to another article written by an outide author who was considered a leading expert on this subject. --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But who is H.A. Rose and why is his book so important? If his own notability to the subject is unclear, then it's his point of view that is being stated only and that should be avoided. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you can say that about any topic really, can't you? I mean, let me give you a hypothetical example:

Some scientists claim the universe is expanding, while others claim it is not. Both are leading figures in their line of work, but both have their own views/theories as to what is going on in the universe. So how can you claim one is correct over the other? You cannot, because both just provide theories based on evidence and observations they make.

H.A. Rose was a leading anthropologist and ethnologist in the late 1800s and early 1900s that did a survey of the tribes and castes of the Punjab region of India. He concluded that the Khatris of the Punjab region were the original Kshatriya caste of India, and not of the Vaishya caste as some others (TrippingNambiar) have claimed them to be.

By the way, where do you think the Encylcopedia Britannica gets its information from? It gets it from historians/scientists/anthropologist/ethnologist etc. providing THEIR POINT OF VIEW on whatever topic they are "experts" on. Depending on the topic, they will use conventional methods that have been used for years if no other modern research has been done, or use more modern conventions that the general scientific community holds true depending on the research that has been done up to that point.

Now, why are you asking me to provide this information when no other people who have contributed to this article by citing references from various authors have had to do so? I can give you explains of POVs stated in this article by other referenced authors of books if you so wish as to go that route....

--KhatriNYC (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Then just do me a favor. You can add the information, but do not put "In the book by ...." or "Mr.... says this in his book." Just get to the point and put a reference at the end. Use the ref tags and it will create a legit reference at the bottom. If it's taken away again, I'll deal with it. If you don't do the ref correctly, I'll fix it too. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to put in a request to have TrippingNambiar banned from making edits to this page. He has started back up with removing referenced data he does not agree with, without first discussing it on the discussion board. ADMIN, PLEASE BLOCK HIS ID FROM THIS PAGE. --KhatriNYC (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Users cannot be blocked from one site only, but rather from the entire website as a whole. If he starts up again, reverting information without reason, I will do something, but not until I see it. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thats fine. A couple of things I want to address here:

1. When you say "not until after I see it". what do you mean? Look at the history, and you can see where TrippingNambiar removed my cited info to the article. I then however added it back.

2. Why was I blocked for a day by some admin named Yellow something?

--KhatriNYC (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you were banned, but if the edit war continues, report him at WP:AIV. It's a pretty easy process. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RSS

Ok, following sentence is marked "citation needed":

Hindu Nationalist organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have actively criticized the caste system.

The citations are present in the article of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:

The RSS has advocated the training of Dalits and other backward classes as temple high priests (a position traditionally reserved for Caste Brahmins and denied to lower castes). They argue that the social divisiveness of the Caste system is responsible for the lack of adherence to Hindu values and traditions and reaching out to the lower castes in this manner will be a remedy to the problem. The RSS has also condemned 'upper' caste Hindus for preventing Dalits from worshipping at temples, saying that "even God will desert the temple in which Dalits cannot enter"

History Section

This is an encyclopedia, not a book of religion or of legends. Only verifiable historical fact may be added to the "history" section. At least one editor is determined to introduce a large section of mythology into this section and present it as fact. The book "The History of Earth: The Indian Version" is not acceptable as a reliable source to introduce this material, firstly because it is clearly a book of mythology, and secondly because it is a self-published source (it is published by "AuthorHouse" which is a "vanity press" company that allows anyone to publish any book). This means that it is not acceptable per the wikipedia policy WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thparkth (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Caste in the Indus Valley Civilization

On page 164 of his book The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Edwin Bryant argues that the caste system had its origin in the Harappan/Indus Valley Culture:

"Before moving on to other issues, it seems relevant to note a provocative new hypothesis suggested by Lamberg-Karlovsky (forthcoming), who draws attention to the astounding degree of cultural homogeneity in the vast area of the Indus Valley Civilization, juxtaposed with the lack of any evidence for a centralized political structure. Not only is there a uniformity of culture, but the physical layout of the community is replicated irrespective of whether it is the 5-acre site of Allahdino or the 150-acre site of Mohenjo-Daro. Lamberg-Karlovsky believes this "enigma" can be adequately explained by supposing that only an exceptional social organization such as the caste system can account for this."

Hokie Tech (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As is evident from the quote, Bryant does not "argue" anything, he refers to a hypothesis by one Lamberg-Karlovsky that the IVC may have had a caste system. There is also no shade of implication of any continuity with the Maurya era caste system 2500 years later. --dab (𒁳) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For more recent information on the mixing of Indo-European and Southeast Asian genetic lines See Reich, D. et al. Nature 461, 489-494 (2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.201.188 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

System endorsed by Scripture but not Discrimination

This must be changed: "While the Hindu scriptures do endorse the caste system,[2][3] none of them endorse caste-based discrimination.[4][5][6][7]" Firstly, whoever wrote this may have meant something more sensible and be quite attached to what they've written, but it needs rephrasing BADLY, and this rather stupid phrasing emanates from politically correct wishful thinking (i.e., please think before you revert this immediately). It has four references, but to rather iffy sources (a popular article in the Guardian, a broken link, a 'hinduwisdom' website, and a quite respectable book that doesn't quite say that...) What may be meant is that the scriptures do not advocate caste 'hatred', which is quite different. When I edit this, there will probably be too many people out there who will automatically change it back, so I must press this here: please look up the word 'discrimination' - the castes are indeed distinguished across Hindu scripture, which is all 'discrimination' technically means. Furthermore, many of the numerous Hindu scriptures do advocate oppression of the lower castes (from a Western point of view at any rate, politically correct disclaimers, blah blah etc...): lower castes can receive much harsher penalties in the Dharmashastras for all sorts of things, it is made quite clear the job of the Shudras is to serve the higher castes, the lower castes are compared to animals more than a few times, their order w.r.t. reincarnation is emphasised... Making a false distinction via a vague, politically correct term with no meaning does not magic the various Hindu scriptures into submission to the modern laws of the Republic of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.48 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What absurd are you talking about? from where do you get "............it is made quite clear the job of the Shudras is to serve the higher castes......"? what are the basis for you allegations?? Do you even understand what cast system is and how it originated. --Saisharvanan ^{Talk 2 Me} 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Diagram

Would it be acceptable to use this image in the article?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Does is represents correctly that lowest caste makes the majority? Audriusa (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been researching this topic for a while. It is a complicated subject. But, overwhelming data and India's history suggests it would be incorrect to use this image. The lowest caste has been between 14 to 18%, for last 50 years, by various sources. It is currently claimed by some sources to be 16%. Similarly the second level from the bottom of the pyramid is estimated variously to be between 11 to 19%, some estimate it higher or lower than that range. So an inverted pyramid, or inverted egg, looks more like it if you were to accept a majority of the sources. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

reply on the neutriality

in these topics, how in the world can you be neutral?!?! use your brain if you have one — Preceding unsigned comment added by YeowZhengHerng (talk • contribs) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Muslims and Christians supporting the caste system - 1883 year reference not too old?

The reference about Muslims and Christians supporting the caste system seems coming from 1883 year. To my opinion, the reference so old may not be sufficient to support the claim about the current situation and at most could support the claim that something was observed quite deeply in the past. I think that a newer reference is necessary to support the claim as it stands now Audriusa (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Buried edit

Sorry. Just realized I buried one. [6]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Stratification comfort

The link "Oriental Philosophy" does not indicate a claim of people being "comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, as they have always been, since ancient times". (It does, however, note the correlation between the Hindu belief in Karma and the caste system, albeit not quite as directly as is desirable; this information does need to be in the article.) Allens (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I reviewed the cited lander.edu site as well as the cited Sankaran reference. I can not find any support for the sweeping claims in this paragraph. I concur with Allens that there is no support for the summary people being "comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, as they have always been, since ancient times." Similarly, there is no support for caste system providing global monopoly to Indian worker/merchants/industry, or providing protection of intellectual property, or that separate sub-caste were involved in different variety of cloth, providing economic benefits implied by this sub-section, etc; Neither the 7th edition (1996 version) of the cited source nor any other secondary/primary reliable source supports these claims - to the best of my research. Furthermore, reliable secondary sources suggest that none of this speculation is historically true or verifiable to satisfy WP:VNT guideline (see, for example, the pre-colonial economy and trade routes between South Asia, South Arabia, Central Asia and Europe in pre-colonial times in the publications by George Forster or JJ Modi or Williams Jackson; or in colonial times by Risley). I am tagging the sub-section. I am assuming good faith, perhaps someone mistyped the citation details, and will wait for someone to provide better source. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Caste categories

The lead section gives examples of each caste category: Brahmins (teachers & scholars, fire priests), Kshatriyas (warriors, law enforcers, administrators), Vaishyas (agriculturists, cattle-herders and traders), and Shudras (laborers, craftsmen, service providers). It cites the following four: [4] Patrick Olivelle (2004). The law code of Manu. Oxford University Press. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-0-19-280271-2. Retrieved 6 January 2012. [5] Braja Dulal Mookherjee (2002). The Essence of Bhagavad Gita. Academic Publishers. pp. 472–. ISBN 978-81-87504-40-5. Retrieved 6 January 2012. [6] Kingship and community in early India - Page 85, Charles Drekmeier - 1962, ISBN 0804701148 [7] Cultural Studies - Page 208, Lawrence Goodrich, ISBN 1449637280

I checked each of these, and can not find support. Neither are all these examples listed on the page number specified, nor anywhere else. Some examples are listed in Drekmeier and Goodrich citation, but there is a conflict. Drekmeier includes agriculturists as Vaishyas on page 85, while Goodrich includes farmers as Shudras on page 208. None of these state anywhere that 'Brahmins' were teachers or scholars. Nor do any of these references mention that all teachers and all scholars in ancient India were 'Brahmins'. Similarly, none of these state anywhere that 'Kshatriyas' were law enforcers or administrators. Nor do any of these references mention that all law enforcers and all administrators in ancient India were 'Kshatriyas'. Not only isn't reliable source provided for these category examples, the text ignores some important details. For example, on page 83, 3rd paragraph, Drekmeier writes that ancient India's Magadha had liberalized official appointments to include Shudras. This suggests that putting law enforcers or administrators under Kshatriyas is inconsistent with the cited support. Olivelle and Mookherjee, on page 185 and 472 respectively, or anywhere else do not provide support either.

Therefore, after a due pause for a discussion on this talk page, I will clean this lead section sentence. I intend to trim and chisel the sentence to eliminate original research per WP:NOR guidelines, leaving what is actually supported by the cited references. I encourage other wiki contributors to find new references that (a) clearly support examples under each caste category; and (b) asserts a consensus of majority of sociologists on the example occupations that belonged in each caste category. Alternatively, wiki contributors may identify the page number on any of the four references that actually support each example under each caste category. Please note that wiki guidelines require that primary sources are to be avoided and only used when necessary and only with abundant caution and careful interpretation; where possible secondary sources are to be preferred as the basis for an encyclopedic article. For more help on acceptable citations and sources, and relevant guidelines, please see WP:RS, WP:VNT and WP:VERIFY.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just do it. If you wander through the history then you will see that the details for those four groups change frequently. Perhaps at one point there was some basis for the sources but what oftens happens is that people change the statement without checking the source etc. If William Pinch, Susan Bayly or Christophe Jaffrelot hadve anything to say on the matter (& I rather think that they do) then those would be more than adequate: those of us who work a lot in the caste sphere of WP and are generally considered to be worthy contributors often do cite all of those sources. I'll try to take a look through them some time in the next few hours.

There is also a vague term currently in vogue among some anthropologists/sociologists/socio-historians: "non-elite". It would be useful to include that somewhere in the article but I'd really need to find a source that defines it. Again, Pinch is probably the best bet. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the current back-and-forth about the varna of cattle herders etc, most modern sources that I have used in umpteen caste articles classify such people as shudra or sometimes "upper shudra". If there really are modern sources that say differently then we should hash out some sort of compromise here on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• One way to address this, in a WP:NPOV way, is to include each version of the conflicting classifications in the main article, each with citations. After this is done, the lead can simply list the four varnas, existence of jatis, and a note on a lack of consensus on which occupations belong to which varna. This would be more in line with WP:LEAD guidelines, which suggests that the most important aspects be summarized in lead. Such a 'summary in lead section, examples and details about the confusion in the article' approach may also provide a balanced view of confusion and disagreements on occupations and caste categories in secondary cited sources. Any other creative suggestions to address this and improve the quality of this article, while being fair and balanced on caste categories? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Your suggestion is spot on and is pretty much what I would have said a couple of hours ago if I had the time to do so. This is a really awkward article because there is a consensus that varna should not be mentioned in the lead section of articles, period, due to the differing interpretations and claims. But, of course, the entire subject matter of this article is inextricably linked to the varna concept. Keeping the definitions out of the lead would be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• For Mkrestin, in case you missed this from the above discussion: Some examples are listed in Drekmeier and Goodrich citation, but there is a conflict. Drekmeier includes agriculturists as Vaishyas on page 85, while Goodrich includes farmers as Shudras on page 208. Please explain why you believe these two sources are saying same thing (farmers are agriculturists), or why one secondary source should be preferred over another? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to first two sources which have online links-[7] and [8].According to vedic tradition agriculture, animal husbandry and trade have been occupation of Vaisyas.regardsMkrestin (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• The following note is for wiki contributors who read these talk pages/archives, days or years from now, before modifying this wiki article's caste categories content or the terminology sections.

Not only is there abundant dispute between which occupations or sub-castes belong to which varna/caste grouping, there are primary and secondary sources who argue that varnas are not castes. One of these is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who led the non-violent movement to demand India's independence from colonial British. Gandhi writes varna is an Indian institution which has nothing to do with caste categories. Varna, claims Gandhi, urges "each one of us to earn our bread, and that we do so by following what each finds his or her calling is." He further claims that ancient Indian texts do not assign superior or inferior status, that is any hierarchy to varnas. Nor do Indian scriptures claim that a person born in any family never aspire to a different occupation (e.g. see Vol. 71 of Gandhi's works, where he claims someone born in wood chopper family can and should aspire to become president or whatver he or she wants). According to Gandhi, Indian scriptures were open books, anyone could add content, anyone could modify content (like wikipedia?); Over the centuries, texts and claims in these ancient scriptures - such as those by Manu - were added or modified, making them of doubtful authenticity and value. Gandhi is not alone, in this view. Secondary sources, such as Richard Lariviere, assert that translations of Naradasmriti are very different than Manusmriti, in matters of varnas and social relationships (both are ancient Indian documents on social laws, by the way). For more: see volumes 68-71 and volume 87 of Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi (http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html; for quick check, see volume 69, pages 226-227: http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL069.PDF).

I have left the broad definition of caste as varna, nevertheless, as is, in this wiki article. I have also not mentioned this 'varna is not caste' argument by Gandhi from early 20th century, because in contemporary literature of early 21st century, caste in India usually refers to traditional varnas in India. This controversy and disagreement on what varna is and what caste is, suggests that the article may be better and more balanced, if attempts are not made to make it more certain than the confusion, such as by listing occupations. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

Some of the content in this article is based on primary sources. Example: the British rule and Indian castes summary uses a primary source. This content is suspect, and the use of primary sources is inconsistent with wiki WP:RS and WP:SOURCES guidelines. A fair and balanced summary is desirable, and such a summary is not possible if one uses primary sources.

Instead of primary sources, secondary sources are preferable. I identify any source as a primary source if it reads like an opinion and lecture, and does not identify the source documents those opinions are coming from (that is, the primary source cites no references). A primary source can be an off line book or brochure, or on line web site or blog. These are to be avoided or used with abundant caution in wikipedia, per its guideline. There are a lot of secondary sources on caste, including on the role and effects of the British rule on caste system in India. A summary from secondary sources can significantly improve the quality of this article, make it more balanced and encyclopedic.

To improve the quality of the article, I will do the following

• Identify primary sources, remove these citations but not any content if that content is supported by the primary source; I will tag the content with 'citation requested' tag to request secondary sources. This is to assume good faith.
• Identify primary sources, remove these citations and the content, if the content is not supported by the primary source.
• Rewrite some summaries with secondary sources.

I will do the above after a due pause for a discussion on this talk page. Suggestions welcome, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of primary source is something of a moveable feast. Some things, such as blogs, would usually fail the much less problematic WP:RS guideline and can pretty much be removed on sight unless they happen to be, for example, a blog hosted by a reputed news organisation, eg: the BBC. Your general proposition, however, is fine by me. Anything that does end up being removed can always be reinstated at a later date should more appropriate sources be found. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bougle and "contemporary sociologists"

Bougle, an obscure French author from 1908, and a couple of equally fringe sociologists out of tens of thousands have been given far too much emphasis in this article. It spoils the whole tone of the article and makes it seem like someone is beating a particular drum. It does not even inform us about caste in India and seems to be taking the view that someone should be blamed for the caste system and it had better be the British. This is weird. Modern Indians don't need this, we can take responsibility for our own culture. I have trimmed most of this away. 122.173.209.158 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bougle essay on caste has over 200 unique journal/scholarly citations. That is just in English. If you include French/Dutch/Deutsche/other non-English articles, the number is much larger. Each of articles or books which cite Bougle, in turn, have many citations. Please explain why this is obscure? Bougle meets wiki's WP:RS guideline. The essay was published during British Rule, and offers a distinct view that belongs in any balanced article.

The version you returned the article to, is a summary that is no different, only worse in balance, than the version that troubled you. Instead of vaguely claiming "tens of thousands", I request that you identify a few articles from sociologists that have more citations in high impact factor journals books; or for that matter, Eigenfactor or Immediacy Index publications. Then summarize those few articles to improve the quality of this article. Simply deleting content, without adding better content, is disruptive. Please note that this talk page is for discussion of the article, how to improve it, not a lecture on "blaming someone or your stereotypes of modern Indians." ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

India does not need its history blaming on other people. If you live here you know it was not the British. They just touched the surface. Many villages here never saw the British. You are obsessive anglophobic person and are not a friend of India by making up stories. Goodbye, ruin the article with your silliness. 122.173.209.158 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• You did not answer my questions above. Nor have you respected the purpose of wiki's talk page guidelines. I respectfully request you identify a few articles from sociologists, per WP:RS, that support whatever you are trying to suggest should go into this article.

Note, to be encyclopedic, wikipedia must include many aspects of one subject. In the context of caste, the effect of / role of / observations during / aspects of British rule on the caste system in India are relevant to the article.

FWIW, Zwart's article is a review article too, meeting WP:RS guidelines. It summarizes the effect of British rule on caste system, from studies by many sociologists. The article has been well cited after its publication. It belongs in this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the strange part of edits by 122.173.209.158: he or she deleted the parts that brought balance, parts I had added along with the Bougle citation - "Other sources suggest that the caste system existed in India prior to the arrival of the British, and enumerating classes and castes do not constitute the act of constructing it. Bouglé, for example, used 17th to 19th century historical reports by Christian missionaries and some Europeans on Indian society to suggest that a rigid caste system existed in India during and before British ruled India, quite similar in many respects to the social stratification found in 17th to 19th century Europe." ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In the sentence added by 122.173.209.158, in his or her first edit, the one starting with "According to GB Malleson..." it claims Bougle as the citation. I checked. There is no mention of GB Malleson in that essay. If GB Malleson sentence was intended as a constructive contribution, the only new addition by 122.173.209.158, a proper reference is requested. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to list all of the contentious sources here? I am not interested in what they say but rather in what they are. A numbered list would make it much easier to refer to things because it looks to me that there may be quite a few that are being queried, rather than just the 1908 work. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Célestin Bouglé, full name Célestin Charles Alfred Bouglé, wrote in French. His major works which cover caste systems in India (and elsewhere in the world) are: 1. Les idées égalitaires: étude sociologique (1899) - see pages 148-210 in particular; 2. Essais sur le régime des castes (1908) - see the whole essay; 3. Qu’est-ce que la sociologie? (1925) - see pages 40-78. None of these mention GB Malleson.

FWIW, I am aware of two publications by George Bruce Malleson, one published in 1857 and the other 1883. These works do not add anything that contradict, or add beyond what was already in the article before edits by 122.173.209.158. Constructive suggestions are welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So the only contention is Bouglé's stuff? It looked like more than that was being adjusted by the 122.* IP's edits. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I have just read the entire article through for the first time in a while, and it may be that Bouglé is the least of our concerns. It is becoming very big and very complex, even for someone like me (ie: reasonably intelligent and with some background knowledge). It also appears to be drifting towards being an essay on comparative sociology. I know that the version of some months ago was very poor & that the subject matter is complex but is some focus being lost now? When we start quoting at length the opinions of people such as Kipling then I begin to get quite concerned. Is there any sort of indication regarding how much bigger it may become? - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 122.* mostly removed a lot of stuff.

The length is bothering me too. That is why, I hesitate to add summaries from George Bruce Malleson, Gandhi's view that 'caste are not varnas', among others. I have another 30+ authors, who could be added - but it will just make it many times bigger, more complex - perhaps all this reflects the complexity of this topic, as well as the complexity of India's ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. But I do not plan to add summaries from these 30+ authors. I would prefer a smaller article, while respecting wiki guidelines that it be complete, balanced, NPOV and well written.

While we are at this, the section on British rule has had "unbalanced" header since December 2010 for British rule section - long before I first read this wiki article. What and who can we include in the summary to make it more balanced? I will volunteer to read them, and make an effort to address the balance issue further.

On how to trim the article, without loosing the article's sense of balance, NPOV and quality - give me some time to re-read the article, and reflect; I will then post some ideas for discussion on the talk page. Meanwhile, I welcome ideas from others and you on what and where to trim without removing balance, NPOV and encyclopedic completeness. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly have a think. An obvious option is to fork some stuff but somehow I think that we already have quite a few forks knocking around & so I will discard that notion for now. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not like fork idea either. My first pass suggests we can trim the article by 10-20 percent, without taking out the balance, completeness and NPOV.

I need a few days to review and think this through, as well study other articles on wiki that cover complex topics such as caste system in India. For example, Racism in the United States and Racism in Israel is about the same size as caste system in India is now. Apartheid in South Africa is a bigger article. India is much more ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse country than United States or Israel or South Africa (see Stanford University's James Fearon's paper on each country's cultural diversity and ethnic diversity indices). I hope to post some suggestions here on this talk page this weekend, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I just cant believe this apostle person. I have checked the "contemporary sociologists" now I am in Shimla and can get to my uni access. The first one is Frank de Swart. He says of the Brits in this paper:

"This essay examines that selection process and traces its effects on group formation and group identity in India. In the heyday of class analysis and planned economy, scholars credited governments with the power to shape society and reduce economic inequality. Postmodern theorists now credit governments with the power to 'construct' social and cultural identity. In India, this view is especially prominent in studies of colonial government and the caste system. The theory is also used to explain religious identity (Pandey 1992; see Kooiman 1995, and Talbot 1995 for critical discussions). Some authors claim that India's caste system was constructed by the British colonial administration. Interestingly, the methods whereby colonial administration in India is said to have done this - registration of the population by social category, followed by implementation of policies and laws specific for each category - are similar to the methods now used to enforce affirmative action for the backward classes. In both cases, moreover, registration and the policies based upon it promote political mobilization, and with it, group formation and identity politics. Given these similarities, it is interesting to ask what has become of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. Does affirmative action (as it is argued for British policy in colonial times) result in the rise of new social identities? In other words, has the Indian government after independence been able to do with the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes what the British allegedly did with caste?" .... ...."Imagine the grandeur of this thesis. Imperial administrators invented a social structure and managed to make generations of scholars, politicians and people in India believe (and act upon the idea) that this structure was real. This is truly a remarkable feat of social engineering. Governments all over the world can only wish they had the recipe. Indeed, after independence, the government of India tried to do something similar with another type of social structure. The hypothesis that political leaders after independence simply subscribed to the image of caste and intentionally continued to reinforce it is false. They certainly believed that caste was real, but the Socially and Educationally Back- ward Classes is a secular and modern category, and making them eligible for affirmative action was a deliberate attempt by the political elite who framed affirmative action policy to 'deconstruct' the colonial construction of caste."

No, as your reference says, the Brits were just not that powerful. For God's sake, ask any old Indian about what his grandfather thought about caste - it is little different from what a greengrocer will tell you in Chandigarh today! You guys are living in cloud cuckoo land and spreading lies as if they were truths.

Now, remove your stupid claim that the "contemporary sociologists" all blame the Brits. Your own reference rejects this idea. It is just a fantasy of dumb French postmodernist philosophers.

Your other reference: Identity and Identification in India: Defining the Disadvantaged by Laura Dudley Jenkins is just an analysis of affirmative action, it only says that the Brits intervened with affirmative action for backward castes and this is being continued today with the same problems that affirmative action has anywhere.

Your references do not support your claim that most contemporary sociologists believe the British constructed class. Try this from de Swart:

"The caste system, as historians and social scientists since the late 19th century portray it, is governed by division and hierarchy (some classical studies on caste are Mayer 1960; Srinivas 1962, 1966; Beteille 1965; Dumont 1970; Mandelbaum 1970).5 The units of division are endogamous groups with a traditional occupation and a hereditary membership. The basic criterion for ranking these groups is ritual purity. Purity and pollution of castes follow from their traditional occupation and stick to castes as a whole. Most polluting are death and bodily emissions. Castes whose traditional occupation entails contact with them (for instance, washermen, leatherworkers and barbers) rank low. All members of a caste - regardless of whether they follow its traditional occupation - share its rank in the hierarchy. This does not mean that the present occupation of caste members is completely irrelevant to status. Castes are not immobile. Many studies show that given time, means, organization and a favourable political climate, castes and sub- castes (not individuals) can rise in the status hierarchy (Kothari & Maru 1965; Rudolph & Rudolph 1967; Mandelbaum 1970:23-24; Shah 1975). Division between castes is most clearly manifest in patterns of marriage and commensality. Moreover, caste identity follows the segmentary principle: the meaning of caste is relative to context. In the context of local events, castes are small endogamous groups of people with the same name, spread over a few adjacent villages. On a regional level, castes are clusters of local castes, perceived by others as groups with similar status and subsumed under one name. In the context of a state or the nation, castes are clusters of regional clusters. In Indian languages, these three segments are called jatis."

Your own reference describes what most contemporary sociologists believe. Now, remove your childish, patronising of Indians. Indians were not invented by the British!

I have the book by Malleson in my hand. The author is GB Malleson, a British Company Chief Commissariat Officer at Kanpur in 1856 who wrote his memoir in 1890. Even the British have lost interest in those days so the book is reprinted in India:

The Indian Mutiny of 1857 Rupa Publications India Pvt Ltd 7/16 Ansari Road New Delhi

It has no ISBN and cost me 195 rupees in paperback (4 dollars). It doesnt say anywhere who first published it in the 19th century. Malleson is a big British Victorian kid who believes a regiment of Sikhs commanded by the Brits can charge anything with cold steel and win. Real old action adventure stuff but he does fully describe how 1857 happened. If you want any quotes on the British measures to limit landlordism I have them. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

While my knowledge is gleaned from sorting out umpteen caste articles & writing on some of the British "ethnologists" (sic - scientific racists, in most instances) - Risley, Rose, Ibbetson, Crooke and the like - I, too, have the impression that the British meddling certainly affected the system but did not originate it. Given enough time, I could dig out the numerous sources where I have read this. However, the real issue is whether some of the people named in the article fall foul of WP:FRINGE etc & how much weight should be given to their views. How influential were they in their own time? How influential are they now? At what point do we delegate any exposition of their theories to their own articles rather than here? As things stand, we are in danger of interpreting the likes of Bouglé, ie: treating them as primary sources when what we might actually benefit from are secondary sources that describe these changing theories with reference to the people who originally expounded them. If such secondary sources exist. We definitely should not be using people such as Kipling. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not that they are FRINGE, when I looked them up "most contemporary sociologists" don't say what Apostle says they say. Apostle's two main references, Jenkins and de Swart, do not say the Brits constructed caste. I quote de Swart at length above to show this. Bougle is just a Frenchman who hates the Brits for Pondicherry and Bougle is all Apostle has left to support his idea that the Brits invented Indians. God, Bougle is just an opinion and you have him fronting a Wikipedia article. Why cannot you just describe what the Brits did as a matter of record rather than making them into some sort of super-race and the Indians into little sheep. You don't even understand that the Indian states were very independent until 1947 and many saw the Brits as a necessary evil. Come to India, look at the thousands of vast palaces and forts of the Indians, look at the old photos of the princes in military uniform and driving rolls royces and ask yourself if the Brits were alone. God, I must stop reading this article it is so irritating. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand more than you seem to think I do regarding the British-Indian relationship, which in many respects was symbiotic. This article is much improved but no-one is denying that problems remain and that some may indeed have been introduced along the way. I haven't read de Swart or Jenkins, nor did they appear in the list that I asked for above. I'll try to dig them out and also re-read the relevant section of the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome back author @ 59.*; your contribution and effort can only make this article better. Let us now consider your comments within wiki guidelines.$

Author @ 59.* writes: Jenkins and de Swart, do not say the Brits constructed caste.

Here is Zwart's public domain abstract, quoted here per fair use principle: "Most social scientists today agree that identity is a social construction, not a primordial given. They also agree that the state (through its power to dominate discourse) is a key agent in the process of identity construction. The literature on caste in India is illustrative. Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. The social construction thesis should apply a fortiori to a project begun by the Indian government almost 50 years ago and still going strong, namely affirmative action for the 'backward classes'. This project is strikingly similar to the British colonial project that ex hypothesi constructed the caste system."

Author @ 59.* alleges the article writes: "contemporary sociologists" all blame the Brits.

Here is what this wiki article actually writes: "Some sources suggest that the caste system became formally rigid during the British Raj, ..."

I really should not continue with this but.. Right at the start of the article you wrote:

"Caste is commonly thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime.[2][15]"

The unqualified "contemporary scholars" means ALL contemporary scholars. This sentence should not even be in the introductory paragraph because it refers to a flimsy theory by a FEW contemporary scholars. Your references are not references to work by these contemporary scholars but to people who are discussing and largely rejecting the conclusions of these few contemporary scholars. The sentence in the introduction should be removed because it is not only incorrect, as pointed out in the previous couple of sentences but refers to an unsubstantiated theory. This article is about a social phenomenon and should contain descriptions of that phenomenon not wild speculations that any Indian will tell you is nonsense. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article then goes on to write: "Other sources suggest that the caste system existed in India prior to the arrival of the British, and enumerating classes and castes do not constitute the act of constructing it. Bouglé, for example, used 17th to 19th century historical reports by Christian missionaries and some Europeans on Indian society to suggest that a rigid caste system existed in India during and before British ruled India,..."

Nowhere does this wiki article, the version as of March 22 2012, claim "all contemporary sociologists blame X, Y, or Z."

The article does cite Zwart. The wording is carefully chosen, to meet wiki's WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR and complete/NPOV guidelines. We can not write more than what Zwart actually writes, and we can not write less than what Zwart writes. Distortion of any source is not acceptable within wiki guidelines.

But you have not summarised accurately. de Swart mocked the construction theory: "This is truly a remarkable feat of social engineering. Governments all over the world can only wish they had the recipe." You can't interpret this in any other way than that De Swart does not agree that the Brits constructed the caste system. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This section of the article is about British rule and its affect on India's caste system. Since the phrase "caste system" was first recorded in 1840, and India was under British from 1840 to 1947, this section is important. We are not trying to blame colonial Brits or anyone; all we are trying to do is summarize verifiable information.

India was under a system of treaties of princely states with the East India Company, formalised as "British Rule" after 1858. Prior to 1858 the local rulers had discretion over native matters and after 1858 still had considerable powers. The British did not exercise the sort of rule that the constructivist theory demands. Your claim that caste system was not used before 1840 is also false, I have in my hand a book from 1836 that says:

"The present odious system of caste is one of those pernicious innovations which have grown out of the barbarous policy that succeeded the decadency of Hindoo literature;.." p 30

"It is difficult to ascertain how long the distinctions of caste have prevailed among the Hindoos; but this is certain, that to however remote a period these political divisions of the popular body may be traced, the narrow prejudices now entertained, and which those divisions tend to encourage and maintain, were kept in abeyance by the wisdom formerly disseminated, and by the national education then extended to all classes of the community".p 30

"From the Mahomedan conquest we may date the decay of Hindoo learning, and the destruction of the fairest monuments of Hindoo art." p 36.

The Oriental Annual 1836 or Scenes in India. A descriptive account by Hobart Caunter. Published by Edward Churton, London. 1836. Modern reprint: Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, Chennai. 2009.

Caste was degraded in 1836 according to Caunter - you should read his descriptions of famine where the higher castes gave food to cows and temples while lower castes died. The Brits didn't invent caste.

My gripe is not that you are blaming colonial Brits, I dont care about the Brits, that was long ago, it is that you are depriving Indians of responsibility for their own history and culture. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to skip your attempts to lecture on "ask any old Indian about his grandfather, etc...", because wikipedia's WP:VNT is one of its key content guidelines. We can not summarize hearsay or opinions or blogs or anything that is not verifiable in reliable sources (WP:RS). Allow me to also ignore your comments that appear as if you are somehow "self appointed spokesperson for 1.2 billion Indian people, or for 600,000 villages of India." We can only summarize what is acceptable within WP:VNT guideline.

Well, in the quote above I have given what you needed, a western account. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article and this section is far from perfect, or complete. You can help us improve this section by citing sociologists or specific reliable sources. with pages numbers if possible for you, that explain one or more of the following: (1) colonial British did not affect caste system in India; or (2) in what ways and how did colonial British affect the caste system in India; or (3) attempts by colonial British efforts to address social discrimination within India given that colonial British government controlled India's legal code and justice system; or (4) anything else relevant to caste system in India during the British rule. You can also help by posting a summary from GB Malleson that will add useful content to this section of the article, content that is not already there (I have the 1857 book with me as well).

Contrary to your prior claims in edit history that Zwart is fringe, you now admit he isn't. I assume you respect him. So, the publication from him and sociologists like him on caste system in India belong in this article.

The social constructivists are fringe. Quotes from de Swart might belong in the article but he does not support your case of British constructivism. As I quoted above "Imagine the grandeur of this thesis. Imperial administrators invented a social structure and managed to make generations of scholars, politicians and people in India believe (and act upon the idea) that this structure was real. This is truly a remarkable feat of social engineering. Governments all over the world can only wish they had the recipe." You can't interpret this in any other way than that De Swart does not agree that the Brits constructed the caste system. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the 5 citations I have provided on this aspect of this article, I suggest we add additional support to the article to make it more convincing that these views are not of Zwart and few other independent researchers already quoted. Here are a few I suggest we include in the section: (1) Nicholas B. Dirks, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of New India, 2001, ISBN=978-0691088952 (2) Mohandas K Gandhi, Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi; (3) Nobel laureates in search of identity & integrity: voices of different cultures, Anders Hallengren (the Chapter on Rabindranath Tagore, and the reference therein The Crisis of Civilization). All of these references strengthen the support for the side 'colonial British rule had an adverse impact on the caste system in India." If you believe Tagore or Gandhi or Dirks are fringe too, please explain your reasoning on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is all postmodern theory. It is not worthy of this article. Stick to actual descriptions of what actually happened. If the Brits had an adverse impact on the caste system use several descriptive sources for how wonderful it was before 1858 then for how dreadful it was by 1946 - allowing for relative local self government in native affairs and the Princely States of course. India wasn't like Africa, a people directly ruled from the centre. It was an odd and complicated sort of colonialism. The Princes could probably have thrown out the British on many occasions had they united but the Brits saved them from each other. It was the Sikhs who saved the East India Company in 1857-8. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is Zwart's article link, for a quick read: http://asj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/235 ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - Kipling is one we can trim out. On Bouglé, his essay on castes, is in three parts. Most of it, including the summary in this wiki article that is based on part 1 and part 2, is a secondary source. The proof is this comment by François Leclercq: Bouglé was a sociologist writing on great variety of issues, who did not read Sanskrit and never visited India. Bouglé talked to and read what was written by the British, the French, the Dutch and the rest on and about India. Then he summarized it in his essay. The primary source part of his essay is his definition of caste - hereditary, hierarchy and exclusionary repulsion. Most of the rest by Bouglé is a review, therefore a WP:SECONDARY source. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I had ignored the quotes from Zwart and the following comments by author now @ 59.* - "No, as your reference says, the Brits were just not that powerful." and "Your references do not support your claim that most contemporary sociologists believe the British constructed class." I did this to keep my reply short. After some reflection, I feel I must at least identify key paragraphs and clarify, for the sake of archive of this debate. Perhaps, it will help future wiki contributors to appreciate the effort we are putting in, and build upon our discussion, rather than go in circles.

I submit the author @ 59.* misunderstood Zwart; that over and over again, Zwart is summarizing numerous contemporary sociologists that support the summary in the wiki article.

The paragraphs cited by author @ 59.* are one side of Zwart's effort to present all sides of arguments. It is not complete.

Lets move beyond the abstract which I mentioned above. Consider the whole article. Page 237 of Zwart's review illustrates some of the many sociologists who suggest colonial British being instrumental in fashioning caste and caste identity in India (Cohn etc). Zwart writes, "Postmodern scholars see the caste system not as an ancient given, but as a construction that originates largely in British times." Included thereafter, are not just many Western sociologists, but Indians sociologists too.

He then discusses Smith's 1985 work. Note, Zwart is referring to two competing theories, much like what this wiki article is doing in simple English, or at least trying to. Zwart refers one of these as 'constructivist thesis' in 2nd column of page 237. Then he summarizes Ludden's work from 1993, writing, "the colonial Census Officers misled by 19th century orientalist discourse, and their upper-caste informants, wrongly considered caste and caste hierarchy to be the basic social facts of Hindu life." Zwart then considers if Ludden is just denying existence of facts, with a stroke of the pen. He explains Ludden further, to explain why this is not so. Then comes your paragraph.. "Imagine the grandeur of this..." This isn't sarcasm; Zwart is building the background for more interesting part of his review of the contrasting literature (for wiki, this is what a secondary source is).

He then reviews Bendix, Weber, Nehru, Ambedkar, Galanter, and others through page 240. Through the next few pages, he summarizes how the caste-based census began the process of parceling jobs, and then people eager for jobs to feed their families, started actively forming caste identities. During the British rule, he writes, people petitioned to be classified as upper caste; and then in late 20th century, they petitioned to be classified as lower castes. On page 242, he writes how official recognition of a caste's ritual status by the British rule determined occupational chances; that high caste status was a prerequisite for access to education and govt jobs in British India, with examples from 1920s (he summarizes Brown 1994, Frykenberg 1965, Ischick 1969, many others). He mentions British motive wasn't socio-economic equality; then discusses the Madras order of 1927; and how new caste associations emerged in the 20th century. On page 246, he finally submits the merits of competing theories of caste system in India during and after the British rule.

All the above supports the Zwart summary in wiki article, as well as the effort to present all sides of caste system during British rule. A balanced and good wiki article must concisely summarize all sides; and that is why a summary of Zwart is worth keeping in this article.

This article is not about affirmative action in India. So, we can not include lot of this debate. But we must include a concise summary of the tons of literature from postmodern scholars, of both sides, on caste system in India during the British rule. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Bouglé essay (part 1 of 3) is the key verifiable secondary source in this article for the orientalist side - that is, caste existed before and without the influence of the British rule. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The author now @ 59.* has inserted his comments above. I hope he or she will consider Zwart's summary I wrote above, with page numbers and details, and then contribute something constructive. Much of what author@59.* has just written is a repeat. This talk page isn't a forum, rather an opportunity for us to work towards an agreement, a broadly accepted consensus to improve this article. I will therefore try to summarize what we may be agreeing on. Before I do so, I should touch upon one new item added this time. That is his confusion with phrase "caste system" versus literature on caste. The phrase is verifiably credited to 1840 (see this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=caste&searchmode=none); the word caste came into literature much earlier, from castus in Europe, and applied to India in 17th century from casta. William Carey (missionary) published letters on caste in India, as did other authors, decades before 1840, and I have read them all. The key point, emerging from this discussion, is this: caste system in India during British rule is important, and a balanced version must be included in this article for an encyclopedic coverage.

Other points of agreement: 1. Zwart's article is relevant; 2. Zwart/Nehru/Gandhi/Tagore/Ludden/Smith/Brown/Ambedkar/etc are not WP:FRINGE. 3. Literature by postmodern and contemporary sociologists on caste system in India during British rule is relevant and must be summarized in this article.

Allow me the graciousness of silence on the many points of disagreement between author@59.* and I. For record, I note the author@59.* has yet to provide the list Sitush or I requested, or a single reliable secondary source that dispute Zwart's content or Zwart's phrasing on contemporary scholars from his abstract and parts of Zwart's article I quoted above. For constructive contribution, I ask that author@59.* provide such a list. Pretentious advice on 'ask any Indian' are unacceptable. In this article, we can only summarize verifiable secondary published sources, such as Zwart's summary of Indian and non-Indian sociologists. For rest, please see wiki guideline such as WP:VNT.

Finally, I do not know what wiki policies are about inserting replies into a thread on talk page, but for me such insertions are difficult to read, and possibly for anyone who would join this discussion in the future. It may be better if author@59.* would append his reply after all others. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hobart Caunter, full name Reverend John Hobert Caunter, has been mentioned by author@59.*. His book Scenes in India, which I took another look at, is a primary source, per WP:PRIMARY guidelines. Reverend Caunter writes, on page 30 of his 1836 book, the barriers he experiences in introducing Christianity to Hindoos. He even writes "caste prejudices were few and faint" in India before the innovations introduced by barbarous policy, by the bondage of a foreign domination. He claims, that in pre-British India, for many centuries until at least the 13th, it was rare to find even a poor man in a village who could not read. Reverend Caunter then goes on, page after page, describing how the 19th century India is in a degraded state, even though it was once enlightened; how India once had a school in every village, how every Hindoo parent looked upon education of his child a solemn duty, etc. etc. He discusses William Jones and what Christian missionaries saw, the famine, the kindness-filled and generous Indians he experiences, the caste biased people he experiences, the lovely Indian girl so pure in thoughts even without Christianity, etc

Despite Caunter's claim of caste prejudices being few and faint in historic India, Caunter does not belong in this article. He is very close to the event, writes an account where he is directly involved, was part of Christian missionary team in India, keeps proclaiming how his religion is superior than the heathen faith (possibility of bias affecting his writing?), etc. Neither his profuse admirations for India, nor his in depth critique of India belongs to this wiki article. Caunter does not belong in this article also because Christian missionaries' side of the story on the caste system in India is already included in the 72 specimen of castes notes.

Like Zwart, you can not take Caunter or any other author out of context. You must not take from any author those bits you like, ignore the bits you don't. For WP:NPOV we must present all sides; wiki articles must describe the controversies, not engage in them. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not take him out of context. Caunter says: "From the Mahomedan conquest we may date the decay of Hindoo learning, and the destruction of the fairest monuments of Hindoo art." p 36., as I quoted above. You are taking him out of context if you think he supports your evil Brit - stupid Indian viewpoint. You are the one who is trying to turn this article into a rant about a postmodern theory that you favour. Theories have no place in the article, they should go elsewhere. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:1937 Jodhpur State Order- Renaming of Mali Caste as Saini.JPG

Evidence that Indians were petitioning to be classified in certain castes during the colonial British era, and British officials such as Lt. Col. Field were constructing/awarding out castes to certain people of India. A Mali is a gardener, like an agriculturist. According to this document, agriculturists can be or become Kshatriyas too.

Author@59* - it is not appropriate to use phrases such as 'evil Brit' or 'evil X' or 'evil Y' etc. You previously wrote, 'My gripe is not that you are blaming colonial Brits, I dont care about the Brits, that was long ago, it is that you are depriving Indians of responsibility for their own history and culture.' Perhaps we should address that too. This may be your agenda here, it does not belong in this article and I urge you to set it aside. It is not a constructive premise for this wiki article.

Please join me in focusing this discussion as to how we can improve this article. Just like you have recently questioned the reliability of Zwart, you must question the reliability of all sources, including the source you have cited and quoted at length: Reverend Hobart Caunter. You have not provided any reason why Hobart Caunter must be trusted, or more importantly for wiki article why Caunter qualifies as WP:SECONDARY, and why Caunter is not a WP:PRIMARY source. Remember, wiki's core content guideline is WP:VNT from reliable secondary sources. The speculations of Caunter do not qualify as acceptable in this wiki article, because Caunter is a primary source.

In contrast with Reverend Caunter are Zwart and dozens of other independent sociologists from all over the world. They have published in peer reviewed journals, are not directly involved in India, or in converting some Indians from one religious persuasion to another, and meet all wikipedia's guidelines for WP:SECONDARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Zwart belongs in this article, Reverend Caunter doesn't.

Contrary to your fear and speculations, I want to include more secondary sources for the Orientalist side, not just the Constructivist side in this wiki article. I have read numerous sources while I have been researching this topic. Other than Bougle, I can not find reliable secondary sources. The few I have come across are primary - either because they were directly involved, or because they read like a blog without any citations. I considered Kipling, the Christian missionaries - but as above discussion shows, these sources have issues as wiki sources. So, author@59.* - I welcome you to help us improve this article. Instead of speculations, give us a list of secondary sources and peer reviewed journal article citations by contemporary or postmodern sociologists who summarize non-Constructivist side and your side of the argument, better than what the article already does.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User ApostleVonColorado's conclusion from the Caste Classification request that it shows how the British had constructed caste would need to take account of the fact that Jodhpur was one of the Princely States of India and largely governed its own internal affairs. He would need to do some WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH to prove that the pro-British, but native, Maharajah of Jodhpur was not responsible for any construction of caste and to show that the act of classification was sufficient in an illiterate population to construct caste. Reading the discussion above I would suggest that he starts a new article called "Sociological Theories of Caste" although such an article might be considered original research. I agree with "59" that ApostleVonColorado is bending the article towards a particular theory of caste when the article should be an account of caste in India. I also agree that the constructivist theory is dangerously close to being racist, denying that the Indians could have been responsible for their own history and generally taking a patronising stance. Argcontrib (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In the above reply, I meant: Other than Bougle, I can not find reliable secondary sources for the Orientalist side.

I await a few secondary reliable sources citations for the Orientalist side, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article against editing, as I see an edit war developing. I'm sure there are good faith edits amongst them, but I don't want to appear to be taking sides by only semi-protecting it. It needs to be discussed here, and when a consensus is achieved, the article can be unprotected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving while simplifying this article

Background: Sitush notes this article is becoming very big and very complex. He commented that while the version of some months ago was very poor & that the subject matter is complex, he wondered if the current form of this article lacks focus? See his comment in Bougle and contemporary section above, signed and date stamped at 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

This section aims to discuss potential improvements to increase focus, and ways to simplify this article without violating wiki guidelines. It seeks comments from all interested wiki contributors.

This article is of a similar size as other discrimination related articles on wiki, a bit bigger than a few and a bit smaller than others. See, for example, Racism in the United States, Racism in Israel and Apartheid in South Africa. Given India's greater diversity and complexity, writing a concise article is a challenge, particularly given the abundance of WP:PRIMARY sources and the less abundant WP:SECONDARY sources. I wonder if any simplified article will always be contested as incomplete, considered as insensitive to one or more specific interest groups.

Here are some suggestions:

• Trim out all primary sources. Sections that have no verifiable support from WP:RS sources needed to be tagged as citation needed.
• Trim out sections where the content summary moves significantly away from the subject 'caste' that is broadly applicable to current or historic India. For example, tribes of India, affirmative action and legal status for tribes in India, Kipling's observations when he is a primary source, generic off topic commentary in the article's Criticism section, etc.
• Merge sections that cover the same topic. For example, the reform sub-section can be merged into a similar section later.
• Eliminate repetitive paragraphs if they add nothing unique. For example, the section on genetics is citing many articles each taking one side of the two proposed controversial theories. We may simplify the section by summarizing the two theories and cite the multiple journal articles in one or the other.
• Clarify language in various sections, including but not limiting to the lead section to simplify and for clarity. For example, rewrite to avoid the impression that "all sociologists now agree that X, Y or Z is the truth about current or historic caste system in India." The writing should strive to include all broadly supported ideas/theories/sides of caste system in India for balance and WP:NPOV.
• The focus of this article can be improved and content simplified if newspaper stories of hate crimes in niche part of India (directly affecting less than say 0.01% of India's population), newspaper stories of those civil right leaders or volunteers who worked on or working on anti-discrimination efforts in India (directly affecting less than say 0.01% of India's population) were to be considered not notable enough for this wiki article. These are important, but are they notable for this wiki article? I do not understand whether notability should be an important measure for this article, and if yes, how to use that measure to constructively improve while simplifying this article. Comments from experienced wiki editors will be appreciated.

While we may never have the perfect article on this controversial and sensitive topic, the article can be improved, made more complete and more balanced than what it is on March 25 2012. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not remove references to specific sociological theories that are contested? Recording that the British maintained a classification of caste is OK, saying that the British contructed caste as a result of this activity is contentious because it is an untestable sociological theory. Do not include theories of this type, they diminish Wikipedia. Argcontrib (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article is more than a dictionary. Encyclopedia covers many aspects of a subject. For social science subjects, particularly those that are complicated, controversial and complex, for example caste system in India, we should expect wiki article to include theories and opinions. As wiki's WP:VNT core policy on content explains, there are no universal truths in social sciences; only a combination of facts, theories, opinions, and opinions about opinions. That is all we have for social science topics. What is testable and what is not in social sciences, is not a topic for this talk page. For wiki, we can not be finders of truth, we can not judge whether a theory is testable or untestable as you suggest, because that would be original research as explained in WP:OR. All we can do is to include a NPOV summary of all reliable and verifiable majority and minority views and theories. Presenting all verifiable theories on social science topics enhances wikipedia.

You are welcome to suggest content, if you have verifiable and reliable sources with theories - testable or untestable - if these have not been covered in this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This Article is Poorly Written

I know nothing about the Indian caste system. I got through the first half of this article, and I still know nothing about it. It's a type of social stratification system. Got it. But this article seems to be written in a manner that is overly politically correct; so much so that it tells the reader nothing. I imaging this has been done for fear of touching on sensitive Indian issues, or some such. Well, get over it and just write the article. Right now it’s crap. The article also appears to biased in defense of the caste system, or at least overly apologetic for it. It's pretty annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You have shared a genuine concern, but I'm hopeless about any fruitful impact. I also suspect some sort of political agenda to keep the theme away from the actual. It's a compromising version of the article and tries to divert the subject from the basic issues. Those who know the caste system from the ground level just wonder the same way as you have done now-AshLey ^Msg 16:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical Criticism section

The version of this section had one blog as citation, and no other verifiable source, as of April 7 2012. It is also a long list of who criticized caste system is India, and nothing more. A more relevant, complete and encyclopedic version would focus on substance of the criticism, the what and the how and other details about historical criticism of the caste system in India. The section also mentioned a Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple claiming, without verifiable citation, that it being the first upper-caste temple to openly welcome Dalits into their fold. However, that internally linked wiki article has no description on this, and does not even mention this. Therefore, I am removing all this unverifiable poorly sourced content for now, to simplify this article. Wiki contributors are welcomed to add back such content with verifiable, secondary and WP:RS compliant references. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kerala - Duncan Forrester reference

I welcome the contribution on Kerala Christians. I request that the wiki contributor clarify the current form on this talk page, or consider significantly rewording it because it reads WP:POV and unbalanced.

For example, Harold Coward summarizes Duncan Forrester when he writes "Syrian Christians had inserted themselves..." on page 18. But that is not all that Coward includes. He also mentions the divide between Catholics and Protestants on caste system in general, and in India in particular. A NPOV, balanced version would include this; the disagreements and tension between the so called Mission of Help and Syrian Church; the Coward/Forrester discussion of Roberto de Nobili; etc. - with regards to caste system in India, both within Christianity in India and Christianity outside India. Perhaps some of this discussion needs to be in Caste system among Indian Christians with a good short summary here?

Finally, I can not find support for the opening clause in this sub-section, "Even though the caste system is an attribute of Hindu Society, the.." Please identify which page Howard Coward claims this. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You should perhaps be made aware that similar concerns regarding POV issues have been raised at Caste system in Kerala, involving contributions made by the same editor & fundamentally comprising the same content & sources. I am trying to locate the sources in order to read them in toto because there have been past instances of severe pushing & cherry-picking by other members of the SC community across a swathe of articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the opening clause is my understanding and if needed i could cite sources. In a previous discussion, Sitush also agreed with it.

Regarding, conflicts between protestants and Syrians :Is it really related to caste system? Ofcourse, the casteist mentality of syrians prevented them from mingling with new entrants to Christianity from the lower castes. Anyway, I have just started the cleaning up process; would add more info on the situation of Syrians in the colonial period too. I welcome your participation whole heartedly. -Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.210.162 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that I would ever have agreed with the opening clause & I have tagged it here. The "cleaning up process" for this articles has been going on for some time and, frankly, as with the other article, if you add much more about the SCs (who were of course a minority community) then you may well be getting into the realms of undue weight etc. It is interesting to me that someone else, who seems to be unaware of the Kerala article, pretty much came out with exactly the same sort of comments about your edits as I have done previously. Food for thought, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: I would welcome reliable secondary sources for the opening clause. May need rewording to avoid combining sources and resultant synthesis and POV concerns.

Protestants and Syrians - from one source you cited, the relevant conflict is their perceptions of caste system in India; See Forrester discussion and summary by Coward. Whether this is something more than one source claims, or whether this is in dispute, I do not know. I need to find reliable sources, read on this more, before I can make an informed comment. Perhaps you can cite two or more WP:RS secondary independent sources to strengthen key parts of the summary you added.

Sitush: Your comment leads me in the right direction. Thanks, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, Pls recall your comment in the Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution: "I've not checked the second source yet but I am a bit concerned that a caste system that was effectively imposed by Nambudiris is becoming subsumed by a lot of content relating to a non-Hindu community. There should be a mention, of course, but the SCs were outside the Hindu system and caste is fundamentally a Hindu concept. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)" Again, I don't agree with your call on undue weight to a minority community as Syrians are the largest forward-caste community in Kerala. Also, their case of enjoying an upper-caste status from a period centuries before the arrival of Portuguese is a peculiar one in the history of India and needs sufficient attention and weight.

ApostleVonColorado, In the book: Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan By Edmund Ronald Leach, p.1, Leach briefs as follows "As an ethnographic category, it refers exclusively to a system of social organization peculiar to Hindu India". In the introductory passage of the this wiki article, the same source is cited against the sentence "Although identified with Hinduism, caste systems have been also observed among other religions in the Indian subcontinent, including some groups of Muslims, Buddhists and Christians.[11][12][13]". Since the introductory clause of the subsection related to Christians converges with the idea of the main article, I think, separate citation is not necessary. --AshLey ^Msg 08:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: Thank you for that citation. I read it. Before that sentence, Leach emphasizes, on page 1, that he is expressing a personal opinion, not shared by others in the book he is editing. Personal opinions are neither secondary nor a foundation as a reliable source. Leach also mentions that the term caste is used by sociologists and anthropologists in ways other than Leach is using. The opening clause ignores this disclosed dispute; so, it can be improved with a qualifier - if something from Leach publication must be included. My other concern is that we can not cherry pick stuff from two different sources, such as Leach and Coward, then synthesize it into a sentence because it causes WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:NOR issues. For these reasons, I am revising that sentence. I welcome another form, if you can do so without synthesis and OR. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, Yes, I got your point, and I'm not adamant to include that introduction as the points I tried to contribute could be narrated in the present form without any distortion. But, when I read this article, I feel, we are trying to put the entire blame on British, though they could have ignited the issues as a part of Divide and Rule. In my opinion, we should be bold here to narrate the positives and negatives of Caste System as an indigenous one, and then we could move on to depict the political games of European colonialists as well as Indian politicians. It's my personal view, and since my research area is limited to the caste system in Kerala only, my opinion may not be abiding with the consensus view.

I would appreciate your suggestion on the POV issue of Kerala system after the new additions--AshLey ^Msg 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: I submit wiki is not, and should not be a place to be bold about whether 'X is indigenous'; nor is it a place to synthesize theories on 'X is not indigenous, Y is to be blamed'. Wiki is a place for content that abides by its core content guidelines - which includes that all content be a NPOV balanced summary from verifiable reliable secondary sources. If we can not find multiple reliable, verifiable, secondary sources for a major claim, it does not belong in wiki articles such as this or other caste-related wiki articles.

I am not prepared to comment on Kerala POV issue yet; I must get more WP:RS sources, read a lot more for a complete picture. Meanwhile, this article is too long (as Sitush and others have noted). In our passion to write, let us not forget the wiki readers, from all over the globe, who seek an encyclopedically short, brief, balanced and beautifully written article summarizing the most important notable aspects. I also wonder whether and how much detail from each state of India must be included in this article. Any thoughts? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, The introductory part is good, but when a reader enters the history, he gets no idea of the origin of the caste system in India - It portrays some similarity with Iranian system, but fails to mention the way it reached in India. Other theorems also fail in this aspect. The article also needs to explain the meaning of untouchability, pollution, purification etc for a newcomer. Similarly the systems of social stratification in Japan and other countries are considered as caste-like systems(not caste systems exactly) in a conditional way and the caste is mentioned as an Indian system in some of the the cited sources. Also, instead of narrating the matter in an encyclopedic way, quotes of Amartya Sen, Gandhi, Ambedkar etc are used in the article, which only helps to confuse the reader.

Separate articles for each state could be created and linked to main article. But if you are specifying the case of Christians in Kerala, I have already mentioned that the case was peculiar. In the pre-colonial period, Christian presence was there in Kerala only. They were culturally a Hindu society for many centuries and was part of the Hindu caste system. This point needs to be mentioned if the article has some space for Caste among non-Hindus, else could be omitted altogether. --AshLey ^Msg 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: Summaries from each state of India would make this article too complex, long and unnecessarily difficult. I am not convinced the case of Christians in Kerala, Christians in Goa, Christians in TN, etc; followed by case of Hindus in Kerala, Hindus in Goa, Hindus in TN, etc; followed by Buddhists in each state and Sikhs in each state and so on.... would make this article comprehensible. I urge we keep the focus on 'caste system in India' for the sake of the reader and wiki's guidelines. Let us remove content that is state by state, broken down to sub-state-by-religion level - is it really notable at national level? Giving undue emphasis to Christians in Kerala or some group takes out balance. Please persuade why such state-and-religion level is notable in an article on caste system in India. On the rest, on explaining pollution etc - I have read 100+ books and 200+ articles in refereed journals on caste system in India; Plus dozens on caste systems outside India. There is neither consensus on origins, nor on concepts you list, nor whether these are theoretical constructs or were reality 100+ years ago. If you have secondary sources, that meet wiki WP:RS and WP:VNT guidelines, and that have not been already included, that suggest content not already in this article, please cite them on this talk page. I will read them, and you, I, others active on this articles can together improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, I didn't recommend State wise summaries, but links to those articles only. I admit, the state wise narration of Christian-case may become a bad precedent, and hence we may merge those sub-sections, arranging the info in a time-line: pre-colonial, colonial and modern period. There is no question of undue weight to Kerala as I have already told that the Christian presence was there in Kerala only, during pre-colonial period. I wonder, how we could narrate the Christian-case in pre-colonial period without mentioning the Syrian Christian community in Kerala. More-over, almost all reliable WP:RS related to Caste and Christianity gives due weight to their case, and we ought to follow same criteria. Christians are not present in many regions of India, and hence we can't generalize their case as like Hindus, since the social stratification may be limited within themselves in one case, or else they may act as a caste within the caste system of Majority community. At one region, caste-status may be related to ethnicity and in other to numerical strength and power. So, Kerala Christian case and Goa Christian case can't be bracketed into a single category, but we may merge into single sub-section avoiding the titles.

Dumont, Louis. Homo Hierarchicus: "Stratification is thus a ’sociocentric’ concept which cannot cope with the unique phenomenon of Indian caste." - So their are secondary sources opposing the view pushed by this articles: "Caste is not unique to India". We need to balance it.

Gerald D. Berreman. Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification - "The rationale which justifies the caste system is both religious and philosophical, relying upon the idea of ritual purity and pollution to explain group rank, and upon the notions of right conduct, just deserts, and rebirth to explain the individual’s fate within the system."....."If one requires of a caste system that it be based on consensus as to its rationale, its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the relative rank of its constituent groups, then none of the examples mentioned here is a caste system." -This source is already cited in the article, gives sufficient weight to pollution etc. Also, the author hasn't considered Caste System equivalent to Ethnic Stratification unconditionally. These views are ignored in this article.

Caste and Race in India .Govind Sadashiv Ghurye -is an online source. It describes the hierarchy and features of the caste system, missing parts in this article. --AshLey ^Msg 13:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: Thank you for the three references. These were part of my library of sources and research. I submit that these three sources write a lot more than the phrases you quote, we must not cherry pick, and ensure that this wiki article remains balanced and respectful of everything that each of these books write.

Dumont, for example, discusses amongst other things, his theory of three periods of caste system study and three explanations of caste - Voluntarist, Limiting and Historical. There he cites other scholars and explains how and why these scholars believe caste is not unique to India. Dumont even goes so far as to state this (at page 25), "Now, contrary to what Hindus often imagine, caste has no place in the Veda, which, for Hindus, contains all relevation;" followed by this, "caste is complex, essentially a question of a particular form of distinctions relating to birth, social situation and degree of education, as are known in all societies." (my emphasis) On page 202, while describing castes, he writes, "This will pave the way for summarily setting in perspective the apparently similar facts found outside India." Pages after pages, this theme prevails. Yes, Dumont tries to discuss, explain the controversies on unique aspects of caste system in India; but no where is he concluding that caste system is unique to India.

Berreman is already cited, as you note. Your concern that Berreman hasn't considered Caste System equivalent to Ethnic Stratification unconditionally, is important and it concerned me. I re-read this wiki article, and I fail to see where this article claims such unconditional equivalence. I may have missed it. If you can guide me to it, we must rewrite to improve this article.

The features/hierarchy/etc from Ghurye you mention, is where Ghurye is a WP:PRIMARY source; he uses census reports of colonial era (page 29-31, later chapters) to propose his theory. Yes, Ghurye is in parts, a secondary source, for example: Ghurye writes that despite numerous work of scholars, we do not possess a real, general definition of caste; that any attempt at definition is bound to fail because of the complexity of the phenomena. Chapter 10 and others by Ghurye discuss how British colonial rule, census and policies caused caste construction and then 'extraordinary revival of caste spirit'; if Ghurye is added, it will cause undue weight to British rule's influence on caste system section.

I concur with you that we should trim, simplify and merge sections, rather than focus on caste-by-each-religion-divided-by-each-state. I am reading a bit on Christians and caste in India, and will try an edit after I am better informed. I welcome others and you to edit, merge and simplify, meanwhile. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, I'm concerned about this sentence: "Caste is neither unique to Hindu religion nor to India; caste systems have been observed in other parts of the world, for example, in Muslim community of Yemen, Christian colonies of Spain, and Buddhist community of Japan." It's an unconditional equation of other systems similar to Caste System with Indian Caste System. --AshLey ^Msg 13:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is not. It is a statement that there are similar (not necessarily identical) systems found elsewhere than India. That is also reflected in the title of this article and many others. Regarding Apostle's reading around, so am I. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, You have to be bit more cautious in translation. The sentence I quoted here can't be translated like you have done. Please don't draw the disputes in other forums to here. I have seen many comments against you in other forums like RSN--AshLey ^Msg 13:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: That statement indeed means that there are similar, not necessarily identical systems found elsewhere than India. For support, see Berreman's discussion from pages 322-327, including his reasoning why the phrase 'caste in Japan,' is appropriate in the context of Burakumin. Berreman is not alone; Cahill too at pp 336-339 uses the term castes; same for Yemen. I will re-read the three cited references carefully over the next few days, then reconsider your 'unconditional equivalency' interpretation. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley, I translated nothing. I am English and have no need to translate English. I mentioned no dispute in the statement that you responded to and have not posted here for a few days previously. I am bemused, and even more so with your blatantly misrepresentative insinuation regarding RSN or whatever. You really must stop doing that: I've got over 50,000 edits under my belt and while that does not make me any more qualified than you, it does indicate a degree of experience here and it is an experience that has been gained without being blocked etc. You may wish to reflect on that when you see comments "against me": I know my way around. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado and Sitush, WIki articles should brief the matter in encyclopedic way and here this sentence could mislead some readers, especially newcomers to this subject. A few sources could support the present view, but not all. A qualifier like "analogous" could resolve the issue as many sources describe it so. If it clarifies the message more, why we should omit it? --AshLey ^Msg 11:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth policy of wikipedia and some Contemporary Sociologists

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy includes WP:V amd WP:VNT. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" is used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not object or remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. I welcome edits by Legolas95 and ask him or her to respect this guideline. Multiple sources, in peer reviewed journals, have published that 'Caste is commonly thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars have argued that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime." A few of this articles are amongst the most sought after scholarly articles/books. They belong here. Why call them dubious or POV?

Similarly, 'Not many Sudra castes are in Scheduled Caste List' is not discussed in the main article. Such content is welcome, but must be discussed in the main article with adequate secondary source verifiable support; only then should it be summarized in lead. See WP:LEAD. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the precise reason why that tag was added, that the assertion was not verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). While the sources cited analyze caste structure ans its evolution under British times, they dont claim caste system/caste is constructed by British colonial regime. The editors have taken considerable liberty in rephrasing and interpreting the sources (in many parts of the article). This is a violation of Wikipedia policies WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY. Thought its better to put a tag and discuss before removing it. Another is interpreting the statistical data on Dalit quality of life, the editor makes some loose sweeping conclusions, eg, taking one metric (life expectancy?) and claiming some metrics are better for Dalits compared to poor non Dalits, either be specific or dont have it in the lead. (The claim before I made edits was with even more liberty that the indices are 'statistically similar' to those of overall population!).

The statement that Untouchables and Sudras are classed as Scheduled Castes is wrong. Scheduled Castes Lists follows from previous lists of British Government of Depressed classes for which the primary criteria were caste pollution and untouchability. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2642619?seq=1. Sudra castes dont fall in Scheduled castes list, although some do in some places, but a general statement is better avoided.Legolas95 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Legolas95 - I assume good faith, and welcome your effort to verify. I am astonished you missed this from Zwart reference: "Most social scientists today agree that identity is a social construction, not a primordial given. They also agree that the state (through its power to dominate discourse) is a key agent in the process of identity construction. The literature on caste in India is illustrative. Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. The social construction thesis should apply a fortiori to a project begun by the Indian government almost 50 years ago and still going strong, namely affirmative action for the 'backward classes'. This project is strikingly similar to the British colonial project that ex hypothesi constructed the caste system." The above is from the abstract of the article. The review article discusses, repeats and explains the same as Zwart discusses numerous sociologists with competing theories on caste system in India. Therefore, I disagree with you that the cited references do not provide verifiable support. The cited references provide direct verifiable support for the claim, and the summary included meets all wiki guidelines.

WP:LEAD requires that the summary in lead must be in main article and the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. So, if we want this in lead section, we must discuss caste violence far more extensively in the main article. I agree with you that caste violence section can be improved, particularly by including violence stats for both Dalit and non-Dalits. Right now, only violence against Dalit is included, nothing is mentioned about the violence against so-called OBCs, poor non-Dalits, and overall population. Presenting data such as "every hour two Dalits are assaulted, etc" is confusing to international readers of wiki; because it has not been discussed in more detail in the main article, does not explain who assaulted who/why/how do we know, and is without overall context. For what it is worth, Nigeria's population is about the same as Dalit population in India, and contextually for international readers, the violence in Nigeria is far far worse than your summary. For neutrality, we must include an objective context from the reader's perspective. I encourage you to first improve the main article, then revise the lead, because that is what wiki's guidelines require.

Please note this article is already big and complex. In last few months, after a discussion between editors, about 20% of the article and references were deleted, including citations and content that discussed chi-square statistical tests and comparison of quality of life for Dalits and non-Dalits. There was plenty of support on statistical equivalence on various metrics; I removed some of those parts; now, with your comments, I plan to go back, read the deleted content/references again, and if prudent rewrite without making this article bigger and ever more complex. I welcome you to help keep this article small, balanced and readable - from wiki reader perspective. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Durban conference and caste vs race

I have removed this because the cited reference was a dead link. This, however, does not mean that the Durban controversy should not be included. I submit it should be, but with WP:RS sources. Here are a few I have in my library of links, for anyone who wishes to summarize it. A reading and good summary may help remedy the incomplete and incorrect previous version:

• Caste and racism submission to Durban conference by a non-governmental Indian organization
• Statement by Latvian rep on caste, race
• Statements from multiple, non-Indian NGOs on caste and racism at the Durban conference, on both sides of the controversy

These are not exhaustive. Other helpful WP:RS sources may be out there. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How objective would it be to over-emphasize on a conference that was so controversial that it was boycotted by virtually every country in the civilized world on account of it being taken over by OIC Islamists (who also have an axe to grind against India on account of the Kashmir conflict) and used as a forum to spread antisemitism?Handyunits (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:DECISION and WP:NPOV. Both the controversial Durban conference and 'is caste system racism or a form of racism' are notable and relevant. Including a short paragraph or two on Durban isn't equivalent to over-emphasis. A balanced, NPOV summary of all sides from WP:RS sources will enhance this wiki article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

I realise that there are still substantial developments going on with this article but I do think that we need to address the lead section, which is now a complete mess. I have just tightened up a couple of very minor points, but I have also removed citations of Risley and Crook. Aside from the obvious (ie: whereas there really should be no cites in the lead, we actually have a WP:CITEKILL situation at present), neither of those sources are remotely suitable. We could use Risley etc as a source for his own opinions - he was a scientific racist, for example - but those opinions are so discredited that we really should not use him in support of any "normal" statement regarding caste, and when we use him at all then we have to make it abundantly clear that his is an outmoded position.

We could tidy up the lead now and then do further work on it when more happens within the body. What we cannot do is keep putting it off because the thing is an embarrassment of poor writing and even worse style. No offence intended, btw: it is what happens in big articles. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL acknowledges the need for adding inline citations for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. Caste is a difficult and controversial topic, with opinions and prejudices common, a la Risley as you point out. While "the sky is blue" does not need a citation as WP:CITEKILL explains, common sense suggests we think twice, perhaps thrice, before removing citation from sentences in this article that are likely to be challenged, including the lead. And yes, I cheerfully welcome a major clean up. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that CITEKILL does not mean, for example, "only one cite per statement". Nonetheless, there really should not be any in the lead section. If we need them there then we are not doing our job properly (and, believe me, this place does sometimes feel like a job, albeit unpaid!). Leads summarise articles and therefore they rely on (usually) more detailed explanations given in the body of the thing. That is where the sources need to be and in the event that people begin challenging content in the lead, we refer them to the detailed exposition in the body. I acknowledge that WP:LEAD is not explicit on the principle of "no cites" but the proposition does have a significant consensus. There may be very occasional situations in which a cite is needed but certainly not to the extent that exists here.

Again, I stress that this is not a criticism. It is usually best to get the body of an article sorted out and then address the lead, precisely because we cannot summarise something that does not exist or is in poor shape. Nonetheless, things have drifted a bit here and I think that some work is justified, if only on the policy/guideline issues. BTW, the sky is not blue :-P - Sitush (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I browsed featured wikipedia articles, and randomly picked three subjects I suspected as possibly controversial: Philosophy of mind, Tulip mania and Oil shale. The leads of all three have plenty of cites. These examples do not mean all featured articles have leads with cites, or even that every controversial one does. They simply suggest citations in the lead section may be okay for some subjects. WP:LEAD is indeed silent on this. Yes, there is a difference between adequate citations and citekill. We should avoid citekill. One other thing: in the body of the article, adding additional WP:RS sources helps address WP:FRINGE concerns. For sensitive and controversial topics as this caste-related one, adding second source for something likely to get challenged, may help stabilize the quality of wiki article... for curious wiki readers, and compassionate wiki volunteers. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your random selections date from 2008 etc. Things move on and I am confident that the consensus has shifted. It is perhaps not surprising that James Tod, to which I am by far the major contributor, is cite-free and I rather think that the same applies to my GAs. More generally, for example, of the first five promoted in June (I am too lazy to check more), the only ones with lead cites are where there are quotes in the lead. Of course, we are not permitted to have unattributed quotations. I can think of no need for cites in leads other than in this situation and you should bear in mind that having a cite there usually means duplicating it in the body, which is somewhat irrational. Doubtless there may be one or two exceptions among the June list but the trend is definitely moving away from the idea. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there an archive/page for 'cites in lead' discussion and consensus? James Tod is an interesting article and likely non-controversial. Here are a few more controversial and sensitive wiki articles, similar to this caste-related one, with plenty of cites in lead: Racism in the United States, Israel, Palestine, Palestinian territories, and Feminism. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tod was/is highly controversial because he is still venerated in Rajasthan etc but the article pretty much hatchets him, which also has a significant knock-on effect with regard to using him as a source in numerous puffed-up caste articles. I'll see what I can dig up about the general issue. Can we not even prune the things, even if some might arguably remain? - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are certainly too many cites in the lead by the standards of this decade, even allowing for the controversial subject. The references are very messy, and ideally the titles should be moved down to "references", and the individual cites bundled up into a single note. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Apostle, Johnbod has most likely come here because I have recently queried this point with the Great and the Good. My query is already receiving responses from people whom we really should listen to: they are experienced, many have substantial involvement in the GA/FA etc process and Malleus himself is often referred to as one of the best writers that we have here. Feel free to join in, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  You make me blush. This is obviously a very significant article, and one that I can well see might be difficult to write, to satisfy all sides, but I really don't think that anyone would doubt that "The caste system in India is a system of social stratification" would they? So there's no need for that to be cited, at least not in the lead, which is really too long anyway; a maximum of four, maybe exceptionally five, paragraphs is the recommendation, but less can often be more. I wish you all luck with this, and I admire your bravery and resolve in tackling such an evocative and potentially controversial subject. If there's ever anything I can do to help, just ask. Just as a suggestion, it's often easier, as Sitush says, to write the lead once the article's written, but in this case I think I'd probably try and write the lead first, without citations, to try and give the article an overall shape, and then come back to the citations in the lead issue later, if necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Oops, I've just seen the warning at the top of the page; looks like this isn't a place I ought to be. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• You would be as fine here as anywhere else ... - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush and Johnbod. On the other question, the lead of this article can indeed be pruned, a lot. If you or someone has time, please clean it up. I may have some time, few days from now; I will join whoever wants to give it a try, or start the prune if no one has by then. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan scripts

I removed a few Tibetan scripts from the article a few minutes ago. I have since been told that they existed for the purposes of verification. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Caste system versus class system

What is difference between caste system and social class system such as in the Great Britain? From article, it is not clear. Why does one country or community have a "class system" and another countries be thought to be a "caste system"? All countries have or had class systems, especially during feudal period.

I removed examples I thought were incorrect, e.g. West Indians in United Kingdom were not a class or caste. They were called "darkies" and discrimination because of negro race. Also Burakumin are not a "Buddhist community" nor is the whole of Japan (see Shinto influence).

It seemed that in a few places the authors seem to equate "caste system" with untouchability which is not the whole picture.

It is strange that such a long topic can be written about caste but not mention guna, karma, Vedas or Manusmṛti.

And why also topic Varna (Hinduism)? Same, no? --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste and Tribes

Sindh and Pakistan Punjab have muslim tribes such as Jat, Awan, Arrain, Rajput etc. In India, the Hindu equivalents of Rajput and Jat would be called caste. So my question is when does a tribe become a caste and vice versa?Jonathansammy (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If they're a tribe then they are not a caste, per your statement. Ours not to reason why etc, since this page is for discussion of improvements to the article and the article relates to caste in India, not tribes in Pakistan. I realise that pre-independence India included present-day Pakistan but we all know that there are Muslim and even Christian communities that were treated as a part of the caste system: you are probably creating an issue where none exists, at least in the context of this article. A visit to the help desk might be worthwhile, although I suspect that you already have an answer and yours is a rhetorical device. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

SiTush, You are absolutely right ! As you have educated yourself a lot over the last year by going over Risley's work, you must have noticed that he and other writers from the colonial era used the two words interchangeably. Rajput is a case in point. Let's put India and Pakistan aside and just talk about Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs. Why is the former group called a caste and and the latter a tribe ? By calling themselves Rajputs , the muslim group is implicitly acknowledging their Hindu roots and so once again, why this change in definition? This article will not be complete unless this issue is tackled. I will add material to that effect once I find suitable references.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Castes and Tribes

Sindh and Pakistan Punjab have muslim tribes such as Jat, Awan, Arrain, Rajput etc. In India, the Hindu equivalents of Rajput and Jat would be called caste. An 8th century document called Chachnamawhich is similar to the Doomsday book gives detailed information on communities and culture of Sindh. The groups mentioned in that document still exist in Modern day Gujarat as castes and in Sindh as tribes. These are just two examples to illustrate my point. So my question is when does a tribe become a caste and vice versa? Jonathansammy (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please the the section that you started immediately above this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't know what happened here !Jonathansammy (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Over the past few weeks, there has only been one constructive edit (not including reversions to fix said vandalism). All of these have come from either anonymous users or from an account that appears to have been created solely to vandalize the page (see Special:Contributions/Slaggylindsey). As the volume isn't particularly great and is relatively easily taken care of, I have refrained from requesting semi-protection, however, I am not exactly a frequent contributor, and am unsure if this is the appropriate course of action. The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection states that 5% of edits being vandalism is common and thus not warranting of protection, however, in the past 3 weeks, more than 50% of edits have been vandalism. That said, this has only recently begun and it seems easy to take care of for the time being. Further input on the matter from other would be appreciated; I don't want to waste admins' time reviewing an article's history that will simply result in the denial of protection. -- Jonathan FarnhamJ 20:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Is it normal/appropriate for the introduction to read: "The Jātis were grouped by the Brahminical texts under the four well-known caste categories and no one liked them and blah blah blah(the varnas)"? Doesn't quite look encyclopedia-like to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.105.169 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That was vandalism, automatically reverted by a bot within a minute of it being posted. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gandhi

please remove gandhi photo from here, he is a castiest, who advocated for chathurvarna system which is the root cause of caste system (Anon User)

Two verifiable sources disagree with this, have you any reputable sources to back up this claim? Jonathan FarnhamJ 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there an official list of all caste?

The article List of Indian castes is up for deletion, some arguing whether or not there is proof which are real caste and which aren't. Is there an official government list somewhere, census data from India, or anything official which list every single caste there is? Dream Focus 14:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Geez, I've told you this and you should take it in good faith as someone who contributes heavily to this sphere. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

None that you could find, but common sense, they must be out there somewhere. Perhaps they aren't written in English. Seriously, has anyone checked the census of India yet? Dream Focus 14:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Found it. [9] They started their census in 1881 and stopped keeping track of caste in 1931. So just need to find the census list before that time. Dream Focus 14:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Do you really think that I am that stupid? You are so wrong about that but feel free to waste your time. Those Raj censuses are deemed to be unreliable. Read H. H. Risley for a primer. Honestly, if it were not for the fact that we are all equal here, I'd be pulling rank on you because I really do not like the way you are approaching this. However, you'll learn something from it, so all will end well. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable how? For accuracy of numbers? Not unreliable for listing the names of the caste though. [10] And you are being rather rude and arrogant. Dream Focus 15:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As I said in the AFD discussion, someone already collected the data from official census documents for the article 1891 Census of India. Even if you doubt the accuracy of their numbers, obviously they wouldn't get the names of their caste wrong. Dream Focus 15:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are stumbling on here. It is not merely the numbers that are in dispute, the classifications and names are disputed. The whole thing was an exercise in social engineering by a bunch of ill-informed scientific racists. Try to find the equivalent list for 1881, for example, and you'll wonder how in a decade a shed load of communities suddenly ceased to exist, while another shedload appeared out of nowhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The names absolutely are in dispute. Look at Lodhi, for example, or Pallar, two just off the top of my head for which a variety of sources give different names. In some cases, like Lodhi, WP:COMMONNAME seems to narrow us in on the title, but for Pallar the name of the community is actually a point of dispute. In the Pallar article itself we discuss the complex naming issue, but such a discussion could not occur on the list. In fact, I don't even know if either of those would go on the list, since it's unclear that either group meets the definition of a caste. Dream Focus, it has been well established across the project that official government surveys from the British rule were horribly inaccurate, because, in many cases, the British rulers simply asked the group whom they happened to like "So...who lives here?" and, unsurprisingly, those favored groups gave names, numbers, and rankings that benefited themselves. This is established historical fact. Because I love analogies--would you rely on Aristotle for a list of elements? You could rely on Aristotle, of course, to tell you a list of elements that (some of the) Ancient Greeks believed existed (5 of them, in fact), but you certainly wouldn't rely upon it for an article entitled List of elements. So, yeah, I suppose we could create an article called List of castes in the 1891 British census of India, but I'm not sure that such historical minutia is within our remit (since it would basically just be a copy of the source document less numbers). But I guess I wouldn't oppose such an article, so long as someone has a copy of that census. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Any such article (1891 list etc) would need an introduction that explains the modern academic take on the thing. There are books around that discuss such things and frequently rip into the outcomes. I've used a couple somewhere - one being an edited collection of papers - but it will take me a while to dig out the titles. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

CASTE IS NOT BASED ON SKIN COLOR/MAHABHARATA MISTRANSLATION

No where in the Mahabharata or any Hindu scripture does it indicate that caste is based on physical characteristics such as skin color. There is a clear mistranslation of the Mahabharata with a political agenda.

Please fix this.