Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Destruction of Caste system in India through inter-caste marriages

• Inter-caste marriages are in national interest: court
• Inter-caste marriages in national interest: SC
• Marry outside caste in Himachal, get Rs.75,000! (Himachal Pradesh Newsletter)
• India: Cash reward offered for inter-caste marriages
• Maharashtra to give Rs 50,000 for inter-caste marriage Soham321 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• SC orders police cover for inter-caste married couple
• Court gives police protection to bride in intercaste marriage Soham321 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Steady rise in inter-caste marriages involving dalits
• Silent revolution: Rise in marriages of others to dalits Soham321 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• A case for inter-caste marriages Soham321 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Law and honour Soham321 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a link to the 2006 Supreme Court of India judgement which first spoke of promoting the idea of inter-caste marriages as a means of destroying the caste system: Full Judgement. And this is the relevant extract:

  The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.

  Soham321 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And your point is? We don't have to start a new section for everything but I'm guessing you think this should be included in the article? - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. This new section needs to be added to the main article. Soham321 (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need a separate section. We've got too many as it is and a paragraph would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, since this is a very important topic. Let us hear other opinions on this matter.Soham321 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush. We can't start talking about devoting an entire section before even finding a scholarly source. Newspapers are only good for day-to-day news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

For a Supreme Court of India judgement saying that inter-caste marriages should be promoted as a means to destroy the caste system, what would you consider a "scholarly source"? The actual judgement? Also, if not newspapers, then what should be considered a scholarly source when it comes to incentives of state governments to help promote inter-caste marriages? Soham321 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The article does not mention the violence targeted at inter-caste marriage couples. The Supreme Court verdict was a notable verdict in that regard, as it asked the centre to protect such couples, and such violent cases later led to the drafting of Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011. I think at least this should be noted in the article. However, if the editors don't agree, we would like to commit the rest of the proposed edits to the Inter-caste marriage article, which also requires attention. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A suitably general topic for a section could be the role of caste in marriage. That section could cover endogamy, inter-caste marriages, violence etc. A possible source from a random web search is: Contingent Caste Endogamy and Patriarchy: Lessons for Our Understanding of Caste, Economic and Political Weekly, 2014. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And hypergamy. The idea of intercaste marriage is nothing new. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a welcome change. The article mentions increasing inter-caste marriages, but does not mention how are they are being received by the society. Resistance to such marriages and honor killings should be mentioned. -Kenfyre (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kenfyre, I agree that actual or attempted violence on couples who go for inter-caste marriages should also be mentioned, although it can be pointed out that such cases typically occur in rural India and not urban India. Also, there have been several instances where the courts have given police protection to couples who have gone for inter-caste marriages and who have faced threats of violence. Of course the Supreme Court of India judgement i have cited was the first time the Supreme Court took the stance of actively encouraging and promoting inter-caste marriages with the idea of ultimately destroying the caste system. It can be investigated whether there are other supreme court or high court judgements in this matter. Soham321 (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I will work on it and let you know when I complete it. -Kenfyre (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All these are poor quality sources, sorry. This article should scrub out all news-based content. Find and summarize recent, scholarly, reliable secondary sources with peer review or editorial oversight. Go for quality. Paulmuniz (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India judgements can be considered on par with any peer reviewed research paper. There is no restriction about not including noteworthy material from reliable news publications according to wikipedia rules. Let us not invent our own rules. However i agree that material from research papers can also be added to this section. Here is one such paper: [ http://epc2010.princeton.edu/abstracts/100157 Paper] and Full Text Soham321 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Andre Beteille

@Human3015: You reverted my deletion [1]. So, can you explain what is meant by this statement? The term "caste" is only about 400 years old. How could it mean something for 2000 years? And, what is your response to my criticism that he is not a historian? Are you claiming that he is a historian? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It may be your POV, but we are quoting other author, as this topic mentions views of many authors regarding various issues, we should retain this too. You can question and prove authenticity of author instead of your opinion. I'm seeing this topic repeatedly edited by some editors, I wanted to edit this article but I waited till all editors done with their edits and I will review this article later. But your recent edit is pure POV edit. For many things like "British established Caste system" etc source of individual authors has been given, then why not for this recent edit? You should prove that author is fake. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever might be my "POV", you haven't answered any of my questions. Do you know what this statement means? Do you know if he is a historian? As per WP:HISTRS, he needs to be a historian to be a reliable source for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And I'm just saying that you have to prove that he is not historian before deleting content. Onus is on you as you are deleting content, this content is not added by me. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When you reinstate text, WP:BURDEN transfers to you. So, you must defend it. Or, you are free to give up and remove it. Your choice. This talk page has a header that warns you that sanctions are in effect. So, edit-warring just for the fun of it is not on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are twisting the fact, You removed content not me, so natural onus is on you, I just restored sourced content as I do it on various pages, I'm recent changes patroller, its your POV that author is not historian, while you have not provided any evidence for that. Do you know author personally to claim that he is not historian? --Human3015 knock knock • 16:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And Kautilya3, kindly read sourced article Andre Beteille to know more about him, he is specialist historian on "Caste system" and even Government of India honored him. So don't delete his findings specially when we have kept very trival claims from other authors in article. Of course I will review it those trival claims from other authors later, I'm ready to go till dispute resolution board for those claims or even more. Let me know when you all done with this article. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) If you want to be a recent changes patroller, then it is all the more important for you to know the policies. WP:BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (The bold face emphasis copied from the policy page.) Your attempt to wiggle out of WP:BURDEN is laughable. To reinstate the text, you should know and be sure that it should stay. How can you possibly reinstate it without any checking? Have you looked at Andre Beteille page? Have you looked at the source? Have you checked the qualifications? Have you read my edit summary? Your casual attitude to this appalling! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you have now checked the page. But somehow you mistook "sociologist" to mean "historian"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, don't give false logics for your POV. Caste is social stratification, sociologist can comment on it. Well noted historian Ramachandra Guha praised him. We can't delete someone's research on this grounds that you are saying. To not having sociologist's opinion on this article you have to deny that caste system is social stratification and have to accept that caste system is "historic" or "religious" stratification. --Human3015 knock knock • 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS clearly mentions "social scientists and scholars in the humanities". Andre Beteille is a sociologist.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that is fair enough. But if historians contradict what he says, should we take his word for it? Do you think it is the intent of WP:HISTRS that non-specialist social scientists should trump historians? Secondly, what is the answer to my question about the term "caste" not existing for 2000 years, whereas the sentence seemingly implies that it did? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement in our article doesn't quite reflect what the journal paper says. I've just added the JSTOR link, for those who may have access. I can fix the thing myself but it won't be for a few hours. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Beteille is an influential scholar of caste, and his perspectives should definitely be included in the article. They are however somewhat dated, and possibly not considered to be the best possible account, for which reason it would make sense to attribute them to him, and discuss the problems others may have found with it. I believe that Arjun Appadurai has some critiques of Beteille and Dumont's views in his "Putting Hierarchy in its place" and in "is Homo hierarchichus?".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Sitush, adding tag is ok, but deleting findings of government recognized Sociologist on social issue of caste is not fair. If you people know about field of Sociology it also includes study of social systems in past. Moreover if any government recognized historian contradicts it then one can add his views too after Andre's statement to neutralize it.--Human3015 knock knock • 19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you, Human3015, don't worry. There is only so much I can do at one time and right now I am not particularly well, so I'm doing things in small batches. I'm happy to continue expanding the Definitions/Concepts section and have some plans of my own. Somewhere above I did say that we should aim for a sort of review of the various theories, although obviously the weight has to favour the presently accepted one(s). - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed. The statement in the source is, "In the classical literature of India, caste was represented as varna and for two thousand years, when Hindus wrote about it, they did so characteristically in the idiom of varna." (emphasis added). So, this is a statement about the classical literature of India, which apparently got lost in the transmission. It is not a statement about the historical notion of caste and, in fact, Andre Beteille never claimed expertise in the history of caste. He is only raising the question in this paper (actually a talk), why is it that the classical literature only talked about varna, but the contemporary discussion is all about jati? That is an interesting question. But it doesn't much have to do with the purposes of our article. So, I see no need for this statement. Sitush has already covered, earlier in the section, the meanings of caste in both the senses. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, Indeed, Beteille is great. There is no proposal to banish him from the article. But we clearly don't want his views twisted and misrepresented, and thrown about callously in this manner. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt about how best to summarize a scholars works, it is a good idea to read how other scholars have summarized and critically engaged them. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

One can read opinions of others scholars which support Andre's findings, [2], [3], [4], [5] --Human3015 knock knock • 20:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to cite crappy sources, as some of those are. People like Beteille can pretty much rest on their own laurels. Let's not start source-bombing again - there is enough of that in a section above concerning inter-caste marriage. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read through the Andre Beteille's paper. It is a really illuminating treatment of jati. True to my expectations, there is no history in there and not much about varna either. I have expanded the discussion of it in the article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your changes are certainly much closer to the mark as far as that paper goes. Saves me some effort, too, which is always a bonus! - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Review article: Caste in 21st Century India: Competing Narratives [6] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Jati and marriage

The current text, citing Bayly and also Samuel, reads, "A feature of jātis has been that a person in a given jāti is frequently expected to marry someone from the same community."

But Susan Bayly (2001 edition) writes, "Both in the past and for many though not all Indians in more modern times, those born into a given caste would normally expect to find marriage partners within these limits [kin groups / descent units / caste]." (p. 10)

And Geoffrey Samuel writes, "As has been shown by a wide variety of anthropological studies (e.g. L Dumont 1972), the most typical form of the South Asian caste system actually consists of a large number of in-marrying subgroups (jati)." (p. 87)

The text above needs a revision. The current wording makes one wonder, "frequently expected by whom" and the two cites do not state this. Alternate suggested wording: 1. "A feature of jatis has been that a person in a given jati frequently expects to find marriage partner in his or her jati". or, 2. "A feature of jatis has been endogamy, where an individual born in a jati typically expects to find marriage partners in his or her jati." or, something better.

One can additionally include "frequently expected to" language, but with a reliable source that so writes.

Paulmuniz (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The ready answer for "expected by whom" is by societal norms. Romila Thapar wrote "were required to observe specific marriage regulations" (p. 124). I hope we are not going to ask, "required by whom?" -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2015

Castes in India (Caste System In India) : Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

Anup T Dhate 08:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what edit you want made. Please state it in the form "Change X to Y." - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Baudhayana and mixed marriages

A lot of scholars cite Baudhayana while writing on the caste system and mixed marriages in classical India. But, we have not mentioned him.

• Baudhayana thinks that all these castes came into existence as a result of mixed marriages. -(2005 Om Prakash)
• Here another source again mentions Baudhayana and mixed marriages, according to the Baudhayana Dharmasutra they (Nishada) are a condemned caste being issues of brahmana women and shudra men. -(1996 Jayant Gadkari)

Better sources may yet be found. But, I think we should mention Baudhayana, and others like Vasishtha and Gautama Maharishi under "Classical period".

Furthermore, Kautilya's text also mentions castes and mixed marriages, A Palrasava son begotten by a Bráhman on a Súdra woman, shall take 1/3rd share; a sapinda, (an agnate) or a kulya (the nearest cognate), of the Bráhman shall take the remaining two shares, being thereby obliged to offer funeral libation; in the absence of agnates or cognates, the deceased father's teacher or student shall take the two shares. Various scholars' views on this text should also be included. All these sources support that mixed marriages were allowed in classical India, but the children of such marriages were not consider to be of the same varna (asavarna) as their father. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we are not necessarily interested in what the primary sources of old ages say. We need to bother about them only if WP:HISTRS sources accept those claims as being true to some extent. Do you know of such sources? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger Boesche in his paper Moderate Machiavelli? Contrasting The Prince with the Arthashastra of Kautilya says: 1. Kautilya outlined in a traditional fashion the ‘special duties’ of the four classes., and in his book The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra he says 2. In early pages of Book I, he even more specific in maintaining that the king must uphold the system of class and caste, as well as the opportunity for individuals to pursue the four stages of life (page 21). Boesche's other works also cover caste in Arthashastra. Are sources like these acceptable? -Kenfyre (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A secondary source that says "Kautilya said X" is of no help. It only establishes that Kautilya said X. To know whether X was true at that point in time, you need to find a historian that studied the issue. Unless you know whether X was true or not, you can't decide whether to include it in the article. That is what we mean when we say use WP:HISTRS sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out in the "Classical period (320-650 CE)" subsection, first it is merely quoted what Mahabharata said. Then only some of Alf Hiltebeitel's opinions are added. But, there is no mention of Anushasana Parva where the roles of castes in marriages is more detailed. As noted by Arti Dhand, Anusana Parva said that a Brahmana may take four wives from each caste, a Ksatriya one from each three castes except from Brahmana, Vaisya two from Vaisya and Sudra, and Sudra one from Sudra caste. Also, we are only focusing on Mahabharata which is primarily mythology, but actual historical texts by Baudhayana and Kautilya have not been mentioned. Ram Sharan Sharma has quoted Baudhayana and Vasishtha: Apastamba and Baudhayana provided purification rituals for those who have connections with a women of sudra varna, he then says that Baudhayana's rule was added later, because Vasistha allowed Ksatriyas to take one Vaisya and Sudra wife. I reiterate my request that the rules governing mixed marriages be included in the section.-Kenfyre (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I have to remind you that talking about primary sources is WP:OR. Hiltebeitel is WP:HISTRS as far as I know. R. S. Sharma is definitely WP:HISTRS. If you add material sourced to either of them, faithfully, nobody would have an objection. Well, we might have to give WP:DUE weightage to multiple points of view. But that can come later. The criterion is not what you think is important, but rather what the WP:HISTRS state as being important. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which sources get cited. I just want to the section to mention mixed marriages rules prevailing at the time. Ram Sharan Sharma and Arti Dhand at least have considered it important. You may decided which of the source I have linked are appropriate. But, I would like point to out that Arti Dhand's book linked above is not WP:OR. Currently, the section only mentions Alf Hiltebeitel's opinions and no other scholar's opinions are mentioned. This is not WP:BALANCE. I hope it is rectified soon. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an article called Varna (Hinduism). Please feel put your marriage rules there. This article should cover material sourced to WP:HISTRS, and only mention ideas that the historians accept as historical facts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I think both the sources Ram Sharan Sharma and Arti Dhand have considered it as historical fact and thus are WP:HISTRS, and should be allowed in the section. But, I agree Varna (Hinduism) page also needs work. Also, what I don't understand is: why only Alf Hiltebeitel's opinions on the Mahabharata are there in that section, given his opinions are far from the academic consensus on the topic. This is not WP:Balance. More scholars' opinions should be included in that section.-Kenfyre (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have already said that if you add historical facts sourced to HISTRS sources, nobody would have an objection. But you need documentation from the sources about what is historically true, not what the ancient texts say. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Women in the Caste System

This article may benefit from a subsection on how women specifically play a role in the caste system. Ensquared (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

"effects" is spelled incorrectly near the middle of the article 24.160.153.222 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh

Neel.arunabh, why do you keep deleting references?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he was trying to fix the big red error messages "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name FOOTNOTEGupta2000212 defined multiple times with different content" that appear in the article. He tried to fix a similar problem in the Deepika Padukone article without much success. But he was surely well-intentioned. Biwom (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a plausible explanation for his first edit [7]. But I have no idea why he started deleting the Bayly references next. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, there was a Bayly reference giving an error too. So, yes, this user was trying to help, though in a misguided way.

The problem was apparently that the "ps=" parameters had to be exactly the same every place where the same sfn reference occurs. This must be a bug in the sfn template. I have fixed it now. @Sitush:, please note! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetic research supports Indian Caste System

DNA analysis of various samples across India has revealed that there are strong genetic differences that are drawn based on caste lines. "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheetal (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That has been discussed here earlier. See Archive 12. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Caste in Buddhism

I think it is unlikely that Buddhism ever challenged caste.

"On the basis of the evidence of the Buddhist sources it appears that there was no complex system of ranking in the society reflected in them. Instead a simpler two tier system of stratification is indicated...A basic opposition between high and low appears in the context of jati, kula, kamma (work), and sippa (craft); thus there are high jatis and low jatis; high kulas and low kulas; high kamma and low kamma; and high sippas and low sippas." (Chakravarti, Uma (2 March 1985), "Towards a Historical Sociology of Stratification in Ancient India: Evidence from Buddhist Sources", Economic and Political Weekly, 20 (9): 356–360, JSTOR 4374135)

Yes, Buddhism challenged the supremacy of Brahmins. But, the idea that Buddhism challenged caste itself seems to be a convenient modern fiction. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a modern Ambedkar fiction. Buddhism is full of varna and jati. For example the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra states:

For a brahmin, one should sacrifice twenty times over seven days. For a kshatriya, one should sacrifice seven times, and for a vaishya, five times. For a shudra, sacrifice three times, and for an outcaste, once. ----Cakrasamvara Tantra by David Gray, page 328

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Like other forces, it tried to, but historically essentially failed (the present day perhaps excluded). Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that it tried to fight it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should first say the difference between challenge and fight. If you say fight you are probably right, but challenge has a different meaning.

There are no exhortations to laypeople to treat everyone as a social equal in early Buddhist texts,but monks and nuns are expected to do so. The Ambattha Sutta states that anyone who makes snobbish distinctions of rank is far from wisdom. Thus monks and nuns are supposed to accept food from everyone, irrespective of caste. In short, caste was accepted in society, but it was rejected in the Sangha.

For the Buddha, so far as we know from the Pali canon, caste was irrelevant to salvation and to moral worth, but it was, none the less, a fact of life in the social world. -- David N. Gellner

[8] In the context of challenge, even if you redefine something that is a challenge. In this context they are challenging the importance of it. They may not be fighting that it shouldn't exist, but it's still a challenge.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is the phrasing of the sentence that is the problem. Religions are not actors. Religious people are actors and they do different things. Some hindus have used religious conversion to religions that do not have caste as part of their doctrinal worldview as a way to challenge the caste system. But other members of those religions have espoused forms of religious practice that are compatible with caste. Today many hindus think caste is not part of hinduism. That does not mean that hinduism has challenged or abolished caste - it means that there is a movement within hinduism to redefine hinduism in a way so that caste is no longer an essential part of it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone Dies In the End, Buddhism is not reduced to Pali Canon or even the Buddha. The dominant form of Buddhism in medieval India, or even the modern day, is Mahayana.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You realize that your statement has no worth for the argument at hand? The question was has Buddhism ever challenged the caste? In context I gave says yes it has. Pali Canon was formed in Northern Indian. Whether or not it caught on in India or not is irreverent. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, the same Gellner article also says There are no exhortations to laypeople to treat everyone as a social equal in early Buddhist texts, but monks and nuns are expected to do so. If this is the extent of the challenge made by Buddhism, it is not all that different from Hinduism. Even Hindu ascetics and renouncers do not follow caste distinctions (at least in theory). They also believe that, in the normal society, one has to follow them. Hindus also believe that salvation can be obtained by anybody by following the right religious precepts. None of these things make any difference to the practice. So, I am afraid it is still not established that Buddhism mounted any challenge to caste that is worth mentioning. - Kautilya3 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Also even basic Hindu texts such as Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads challenge Brahmins.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You are all going about it the wrong way. Caste is a system of social practices originating within Hinduism, these social practices have been challenged by people of different religions including Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone Dies In the End, the Pali Canon is not entirely historical. Which is why your own source says "so far as we know from the Pali canon".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, That is indeed the propaganda and widely held belief, including by scholars like Steve Cohen. VG and I would be satisfied if a WP:HISTRS is cited to say that Buddhism challenged caste. Or we just go back to Steve Cohen. Ambedkar speaking through Gail Omvedt's voice is not going to cut it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Cut what? I have already explained that trying to attribute agency to a religion as opposed to the religions practitioners is an exercise in futility. Buddhism doesnt challenge anything. Buddhists sometimes do. Ambedkar for example did. If there is a myth that Buddhism rose as a response to caste, and in this way originated as a challenge to caste, then we need a source that says that explicitly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Making of Buddhist Modernism, page 94-95 says:

The Buddha often was portrayed in the latter decades of the nineteenth century as a noble ethical reformer who rejected the caste system and set forth a touching doctrine of infinite compassion for all beings. Henry Steel Olcott saw the Buddha as a figure much like the ideal liberal freethinker—someone full of “benevolence,” “gratitude,” and “tolerance,” who promoted “brotherhood among all men" as well as "lessons in manly self-reliance"

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a fine quote that suggests two things: 1. Some buddhists in certain periods have portrayed buddha and buddhism as a challenge to the caste system. 2. It did not originally challenge the caste system. So simultaneously the quote demonstrates that yes, buddhism, in some of its forms have challenged the caste system and that there is nothing inherent in buddhism that challenges the caste system (just like there isnt in Christianity or Islam).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The sentence from the Steve Cohen book is as follows:

Over the centuries the system has been successively (but not always successfully) challenged by Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and many reformist Hindu movements. Some caste identities are not easily shed, and caste-based differences are still to be found among Indian Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

So, he is clear that it is religions that have challenged caste, and it is the practitioners who continue to follow them. We say that "religions" challenge caste when it is done through their established doctrines and led by religious authorities of one kind or another. This is different from socially-conscious leaders belonging to a religion mounting challenges.

The popular belief in India as well as outside is that Buddha himself challenged caste and his doctrines have been followed over the centuries and that, in fact, this challenge was the reason for the popularity and growth of Buddhism in India (in historical times). This belief does seem to be wrong. This is what I have called "modern fiction." - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a very meager basis for info in the lead that lacks any further info in the article. At least it should be attributed. Does Cohen provide any source for his statement? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

More on Caste in Buddhism

I find that there is more to caste in Buddhism than at first appeared. First of all, Uma Chakravarti states that, at the time of Buddha, the varna system was just a brahmanical theory, it wasn't actually in existence. However jati and kula were certainly in existence, and it appears that the jatis were already endogamous. Buddhists did not challenge the jati and kula or the idea of high and low. But, the Buddha did challenge the idea that the high and low were divine, or the idea that anybody had an inherent privilege.

That all human beings share certain characteristics--all are born through similar biological processes--is stressed by the Buddha who mocks at the brahmanas for trying to place themselves above everyone else. Similarly, the brahmanical attempts to appropriate the means of production through large land grants from the king are also disapproved of by the Buddha. There is also a rejection of the permanency of categories among owners of the means of production and its corollary that there is a permanency of servility; the buyers of labour and services are mutable, as ayyas need not always remain masters or dasas slaves. Status, as linked to control over the means of production, is in any case not permanent because it is not inherent, and it is certainly not divine as the brahmanical texts are trying to represent it. Further, the king who is a pivot of the political system is never perceived as someone who must uphold the status order of varna or jati.

I think that, on these grounds, we must say that Buddhism challenged the caste system. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Really? A left-wing feminist book? "Means of production" is straight out of Marxism. Lastly, Buddhism is not reduced to Buddha. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And so what? Whether an author uses Marxist theory has no impact whatsoever on the suitability of using their work as a source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Chakraborty, Buddhist texts and caste

Kautilya3,

1. Uma Chakraborty also writes, "In the Buddhist texts there is no established link among endogamy, occupation specialization and birth based hierarchy, with attendant privileges and diabilities." (p. 49) Isn't one or all that the necessary characteristic of "caste system" as contextually implied in this article? Is Chakraborty talking about a caste system in that quote above, or she implying something else?

2. Buddha did not write the books Chakraborty is referring to. Dating ancient Indian texts has proven to be impossible so far. The earliest Tibetan, Chinese and Nepalese texts are from the common era. The texts Chakraborty refers to were likely written several centuries after Buddha died. They do not mention a caste "system", or "social" stratification system. Power struggle is not proof of a caste system.

3. There are many good sources to consider on this subject. Peter Masefield's book on Pali Buddhism has a discussion on (lack of) caste in ancient India society. I will try to post a few suggestions on this talk page in a few weeks.

Paulmuniz (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Uma Chakravarti is clear that the caste system in our sense was not fully formed during the pre-classical period. However, birth-based hierarchy was the major development of this period, and hierarchy is also apparent in occupations. Dipankar Gupta's thesis of "varna to jati" is completely shot. Chakravarti demonstrates that jatis were well-defined already in Buddha's time. She shows that brahmanas and kshatriyas were actually referred to as jatis in Buddhist texts, suggesting that jatis predated the varna system.

I don't see what difference it makes whether Buddha wrote the texts or whether he formulated the ideas that the texts attribute to him. These texts are clearly from the pre-classical period. (Common era is not of any interest here.) The hierarchies described do indeed constitute a stratification system.

I don't think there is much opposition between Masefield and Chakravarti, except that Masefield is using a more rigid notion of caste whereas Chakravarti is focused on the issues of hierarchy. Once we adjust the terminology, I don't see much disagreement between them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Chakraborty, Buddhist texts and caste, Part 2

(sorry for length, but it is largely because of fair use quotes from multiple scholars)

Kautilya3, your "thesis of varna to jati is completely shot" is too strong a statement. I don't see where Chakraborty is concluding this or even offering persuasive arguments, either way. Are you referring another publication or chapter of Chakraborty?

1. Chakraborty writes, "this may have been a consequence..." (p.49), "the ultimate elaboration was likely to have been..." (p.49), "Nevertheless where jati is regarded as relevant to marriage, it is possible that a notion..." (p.48), etc. All this is tentative hypothesis.

2. If we accept Buddhist texts as authentic sociological records, the evidence is contrrary.

2a. "In the Ambatthasutta the young brahman Ambattha visits the Buddha to see if he carries the 32 marks of a great man (maha-purisa), and becomes involved in a discussion about caste, in which the Buddha proves that the ksatriyas sakyas are superior to the brahmans. The sutta was clearly composed at a time when the 32 marks were already in existence." - §.3, Silakkhandhavagga

2b. "Sakyamuni preferred to recruit his monks among the "noble young people who give up the household life for that of a mendicant"." - p.9, Vinaya Book 1

3. Buddhist scholars disagree with the Chakraborty thesis on caste and Buddhism. Richard Gombrich, an accepted and reliable scholar on Buddhism (unlike Chakraborty), writes (Theravada Buddhism, 2nd Ed, Routledge (2006)),

3a. "Secondly, my interpretation puts me at odds with those who see the Buddha as a social reformer. Certainly, in consenting to preach and then in establishing an Order of monks to do likewise, he showed his great compassion and concern for mankind. Moreover, he was supremely kind and understanding towards everyone, so far as we can tell. But his concern was to reform individuals and help them to leave society forever, not to reform the world. Life in the world he regarded as suffering, and the problem to which he offered a solution was the otherwise inevitable rebirth into the world. Though it could well be argued that the Buddha made life in the world more worth living, that surely was an unintended consequence of his teaching. To present him as a sort of socialist is a serious anachronism. He never preached against social inequality, only declared its irrelevance to salvation. He neither tried to abolish the caste system nor to do away with slavery. While a famous sermon, the Samañña-phala Sutta, stresses the practical benefits for a slave in leaving his servitude and joining the Order, in fact runaway slaves were not allowed to join the Order. Moreover, though in ancient India there was no caste or other form of social ranking within the Order itself, the Order soon came to own slaves." (p.30)

3b. "To ascribe unwelcome happenings to malign volition, whether single or collective, human or divine, Popper calls "the conspiracy theory of society". Unfortunately, popular perceptions of society are very often conspiracy theories. The Indian caste system and the British slump are ascribed to ‘them’, pointing at those who most benefit (or suffer least) from the situation, or at others whom one dislikes and distrusts. But it is utterly naive to ascribe the origin of the caste system to a brahmin conspiracy, even if individual brahmins exploit their advantage under the system once it is in place." (p.17)

4. Paul Williams writes (Buddhist Thought - A complete introduction to the Indian tradition, Routledge (2000)),

4a. "Over the years Indian social actuality going back many centuries has seen not just four but hundreds of castes (jatis) and subcastes. If we try and relate class to caste, varna to jati, class is classical Brahmanic ideology, while caste is historical and modern actuality. They are different." (p. 14)

4b. "The extent to which the varna ideology influenced the actual social divisions in the region from which the Buddha came, a fringe area in the Himalayan foothills, is still very unclear", (p. 15) and

4c. "The Buddha was critical of the intrinsic supremacy of the brahmins, and with it the ideology of varna. But it would be misleading from this to infer, as some modern writers do, that the Buddha was ‘anti-caste’. First, a criticism of the varna system is not in itself a comment on jati, caste, although it could be transposed to the ideology that nevertheless underlies caste. For his part the Buddha spoke of the true brahmin as one who had spiritual insight and behaves accordingly (see the famous Dhammapada Ch. 26). In this sense the Buddha affirmed a hierarchy not of birth but of spiritual maturity. It is not obvious that the Buddha would have any comment to make about a brahmin who is also spiritually mature (understood in the Buddha’s sense). The Buddha was not offering social reform." (p. 245)

5. Study the evidence in medieval society outside India. In Sri Lanka, and other Theravada Buddhist regions, caste system rules existed even in parts with no Hindu presence from at least 10th to 19th century (Rita Langer, 2007). If origins of caste in these parts of Asia could be blamed on "ancient Hinduism", we are still left with the unanswered questions, "was Buddhism a social reform movement? if we tentatively allow the premise that Buddhism in its origin may have been a social reform movement, why did these non-Indian regions with almost 100% Buddhism and sangha of monks, and no Hinduism, not eliminate the "theoretically ancient" social stratification, why did Buddhist so strongly observe a caste system for centuries"? (To be fair, the reported caste system in Sri Lanka and other Theravada communities came primarily from letters and reports by Christian missionaries of 18th and 19th centuries. We must ask if the missionaries had an agenda, and were they neutral in their observations outside India and in India?)

6. I believe Masefield view is different than Chakraborty. I will recheck Peter Masefield. Greg Bailey's 2010 book has a good chapter on caste and Buddhism. Bailey also critiques Chakraborty/Thapar style caste theories about early Buddhism, and makes the same points as Gombrich/Williams/Langer/others. All views should be reflected, nevertheless, for balance.

Paulmuniz (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

7. Richard Gombrich, Caste in the Monastery, in Buddhist Precept & Practice, Routledge: An empirical study of historical and modern era caste system inside Buddhist monasteries (not the Buddhist or non-Buddhist society at large).

Paulmuniz (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should separate two issues:

• what caste system existed in the pre-classical period (500 BCE - 300 CE), for which Buddhist texts provide crucial evidence, and
• how far Buddhism challenged the caste system.

My primary interest at the moment is in the first issue, for which the treatment in our article is highly unsatisfactory at present in the light of the evidence presented by Chakravarti as well as other scholars like R. S. Sharma. Note that the four-fold varna system was defined by the end of the Vedic period and the Brahmins believed in it firmly ever since. To what extent the rest of the society believed in it is still unclear and Chakravarti's position is that it didn't really exist in the society, i.e., the varna system was purely Brahmanical ideology in this period. What existed in the society was actually a loose class system, with high-middle-low divisions. The "high" were the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The "middle" were the gahapatis and the "low" were the dasa-kammakaras and other jatis that later became untouchable. The high-middle-low division persists to this day, even though it is now appropriate to classify the equivalent of gahapatis as "high" rather than "middle." For this reason, what happened in the pre-classical period is quite relevant to today's situation.

As for how much Buddhism challenged the caste system, I accept that it is an issue of interpretation, and scholars might differ on how they interpret it. Chakravarti's interpretation certainly belongs in there, but only if we start writing a section on caste in Buddhism.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3,

1. We need to acknowledge two things in this article, from the cites you have provided so far.

1a. Chakraborty's admission that, in the ancient and early medieval Buddhist texts there is nothing about endogamy, occupation specialization and birth based hierarchy, with attendant privileges and diabilities, in Hindu or non-Hindu society in India. Everyone I have read, agrees.

1b. Chakraborty/Thapar-style theory on varna/jati/proto-caste in Buddhist texts, fairly summarized the way Chakraborty does it.

2. We need to summarize what Buddhism scholars have written about caste in Buddhist texts, and caste system in Buddhism in India's history.

3. Your cites do not suggest this "article is highly unsatisfactory at present in the light of the evidence presented by Chakravarti". This and your "thesis of varna to jati is completely shot" is too strong and incorrect. I don't see where Chakraborty is concluding or implying anything close, either way. Chakraborty's views are tentative. Gombrich/etc offer more reliable, widely accepted scholarship on caste in Buddhist texts.

I will draft something when I get back from the holidays.

Paulmuniz (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am focused on what caste system existed whereas you seem to be focused on what didn't exist. I am not sure we can agree on much. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)