|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Use of Caste in biographies- does it require the individual's self-declaration?
Hi, request those who are watching this page to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Caste_identification on whether mentioning a person's caste (Jati) requires that person to explicitly say that he belongs to XX caste (like in the case of religion and sexuality), or whether caste identity is objective and knowable enough (like ethnic background) to be ascertained without producing proof that the person explicitly identified with a particular caste. For example, can we identify Mulayam_Singh_Yadav as a Yadav based on newspaper articles etc., or whether we need proof that Mulayam Singh Yadav has explicitly accepted 'Yadav' as his caste (by saying, for example, something like "I am a Yadav".) Sreejiraj (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Merged in JATI. Ended up removing most of that text as it was quite irrelevant in addition to needing lots of copy-editing. The text is below, in case someone else thinks it's worthy of merging in. Ambarish | Talk 06:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jati is the name of the caste system in place in India. Its aim is to provide services that Indian society needs. New jati groups emerged as new learning and expertise were developed. This knowledge is heriditary, preserving knowledge and minimizing the need for writing material.
Since this system was so crucial to preserving Indian knowledge and skills, there were very strict rules when it came to marriage. People could only marry within their own jati class, which prevented the dillution of knowledge. The health problems of intermarriages were well known to the Indians, and so they decided that people could not marry within their own village. This had the secondary effect of distributing knowledge and techniques from one village to the next.
Warriors that invaded India were frequently integrated into its system. The warrior jati class was in chronic shortage (they tend to die a lot), so these invaders easily became part of the elite warrior jati.
The economic system did not require money or even barter. Ever person belonged to a group under a large land owner, and would be allocated resources based on their contributions to the village and their jati. A hard working peasant would get more food than a lazy one, but never as much as a priest (brahman). The jati hiearchy was based on how important different groups were perceived to be to village life, and this justified the unequal allocation of resources.
I feel that this article really omits a great deal of information about the social and economic processes by which occupational caste identities have historically been formed in India, over a number of centuries, but especially since the seventeenth century AD. Also, the impact of colonial rule on the classification of castes on occupational lines, and the discriminatory British policies that thus arose are given no mention. It could do with some some discussion of the flexibility of these identities as well, and perhaps some examples of the manner in which social groups have historically pursued, and often attained (if not outright created), new occupational caste identities in order to further their social mobilisation. I can probably add some of this at some point, but right now I have exams to be revising for! Benwilson528 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"In Hindu society each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function", this is against the Vedic teachings. According to Vedas all human race has started from Brahma. So, every ones Jati is the Jati of Brahma. One who says this is wrong is a Nastik, as he/she is not following the Vedas. Cheers BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no place for anything closer to Jati-being-related-to-Profession in the Vedas. This is a 100% corrupt human creation. Nastika is a person who do not authorize the Vedas. One who started this Jati=Profession are the highest type of Nastika in India.BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Merging Jati with Caste System of India does not make sense. Jati is not synonymous with caste. The caste system constitutes jati and varna, and therefore each of those need to be components in an article about caste, but also require separate articles. If the template is not removed within a week, I'm going to remove it. NittyG (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Removed list due to tampering risk and total lack of footnotes
The list of jatis by varna provided in the article presented a huge risk of IP tampering, and was completely uncited. I have removed this list rather than risk readers being misled. I suggest that if we are to restore the list in some form, it must be in a less-tamperable format (protected template, image as seen at 36 royal races, etc) to prevent absolutely inevitable IP attempts to "re-class" given jatis just based on personal opinion or caste-cruft. Dif for the hack is here: 
Discussion has been posted at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Varna_list_at_J.C4.81ti_-_any_basis_in_RSs.3F, your input appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
One unsourced sentance of the article states that "Tharu Boxas consider even Brahmins as untouchables". What is this Tharu Boxas? Can anybody give informaion about Tharu Boxas?-Rayabhari (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
'For instance, the Yadavs, a prominent backward class' Backwards? Says who? And in what way are they backward? Do you mean that they don't have a lot of social prestige? Or that they are from rural background aka hicks? I might be misreading this, I have English as a second language, but this phrase struck me as odd. I'm not a wiki-editor, feel free to disregard/delete/whatever I wrote. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
--In the Indian context, "backwards" usually means traditionally disadvantaged, and so entitled to certain public programs. cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Backward_Class I'm assuming the writer meant something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)