From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / West Bengal (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.


The page about kayastha > origin contain that, "Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Sudra (lower caste) and sometimes Kshatriya as well.[1]"

This not right. Please delete this line because kayastha are direct descenders of a vedic (ancient)god and it this line are degrading status of a highly status of a cast. How you can say this about a cast while considering a writer's book. This reference [1]or a book can't justify the status of a supreme cast.

I request please delete the line, in kayastha > origin section that is "Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Sudra (lower caste) and sometimes Kshatriya as well." It's degrading social status of pinnacle cast of hindu religion.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The line is properly sourced and your claim that the "kayastha are direct descenders of a vedic (ancient)god" is rooted in myth, not history. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone decides about the origins of a group solely by a single-reference, that person is still lives in Dark-age. I humbly request to pls reasearch about the topic; most of the sources/ancient texts certify that Kayastha aren't related to Shudras. Do read this and specially about the "Decisive Law suit" Kayasths- Kshatriyas or Shudras ? Pls. do enlighten yourself cuz the then "British Indian Govt. Court" declared that too. Also , read the Intro page of this Caste Rankings in India :) Indianwiki (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
So give us some reliable sources. You are not going to get better than modern academic works, for example, and law suits count for little in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Sitush O really ? so u mean that Court rulings aren't reliable ? WoW !!! You are also disrespecting the ancient works of literature. Pls. dp adhere to community talk guidelines and not hurt the sentiments of people by declaring 'ancient texts' as unreliable source.Indianwiki (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Indianblitzwiki, court rulings are considered to be primary sources. You need to find reliable sources that comment and interpret a court ruling. Note that the definition of reliable sources on Wikipedia does not say that other sources are unreliable (or, for that matter, that reliable sources are accurate). Rather, the intent is on making sure that somebody, an expert preferably, has confirmed that an interpretation or an assertion is generally accepted by, at the least, a reasonable chunk of the expert community. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
User:RegentsPark, actually what I cited wasnt a copy of court ruling, it was an interpretation only, by "experts" in the matter, if a person wud read full article they can notice that very easily; but people here are adamant and not ready to listen.Indianwiki (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Please update that the kayasthas are till date considered a Non-kshatriya community popularly called 'Non Dwija', the claimed status is outcome of Sanskritisation,See page 185... the process in fact first started by kayasthas to upgrade themselves, which was later followed by lower castes like Yadava and kurmis. Even the lowest caste like Chamars too followed the suit. historically, there is no caste in India having the proved links with the Ancient Kshatriyas, but too my surprize this fact is suppressed in this article.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the article does not mention that the Kayasthas are considered as dvijas, and there's no question of suppressing any fact. I have gone through pages 185-186 of the source you have mentioned, and there's nothing substantial apart from the fact that the source mentions the Kayasthas as non-dvijas (and discusses about caste associations or Sabhas promoting them). I am not sure about the reliability of the source since the section name (Page 185) is The Kayasthas as Chandragupta, and also mentions in Page 186 that "the Kayasthas claimed that they were the descendants of the Emperor Chandragupta", which is simply wrong; all WP:RS mention that the Kayasthas claim descent from Lord Chitragupta (part of mythological origin theory), but here the author seems to be totally confused and mentions the Gupta Emperor instead. Anyway, it is true that some authorities consider Kayasthas as non-dvijas, while others rank them among the dvijas, and the varna status is disputed. And this article categorically mentions that the varna status is a subject matter of debate. For example, Professor Julius J. Lipner clearly mentions the varna status of the Kayasthas of Bengal is disputed and while some authorities consider that they "do not belong to the twice-born orders, being placed high up among the Sudras; for other authorities they are on a level with Ksatriyas, and are accorded twice-born status." [See Page 172]. The same is applicable for North Indian Kayasthas, and I guess there are ample sources to support it.
I do not understand why you have mentioned that there is no link with the ancient Kshatriyas, which is mythology (like Lord Rama and family) and not history; it is obvious that possibly no modern community has any link with the so-called ancient Kshatriyas. Moreover if you go by the definition, Sanskritization is the process where lower castes seek higher status "by emulating the rituals or practices of the upper or dominant castes". Is this applicable to the Kayasthas who have been mentioned (by all reliable sources) as a dominant caste all through history? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Agree[1] with User:Ekdalian Indianwiki (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable Kayasthas[edit]

Caste, ethnicity, race and religion lists cause lots of arguments in Wikipedia, please follow the general consensus:-
All names added to a list must have verifiable, reliable sources to show that they are a notable enough to be included on the list, which almost always requires an article on the English Wikipedia.
In a caste, ethnicity, race or religion list, there also needs to be a clear, specific, reference to show that the person is a member of that caste, ethnicity, race or religion.
A person's last name is NOT sufficient evidence for their inclusion in, or exclusion from, a list, as assumptions based on a name are synthesis - a form of original research which is not allowed.
If the person is alive, their inclusion in any list is also covered by our policies on biographies of living people, so a specific reference, where they state they are a member of the category is required.
Someone stating, or claiming, that someone else is, or is not, a member of a caste, ethnicity, race or religion, is insufficient.
Some people, such as Amitabh Bachchan, have clearly stated they do not agree with caste or ethnic categorization, as these are divisive.
These people should not be included in any such list even after their death. - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015[edit]

Please include the name of Amitabh Bachchan as notable Kayastha because his father Harivansh Rai 'Bachchan' was a Kayastha and his real name is Amitabh Shrivastava. Also include the name of Bal Thackeray[2][3] Vandsriv (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done please read the section above as to why not
We do not count who someone's father was, what their name is, their inclusion on a list, or someone else stating they are a member of a caste.
We require a specific reference, where the person actually states that they consider themselves a member of the caste. - Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Even without actually referring to his wiki page you can just Add his name and remark that he doesnt believes in caste system; it is not necessary to totally eradicate his name from the list :/ Morover , the name of Harivansh Rai Bachchan should be added because he was a Kayastha and didnt possibly decline being so. Nonetheless , atleast this line could be added 'Amitabh Bachchan was born into a Kayastha family but decisively refused to be called so as being a non-follower of Castism'.User:Arjayay Indianwiki (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not going to happen. That you seem unwilling either to read or to accept the consensus is just an irritation - it won't actually change anything, so you might as well give up trying now. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The wiki page about Harivansh Rai Bachchan itself accounts him to be a Kayastha [4] ; then why is he not being among "the notable people list" ? Indianwiki (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages are not a reliable source - the page only states "Born in a Kayastha family" which is a attribution from an outsider. You need a citation where he declares that he considered himself a Kayastha. - Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
He also didn't decertify being a Kayastha. A page in his Biography states he just changed his last name, and according to Wikipedia's own rules, this doesn't admits that he wasn't a Kayastha since he didn't proclaim. [5]. Many few people today actually 'pro-claim' of being in a community, and as he was a visionary he too wasn't supportive of Castism, but this doesn't means he rooted out his origins.Indianwiki (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"he spent the next two years at St Catharine's College, Cambridge, Cambridge University doing his doctoral thesis on W.B. Yeats. It was then, that he used 'Bachchan' as his last name instead of Srivastava." [6] Indianwiki (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What happens at the Harivansh Rai Bachchan article is completely irrelevant. In any case, I've now adjusted it because the source is known to have used content from Wikipedia. Just drop this, please: you are not going to get your way, especially when Amibtabh has specifically said that he does not identify with any caste. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sitush I just said that his name should be permitted in this article as he "never denied being a kayastha". Why did you edit the Harivansh Rai Bachchan's article ? You are just edit-warring on Harivansh Rai's article. Pls. stop deliberate attempts to edit as per your "Original Research"/ideology claiming that the citations were poor. That citation you classified as poor is copyrighted work and as you say "modern work of literature" , so pls. dont try to mislead/alter genuine info. Indianwiki (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Ivanvector , im trying to do the very same, but other are doing things even without proper and satisfactory discussion.Indianwiki (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Then by all means continue the discussion, but until there is an agreement to make a change, do not reactivate the request. Continuing to request a declined change without coming to an agreement is disruptive. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent citation removals[edit]

I have just quickly removed a host of unreliable sources from this article. We do not use the speculations of Raj authors, nor The People of India (which plagiarises them), nor sources published by any outfit that falls under the umbrella of Gyan Publishing. We also do not use S. N. Sadasivan, whose writings were amateurish and lacking in formal training. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015[edit]

"Below is the body of work that I have suggested amendments. Please change the phrase below" Varna status According to multiple accounts, they are a literate and educated class of Kshatriyas, and have been referred to as a twice-born caste.[5][6] Other sources rank Kayasthas higher than Kshatriyas (between Brahmins and Khatris).

"Please change above statement and replace with"

There is continued debate as to which of the four Varnas the Kayathas belong to; their societal contribution as scribes, writers and accountants have led to the notion that Kayasthas do not belong to any one of the four Varnas (caste classes). As cited from the book "The Calcutta Review, Volume CII, January 1896, pg123", it was mentioned that "The mixed classes, such as the Ambasthas, Kayasthas, &c., do not belong to any Varna, but they form distinct Jatis. The four Varnas, with the mixed classes (Varnasankara) in the anuloma order, form so to speak the Hindu society in Bengal." Conversely, it has been said that Kayathas were originally apart of the Brahman varnas and over time their need within the four classes lead to the participation of the class from other caste classes or Varnas. As cited from “Early Medieval Indian Society, By R.S. Sharma pg.195”, as cited by "Just as the brahmanas formed only one class of priests out of the sixteen kinds in Vedic times, so also the kayasthas formed only one class of about a dozen kinds of writers and record keepers in the beginning. In course of time, all the other record keepers came to be known as kayasthas. In the initial stage, literate members from the higher varnas were recruited as kayasthas or scribes to meet the fiscal and administrative needs of the community. But gradually the scribes, recruited from different varnas, cut off marriage and other social connections with the parent varnas, and confined all their social intercourse to the new community; they practiced class endogamy and family exogamy. Confronted with the problem of finding a place for the kayathas in the varna system the Brahmana lawgivers faced a dilemma and connected the kayathas with both the sudras as well as the dvijas.

The ambiguity to the Kayastas belonging to one particular group still continues to be an on-going debate in India. As cited from “Early Medieval Indian Society, By R.S. Sharma pg.195”, as cited by “Since the Dharmasastra texts on the origin of the kayathas are ambiguous and historical examples not confined to one varna, in recent times, the Calcutta High Court called them sudras and the Allahabad High Court called them brahmanas. “ Also as cited from the book "The Hindustani Kayasthas: The Kayastha Pathshala, and the Kayastha Conference, 1873-1914,pg43", it was mentioned that "We are in this case concerned with the decision of Raj Kumar Lal v. Bleseshwar Dayal, relied upon the learned Subordinate Judge for his decision that Bihari Kayasthas are Sudras..."

BharatVarsh2015 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)