Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/archivecaste

Classifying South Asians by caste

Various Indian editors have been adding caste information to South Asian biographical articles. When I see it, I've been removing it -- that is, unless the subject him or herself has made a point of publicly identifying with that caste, as in the case of Dalit activists. I don't think editors should be classifying subjects of biographies by caste. Someone added caste information to the article on Madhuri Dixit, an Indian actress, I removed it, and there's an on-going fight at Talk:Madhuri Dixit. Several editors are claiming that of course articles on South Asians should state the subject's caste. What? Can we have a ruling that this is just out of bounds? We don't classify US citizens as white, black, mulatto, octoroon, etc., or South Africans as white, colored, or black ... why should the proponents of the Indian caste system get to classify people who haven't indicated their willingness to be so classified? Zora 18:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Zora, you really dont understand. In India, caste is the basic and most primary identifying parameter used by the people (yes ask anyone, even the guys at SM will vouch for this). We are NOT being casteist by identifying with our caste. Every caste has its own localised culture and history.

why should the proponents of the Indian caste system get to classify people who haven't indicated their willingness to be so classified?

One i'm not a proponent of casteist nonsense. Secondly you are opening a can of worms here. As i said. Sadly caste is A primary ethnic identifying factor for Indians. Even Indian government demand people to declare their caste (see Indian Quota system. I can take you views even further by isisting we remove any mention of a person's nationality unless he prefers to be identified with it.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 18:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem on WP:INB we already came to a consensus about keeping caste things on lists rather than categories. Merely adding two words on which community someones belongs especially in context to their upbringing, is harmless. Perhaps one should ask the Indian editors if its useful, rather than non-Indians who are completely ignorant of the situation and especially those prone to misrepresentation and taking things out of context. Zora is the only user trying to make this a "caste issue", the rest of us merely document the "community" that a certain person belongs to. In fact I have removed caste categories from countless pages and even started the discussion on INB to rid wiki of the large amount caste nonsense that pops up. In Dixit's case though, I have outlined why it is relevant to keep two words about the "community" in the early life section.Baka man 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued against classification by caste in the past - a list of members of a caste has come up on AfD twice. Wikipedia should not perpetuate the racist caste system. It should record history, not participate in it, and having the caste information does much more to preserve it than not having it does to wipe it out. -- Kjkolb 18:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: my comment is a reply to Zora, as when I wrote it there had been no replies. -- Kjkolb 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that caste system was a racit system. The thing is guys, Caste is used in a different context. It is primary identifying paraemeter used by Indians and Indian government (see Indian Caste system.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt call it racist. There is no proof that dalits are darker than high caste people. Its merely a socio-conomic phenomenon gone awry due to invasion, oppression, and opportunism.Baka man 21:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be a skin color difference for there to be racism. For example, here is the opening sentence from the Wikipedia article on racism, "Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." That appears to fit the caste system very well. They just use "caste" instead of "race". Since you are born into a caste and a race based upon who your parents are and you cannot change either, I do not see why they should not be treated equivalently in regards to racism. Also, some scientists believe that races are just as much of a social construct as castes. I do not know if members of different castes are thought to be physically/biologically different (since caste is based upon birth, I would think that that would be a factor), but that would be another reason for considering the caste system racist.

If a person's life was profoundly impacted by the caste he or she was born in, that can be mentioned in the article. However, giving it in other articles does nothing but satisfy reader curiosity and perpetuate the caste system (Wikipedia is not a place to wage war against racism in society, but as I mentioned before, not specifying castes does less to stop the practice than specifying them does to preserve it). Also, as I understand it, the caste system is used by the government merely to give benefits to the lower castes (they should really rethink that system). How is it used by people? Do they ask each other's caste upon meeting? Is a person's caste put into personal or business ads? -- Kjkolb 05:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough issue to deal with as many people do view the caste system as a form of discrimination. However, Wikipedia is not censored and the fact remains that a person's caste has been of the utmost importance throughout the region's history and though it is less important now, it still remains notable enough to place in their articles. In this instance we are merely recording fact and making no value judgements. Its up to the readers to decide their own opinions on trhe caste system, we can't censoer it out of articles as that would mean that we would be taking the POV that the caste system is bad and that we want to pretend it doesn't exist. Also, it should not be relevant as to whether or not the individuals in question publicly embrace their caste. We don't have that criteria for other facts regarding people, if we did it would be a lot harder to include any 'negative' information. --The Way 20:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to kj' - Umm black people look way different than white people who look different than Asian people. There are the four major castes (you all are familiar with these, Brahmin, Ksatrya, Vaisya, Sudra) and then there are communities within castes which many times function independent of the rigid four varna system. Madhuri Dixit belongs to the Konkanastha community. Though she belongs to the Brahmin varna, this is immaterial in the film world (interreligious/intercaste/interethnic marriages are the norm). What is material is which community of people (Iyer, Jat, Yadav, etc) she belongs to. Some are the descendants of Kings, others are refugees, etc. The communitiy one is born in doesnt change while the caste one belongs to can change (refer to Rigveda, Mahabharata, Gita). There is a marked difference between caste and community which is central to the issue. Wiki's view on this is irrelevant compared to the major distinction that has to be made.Baka man 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indians want to do this" is a bad argument for classifying South Asian biographical subjects by caste (varna and jati). Some Indians want to do this; other Indians regard the caste-ist Indians as benighted reactionaries and bigots. The post-Independence Congress government in India tried to wipe out caste and stopped recording caste in censuses. However, they did make an exception for Untouchables/Harijans/Dalits and OBC (Other Backward Castes) who could claim caste status to qualify for various affirmative action set-asides. These set-asides have been extremely controversial. You'll find people of all politcal persuasions supporting them or calling for their abolition.

So the government of India doesn't support labeling people by varna and jati unless they are dalits or OBCs. What about popular practice? The old strictures about not taking food from lower castes, not being touched by lower castes, etc. may survive in villages but have been dropped in urban centers. You can't live a modern life if you're worried that the cook in the restaurant is the wrong caste! However, a significant proportion of Indians still want their children to marry within their jati. You'll see this baldly stated in matrimonial ads. However, there are also ads that say "caste no bar". In public life, in the media, the subject of caste is suppressed. In Bollywood movies, the prejudiced parents who keep loving couples apart are motivated by class prejudice, not caste. Being concerned with caste is not "modern". It's the kind of thing one keeps to oneself -- like being a racist in America. It's not publicly acceptable, even if it's common.

The Indian editors arguing in favor of mentioning caste are presenting themselves as representing all of India. That's simply not true. For some reason, we have an over-abundance of Hindu nationalist editors on WP, and very few secularists and modernists. This is just one of the many demographic imbalances here. I think it would be tragic if we let a few editors who support the caste system convince us that it was OK for WP to support it too, when in fact it's an extremely contentious topic in India and an large but unknown percentage of Indians reject it totally. Zora 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies - "Overabundance of Hindu nationalists" - please stop fantasizing about Imperialist bots and Hindu nationalists. Did yopu not read any of my points cited above about communities? Making a long rant doesnt make it more correct. I myself do not support the caste system and unfortunately for you, neither do "Hindu extremists" or "Hindu fascists". In fact, I was the editor who brought about a consensus to not classify people by caste in categories. We really dont need non-Indian anti-Hindus ranting about "demographic imbalances" with their obvious ignorance of the situation. This discussion is now a joke thanks to incoherent ultra-emotional rants like the one above. Being a Chitpavan (compared to say an Iyer) is like being an ashkenazi rather than a sephardi. Neither is better but both are different. There are no casteists among established Indian editors on wiki. All of us are view it as outdated and useless. The varna system was defined outwardly, sometimes castes which were Brahmins in one area were Shudras in another and vice-versa. My own Community was historically Brahmin in one state and historically Kshatriya less than 100 miles away. The same community of people! The system of clans is inwardly defining, and is disjoint from the caste system. Two words on the community is != "Classifying/pidgeonholin/etc. by caste". If you wish to discuss quit ranting.Baka man 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of Note Relative to this discussion - Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/archive18#Caste_lists_vs._Caste_cats the official status quo of keeping caste/community classifications to lists and not categories. Adding two words on the community is not classifying. Adding them to a list/cat is.Baka man 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora... You've got it all wrong. We are NOT being casteist. Needless to say caste is used as more of an ethnic term rather than varna. Caste system as layed down by Manu has been all but dead expect perhaps in remotests of places. More of your insinuations that I am a Hindu nationalist is comical... I've published work critical of the movement [1] at a popular British blog (we are a sister blog of Sepia Mutiny).. whats more, Hindutavdis themselves are OBCs...

the title is "south asians," but who else use caste system? Aren't Indians the only people who use that? do people form pakistan or burma use that, too? 75.3.235.100 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]