Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archives: 1 | 2

Do not revert edits and do not erase Talk Page comments, please

Please discuss all edits, and DO NOT erase comments from the talk pages. I have reinstated my comments to the talk page. I have edited some entries to provide context to POV assertions. We can also remove the POV assertions if you wish. Or we can, as I have done, leave them in and present opinions as being opinions, rather than facts. We mst clearly distinguish between opinions and facts. Muggle1982 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Muggle1982Muggle1982 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging into Varnas

I suggest that Varna (caste) be a separate entry, since it refers to only one aspect of caste, that of vedic caste. The vedic system itself is highly formalised. The actually existing caste system is far more complex, and this complexity may have existed long before the form described in the texts, which may merely be a convention. To draw a parallel, the languages existing in vedic India were formalised into Sanskrit, but this language may not actually have been spoken, unlike the many Prakrits which evolved into the modern languages of the Indian subcontinent.Vinodm 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

There is a lot of selective quoting and similar that makes the article feel very POVish. It may be a good idea to try to fix that. --Improv 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited, would someone check?

Hey -- I've just finished editing the article to straighten out the garbled bits and make things a little less confusing to readers who aren't used to Indian English. I wonder whether anyone could give it the once-over and remove the cleanup tag? I've tried my best to help it sound neutral, and I'd remove the tag myself, but just a little confirmation here, please? Thanks. ----219.91.152.10 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just copy edited a bunch of stuff in this article but it is still very confusing and awkwardly written. Much work still to be done! The so-called "theory" of Indo-Aryan "invasion" of India is completely unsourced; even with a source, it would be better called a hypothesis. funkendub 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and arrangement edits

I have made several edits. They consist of the following:

1. Removing weakly arguable material and conjecture

2. Pruning external links to remove those that are definitely biased sources (of which there were many!)

3. Re-arranging sections to make it more organised

I have left in the tags because I think this article still needs a lot of improvement from the standpoint of neutrality and unbiased scholarship.

Many egregious social evils have not even been touched up, for instance financial corruption of brahmins, atrocities committed by landowning castes, and the lynching of couples who dare to break the endogamy rule.

Right now, except for the section on untouchables, most of the article seems to consist of interpretations of Hindu scripture with very little treatment of the ground realities of casteism in India. This needs some serious attention.

Splitpeasoup 08:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Splitpeasoup:

Can you mention what parts of the article are taken from "Hindu scriptures"? --ISKapoor 23:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The last section of the article, which is entitled "Varna in Hindu texts". I am not saying it is irrelevant, just that there needs to be more treatment of the practical ramifications of the caste system. Splitpeasoup 02:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Systematic presentation and Neutrality

The article has been mangled by someone.

The term "caste" should be first clearly defined and then some real examples of castes should be given.

The article on "caste system" should describe the complete system, not just one part of it.

The dalit castes are about 16% of the population. The castes to which other 84% of the Indians belong, also deserve to discussed. Should an article on USA economy focus exclusively on discrimination encountered by the Blacks and Hispanics (25% of the population)? Should a discussion of the Catholic church history focus on the inquisitions?

The article should discuss facts and minimize political perspectives.

There is a large body of literature on individual castes as well as on the caste system, most of it by western scholars. Some of the most valauable books were written by british administrators.

I think this article should focus on facts and should not be used for presenting political or activist points of views. There are several articles that already do that at Wikipedia.

--ISKapoor 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of balance

The article as it stands has a severe lack of balance in its treatment of the topic.

The most relevant aspects of casteism have been glossed over or omitted. Major effects of casteism have been: atrocities against dalits, implicit and explicit suppression of intercaste marriages, appropriation of unwarranted influence by brahmins and landowning castes, caste wars, and perpetuation of poverty, illiteracy, and low standard of living among low castes.

The article as it stands today plays down or does not even mention these crucial issues.

Before this article can be considered neutral and balanced, it will have to address the above issues with the seriousness they deserve.

As of now, most of the article looks like it was written by a proponent or apologist of the caste system.

Splitpeasoup 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Judgemental and anti-brahmin (that is racism) views should be avoided

If anti-brahminism is racism, which by default should make pro-brahminism racism too. Should we clean up all pro-brahmin content in Wiki? Let's keep it simple. Caste system is racism. This article should focus more on the negative effect of caste system on the society in general - C9

First of all, the caste system should be presented as it is. Any views judging it should be presented as views.

I respect the views of Splitpeasoup, in that all aspects of the caste system should be considered on Wikipedia. I hope that does not mean that a politcal or judgemental perspective should take priority over simple statement of facts.

There have been some communities that have been villified. The Jews have been portrayed as seeking a pound of flesh. It is true that Jews did lend money and charge interest. That does not justify portraying Jews as evil. Anti-semitism is racism. So is anti-Brahmanism.

It makes one extremely uncomfortable to see the view that some communites ought to be villified. Splitpeasoup writes:

or instance financial corruption of brahmins

atrocities committed by landowning castes

You are judging about 50,000,000 Brahmins and 200,000,000 members of the landowning castes, based on a few press reports.

Some brahmins are perhaps evil. Some members of the landowning castes have committed atrocities. Some whites in USA belong to white supremacist gangs who have killed blacks and Jews. Some blacks are drug-dealers. But to generalize it and hold the whole community responsible is inappropriate.

Most of the article does not come from Hindu scriptures. I know Hindu scriptures . Most castes find no mention in Hindu scriptures. The discussion on varnas is there in some of the Hindu texts. I believe that most of the discussion belongs to the article on varnas, and not here.

--ISKapoor 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So. Are you claiming Brahmins belong to a diferent race?--tequendamia 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did he say anything like that? Aupmanyav 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Braminism can only be considered racism if Bramins are in fact of their own race... FYI Race is only a social term so it doesn't make all that much sence either way.

Well the term racism has assumed more generic meaning today. Even Judenophobia (anti-Semitism) is considered a form of racism even though Jews aren't a race as such,but a community that subscribes to a particular religion.Hkelkar 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

adding intro

i have added the introduction. I have approached the whole idea in an academic way both highlighting the postives and the negatives. There is a need to cleapup this article by deleting a lot of unwanted pieces. SV 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Double check?

I found this page extremely confusing to read as well. It took a while to touch up just the intro and first two sections. However, this is not a topic I am greatly knowledgable in and was fixing it up from a copyediting standpoint only. So, it would be great if someone more knowledgable on this topic could skim through and fact check my updates. Drcwright 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Change clean-up tag

If no one objects, I am in favor of changing the tag from copyedit to NPOV and fact check. From a grammar POV, the article is now fine and I don't think that the style can be improved w/o the aid of someone knowledgable on this subject (or willing to check research), as the meaning in many areas is confusing. Any comments or objections? A. Kohler 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I found myself doing a bunch of external fact-checking while copyediting, as where it needs work requires some knowledge of the subject. It wasn't like fixing up the lip gloss page! Drcwright 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is my opinion, also. I went ahead and removed the copyedit template and replaced it with the expert template, as there seems to be a disagreement about accuracy and consistency, as well as a possible NPOV issue. I think someone who is an expert needs to sort this out. --A. Kohler 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian or Hindu caste system

Wouldn't "Hindu caste system" title the article more aptly? I don't think people of other religions living in India were influenced by the Hindu caste divisions. Therefore terming the article as Indian caste system would be incorrect. Also, other religions have their own castes and sub castes, which are not detailed in the article. I'd like to hear other wikipedians' opinions. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 06:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think caste systems of other religions should be included in the article. It's quite a social phenomenon, and is found in India across all religions to some extent (see for example, this article). deeptrivia (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. So the article needs a rewrite of the certain sections, especially the lead in. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 06:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of India and Article 51A

This article is for scientific thinking and present President is from science stream. He supports caste based religion which is violation of Constitution of India from the Head of the Constitution. vkvora 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Er...okay, so your point in raising this personal opinion here on an encyclopedia? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 06:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From vkvora to Deepujoseph. I have added it on discussion. The population of India is more than 1000 millions. For last 10-15 days we hear for reservation. Founding Fathers of Constitution were in hope that India will be Democratic and Republic within ten years and there will not be any caste system and religion in day to day to life of Individual whereas after 60 years we discuss in Parliament about Temple Construction and help for Kumbh Mela and Haj Piligrims. vkvora 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the caste system

Before making any proposed changes, please discuss it here. I feel it is important to include the criticism of the Indian caste system in the main article to give a balanced view siddharth 10:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What about these

India - A Country Study, USA Library of Congress, 1995

Some observers feel that the caste system must be viewed as a system of exploitation of poor low-ranking groups by more prosperous high-ranking groups. In many parts of India, land is largely held by dominant castes high-ranking owners of property that economically exploit low-ranking landless laborers and poor artisans, all the while degrading them with ritual emphases on their so-called god-given inferior status. Ref: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/intoc.html chapter 5

In the early 1990s, blatant subjugation of low-caste laborers in the northern state of Bihar and in eastern Uttar Pradesh was the subject of many news reports. In this region, scores of Dalits who have attempted to unite to protest low wages have been the victims of lynchings and mass killings by high-caste landowners and their hired assassins.

In 1991 the news magazine India Today reported that in an ostensibly prosperous village about 160 kilometers southeast of Delhi, when it became known that a rural Dalit laborer dared to have a love affair with the daughter of a high-caste landlord, the lovers and their Dalit go-between were tortured, publicly hanged, and burnt by agents of the girl's family in the presence of some 500 villagers.

A similar incident occurred in 1994, when a Dalit musician who had secretly married a woman of the Kurmi cultivating caste was beaten to death by outraged Kurmis, possibly instigated by the young woman's family. The terrified bride was stripped and branded as punishment for her transgression. Dalit women also have been the victims of gang rapes by the police. Many other atrocities, as well as urban riots resulting in the deaths of Dalits, have occurred in recent years. Such extreme injustices are infrequent enough to be reported in outraged articles in the Indian press, while much more common daily discrimination and exploitation are considered virtually routine.

Matt Cherry, "Humanism In India", Free Inquiry magazine, Vol 16 Num 4

Karma underpins the caste system, and the caste system traditionally determines the position and role of every member of Hindu society. Caste determines an individual's place in society, the work he or she may carry out, and who he or she may marry and meet. Hindus believe that the karma of a previous life determines which caste an individual is (re)born into. In Hinduism all men are born unequal: caste is pre-determined and unchangeable.

Ref: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_16_4.html

Please read the ref http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_16_4.html, I have quoted Mr Cherry and I suggest we let it be part of the main article as nids has done with Mat Cherry claimed 'In Hinduism all men are born unequal: caste is pre-determined and unchangeable.' IMHO this is not false and derogatory but what has been claimed by Mr Cherry. Please suggest. Ajaypal2k 19:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that his rants should be summarized and quoted, not to let him be made into an "expert" on Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope it does not mean summarised and **censored**! Lets quote him as he said. Ajaypal2k 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What are his credentials? If he is just some some schmoe out to get attention, I dont think he merits a paragraph on a wiki article. Someone like Ambedkar or something is more qualified than some random John Doe, who matt cherry seems to be.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Remeber, we do not quote Ali Sina or Salman Rushdie on Islamic articles.nids(♂) 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that we cannot quote something that is factually wrong. Most of our sages were born in lower castes. starting from valmiki, vyasa to Ramdev. He can be factually right and still a critic. only those statements deserve a place in the current article.nids(♂) 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here there is a direct quote from Hindu scriptures. all men are born shudras, only karma decides there varna. He is right for other statements, so they are included.nids(♂) 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

http://humaniststudies.org/bios/mcbio.html, besides he has been presedeint of United Nations NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Credentials definitly better than me or you. Ajaypal2k 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i pointed out to his objectionable statements above, where he is completely wrong. Will you accept GWBs comment on Zorostrianism, for which he wouldnt even be knowing the basics. It depends on the knowledge of the person too.nids(♂) 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramendra Nath, "Why I Am Not a Hindu", Bihar Rationalist Society 1993

The Hindu belief in karmavada or the so-called law of karma. According to this doctrine, every human being gets the fruits of his actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever a human being is in his present life is the result of his own actions in the past life or lives. This, again, is a totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based on the assumption of the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a convenient tool for explaining away the perceived inequality in human society. [...] In Hinduism the so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the "untouchables" meekly accept their degrading position as a "result of their own deeds" in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in "next life" if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives. In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and future lives.

Please see [1], anyways that book is the kind of book Dalitstani's and DMK people read, not educated people. Please refrain from throwing out the trash on wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is not trash and is very much true. I do think somehow what ramendranath is saying is true and logical, even though I am not a hindu by birth. And ofcourse terming trash as truth is easy. Lets not try to act as an escapist. --59.94.242.219 06:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the link above that I provided?Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe wikipedia is not about pushing a particular person's POV. Just because YOU think it's rational and logical doesn't mean it is. Many racist people regard David Duke's "My Awakening" or Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as very very rational and logical, doesn't mean it should be quoted to justify or verify a claim on wikipedia. It is clear, based on non-partisan sources, that this text is written in order to promulgate anti-Hindu bias. It only mentions the caste system as a talking point and does not derive it's root arguments from it. It's root argument is an attack on Hinduism along the same lines as "My Awakening"'s attack on African-Americans/Jews/miscellaneous minorities.Hkelkar 07:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about NPOV (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV) and not orignal research. if it belongs here why not put both points of views. If they somehow refer to origins of cast system as suggested by some experts (Ramendranath, and countered by the hindu lady). Put something like Ramendranath blamed the orignin of cast system to the Hindu belief in karmavada, it was contested by the hindu lady who pointed out that ...blah blah... Waiting for your comments.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajaypal2k (talk • contribs) .

How about not. NPOV isn't giving every christian missionairy a voice on Hinduism articles. The stub on the origins is good enough.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

though i may not agree with what you said, but, then what about other things in criticism of cast system **for a censored and balanced view** :-(. Ajaypal2k 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, baseless criticism from non-notables is not allowed. There are better criticisms from better experts in the field.Hkelkar 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Though may not be baseless, but maybe slightly POV, thats why after discussion i agreed to leave it out of main article. Anyway thanks. Ajaypal2k 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Modern Rationalist, Vol 27 Num 5, May 2002

They thought everything was predetermined by fate that was again decided by their past Karma, ie. their doings in the previous births. So they could not blame anyone else but their own fate for being born in a lower caste (or Varna) and for their wretched life. This kind of outlook deeply ingrained in their psyche kept them mentally bound or chained. Periyar was determined to free the masses from this mental bond, and from all the practices and observances that were cruel and inhuman, divisive and discriminatory, wasteful and vain, barbaric and shameful. Being ignorant and superstitious, people were wasting their time, energy and wealth to satisfy the whims and fancies of variety of gods and goblins, and to propitiate devils and deities of dubious distinctions. They thought more of making life in the 'other' world wonderful than of making life in this world healthy, useful, meaningful and beautiful.

Bant Singh from Punjab

And also this

http://punjabdalitsolidarity.blogspot.com/2006/01/bant-singh-dalit-defiant-decapitated.html http://www.tehelka.com/story_main16.asp?filename=Cr020406do_bigha.asp

and many more.

The first diff is a blog. Even I can write a blog lol. The second shows one incident of a dalit being raped, most probably because of selfish Jat landlords (who most people consider Shudras) and then some overzealous journalist making his own conclusions on Hinduism. Its not even caste-based (As higher caste people would call them both shudras), its almost just a class struggle. Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is class strugle some thing different from cast strugle, atleast in India, a country where majority of mariages are based on cast only? BTW cast/ class struglle is not limited to violent crimes only, there are subtle ways to exhibit castiest behaviours usually prefered by educated high cast people.

Some more references regarding the bant singh incident: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2302/stories/20060210003703300.htm http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/16/stories/2006011608190500.htm

And these incedents are not alone, but there are many other i hope other people will contribute. I hope you will not take this as an attack on hinduism but if we do not expose the evils past or present we are bound to make the same mistake again and again. Cast system was the social terrorism that has been practised in India for so long that sometime we tend to stick our necks in the sand and pretend that nothing is bad.

Ajaypal2k 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ajay, can you please understand that the persons who did unjustice to bant singh were not upper caste, but belonged to same varna, i.e. Shudra.nids(♂) 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear NIDS, As far as my limited knowledge of cast system and varnas jat have been compared with Kshatriyas Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat besides even major varnas/ casts are further sub divided. Even shudras have multiple hierarchies. The point here is not if the upper casts are commiting crimes agains lower casts but the evils to which the cast system can lead/ endorses and be exploited by the criminals in our society. Few times this has happened from lower to upper casts also (The cast struggle among thakurs and yadavs in bihar). Ajaypal2k 18:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the Yadavs are superpowerful and persecute the Brahmins/Kshatriyas/Other Shudras. Thakurs are amorphous, sometimes being Brahmin sometimes Kshatriya. Yadavs and Thakurs fighting are like two clans beating each other up.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to the point Ajay. What do you want then. Mention instances where upper class persecutes lower class. Then we will also have to mention instances where lower castes persecute upper castes. this article is about Indian Caste system. You can have a new article with a heading say, instances of violence among different castes.--nids(♂) 18:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ajay I do have to thank you for being civil. Certain other users had your POV but decided to put their time to making personal attacks and writing aniti-Hindu rants **cough User:Yeditor cough**. Thanks for discussing.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks Bakman and also thanks to you too for the discussion. But is it possible that we add some of the contents that we may agree on to the main article or as suggested by nids start a new article. I also suggest that we expand the section marked criticism of cast system (NIDS: please note I do not mean criticism of upper cast people or criticism of hinduism as a religion). Ajaypal2k 19:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

even if you mean criticism of upper cast or criticism of hinduism, there is nothing wrong with it. we already have a article for criticism of Hinduism. This article is about Indian caste system. Suggest changes to its current version, by which, it can be made better.--nids(♂) 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids, bakman, please consider adding the comments about Indian Cast System as refered in India a Country Study and Free inquiry magazine in Criticism of Cast System. Also addition of a new section or article? titled Evils of cast system/ Cast Struggle/ Instances of Voilence among Different Casts (please choose any other suitable alternative) to the main article where recent or major incidents like Bant Singh from Punjab may be reported. Meanwhile I suggest we (I am part of this we) try to get better/ credible and ofcourse agreeable references, but that would need some time, to consult the so called experts/ sources. Ajaypal2k 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ajay, this is our Wikipedia. You can expand any article or start any article, just follow the rules of wikipedia. We will watch it and try to better it. You can pick any heading for the section or article which you want to start. Just keep in mind that it doesnt get POV. Also report some incidents where upper caste were victims,(believe me, there were several such cases).nids(♂) 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Brahmins

Dear Baka, the first ref for anti hindu stance of DMK is a news report of views expressed by some leader opposing DMK and not a neutral analysis Ref: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/02/10/stories/2004021007080400.htm. Is it possible to get better reference for this claim Indian_caste_system#_ref-15. The second refrence from rediff news is not plight of brahmins in tamil nadu but in general of all the poor in brahmins. I suggest this can be moved to reservations in india to maybe criticise current state of reservations in India. I dont think it belongs here. Ajaypal2k 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don;t insert POV into articles. Most sources are written by editors with a POV. If there is a possible case like that then it should be mentioned with qualification, as I have done. Bear in mind that this applies equally to your Bant Singh deal.

No but it says that most Brahmins left Tamil Nadu because of the hostile environment which merits its inclusion into the article. Its really not fun for a Brahmin there. Also the DMK follows the legacy of Periyar a documented anti-Hindu, so logically they are anti-Hindu (though subtlely). The Hindu Munnani is the "Southern BJP", and it is established that the majority of Hindus support Hindutva, so the Munnani and AIADMK are qualified to speak for Hindus.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Francois Gautier is a well-known and reliable columnist who has been cited with wualification numerous times on wikipedia. I'll look for some additional refs.Shiva's Trident 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found another article. Though it is written in the first person like Gautier. Two articles from two reputable news sources are enough to establish at least the validity of the allegations of a pattern. I put citations on the page.Shiva's Trident 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything here seems to be brahmin mischief,how can anyone call periyar an anti-hindu,he was an atheist,how can we call an atheist an anti-hindu,or anti-muslim or anti-christian.It would be the greatest ignorance to call DMK anti-hindu, if it is anti hindu why the people in tamilnadu have voted them for power,let the obc's consist of 50percent or even 10 percent but aren't they hindus,is the article meaning that brahmin's are alone hindus,but it seems brahmin consist of even less than one percent of total indian population though they contend that they are of 4 percent of the total population.DMK is fighting for equality but the writer of this part seems to be totally unaware of this.If brahmins are the only hindus then how can india be a country with hinduism as major religion.I think brahmin's have a lot of influence and money to settle in america and so they have left the poverty stricken tamilnadu from where they have amassed all these money.I can bet if the brahmins can regale us with any of the atrocity or mass killings committed on them by the DMK cadres.

Varnas

Varnas are summarized in 3 different places in this article. These bits should be merged. Ben Finn 12:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Census date

The census figures state they are from 1891. Is this supposed to be 1981? If not, are more recent data available? (65.26.217.188 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Well, the Indian Constitution legally prohibits Caste as a relevant social category. So there have been no questions upon caste included in the decennial census since 1951. (An exception is the listing of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which is done even today as I think, categories that were taken over by the Indian Government after Independence from the British for empowerment reasons) I think the most complete data on caste (which is mostly used today for writing on the quantitative aspect of the phenomenon) was collected during the 1931-census. Still, the criteria for classifying caste have changed significantly over time, so that for the professional categories in the table given in the article it might well be that in 1891 the last accessible data on the subject were collected. -- Apfelbaum82 23:47 (CET), 17 July 2006

US

Independent India officially documented castes and subcastes, primarily to determine those deserving reservation, an affirmative action process (vaguely similar to, and predating, the US system) through the census. The difference between the Indian reservation system and American affirmative action is that India relies entirely on quotas where the US does not.

Is there any particular reason to compare the Indian reservation to the US affirmatice action particularly? Affirmative action is not unique to the US or India and I suspect most non-Americans don't know much, if anything about the US system. It seems to me that for balance and neutrality, we should rework the sentence to something like this:

Independent India officially documented castes and subcastes, primarily to determine those deserving reservation, an affirmative action process, through the census.

We could probably include the comparison to the US, but we need to work it in such a way that it flows as just one of a number comparisons that can be made. I couldn't think of a way to do it so I didn't bother (also why I didn't change it myself). Ideally, we should also include comparisons with other affirmative action systems but if you don't know enough about the others, that's fine. Nil Einne 07:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetic Origin of Caste Populations

I know the article discounts the Aryan invasion theory. However, I thought it was widely acknowledged that different casts had different genetic origins - ie that there was an Aryan invasion.

A study of the Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations published [2] seems to support this:

"Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers indicates clearly that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians. The high affinity of caste Y chromosomes with those of Europeans suggests that the majority of immigrating West Eurasians may have been males. As might be expected if West Eurasian males appropriated the highest positions in the caste system, the upper caste group exhibits a lower genetic distance to Europeans than the middle or lower castes. This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya (an upper caste), whose members served as warriors, are closer to Europeans than any other caste (data not shown). Furthermore, the 32-bp deletion polymorphism in CC chemokine receptor 5, whose frequency peaks in populations of Eastern Europe, is found only in two Brahmin males (M. Bamshad and S.K. Ahuja, unpubl.). The stratification of Y-chromosome distances with Europeans could also be caused by malespecific gene flow among caste populations of different rank. However, we and others have demonstrated that there is little sharing of Y-chromosome haplotypes among castes of different rank (Bamshad et al. 1998; Bhattacharyya et al. 1999)."

Should the Aryan invasion theory be reintroduced (or at least not so heavily discounted)? Should the genetic origin part be introduced or at least mentioned in the article?Osli73 07:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where has this been acknowledged? The genetic origins are different within Kshatriya castes and Vaishya castes perhaps (Kshatriyas settle and fight wars, Vaishyas trade bring foreign wives) but Brahmins and lower castes stay the same. And the University of Massachusetts study found "the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia." [3]

Bakaman%% 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Major edit

Someone added a massive amount of extremely poorly written/edited information about the Nepalese caste system to this article. I moved this section to the article on the Nepalese caste system. Both the article on Nepalese castes and this one are confusing, redundant, poorly organized, and poorly written. They need to be edited by someone who knows the material better than I do. These articles need a lot of help. dsingsen 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Text taken from a web-site

Someone had inserted a long text:

There was no caste system in early community. It came into existence only later. It has been mentioned in Balmiki Ramayan:

"Treta Yug (era) followed Satya Yug and strong Kshetriyas started performing penance there like Brahmins. Then Manu and other sages, seeing no difference between Brahmins and Kshetriyas, set up a community made of four classes."

(Uttarkand 74/11-15)

etc.

There are two problems:

1. The Varna system already has a detailed article.
2. The text was lifted from http://www.hri.ca/partners/insec/Yb1993/Append_1.shtml

--ISKapoor 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I happened to stumble on to this and I have several problems in the way in which this topic is presented and would rate it a low 3 on 10.

1. 'Caste' is a term understood by the Portuguese and other Europeans of the Indian scoial structure, then and interpreted to mean something based on an understanding which is not correct. There's no concept called 'caste' in any of the Indian languages for instance. The word 'jati' from which the concept of caste was CREATED, speaks of stock and lineage of a certain class/group of people which could be based on any number of numerous factors right from place of origin prior to migration, specific beleief system, specific customs, specific traditions, specific occupations, specific titles, specific responsibilities and the like. Basically any identifier which a group of people use to differentiate themselves for whatsoever reason, from the rest of the masses. The identifiers are self-created rather than imposed externally by others and the jati names could either be internal self-identifiers or external identifiers (just as the word Hindu is an external identifier and not an Indian word). If all this is clearly understood, then one would understand that 'jati' is not a discriminator but a differentiator to preserve one's group's identity components. 500 years of exposure to India and the West have still not understood this in 2006.

2. While the above explains 'jati', caste is not 'varna' either. The 4 varnas were divisions in society created, so that each group understood its role and carried it out effeciently. Much like having the executive, judicial,military,commerical, aspects of government to make society tick. The Brahmins thus were in charge of all aspects related to learning, teaching, science, medicine, consultancy, music, arts, etc. The Kshatriyas were in charge of security, protection, the army, civil adminstration, etc. The Vaishyas were in charge of all production related activities including commerce. The Sudras were in charge of all service related aspects including consruction and labor. The Brahmins typically constitute 4-7% of the population in India and these percentages are fairly uniform across all parts of India. The Kshatriyas and Vaisyas constitute roughly 15%- 20% each and the balance is Sudras.

If one were to carefully observe, each of the 4 parts of the pie is interdependent on each other for the society to PERFORM as a whole. Not only is it inter-dependent but the power balance is carefully weighted by the proportion of each varna in the pie. Thus no single varna can dominate society. While this explains the macro-concept of the varnas, at the micro-level, the individual level, a person carries out his DHARMA and the duties expected of him depending on his life stage to the society, the family and himself.

The last of the life-stages involve renunciation, where a person/couple cut off all ties with their kith and kin and their worldly possessions and work towards the sole pursuit of 'discovering' the path to God. At this life stage when one snaps all worldly conections and is free from duties and obligations, a person comes out of the varna and is either a sadhu/saint/rishi/etc. These people are 'casteless'. Thus it is seen that varna/caste is not rigid and it does not bind a person from 'birth to death'.

3. 'Untouchability' is a very much mauled topic, least understood because of the various spins that have been provided by various political and religious groups primarily drawing energy from the West. To begin with, untouchability started as a concept to ensure that proper hygiene was maintained and the arrest of spread of disease was carried out. That is the prime driver towards untouchability. Disease has always been a concern area in large society such as India in the ancient past a it is today. This hygiene involved how people maintained themselves in terms of personal hygiene as well as how people involved themselves in professions that exposed them to various levels of hygiene.

When one talks of untouchability one needs to talk of the 'concept of untouchability' in the Indian context. In India a person who is considered untouchable is considered 'achoot'. This simply means 'do not touch'. Thus a person could be considered 'not to be touched' irrespective of varna/caste. A menstruating woman, a person who has touched a dead body or whose immediate family has had a death, a person who has performed a child birth or come in contact with blood, a person who has had his haircut done, a person who has not had his bath, are people who can be considered 'not to be touched', even within a single family unit, within a jati group. Since the person is 'not to be touched' till that person takes a bath or is considered pure again, does not make the person 'untouchable' right? The word 'not to be touched' and 'untouchable' have different connotations and it is this spin through mis-representation that has been provided by the West over centuries that it is now ingrained.

Having said that, there are jatis/people/individuals who are in a perpetual state of 'not to be touched mode' because of their attitude, or because of what they do. That is how entire lumps of people got classified as 'untouchables'. Before the advent of the modern era, most of the West including royalty, were not given to taking daily baths. They would have all been classified as impure and 'not to be touched'.

Given what I have said now, kindly re-examine your own understanding of 'untouchability' as you earlier knoew and undersood in the Indian context. Remember that as you could consider your wife as 'not to be touched' while menstruating, she could consider you 'not to be touched' if you didn't have your daily bath for instance.

Having said this, 'untouchability' is banned in modern India and even advocating it is a criminal offense. Nearly 35% of India lives in urban centres and nobody really gives a fig about all this. What does exist, exists in the rural hinterland as an evolution/corruption of what has already been said while explaining the concept of 'do-not-touch'!

I'm not inclined to waste my time carrying out edits. If what I have said finds value, then the necesary changes in meaning, message and perspective have to be reflected in the main article, which any of you may carry out. Else the West is doomed to carry on with its own twisted understanding of all this for a few more hundred years. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.150.211 (talk • contribs)

Who was the real culprit?

I got this quote from the page or Parsis: 'Even so, at some point (perhaps not long after their arrival in India), the Zoroastrians determined that the social stratification that they had brought with them was unsustainable in the small community and they did away with all but the athornan hereditary priesthood. The remaining classes - the ratheshtaran (nobility, soldiers, and civil servants), vastaryoshan (farmers and traders), hutokshan (artisans and laborers) - were folded into an all-comprehensive class to this day known as the behdini ("followers of daena", for which "good religion" is one translation).' This corresponds closely with the system among Hindus. Does it mean that it was the Aryans who started it? It is well-known that Parsis are only another branch of Aryans and the RigVeda and Avesta have close similarities. Another question would be: What was the situation in India prior to the coming of Aryans? Is anybody interested to join the discussion? Aupmanyav 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The very existence of Hitler's "great Aryan race" is disputed. Even if we assume that this was true, that whitey came galloping down from the Rhineland on his big chariot and trotted along the Indo-Gangetic plain, then the caste system was the product of white folk, eh? hmmmmmmmm....

As far as I know, nobody knows much abt social strata in Mehgarh/Harrappan societies.Netaji 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"For instance, Gandhi, a Vaishya, was not against the caste system" any quotes or citations on this?.

origins section

Why are my constructive npov edits being reverted? --Krsont 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Consrtuctive? You state AIT/AMT as if it is a fact (Its not). They are both racist theories which are used to devalue Hindu culture. By using AMT, you could make the assumption that the Ramayan never happened in India, because its too early for Sanskrit to take hold. The theory was racist in its beginning and has been changing forms ever since people questioned its validity.Bakaman%% 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

AIT is not fact, but the AMT is as close to fact as we can tell. Certainly more so than the crackpot theories of nationalists. No one is saying the Ramayan wasn't written in India, that'd be ridiculous. It clearly is Indian in origin and was composed sometime after the Aryan migration. The Sanskrit used is classical, not early or vedic. And there's nothing strange about a theory changing forms - it's called science. As we learn more about how it happened, and our previous prejudices are left behind, our ideas are modified and adapted - but the central truth of the notion has always been true, that Indo-European language clearly originated outside of India and spread onto the subcontinent some time after the collapse of the Indus Vally Civilization. You know this debate has always reminded me a lot of the evolution/creationist controversy in the US: a small group of radicals, driven by politics, dogma and misplaced belief, that continually deny the truth. --Krsont 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that even the Mahabharat (written at least 1000 years after Ramayan) was written before the fall of the Indus valley civ. At the UMass Center of Indic studies "clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC" [4]. The Mahabharat is ONLY a conflict between Sanskrit speaking Kshatriyas and it happened before 1500BC (the end of Ivalley civ). You're right about the debate though. Witzel is driven by anti-Hindu dogma, Communists, Muslims, Imperialists, and Missionaries drive the politics and Max Mueller founded the misplaed belief. They all wish to deny the truth that Indian civilization (including Sanskrit) is indigenous just like the Assyrians to Iraq or the Chinese to China.Bakaman%% 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

aha, the infamous astronomical analysis! is this the same sort of analysis that proved that the Rig Veda was written at the North Pole? And I don't really see how you could mistake linguists and scientists for a radical religious political group. We are talking about modern theories here, not the 19th century; attacking Müller is like attacking Lamark on evolution. We've moved on. I think you'll find Hindutva fits the bill for radical religious politics much better. --Krsont 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The languages (IE) are similar because most humans took the same path from Africa thousands and hundreds of thousands of years ago and because of diffusion between Greek, Buddhist, and Hindu philosophers.Bakaman%% 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language contains a word for "wheel", something that was not invented until the 5th millenium BCE. Not to mention all the agricultural terms that also did not exist millions of years ago when humans left Africa. If the Indo-European languages had seperated at that time, then these words in the daughter languages would obviously all be different. However they are not; they clearly show that they descend from a common ancestor, one that obviously could not have existed millions of years ago. --Krsont 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said millions, I said thousands of years. The wheel also is believed by archaeologists (the experts) to have been invented 8000 BC[http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm}. The Ramayan (7000BC by estimates) does not mention chariots while the Mahabharat (3076BCE) does. Even with your conservative 5000BC estimate the equation works out.Bakaman%% 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

so what about signs of human habitation in India before 8000 years ago? if the original settlers of India were Indo-European as you claim, then how did they have a word for a thing which did not yet exist?--Krsont 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of things like corn, wheat etc. are not even related in IE languages.Bakaman%% 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

i meant animal husbandry. the word for cattle specifically is also frequently associated with wealth; they weren't just names for wild animals. --Krsont 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok gotcha, but I think the cattle subject is one where since the maternal childbirth death rate ( I dont know exact term) was so high, that cow's milk was valued. This is why the Cow is revered in Hinduism and it is used as currency in many other places. It took the place of the mother in many instances.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)