Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

See also

These articles raise the same issues regarding the British Raj

• Hindu law
• Classical Hindu law
• Classical Hindu law in practice
• Robert Lingat — foremost authority on the latter

—Pawyilee (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And, this issue is explained in detail in Census of India prior to independence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Lingat died 35 years ago; he's hardly the foremost authority anymore. You are also missing the point of the argument, which isn't that varna didn't exist, but that caste and casteism as it exists in theory and in practice is the direct result of Western colonialism. The scholars are saying: in pre-British India, we have a very different system with very different principles and realities. Caste qua caste only appears as a result of the imposition of foreign ideals and the colonial need to create a rigid, racist, hierarchical structure. Before you start yelling, read instead of assuming. Ogress _smash! 19:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Lingat invented the subject of Classical Hindu law in practice, and the posthumous English language translation of his work published in French remains the principle — if not the only — text on the subject. It was he who first raised the issue of the British misunderstanding of the practice of Hindu law. I'll leave it to other editors to decide if these See also's should be added to the main article; I doubt most readers would click on them, anyway.—Pawyilee (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content

As i see it, this sentence in the lead is complete nonsense: Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system as it exists today is the result of the British colonial regime, which made rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration. Soham321 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been sourced from a reliable source and the body of the article explains why it has been said citing plenty more sources. You are engaging in original research in calling it "complete nonsense." - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone gives a hundred references which say the sun rises from the west, does that mean they are right? This nonsense can be definitely inserted in the main article if you insist, but definitely not in the lead. Notice that the page number has not been given to the book of the solitary Indian scholar who has been cited as reference: Sathaye, Adheesh A. (17 April 2015). Crossing the Lines of Caste: Visvamitra and the Construction of Brahmin Power in Hindu Mythology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-027312-5. Is it because the Sathaye book is available in its entirety online? Is it because it was felt necessary to give reference to at least a single Indian scholar for this piece of nonsense? Soham321 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the race and ethnicity of scholars?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Because many scholars even today are racists. Only recently, the Nobel prize winning scientist, and co-discoverer of DNA structure, James Watson was sacked from his job for articulating racist views publicly. Soham321 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says sun rises in the West, I can insert it in Wikipedia as per Wikipedia policies. So, I challenge you to produce such a reliable source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

you can insert nonsense in the main article, if you insist, but not in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you will need to develop your own Wikipedia to make up your own rules. Where is the reliable source for the Sun rising in the West? You supposedly have a hundred! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Contentious, controversial, and disputed content can be definitely inserted--even if it is nonsense--in the main article if you give reliable sources, but not in the lead. That is my position. The very fact that other editors have seen it fit to either place the Disputed content tag in the main article or else to remove the disputed sentence from the main article means that there is a genuine content dispute taking place here. Let us both of us give an opportunity to other editors of this article to voice their views on this issue now. Soham321 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that contentious material cannot be put in the lead? Did you read it in any policy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a content dispute (about the issue of what to insert in the lead) with respect to content on this page:Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Pallonji is an Irish citizen, but an Indian permanent resident who believes that the color of his passport is not important and who views himself as a global citizen. Sitush wanted to describe Pallonji as an Irish businessman based on the reliable sources available that describe him as an Irish citizen or Irish national. I said he should be described as an Indo-Irish, or Irish-Indian businessman in the lead.Finally, an Admin stepped in and described him as simply a businessman in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD, all controversies about the topic should also mentioned in the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be written with a neutral point of view. That is why you are not being permitted to insert non-neutral information in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing called "non-neutral information." Neutral point of view, WP:NPOV, has to do with how the article text is written. It has nothing to do with cherry picking sources depending on your whims. Such cherry picking is prohibited. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The first line in WP:NPOV states: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Since PV Kane in his authoritative and monumental and frequently cited work History of Dharmasastra does not agree with the controversial view taken by the mediocre and unknown scholars being citied in the disputed sentence in the lead of this page we should agree that the disputed content does not represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, let us expand this discussion to other editors. Give it a rest for a few days now. Let us see what other editors think of this discussion and of the disputed material. Let us not make the mistake of assuming ownership of this article because as per WP:OWN, that is forbidden.Soham321 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are dispute-tagging a multiply-reliably-sourced lede? Sounds like Wikipedia:I just don't like it to me. Ogress _smash! 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but i did give the reference to PV Kane's monumental and frequently cited work History of Dharmasastras which is the authoritative work on the dharmasastras and which traces the evolution of the caste system in ancient and medieval India and which controverts the disputed edit. If you have half a dozen mediocre and unknown scholars on one side, and one renowned and frequently cited author on the other, who would you go with? Moreover, the reference to the solitary Indian scholar being mentioned in the disputed edit does not include the page number of his book being cited despite his book being available in its entirety online?Soham321 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Again my objection is to placing this edit in the lead of the article. You are welcome to place this material elsewhere. Soham321 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are approaching this all arse-about-face, Soham. The lead is supposed to reflect and summarise the article. Such a significant argument posited by modern scholars (whether you accept their opinion or not) has to be a part of the lead. As with most scholarship, Newton's comment that successive generations are "standing on the shoulders of giants" holds true: those writing and proposing ideas now have the benefit of hindsight that their forebears lacked but created. We cannot just dismiss a widely-held aspect of modern scholarship because we do not like it and, even if Kane is acceptable as a source, that is but one voice. Please take another look at WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and the subject of due weight. It is not our role to judge these scholars, merely to paraphrase them. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The view that the modern caste system was created by the British is a view of the lunatic fringe. As evidence for this, see here: Lunatic Fringe Soham321 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC) I have a theory about this. Many of these wealthy non-resident Indians are ardent nationalists. No doubt that is why they are so keen to deny the very existence of the caste system in pre-British India. So what are they to do about this? Well, why not give funding to mediocre and useless scholars of Indology who get very little funding anyways. Give them funding and instruct them to spread fringe theories. For a good scholarly expose of those espousing lunatic fringe theories about the Indian caste system and other topics related to India, see here: https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_global_south/v002/2.1.bose.html Soham321 (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Some more interesting and relevant stuff: California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Just do a control-F on the word "caste". Soham321 (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources you consider to be written by "wealthy non-resident Indians". I know that Hindutva can be a big problem with revisionist history and that the Brits were unduly influenced by the Brahmins but neither of those seem to be used as sources. Am I missing something as I pop in and out of this discussion? I've got the feeling that we may be talking at cross-purposes. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Note also Kane has no bearing on the issue here. He wrote about the history of dharmasastras, not about the history of caste as it was practised. The latter is documented by historians as required by WP:HISTRS. Moreover, Kane's volumes were written between 1930-1962. They can't trump contemporary scholars and contemporary research. I am also concerned that you are continuing to make racist remarks about researchers that you don't find convenient. That can invite more serious sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ogress and Kautilya3.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement in question could be a little more nuanced, but the inaccuracy tag is inappropriate, and Soham321 seems to have a misunderstanding of our policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:RS. We don't need scholars or sources to be neutral, we need them to be reliable. We don't need the lead to contain only "neutral" content; its neutrality is derived from giving due weight to legitimate sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

California Textbook case

This was part of the disputed material in the California textbook controversy case: Once their society had merged with the local population, a late hymn of the Rig Veda described the four castes.Hindu organizations in the US wanted to alter this text to: "A late hymn of the Rig Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes.” Their proposal was not accepted by the two scholars Prof Bajpai and Prof Witzel who represented the State of California.Soham321 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us compare the disputed material cited above in the California textbook controversy case with the disputed content of this article: Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system as it exists today is the result of the British colonial regime, which made rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.Soham321 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Some other interesting and relevant material pertaining to the California Textbook case: The "corrections" demanded by the Hindutva organisations are integral to the Sangh Parivar's political agenda in India, and similar to what the BJP government was trying to do with the NCERT syllabus and textbooks in social sciences, particularly history. For example, among the "corrections" suggested is a clear attempt to deny the integrality of the caste system in ancient India; it was proposed to delete the reference altogether in one textbook. In another, it was proposed that the picture of an untouchable be removed. In yet another book, a reference to caste system as part of Aryan society was replaced by: "During Vedic times, people were divided into different social groups (varnas) based on their capacity to undertake a particular profession." Another reference to caste is to read as: "A late hymn of the Rg Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes. A saffron assault abroad Soham321 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• And this is an extract from an interview of Prof Witzel of Harvard University who represented the State of California in the controversy:

[Interviewer:]I believe your panel had objections about the corrections relating to the caste system. [Witzel:]It is always complicated. First of all, the textbooks authors had confused caste and class although that has been corrected. But they say the caste system developed in the last few centuries or so. But the fact that the caste system was there before the British came to rule India is denied by them.To come back to our point, what they are doing is misrepresentation of both history and religion.Witzel interviewSoham321 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think your point is clear, but it fits in in: the castes existed prior to the British occupation; the British turned it into a rigid system. If there's anything to be disputed, it is the question if the the caste-system was already rigid before the British. If so, there must be sources on it. Welcome, by the way. It's a relief to see how the discussions have been changed recently, with unexpected fluidity and "alliances" in positions taken. A great improvement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:What I read from Soham321 edits here is this - that castes existed prior to British colonialism. I do not see him stating that the British turned into a rigid system. In my view, the notion of Colonialism making it into a rigid system has to be seen in context of operation of different regimes from the initial beginning of caste system. Some RS has to be there to compare and contrast interactions between caste and different political regimes. AB^Talk 05:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. I am not stating that the british transformed the caste system to make it rigid; it was already a rigid system before the british arrived in India. This also what the 2013 genetic analysis (quoted in the next section) says when it states that a certain rigidity in the caste system had developed roughly two thousand years ago. Soham321 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC) This is a relevant link from Prof Michael Witzel's personal website: Witzel. It contains court judgements pertaining to the California textbooks case. (Hindutva organizations had taken this matter to court. The Hindutvas lost all the cases that they had filed, and finally their case was dismissed with prejudice meaning they cannot file any case pertaining to this matter again.). This is an extract from the first court judgement: It is true, of course, that the texts do include significant discussion of the caste system. Such discussion does not, however, by itself cause any of the texts to violate the law. The caste system is a historical reality, and indisputably was a significant feature of ancient Indian society. Nothing in the applicable standards requires textbook writers to ignore a historical reality of such significant dimension, even if studying it might engender certain negative reactions in students. Indeed, it appears to the Court that to omit treatment of the caste system from the teaching of ancient Indian history would itself be grossly inaccurate.Soham321 (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP BOLDING QUOTES: we use {{quote|}} or "". Ogress _smash! 07:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)ok.Soham321 (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: You can stop beating the drum. None of us here is a Hindutva proponent. In fact most of us have battled Hindutva POV-pushers hundreds of times. What you are noticing is that the postcolonialst view that the British created the "caste system" is found to be convenient by Hindutva forces. That doesn't automatically invalidate their research. As long as they are scholarly, those views should be represented on Wikipedia. As for Michael Witzel, he is a Sanskiritist, not a historian, anthropologist or sociologist. So, his views on caste, especially those published in newspaper interviews rather than peer-reviewed publications, can't trump the views of the researchers. Witzel might have a considered view of what the Sanskrit texts say, but he can't necessarily judge to what extent those edicts were practised. You can keep looking to see if he has any peer-reviewed publications on caste and what the reaction of the scholars has been to his views. Unless there is such analysis, his views can only be a minor footnote in this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us not forget that Witzel was the expert appointed by the State of California in the California textbooks case. Are you suggesting the State of California appointed Witzel as an expert without doing due diligence? The sanskrit texts are relevant because by studying them one can trace the evolution of the caste system as was also done by PV Kane in his books History of Dharmasastras. And the reason one may not find peer reviewed publications of Witzel focussing exclusively on the caste system is obviously because he is in agreement with the well accepted view of the caste system, and not in agreement with the "revisionist" views of the caste system. Incidentally, here is a relevant extract from the book "Rethinking Hindu Identity" by Dwijendra Nath Jha:Jha. There is a wikipedia biographical article on Jha: D.N. Jha. Notice that Jha uses Witzel as one of his references in his book, Jha is in agreement with Witzel on the caste system, and Jha had also expressed his opinion on the California textbooks case: Have your textbooks been saffronized Soham321 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC) This is a relevant extract from the article 'have your textbooks been saffronized':

Days before the curriculum commission was to meet to consider these and other changes, Harvard University’s only tenured Sanskrit professor Michael Witzel received word of the changes about to be made and quickly drafted a letter to the Virginia State Board of Education. He argued, “The proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature, and are primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters and non-specialist academics writing about issues far outside their area of expertise.” The letter was endorsed by 47 other Asian-studies scholars, including Sanskrit professor Robert Goldman and renowned Indian historians Romila Thapar and D. N. Jha.The Hindutva won the first round, with the commission accepting almost all of their recommendations. The scholars quickly rebounded, however. At the next meeting, they brought Dalits who explained how the proposed changes hid the violent truth of caste-based discrimination.

Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that would imply that the academics couldn't win an academic point. So they played politics to get their way. Not a particularly honourable position to be in. How did the Hindutva forces win the first round? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content continued - History and "rigidity"

Susan Bayly (2012), Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge University Press, p.25:"Yet, until relatively recent times, many Indians were still comparatively untouched by the norms of jati and varna as we understand them." As I said, this is not what I expected, but it seems to be stated by many researchers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

[Sitush wrote:]

"That the caste system existed in the ancient world is not disputed even by the likes of Zwart. What the contemporary people are saying is that the British administrative efforts, driven often by Brahmin urgings, served to intensify the significance of caste in a modern context, to reinforce boundaries within the system etc and thus made it more "rigid". There was a certain amount of fluidity in the pre-British system, whereby people's caste roles were redefined. That, for example, is why there are so many "degraded kshatriyas". Or so the postcolonialists say"

This view is not what the lead reflects. With regard to its origin, to the uninitiated, caste is ' thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life' and 'is the result of the British colonial regime'. I have mentioned it earlier as well. It is the first sentence on the origins of caste system in the lead and it directly comes to Colonialism as if there has been no time period such as ancient, and pre - British India. I assume the article is not only about the caste system in Colonial and post colonial India. Further the lead has 5 references to affirmative action based on caste, which I believe is POV pushing.

PS: How do I cite sources and request for a rewrite? Here in talk page? AB^Talk 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki: author, year of publication, title, publisher, pagenumber, eventually quotes. No need for DRN; first look for sources, and try to add info on the history, as Kautilya3 suggested. The discussion is heated, but fair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two references given for the disputed content without the page number of the book (one of them by Sathaye) being given. This is a pity because the Sathaye book at least is available online. However, i will add that the view of these relatively obscure authors is contradicting the view of the eminent Indologist Prof Michael Witzel of Harvard (who had represented the State of California in the California textbooks case) and also contradicting the view of the judges who had considered and ruled on this material in the California textbooks case which has been mentioned in an earlier section in this talk page.Soham321 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Susan Bayly is a relatively obscure name in the field of Indology. She cannot ever be compared to a scholar like Michael Witzel of Harvard who had represented the State of California in the California textbooks case. Bayly's views echo the views of the Hindutvas (when she says that the caste system as we know it today is a creation of the British); Witzel dismisses these views as nonsensical. Please see the two earlier sections of this talk page in this connection. Soham321 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Susan (and Christopher) Bayly are both highly respected in their field. You have to stop banging on about Witzel in the context of the books thing. No-one in their right mind cites NCERT books anyway because they are notorious for reflecting government propaganda, whether BJP or INC. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Witzel is a Professor at Harvard University. He has edited several volumes of the Harvard Oriental Series besides being a prolific and well respected scholar. Bayly in contrast is a relatively unknown and obscure name in the field of Indology. Bayly's view that the caste system as we know it today was a creation of the British was also the view of the Hindutvas who filed cases in California that California textbooks should contain the views Bayly is expressing. The state of California was represented by Witzel. The judges of California sided with Witzel, and ultimately dismissed the case of the Hindutvas with prejudice, meaning it can never be appealed again.Soham321 (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, relax Soham321. Bayly does not say that there were no castes before the British, does she? Please provide more sources, and help to improve the article, instead of accusing other editors of being Hindutva-sympathisers. If you think Sitush is a Hindutva-sympathiser, I'm one too. Ha! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can those who are knowledgeable on this subject & the relevant sources please tell me which sources are really relevant on the history of the jatis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of being a Hindutva sympathizer. I am simply saying that the views of those who think that the caste system as we know it today is a creation of the British is also the view of the Hindutvas. Further, the Hindutvas had taken this matter to court in the State of California where the State of California was represented by Prof Michael Witzel of Harvard. The judges of California ruled against the Hindutvas with prejudice, meaning the matter can never be appealed again.Soham321 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's quite relevant information, so add it to the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the number of sources, I count six references for the disputed sentence. It would be wise to split "the disputed info" into two: origins (pre-British), and influence of the British (rigidity). The second part seems to be well-sourced; for the first part sources it must be possible to find sources which describe the pre-British origins of the jati-system. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, Witzel has been disputed by other Harvard professors such as Edwin Bryant. You have to forget about Witzel.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting: according to André Béteille, Varna and Jati, Sociological Bulletin Vol. 45, No. 1 (MARCH 1996), pp. 15-27, for two thousand years caste was described as varna, and only recently has it come to be described as jati.

regarding Witzel: Bryant is not sufficient reason to "forget about Witzel". Rather the contrary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons to forget about Witzel. Witzel did not even know the difference between the dress of Brahmin priests and Muslims.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, the only people in the scholarly world who are strongly opposed to Witzel are the Hindutvas. There is a good wikipedia article on Witzel: Michael Witzel. Your claim that he did not know the differene between the dress of brahmin priests and muslims is false. The California textbooks had a wrongly captioned picture, and Witzel agreed that the correct picture should be placed in the textbooks. Regarding Edwin Bryant, Bryant is a Professor at Rutgers and not Harvard as you were claiming earlier. Furthermore, Bryant and Witzel do not seem to be on opposite sides considering Witzel has written a glowing review of Bryant's book "The Quest for the origins of Vedic culture" and further an article of Witzel was included in a book edited by Bryant. Soham321 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE INDENT YOUR COMMENTS, do not continue someone else's comment as your own. I have just indented yours. You show a marked unwillingness to learn the standards of discussion and use them here, this is the third time I've had to ask you to stop doing weird things with your comments. It does not help if we cannot read the page easily.

Now, the issue of the California case is not relevant here, why do you keep bringing up the California case? Ogress _smash! 21:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, Bryant was a professor at Harvard. And he does criticize Witzel's views. And Witzel's views are not relevant to this article anyway.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

47 Asian Studies scholars had endorsed the views of Harvard's Michael Witzel

Incidentally, here is a relevant extract from the book "Rethinking Hindu Identity" by Dwijendra Nath Jha:Jha. There is a wikipedia biographical article on Jha: D.N. Jha. Notice that Jha uses Witzel as one of his references in his book, Jha is in agreement with Witzel on the caste system, and Jha had also expressed his opinion on the California textbooks case: Have your textbooks been saffronized. This is a relevant extract from the article 'have your textbooks been saffronized':

Days before the curriculum commission was to meet to consider these and other changes, Harvard University’s only tenured Sanskrit professor Michael Witzel received word of the changes about to be made and quickly drafted a letter to the Virginia State Board of Education. He argued, “The proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature, and are primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters and non-specialist academics writing about issues far outside their area of expertise.” The letter was endorsed by 47 other Asian-studies scholars, including Sanskrit professor Robert Goldman and renowned Indian historians Romila Thapar and D. N. Jha.The Hindutva won the first round, with the commission accepting almost all of their recommendations. The scholars quickly rebounded, however. At the next meeting, they brought Dalits who explained how the proposed changes hid the violent truth of caste-based discrimination.

Soham321 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And this is the original letter of Witzel, written to the California State board of education, which has four dozen co-signatories: Michael Witzel original letter Soham321 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Incidentally, Witzel seems to have been involved in a running feud with those who seek to "rewrite" Indian history in accordance with the Hindutva view of Indian history. Here is a relevant Witzel quote in this connection:

Most scholars, after checking some of the "facts" presented in the book, would simply put it aside laughing or would shake their head and regard the principal author as one more, albeit blatant, example among the currently growing guild of fervent rewriters of history. The book, by its very improbability, further taints the present wave of revisionist writing (S.S. Misra, S. Talageri, K.D. Sethna, S.P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Choudhuri, A. Shourie, S.R. Goel, and their expatriate or foreign fellow travellers such as S. Kak, S. Kalyanaraman, D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Elst, K. Klostermaier).

You really do need to drop this now, Soham. Please read WP:TE - you are boring the socks off everyone and swamping this page with irrelevancies. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Earlier you were arguing that Witzel should not be taken seriously. Now that i have shown that 47 Asian Studies scholars have endorsed the views of Witzel, you are saying i am boring you. Soham321 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Where did I say that? It looks like you are yet again making things up. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Here is the relevant diff: Sitush says Michael Witzel need not be taken seriously. Soham321 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Another relevant article which shows how controversial this issue is Hindutva and Witzel :

More controversial were proposed revisions stating that women had “different” rights than men and seeking to dissociate the caste system from Hinduism.

Soham321 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The California textbook controversy has no relevance. There is a difference between caste and caste system.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, Aren't you the same person who was questioning the credibility and scholarship of Michael Witzel when i first put forth his views? Are you going to remain silent on the fact that 47 Asian Studies scholars endorsed his views on the caste system in India (among other issues)? Soham321 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand the difference between caste and caste system. Witzel's views have nothing to do with this article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I also question the relevance of Michael Witzel's discussion of the California case. You can object to a scholar's work being irrelevant because it's not on topic, you know. Ogress _smash! 22:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Prior to the revelation that 47 Asian Studies scholars have endorsed the views of Witzel, Victoria was specifically questioning the scholarship and credibility of Witzel (and not questioning the relevance of Witzel's views to this article as is now Victoria's position ). For evidence of this, see diff1 and diff2.Soham321 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, please do not jam your replies onto my reply, it makes things hard to read. Okay, so she doesn't like Witzel. That doesn't change that Witzel is not relevant here. Do you think Sitush is biased against Witzel? I actually really like Witzel, I have many of his papers. His comments on the California case remain irrelevant. Ogress _smash! 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an extract from an interview of Witzel pertaining to the California textbooks case:

[Interviewer:]I believe your panel had objections about the corrections relating to the caste system. [Witzel]:It is always complicated. First of all, the textbooks authors had confused caste and class although that has been corrected. But they say the caste system developed in the last few centuries or so. But the fact that the caste system was there before the British came to rule India is denied by them.To come back to our point, what they are doing is misrepresentation of both history and religion.

Witzel interview Soham321 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)And here is Witzel writing again on the California textbooks case and the caste system in India:

Not only were the suggested revisions of the textbooks factually incorrect in many instances but there was also an attempt to explain away those aspects of traditional Indian society that are now a matter of critical concern to Indians in India. The textbook revisions whitewash the plight of women and the so called lower castes. Their history was reduced to "different" rights and education for women while the caste system was simply a division of labor.

Witzel article Soham321 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)In an email on a publicly viewable mailing list, Prof Witzel described the victory, in California court, over the Hindutvas who were seeking to distort, among other things, the Indian caste system in California textbooks. Witzel gives an extract from the court judgement:

The caste system is a historical reality, and indisputably was a significant feature of ancient Indian society...it appears to the Court that to omit treatment of the caste system from the teaching of ancient Indian history would itself be grossly inaccurate.

Witzel email Soham321 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, we are using sources by Ivy League scholars and books published by university publishing houses. You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Zwart source and the role of British colonial regime

I have been reading this dispute about the lead language and Zwart here since yesterday. Out of concern that Zwart and other sources are being cherry picked and misrepresented by editor "AB", "Sohan321" etc., here are some comments from someone whose field is sociology (sorry, I am new to wikipedia; apologies if this is not the correct place or procedure to submit such comments):

On pp. 237-240, Zwart reviews many of the respected figures on social stratification. He cites Dumont, Cohn, Fuller, Dirks, Ludden, Inden, Mandelbaum, Srinivas, Weber, Merton, Quigley, Burman, and many more throughout his review. A careful read of all pages justifies the line in Zwart's abstract, "Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime".

On p. 237, he explains how the colonial policy, administration and law were instrumental in fashioning caste and caste identity in India. Zwart writes in column 1 of p. 237, "Postmodern scholars see the caste system not as an ancient given, but as a construction that originates largely in British times." In column 2, he writes, "The colonial Census Officers - misled by 19th century orientalist discourse and their upper caste informants - wrongly considered caste and caste hierarchy to be the basic social facts of Hindu life".

The thesis of contemporary scholars, and summarized in the Zwart's review, is that the British colonial regime had a major role in structuring the caste system in India, because "jobs and education opportunities were allotted based on caste, and people rallied and adopted a caste system that maximized their opportunity". He then goes on to summarize that post-colonial affirmative action only reinforced the "British colonial project that ex hypothesi constructed the caste system".

Editor "AB"'s makes the claim, "I am stating is that, Zwart himself doesn't state 'British colonial administration constructed caste systems' in conclusive manner, because that is not the intention of the whole article." - above @ 19:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor "AB"'s claim is a misrepresentation of Zwart's review. Zwart does summarize numerous contemporary scholars in a conclusive manner.

Paulmuniz (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a qoute from Nicholas B. Dirks (), Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Introduction: The Modernity of Caste:

"This book will address this question by suggesting that caste, as we know it today, is not in fact some unchanged survival of ancient India, not some single system that reflects a core civilizational value, not a basic expression of Indian tradition. Rather, I will argue that caste (again, as we know it today) is a modern phenomenon, that it is, specifically, the product of an historical encounter between India and Western colonial rule. By this I do not mean to imply that it was simply invented by the too clever British, now credited with so many imperial patents that what began as colonial critique has turned into another form of imperial adulation. But I am suggesting that it was under the British that "caste" became a single term capable of expressing, organizing, and above all "systematizing" India's diverse forms of social identity, community, and organization. This was achieved through an identifiable (if contested) ideological canon as the result of a concrete encounter with colonial modernity during two hundred years of British domination. In short, colonialism made caste what it is today. It produced the conditions that made possible the opening lines of this book, by making caste the central symbol of Indian society. And it did its work well; as Nehru was powerfully aware, there is now no simple way of wishing it away, no easy way to imagine social forms that would transcend the languages of caste that have become so inscribed in ritual, familial, communal, socioeconomic, political, and public theaters of quotidian life."

So, the caste sustem was not "invented" by the British, but "colonialism made caste what it is today." Can we channel some of the energy invested in this talkpage to the reading of sources and the improvement of the article? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

JJ quite agree. Most of the references cited here boils down to 'Castes of Mind',1992 by NB Dirks. Here is a quote from AO DeNicola's review of Dirks.

In the introductory section he sets up his major claim as well as the confines of his critique. In short, he argues that caste is a politically modern construction that served to categorize and delimit previously more fluid social organization throughout India. While he does not argue that cast was a British construction, he does maintain that British colonialism "made caste what it is today."

Unless Zwart does not have any other citation from what he mentions as 'contemporary scholars' where in which such scholars conclusively says 'Colonialism constructed castes' Dirks' view ( from reviews of Dirks,1992) has to be reflected in the article. (In my opinion, pending a detailed discussion on Dirks, such a significant view, unless undisputed or widely held, has very less scope in the lead of the article.) AB^Talk 05:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that that is not what Zwart says; his sentence "is thought of" is simply ambiguous, and may be read in various ways. It seems that most of us around here can agree that the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, that the caste-system became more important during the British occupation (though, surprisingly, dveleopments toward that system had already started before), and that the whole system is still, or again, changing due to contemporary developments. As usually with Indian topics, it's complex and fascinating! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Post-Mughal period

See Caste system in India#Post-Mughal period. What Bayly describes here fits in with other descriptions of the influence of the Brahmanas on the British colonial system. It also fits in with the development of "neo-Vedanta" as a 'neo-traditional' response to colonialism, harking back (is that correct English?) to Indian traditions, yet itself also a thoroughly modern "grand narrative." The Brahmanas were an important source of information for the British, thereby also being elevated themselves as a social group. See Sweetman, Hinduism#cite_note-55. And the socalled "neo-Vedanta" betrays the influence of Brahmana-views on religiosity, but also reflects an intellectual-religious search for common denominators in Indian religiosity which was well underway already since the start of Muslim-rule. Also note the status of asceticism in modern notions of Hinduism; Yoga seems to be the defining characteristic of Hinduism, which, of course, "on the ground," is not "true." Am I correct here, Vic? I remember that you once commented that Advaita Vedanta is irrelevant to most people in India. Or was it someone else who wrote that?
Anyway, fascinating to see how the developments in the caste-system fit in with other developments; the "bigger picture" gets even bigger. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a quote comparing Bayly and Dirks as found in Flesh and Fish Blood: Postcolonialism, Translation, and the Vernacular By S. Shankar

"Bayly declares that her aim is “to show that caste as we now recognize it has been engendered, shaped and perpetuated by comparatively recent political and social developments,” specifically identifying the post-Mughal eighteenth century as a key transitional moment (1999, 4); and Dirks declares, “Caste (again as we know it today) is a modern phenomenon” (2000a, 5). As their language reveals (both are careful to note their subject is caste “now”), neither Bayly nor Dirks denies the existence of caste in premodern times; however, theyemphasize the relatively recent origins of what Bayly calls “caste-centred India” (65)."

Further, on the differences between Bayly and Dirks

" Despite these similarities in their arguments, Bayly and Dirks crucially disagree regarding the role played by colonialism in the constitution of caste systems. Briefly put, Bayly dates the modern origins of the caste system to the eighteenth century, the period of transition from Mughal rule to colonial British rule, whereas Dirks emphasizes the effect of British colonialism. Bayly acknowledges the role played by the British in consolidating and deepening the impact of caste hierarchies and differences through the regulatory and enumerating mechanisms (such as the decennial census) of colonial rule; however, she locates the actual origins of the modern system of caste to a period before colonialism,emphasizes the extent to which Indians were themselves fashioners of the caste system as it exists now, and generally advances the notion that British rule was only one element in a complicated process of re-caste-ing India."

Clearly Bayly's view contradicts Dirks' as to colonialism constructed caste as it is now. AB^Talk 06:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradicts, or supplements? Anyway, both are relevant, and worth to mention in the article. The aim is to provide an overview of relevant information, not to draw conclusions (though, of course, we have to apply our best judgement, and try to sort out what is relevant and what not). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradicts, with regard to the question of when the process started, but supplements - to a huge extent, both being post colonial scholarship - on the general theme (the postulate of caste system formulation/becoming rigid as it exists today). Still I think that is an avoidable reference in the lead. What I mean is that, it can be mistaken for the development of the caste system altogether. Further, I doubt why there has to be a particular insistence on origin/development of caste system ( be it in post-Mughal or colonial) becoming a rigid system, before understanding or mentioning what is meant by the connotation of 'rigid system' in the context of caste? Does it imply hierarchy? Does it imply bar on intermixing? Again it leads to another doubt, what is meant by ' caste as it is today' ? Should not we address both the concerns ( 'caste as a rigid system' and 'cast as it is today') before we discuss (mention in the lead of the article) what caused caste as a rigid system (as it is today?). AB^Talk 09:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: Meanwhile, working on the sources for crucial missing information in the article, such as hierarchy, exclusion etc. AB^Talk 09:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Historical existence/evolution of castes

1.History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D., edited by Sigfried J. de Laet, Joachim Herrmann; UNESCO, 1996

• While talking about sense of community among Budhist and Jainas, about 2 century BCE "..The sense of community among the Buddhists and the Jainas by not only in the interdependence of the monk and the by follower, but also in the fact thar the communimty cut across caste identities and in theory at least the Sangha was open to members of any caste. This was in contrast to the brahmanical conception of society as segmented into relatively independent castes where the sense of cornmunity was limited to each caste and even religious sects tended to remain close to caste contours. " p362

• "Peninsular India passed through an interesting period of transition between . c. AD 300 and 700. that is. from the decline of the Satavahan to the rise of strong regional kingdoms This period is also one of transition from a predominantly pastoral and trading economy to an agrarian economy associated with the emphasis on land grants and the emergence of a new socio political order marked by small regional and sub-regional polities under monarchical and chiefly rule, supported by a brahmana class standing at the apex of a social hierarchy based on caste."p392

• "Although some kinds or caste system already existed in India long before the time of the Guptas, the system was greatly elaborated with the appearance of numerous sub- castes recorded in the law-books. Each group of foreigners was assimilated into Hindu society as a caste and, if they were conquerors, they were generally given the status of ksatriyas. The Hurts who invaded India around the beginning of the fifth century ultimately came to be recognized as among the high castes. In addition some tribal peoples in some parts of the subcontinent were gradually absorbed into Hindu society by being assigned a Particular subcaste. In this respect the caste system, usually regarded as a restrictive factor, had important positive effects as it enabled foreigners and tribals to obtain a place in normal society." p387

• On forest dwellers getting assimilated to caste system "Forest- dwellers were of course found in many parts of the subcontinent and were gradually assimilated into caste society as agriculture encroached into the forests. This makes the continuum from tribe to caste, from Jana to Jati. a constant historical process. Associated with this is the change from non-state systems to monarchical states." p42 AB^Talk 11:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

2.Caste and Race in India, Govind Sadashiv Ghurye,Popular Prakashan,1969 Link to googlebooks.

"I HAVE here sought to give a picture ot Hindu caste society as it was functioning before modern ideas affected its course, We have now to see how it came to be what it was. For the convenience of such historical treatment I propose to break up the history ot India into four periods. First, the Vedic period ending about B.c. 600 and comp rrisnn? the 1iterary data ot the Vedic Samhitas and the Brdhmanas; second, the post-Vedic period, extending to about the third century of the Christian era. In this period we have three types of literature which shed light on this subject. The sacred’ laws of the Aryans present the orthodox and the more or less idealistic standpoint while the epics testify to the contemporary practices. Buddhist literature, on the other hand, gives a glimpse of the instititution as it appeared to those who rebelled against it and in part provides us with a natural picture of some aspects of caste. The third period may be styled the period of the Dharma-shdstras and ends with the tenth or eleventh century &i. Manu, Yajnavalkya and Vishnu are the chief exponents of the social ideals of this age. The fourth period may, with propriety, be called the modern period, and it brings us down to the beginning of the nineteenth century." p43

The book, through pages 43 to p112 traces in detail the transformation in caste in detail. Two chapters of caste through ages is devoted by Ghurye for this purpose. It is properly cited and referenced. Well, one can have dispute as to the content of the book but one cannot deny it existence and deserves a place in the article.

AB^Talk 11:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a nice review of Ghurye's book: Ghurye review. Note that the review was written in 2011. Soham321 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)