Talk:Kayastha/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2014

Amitabh Bachchan who is the pioneer of hindi cinema is a Kayastha from Uttar Pradesh which is the hub of Kayatha community.

2601:9:1A80:977:B5FE:F46D:38F5:58EE (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear exactly what you want to add and you have also provided no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For Bachchan, see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. It would be a violation of WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

I would like to request to change the population of Kayasthas to 10 million which is incorrectly given as 8 lacs at the end of this article under modern india subheading 203.110.84.194 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Karn

Why is Karn redirected here, anyways? The name doesn't appear in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Probably because the previous content in the page was about Kayastha. I've opened a section below for other comments, and the idea of changing the destination of the redirect on Karn. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Karn redirect

There has recently been issue with adding the code {{redirect|Karn|the Marvel Comics character|Karn (comics)}} to the page. I added it back because people searching for a comic book character would be confused to find this page instead. However, it might just be a better idea to redirect Karn to Karn (comics) with the note {{redirect|Karn|the [[Hindu]] community|Kayastha}}.

Any ideas? -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 18:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The link should be to the Primary topic, which I think is the caste, not a minor comic book character.

Furthermorre, as Karn (comics) is itself a redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K such a redirect would have to appear part-way down a page, making that page look odd.
Such a relocation would probably raise far more annoyance from people looking for the caste finding themselves in a list of minor comic characters - I suggest it is left where it is, - Arjayay (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect Karn to Karn (comics). No hatnote there unless readers can figure out why Kayastha relates to Karn from the current article text. I sure as heck can't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see The Karn article before it was turned into a redirect by User:Sitush - However, I fully agree that information and reference should have been integrated when the redirect was made - Arjayay (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable Kayasthas

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

KAYASTHA - ORIGINS

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

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

I request please delete the line, in kayastha > origin section that is "Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Sudra (lower caste) and sometimes Kshatriya as well." It's degrading social status of pinnacle cast of hindu religion.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.159.126 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The line is properly sourced and your claim that the "kayastha are direct descenders of a vedic (ancient)god" is rooted in myth, not history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone decides about the origins of a group solely by a single-reference, that person is still lives in Dark-age. I humbly request to pls reasearch about the topic; most of the sources/ancient texts certify that Kayastha aren't related to Shudras. Do read this and specially about the "Decisive Law suit" Kayasths- Kshatriyas or Shudras ? Pls. do enlighten yourself cuz the then "British Indian Govt. Court" declared that too. Also , read the Intro page of this Caste Rankings in India :) Indianwiki (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So give us some reliable sources. You are not going to get better than modern academic works, for example, and law suits count for little in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sitush O really ? so u mean that Court rulings aren't reliable ? WoW !!! You are also disrespecting the ancient works of literature. Pls. dp adhere to community talk guidelines and not hurt the sentiments of people by declaring 'ancient texts' as unreliable source.Indianwiki (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Indianblitzwiki, court rulings are considered to be primary sources. You need to find reliable sources that comment and interpret a court ruling. Note that the definition of reliable sources on Wikipedia does not say that other sources are unreliable (or, for that matter, that reliable sources are accurate). Rather, the intent is on making sure that somebody, an expert preferably, has confirmed that an interpretation or an assertion is generally accepted by, at the least, a reasonable chunk of the expert community. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark, actually what I cited wasnt a copy of court ruling, it was an interpretation only, by "experts" in the matter, if a person wud read full article they can notice that very easily; but people here are adamant and not ready to listen.Indianwiki (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanskritisation

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

Please note that the article does not mention that the Kayasthas are considered as dvijas, and there's no question of suppressing any fact. I have gone through pages 185-186 of the source you have mentioned, and there's nothing substantial apart from the fact that the source mentions the Kayasthas as non-dvijas (and discusses about caste associations or Sabhas promoting them). I am not sure about the reliability of the source since the section name (Page 185) is The Kayasthas as Chandragupta, and also mentions in Page 186 that "the Kayasthas claimed that they were the descendants of the Emperor Chandragupta", which is simply wrong; all WP:RS mention that the Kayasthas claim descent from Lord Chitragupta (part of mythological origin theory), but here the author seems to be totally confused and mentions the Gupta Emperor instead. Anyway, it is true that some authorities consider Kayasthas as non-dvijas, while others rank them among the dvijas, and the varna status is disputed. And this article categorically mentions that the varna status is a subject matter of debate. For example, Professor Julius J. Lipner clearly mentions the varna status of the Kayasthas of Bengal is disputed and while some authorities consider that they "do not belong to the twice-born orders, being placed high up among the Sudras; for other authorities they are on a level with Ksatriyas, and are accorded twice-born status." [See Page 172]. The same is applicable for North Indian Kayasthas, and I guess there are ample sources to support it.

I do not understand why you have mentioned that there is no link with the ancient Kshatriyas, which is mythology (like Lord Rama and family) and not history; it is obvious that possibly no modern community has any link with the so-called ancient Kshatriyas. Moreover if you go by the definition, Sanskritization is the process where lower castes seek higher status "by emulating the rituals or practices of the upper or dominant castes". Is this applicable to the Kayasthas who have been mentioned (by all reliable sources) as a dominant caste all through history? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with User:Ekdalian Indianwiki (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

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

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

Even without actually referring to his wiki page you can just Add his name and remark that he doesnt believes in caste system; it is not necessary to totally eradicate his name from the list :/ Morover , the name of Harivansh Rai Bachchan should be added because he was a Kayastha and didnt possibly decline being so. Nonetheless , atleast this line could be added 'Amitabh Bachchan was born into a Kayastha family but decisively refused to be called so as being a non-follower of Castism'.User:Arjayay Indianwiki (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not going to happen. That you seem unwilling either to read or to accept the consensus is just an irritation - it won't actually change anything, so you might as well give up trying now. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The wiki page about Harivansh Rai Bachchan itself accounts him to be a Kayastha  ; then why is he not being among "the notable people list" ? Indianwiki (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not a reliable source - the page only states "Born in a Kayastha family" which is a attribution from an outsider. You need a citation where he declares that he considered himself a Kayastha. - Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

He also didn't decertify being a Kayastha. A page in his Biography states he just changed his last name, and according to Wikipedia's own rules, this doesn't admits that he wasn't a Kayastha since he didn't proclaim. . Many few people today actually 'pro-claim' of being in a community, and as he was a visionary he too wasn't supportive of Castism, but this doesn't means he rooted out his origins.Indianwiki (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"he spent the next two years at St Catharine's College, Cambridge, Cambridge University doing his doctoral thesis on W.B. Yeats. It was then, that he used 'Bachchan' as his last name instead of Srivastava." Indianwiki (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector , im trying to do the very same, but other are doing things even without proper and satisfactory discussion.Indianwiki (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means continue the discussion, but until there is an agreement to make a change, do not reactivate the request. Continuing to request a declined change without coming to an agreement is disruptive. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent citation removals

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

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

"Please change above statement and replace with"

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

Kayastha's are not demanding 33% reservation in Government jobs. Please remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik130592 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 April 2016‎ (UTC)

@Nik130592: Per what reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no organization of Kayastha's which has been demanding reservation. The Akhil Bhartiye Kayastha Mahasabha has also not held any public agitation for this yet.

I have asked you to remove the reservation line but why have you not removed it yet.Nik130592 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nik130592. Unfortunately, that statement is reliably sourced so we can't remove it. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

population of kayastha is incorrect

population of kayastha mentioned in the wikipedia article is only 800,000. however, it should be arund 8,000,000. Please see the reference below:

i think there is some typing error, which needs to be corrected.

Vishal.nitc (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC) vishal

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2017

Please edit current Kayastha population as 7,861,000 103.54.106.200 (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Facts has been distorted

Please check with the previous information which has been removed on the topic. The topic now only talks about 'Bengali Kayastha'. Kayastha comes from a place which is now known as 'Swat Valley'. Which is now in Afghanistan, during attack of Mughals they kept shifting towards India.

The whole article has been designed to appeal to elections in "Bengal" - Please do the citation possible. Seeing this now is making me afraid of wikipedia going into group of wrong hands.

The article leads to the topic of Pratapaditya; upon which two political aligned people are using the talkbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit05.s (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Kayastha also were taluqdars jagirdars and zamindars during british and mughal era. Then why only mentioned they were administrators of estates. There should be also mention that kayastha were taluqdars jagirdars and zamindars. One more thing Thakur Chaudhary or choudhary and Rai titles were used by feudal kayasthas. Tsjhon (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Requesting an edit for adding more names to notable people , from cross verified sources. Want to edit and add following Names

Amartya Sen Amar Bose ( of Bose Foundation ) Yashwant Sinha ( Former Minister ) Jayant Sinha ( Current Aviation Minister )

Ishb (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
Although these four people have Wikipedia articles, they also need to self-identify as Kayastha.
Looking at your request:-

• Amartya Sen has no mention of Kayastha
• Amar Bose ( of Bose Foundation ) has no mention of Kayastha
• Yashwant Sinha ( Former Minister ) has a source for Kayastha - but this is not a self-identification
• Jayant Sinha ( Current Aviation Minister ) has no mention of Kayastha

If you can find reliable sources, that include self-identification, please make a further request and cite these sources - Arjayay (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Once it has been decided that "We do not categorize people by their caste", then why is that applicable only to the categories domain. The caste related articles too shall have no mention of any person. Mentioning notables on caste articles simply give undue promotional weightage to the caste.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

North India (UP, Delhi)

Srivastava, Mathur, Saxena, Bhatnagar, Nigam, Asthana, Kulshreshtha, Gaur, Ambastha, Karna, Suradhwaja, Balmiki, Gaurban. (Last three are rarely found)

Bengal:

Sen, Kar, Das, Palit, Saha, Dutt/Dutta, Bose, Ghosh, Pal, Dey. Ray, Sarkar, Chudhry, Nag, Som, Mullick, Majumdar, Munshi, Roy, Chandra, Guha, Vaidya, Nandy, Nandan, Sinha, Rakshit, Ankur, Nath, Biswas, Dhar, Bhadra, Sarbhan, Varman, Bhava, Mitra, Gupta, Kundu, Bhadradhar, Vishwasu, Dev, Adhikari, Patwari.

Orissa:

Patnaik, Kanungo, Das, Bihiyar, Mohanti, Naidu, Pataskar.

Assam:

Barva, Chakravarty, Baid, Mahanti.

Madhya Pradesh:

Srivastava(also Khare), Saxena, Gaur, Asthana, Khare.

Gujarat:

Chandraseni Kayastha Prabhu, Mehta, Vallabhji, Balmiki, Surajdhwaj, Vallabhi.

South India:

Mudaliar, Naidu, Pillai, Reddy, Bal, Karnik, Raman, Rao, Menon, Nair, Nayyar, Raju.

Goa, Daman, Diu:

Davane, Keelen, Pathare.

Sindh Province:

Alim, Fazil, Qamil, Advani.

Some ALS commonly used by Saxena – Johry, Hajela, Adholia, Raizada, Kodesia, Kanungo, Bartariya, Bisaria, Pradhan, Kamthania, Darbari, Rawat, Saharia, Dalela, Sonreksha, Kamojia, Agochia, Sinha, Moria, Johri.

ALS commonly used by Mathurs are – Saharia, Kataria, Kakrania, Dewariya, Dilwariya, Tawakaley, Rajauria, Nag, Galgotia, Sarwaria, Andley(Endlay), Ranoria.

Bhatnagar’s main ALS are – Dasania, Bhatania, Kuchania, Gujaria, Bahliwal, Mahiwal, Sambhalwed, Barsania, Kanmaujia, etc (Total ALS are 84).

Nigams have the following prominent ALS – Kanungo, Akbarpur, Akbarabadi, Kanungo ghatampuri, Chaudhry, Phaphund, Kanungo badha, Kanungo jaipur, Munshi ghatampuri, etc.

Shrivastavas common ALS are – Verma, Sinha, Aghori, Paday, Pandia, Raizada, Kanungo, Jagdhari, Pradhan, Beohar, Raja Surajpura, Tandwa, Vaidya, Barwaria, Choudhary, Raja Sandeela, Deogaon. It may be seen that some ALS are been usaed b more than sub-sects of Kayasthas- Verma, Sinha, Kanungo, Raizada, Choudhary. Now a days Sinhas or Vermas are found in other castes also.

Bihar:

Srivastava, Ambashtha, Karna, Mathur, Bhatnagar. Other surnames/ALS used are – Sinha, Pandeya, Pandia, Kanth, Das, Sahay, Samaiyar Gayasen, Verma etc.

Punjab:

Govil, Lahiri, Hajela, Raizada, Vidyarthi, Choudhary, Johari, Rawat, Bisaria, Sinha, Nagpal, Gotriy Kayastha, Kashyap, Bakshi, Dutta.

Rajasthan:

Gaur, Mathur, Pacholi, Srivastava Guttu, Nandan, Sarbhan, Phuttu, Mavekadanvas, Sambhare, Bhatnagar, Shastri, Prasad.

Tamilnadu:

Tamil Canara, Kayastha, Naydu, Pilley, Menon.

Andhra Pradesh:

Telugu Kayasha, Naidu (Note: In Hyderabad, Kayasthas are in abundance and they are Mathurs, Srivastava, Nigams, Saxenas, etc as in North India. They are all Urdu speaking)

Bihar:

Srivastava, Ambashtha, Karna, Mathur, Bhatnagar. Other surnames/ALS used are – Sinha, Pandeya, Pandia, Kanth, Das, Sahay, Samaiyar Gayasen, Verma etc.

Punjab:

Govil, Lahiri, Hajela, Raizada, Vidyarthi, Choudhary, Johari, Rawat, Bisaria, Sinha, Nagpal, Gotriy Kayastha, Kashyap, Bakshi, Dutta.

Rajasthan:

Gaur, Mathur, Pacholi, Srivastava Guttu, Nandan, Sarbhan, Phuttu, Mavekadanvas, Sambhare, Bhatnagar, Shastri, Prasad.

Tamilnadu:

Tamil Canara, Kayastha, Naydu, Pilley, Menon.

Andhra Pradesh:

Telugu Kayasha, Naidu (Note: In Hyderabad, Kayasthas are in abundance and they are Mathurs, Srivastava, Nigams, Saxenas, etc as in North India. They are all Urdu speaking)

Maharashtra:

Chandra Seniya Kayastha Prabhu(CKP) surnames used are – Thackeray, Pathare, Pathekar, Karkhanis, Pharnis, Polanis, Vanis, Hazirnarsis, Mokasi, Chitnavis, Kotnis, Chitre, Gupte, Mathrey, Deshpande, Karore, Donde, Tamhane, Dighe, Sule, Raje, Sangle, Mohite, Tungare, Kulkarni, Shreedh, Pradhan, Jaywant, Wamanraje, Pharnase, Apte, Khyadya, Gadkari, Trivakraje, Adhikari, Samarth, Dalvi, Deshmukh, Chowil, Nadkar, Dawalkar, Sowankar, Kulawkar, Otarkar, Kharulkar, Kivalkar, Medhekar, Khadelkar, etc. Naveen9234 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I don't feel this is particularly relevant enough for inclusion into this article as it appears to just be raw data that is of little use. — IVORK _Discuss 03:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

False information

In Bengal, during the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century, when systematic and large-scale colonization by Indo-Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins first took place, Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage the affairs of state.[8]

Bengalis are an Indo-Aryan linguistic group. This makes no sense and there was no colonization by an outside speaking group. 4 Can someone remove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bengali Kayastha

Seems to be subgroup of a sub caste , do not see notability criteria to hold on page on itself Shrikanthv (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely NO! I strongly disagree with the merge. Kayastha is not a 'single' caste but a 'functional group' that were derived from different castes based on the location. Hence each (based on location) has different customs, traditions and even varna. This page just lists the common traits of this group. Also, merging would make this page very unmanageable. Hence I strongly disapprove of the merge as it would be inaccurate.

Another point: Brahmin has a wikipedia page and Bengali Brahmins have a different wikipedia page. That does not mean these pages should be merged since Bengali Brahmins are a subcaste of Brahmins. Similarly, the Kayastha pages should also not be merged. Administrator, please reject this merge proposal by Shrikanthv as it is completely illogical.

AmericanResearcher (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Some points in this article is written which are hurting the sentiments of fellow Kayasthas. Kindly edit the portions that I'll mention below.

Hello Moderator!

In the article written about Kayasthas,there are some major ambiguities which needs to be resolved so that it doesn't create confusion among the people of India and the entire world and also doesn't hurt the sentiments of the Kayasth Community worldwide. The following is written in the 2nd paragraph of the ORIGIN section of the "Kayastha" page in Wikipedia:

Brahmanical religious texts refer to them as a caste of scribes, recruited in the beginning from the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya castes, but eventually forming distinct subcastes in northern and western India. Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Shudra (lower caste) and sometimes Kshatriya as well.

The above written paragraph is false. Kayasthas are the purest of Kshatriyas under law. We've proved it in Calcutta High court in late 1800's and also in Patna High court that we're Kshatriyas!! The Pala empire, Jessore empire and the Karkota Dynasty were ruled by Kayasthas. If you'll look at our history,then you'll never find us doing any work of "Vaishya varna or Shudra varna". We were Kings and Administrators. Swami Vivekananda even said that Kayasthas are the purest of Kshatriyas. When he was asked as to which caste he is from,he replied, "I'm the descendant of that great man at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers and chants the words 'Yamaay Dharmraajaay Chitraguptay Vai Namah' and whose decendents are purest of Kshatriyas."

In Hinduism,we are accorded dual varna status(Brahmin as well as Kshatriya) because Lord Chitrgupt was a GOD born with a quill/inkpot and a sword girdled to his waist which gave him Kshatriya status. He married the daughters of two sages(Brahmins) named Shobhavati/Irawati & Nandani/Sudakhina. These two Brahmin daughters of the sages gave birth to total of 12 sons who naturally were accorded dual varna status(Brahmin from mother's side and Kshatriya from father's side).

There is no question of us being a mixed caste!!! We're Chitransh/Devputra which means children of GOD in English!! It's somewhat similar to "Hercules" from Greek mythology who was a Demi-God!! We're at par with the Brahmins(as a caste) and above the Rajputs(as a caste) There are several sites online which will prove that we're Brahmin as well as Kshatriya.

Kindly make the necessary changes so that the confusion stays no more in the minds of people of other castes and religions across the world!!

Yours faithfully Rohit Sinha(Ambasth Kayasth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitsinha1234 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr Rohit Sinha,

I am not a moderator, just an editor. I think Sitush is the moderator.

I can understand that you are feeling hurt and i am sorry for that - but the best way to get a consensus on a change is to debate using valid sources.

I am replying to each of your point.

Please note that the Wikipedia editors only are allowed to reflect the sources, we are not allowed original research.

1. Brahmanical religious texts refer to them as a caste of scribes, recruited in the beginning from the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya castes, but eventually forming :distinct subcastes in northern and western India. Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Shudra (lower caste) and sometimes :Kshatriya as well. You say this is wrong.

reply : I checked and the source does say that exactly (frankly, imho, it does seem strange ).

We have to follow the source. The wikipedia page is accurately reflecting the source so we have to keep it. If you find another source that says this is wrong or gives :another origin, we can add it. But this particular edit about origin is correct according to the source.

2. You said " The Pala empire, Jessore empire and the Karkota Dynasty were ruled by Kayasthas. If you'll look at our history,then you'll never find us doing any work :of :"Vaishya varna or Shudra varna". We were Kings and Administrators. Swami Vivekananda even said that Kayasthas are the purest of Kshatriyas.

Ans: Can you provide sources? We cannot add stuff based on personal opinions.

3. You said "When he was asked as to which caste he is from,he replied, "I'm the descendant of that great man at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers and chants the :words 'Yamaay Dharmraajaay Chitraguptay Vai Namah' and whose decendents are purest of Kshatriyas.It's somewhat similar to "Hercules" from Greek mythology

who was a Demi-God!! "

Ans: Chitragupta is considered a God - he has temples across India - and no human actually descends from God. Swami Vivekananda may have said it is a metaphoric way or :as part of a mythological belief. I am sure he did not mean it literally.

4.We're at par with the Brahmins(as a caste) and above the Rajputs(as a caste) There are :several sites online which will prove that we're Brahmin as well as Kshatriya.

Ans: Sources please? BTW, just FYI Rajput itself was considered a mixed caste hence lower than Kshatriya (carefully read the wikipedia page of Rajputs).

Point is that you have been making unsourced claims and hence these cannot be considered for edits. Sorry.

Please give the names of the books, page numbers, quotes etc in the future if you want your views to be considered.

Lastly, from my study, kayasthas originated from different castes depending on the place of origin in India. So one statement about that applies to kayasthas of UP(for example)

cannot be applied to kayasthas of Bengal (as an example).

digression:(my personal beliefs about such issues)

Let me conclude by saying that I and a Deshastha Yajurvedi Brahman from Maharashtra who has great reverence for Kayasthas like Swami Viveknanada.

I used to think initially that he was a Bengali Brahmin.

He is like a Guru to many and I started learning about Hinduism by reading his books. I visit the homes of some orthodox Trimbakeshwar pandits when I go to India

and have found Vivekananda's life sized paintings in their drawing rooms.

Personally, I avoid writing derogatory stuff that is likely to intentionally cause pain to anyone (unless absolutely necessary to prevent complete distortion of facts), :since I strongly believe it is considered 'very bad' karma that hits back the writer later with 'bad luck' in life.But that is just a personal/religious belief :-)

But in this case, I am helpless as you have not cited a single source for your statements.

Hence, please forgive me that I cannot make the edits you want.

Best Regards,Acharya63 (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

KAYASTHA NOT A MIXTURE OF BRAHMIN AND SHUDRA

Hello sir, I would like to earnestly inform you that kayasths are only the mix of brahmin and kshatriyas, as written in vedas. They are direct descendents of king of king chitragupta ji maharaj therefore they are regarded as kshatriyas. PLEASE it is a kind request to change the matter if you want proof i'll give it Theakarsh (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you are probably new to wikipedia. Please note that wikipedia can only add properly sourced content. The current content about origin is properly sourced. If you want to give a different proof of origin, please quote a reliable source that says something different. The Chitragupta belief is already on the page. Also, descent from a God(Chitragupta) cannot be used a proof of origin (no offence intended to your religious beliefs). Thank you.-Acharya63 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please Add Kayethi !

The page : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaithi Describes that the script was indeed associated with Kayasthas . Sattvic7 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, does it? I don't think so, also the source might say more about that than has been written in that article. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Kayastha are pure Kshatriyas: Swami Vivekananda

Dear Team, As you mentioned in your article that: {Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Shudra (lower caste) and sometimes Kshatriya as well} This may be the personal opinion of 'FATIMA A IMAM' Where as Swami Vivekananda also quoted several times kayastha's as pure kshtriya. And in my opinion Swami Vivekanand Ji views are more reliable. 'The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda‎ | Volume 3‎ | Lectures from Colombo to Almora'

Swami Vivekananda- One word more: I read in the organ of the social reformers that I am called a Shudra and am challenged as to what right a Shudra has to become a Sannyasin. To which I reply: I trace my descent to one at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers when he utters the words — यमाय धर्मराजाय चित्रगुप्ताय वै नमः — and whose descendants are the purest of Kshatriyas. If you believe in your mythology or your Paurânika scriptures, let these so-called reformers know that my caste, apart from other services in the past, ruled half of India for centuries. If my caste is left out of consideration, what will there be left of the present-day civilisation of India? In Bengal alone, my blood has furnished them with their greatest philosopher, the greatest poet, the greatest historian, the greatest archaeologist, the greatest religious preacher; my blood has furnished India with the greatest of her modern scientists.

https://books.google.co.in/books?Lectures from Colombo to Almora By Swami Vivekananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abssrivastava (talk • contribs) 13:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Abssrivastava, your quote is from Swami Vivekananda's book Lectures from Colombo to Almora which was written in 1897(british era) and hence not a reliable source on wikipedia. Please see WP:RS . Most chapters from books I have read say that Kayastha is not a homogeneous varna in India but might be homogeneous varna per region - for example kayasthas from XYZ state might originate from Kshatriya varna hence their varna is Kshatriya. Kayasthas from another state might originate from Vaishya varna and hence their varna is vaisha. Maybe that is why there is so much confusion.-Acharya63 (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, frankly for the record, I personally agree with you on one point , Mr. Srivastava. Swami Vivekananda was a Hindu scholar and expert. This editor (Fatima Imam) is neither a historian not a hindutva scholar. But my point is that wikipedia editors do not have the authority to edit based on personal opinions. You need to find a post-Independence source that contradicts this. First of all, all kayasthas in India are different (varnas) - depending on state. Hence, we cannot put all kayasthas in one basket. Good or bad. I will be visiting some libraries in the US (Indology sections) and will try to find some references from historians rather than newspaper editors. The Raj classification source is also contradictory and I think we need to find more sources. We also need to understand that sources may not be always accurate. But to prove this, we need to find multiple sources of higher quality that contradict what the (supposedly wrong) source is saying. I just finished reading about caste debates that happened in Maharashtra. The castes were formally classified by the Shankaracharyas who gave their verdicts for the debates. Since the Shankaracharyas are the gurus of the brahmins, their verdict was considered final and authoritative. The Shankaracharyas naturally used the Puranas and Vedas to reach their verdict. Because the entire caste system is based on these. But on wikipedia, we can only use the published verdicts of the religious leaders, we do not have the expertise nor the authority to analyze the vedas/puranas ourselves. I state this because you mention Chitragupta. For example(hypothetically): If a religious council head (say Shankaracharya from Bengal) had made a formal declaration that Bengali Kayasthas were so-and-so varna based on some purana, and if a post independence historian or other source had quoted him , then it would be a perfectly valid to use on wikipedia. In fact, even if Swami Vivekananda's quote was echoed by some modern historian, it would have been ok to use. The book(paper) has to be first published after independence for it to be used on wikipedia. The quote itself can be old -preindependence - that is OK. Hope I am making things clearer. Also, I do empathize with you. The word 'nigger' was used on the deshastha brahmin page and I found it very offensive and objected to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deshastha_Brahmin#Please_avoid_racist_and_offensive_language.Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Acharya63, I totally agree with your views and points you raise, for example, "kayasthas from XYZ state might originate from Kshatriya varna hence their varna is Kshatriya. Kayasthas from another state might originate from Vaishya varna and hence their varna is vaisha. Maybe that is why there is so much confusion." But calling mixed or duel caste is a different thing and it is not fair. And if there is any confusion than including these words in wiki article is creating more confusion and it is misrepresenting whole Kayastha community. Thanks and Regards Abhishek Srivastava — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abssrivastava (talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

First, we are not a "team". Most of us do not get paid(I am assuming). Most of us here(I am assuming) do not belong to this community (or group of kayastha castes as some have said) and we are dedicating voluntary time towards it. Instead of spending a few seconds to complain on the talk page, why are you not citing sources to support your claims? It is hard to search books? It took me less than a minute to find Swami Vivekanada's quote about "pure Kshatriya" in a non British era publication. I want to help but my day is also made up of 24 hours like yours. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

British era law courts

Hi Sitush, "Rowe, William" (1968) source contradicts all other sources about this issue and is obviously incorrect. I went to the library and checked last year- Rowe's statement is completely contradicted by multiple sources. Note that Risely did research on Bengal castes. Also there is WP:SYNTH between these two sources. Hayden J. Bellenoit gives details of all the law cases in British courts. Basically, as the sources show, British law courts have (correctly) treated kayasthas differently based on origin/place. So British law courts classifying ALL kayasthas as so and so varna is absurd. That would be like classifying the race of doctors across the world in the 19th century as one particular race. It is not possible. British doctors would be white where as doctors in India would be Indian. My suggestion is to not use the 60 year old source (Rowe) at all and only use the modern Bellenoit. I like Rowe but sometimes Rowe is very vague in some parts. This can natually be offensive and I do not think words like shurda (probably equivalent of nigger) should be thrown at entire communities across a subcontinent when they were only used for some (Bengali non-Brahmins were all classified as shudras).But it is OK to do that (I dont believe in censorship) as long as it is true- which in this case is not. My suggestion for the british law courts is to only use Bellenoit as she goes into specifics. There are some other mistakes on this page IMO but will go into those later. I am willing to work on this and you can make the decision after that if that is OK. I own some of the sources mentioned here and have full access to the books. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be down to how you are reading it and/or how we are phrasing it. Rowe is used to support the reason why the shudra thing came about but, yes, as we say (and him), there were challenges to it. We mention some of those challenges and the resultant variations around the country. Perhaps it can be phrased better but I do not see a contradiction.

In any event, the decision is not down to me - I don't own this thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Rowe is indeed being misrepresented. His comment about the shudra status relates to the "late nineteenth-century", not the "British Raj era" as we say. He's not wrong there because "late" is sufficiently vague as to allow a judgement made in 1890. I am trying to view the pages prior to p 174 of Bellenoit but am struggling to do so - I will need to find a proxy server that lets me in. (I can see p 174 itself but it starts mid-sentence.) - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I own HB's book and can add the details on the weekend. I wish I could could just scan the pages and send them to you but cannot do that as it will be a copyright violation. But will just post important quotes from the book over the weekend. My point was that each court judgement was a result of a case like adoption fights, inheritance rights etc. His discussion about british courts and kayastha varna starts on page 172 under the heading "ethnography and law: contesting dwija status" and goes on for several pages - he discusses each case. The cases mostly involved kayasthas from UP, Bihar and Bengal and not from other places. And each case was treated differently based on that region. There were no such cases for assam or Nepal (for example).Hence it will be inaccurate to put all in the same basket(especially for shudra verdicts) as it will be wrong. Hence I think we should just use Bellenoit to point individual cases only and mention those regions specifically.About Rowe, in " Cambridge South asian studies"- issue 24 page 186 (1975?) - It has been pointed out that William Rowe's [1960's ]studies on kayasthas have factual and interpretative errors.Quote on page 186 "In three articles: 1975, 1977 and 1978... In these essays she (who?) pinpoints factual and interpretative errors in William Rowe's presentation of the Kayastha movement". Honestly, I have not read into the details of these essays. But my guess is that he generalizes the negative verdicts and has not done enough research into this.Also, he bases his comment on a highly biased book of the Raj era by Verama ( a Rajput caste member) who selectively makes absurd generalizations (for example I read and I quote(not exactly): I have noticed Kayasthas in north are not very assertive and hence they cannot be kshatriyas. etc.." He praises beyond the sky his own Rajput caste and does not write a single negative thing about them. This is despite several British Historians writing that many Rajputs were of low origin and mixed caste. Also, as the Karni sena incident showed most Rajputs even in 2018 are quite "non-elite" and not very literate. That might be the cause of Verma's insecurity:-) as the situation would have been worse at his time. I read Verma's book but found it too immature - plus it is a raj era source. It is more like ablog post than a scholarly publication. Also, Marathi Brahmins in the 1800s had declared the Khatris and Rajputs as shudras(it is in an english book about gramanyas) but Verma forgets to mention it; and yes hindu religious scriptures do support the opinion that all non-Brahmin hindus are shudras (unless ratified by top brahmins like the Shankaracharya). BTW, here's another source "Early Medieval Indian Society by RS. Sharma":page 195 Calcutta court called them shudras and Allahbad High court called them brahmanas."My understanding is that only Bengali Kayasthas were formally declared as shudras in all court cases giving reason that they used last names like 'Das'. This makes sense given that Risley researched castes on Bengal. Basically all the sources shuttle around only Bengalis and UP/Biharis and they based the verdicts on traditions (are they following the custom of this or that) hence I think it would be unfair to put all kayasthas negatively. Some caste members have already been complaining of wrongly and negatively classifying them on the talk page. This might be because in their particular state they might have originated from high castes hence their status might be high. Some north Indian kayasthas even have thread ceremonies if I correctly remember what I read. Personally, I do not know because I am not familiar wish the caste echelon in Bengal or the north. Since kayastha is not a unified caste, any negative statement should be made as narrowly as possible IMHO -otherwise it will just be slander. BTW, I also have something serious to discuss about the Maharashtrian_Brahmin page with you but will talk about it there. Thanks - Acharya63 (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Added total of three court cases. There are two more prior ones but will add them over the weekend. Will also add more details on existing cases.Thanks . -Acharya63 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Acharya63, I think we only need a short paragraph, which we already have. There is no need to go into massive detail. Despite all the problems that varna causes on Wikipedia articles, it has not really been a problem on this particular article for a long time, so there is no need to bludgeon a point and burden the reader with a lot of minutiae. I think we should just tweak the existing paragraph so that it better reflects the sources. I also don't think we need to bin Rowe because, as least in Wikipedia terms, he is reliable. What we do is mention that Bellnoit disagrees. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, I agree. We can keep Rowe and should keep it very small. Will cite proper references(correct page numbers from Bellnoit ) in the tweak. No major change - just a reflection of alternate opinions. Will work on this on my saturday (your sunday). Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, Sorry for misspelling your name in my earlier post(fixed it). The main philosophical/logical issue with this page is that kayastha is not a caste nor a varna. It is a just non-cohesive group(like wikipedia editors, and varna being race) as the sources say. All kayasthas castes are different in status, varna etc. based on the region/state(as per all sources). That is why there have been complains on the talk page in the last three months about negative misrepresentation. Ideally, this should only be a disambiguation page pointing links to the individual groups in my opinion. Otherwise, to make things fair, we need bring over and views correctly and apply them very narrowly. Saying that kayasthas belong to this or that varna is also futile because they are not a single caste or varna. In fact, Bellnoit even says that not all kayasthas are Chitraguptavanshi (only that north Indian and Bengalis are). The only uniform characteristic associated to all kayasthas in India is that that they were all well educated and hence competed successfully with the Brahmins. Other than that they have nothing in common with each other. It is clear after reading the complete chapters in the sources I have in my possession (Bellnoit, Milton, etc.) that there are a lot of issues on this page and things are not represented correctly. Either there is a negative generalization or a positive puffery. We need to qualify every kayastha mention on this page with the narrow group we are referring to, otherwise it will be a misrepresentation and generalization(positive or negative). Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, in general, most sources seem to consistently(sometimes with some reservation) classify all kayasthas (other than Bengali) as Kshatriya. In case of Bengalis, Tagore classifies Bengali kayasthas as Kshatriyas but Bhattacharya (a Bengali) says they should be classified as shudras due to their customs despite their Kshatriya origins. Too many disputes.There were some vague mentions of some isolated kayasthas as being of vaishaya varna also(cannot remember details). I do not pay attention to sources by Dalit activists(like Ambedkar) since they are intentionally provocative and practice 'lying by omission' to strengthen their hatred towards Brahmins- -Acharya63 (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Between Brahmin and Kshatriya

I've just added an unsourced phrase to the paragraph about their status, pointing out that although we have someone saying they lie somewhere between the Brahmin and the Kshatriya communities, the rigid varna system does not actually permit that. There are plenty of citations I could use to demonstrate it - loads just in the lead of Varna (Hinduism), for example - but does anyone have a preference? - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate your diligence even over such small things on wikipedia. I personally have no preference for the citation. The Gita is enough but I do not think we can use it as a citation :-) -Acharya63 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

hi Sitush, this opinion (between Brahmin Kshatriya) is based on a people of India (state series) source hence I removed it. Incidentally, this view of kayastha of being between brahmin and kshatriya is also the opinion of Dr.Christian Lee Novetzke in his book "The Quotidian Revolution" but in that same sentence he makes it clear that he specifically refers to Maharashtra only. Hence it would be puffery to apply it to all kayastha in general. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Acharya63:, what's the reasoning behind removing the phrase and hence their illegitimate children have no rights to inheritance? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi MatthewVanitas , I removed it because I assumed this part was was already implied in the earlier part of the sentence. Now it says "The first case began with a property dispute regarding an 'illegitimate child' in Jaunpur where the British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" ". This I assumed, already implied that (unfortunately) Hinduism did not allow upper caste illegitimate children to inherit property. But I see your point - it is not very clear if we omit that last part. I will add it back. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Many errors - this page needs major fixes - possibly a new title

Hi @Sitush:, Sorry for the long post but this page has major problems.

I am not familiar with the Bengali or north Indian culture myself.

But I spent an hour going through most of the references mentioned on wiki (that were available on google books). Other than that I have the following books with me currently:

1.Quotidian revolution(Novetzke) - a section about general kayastha.

2.The formation of colonial stete in India(Bellenoit) - goes into all british era varna rulings about all kayasthas in depth , a bit on bengali kayastha, lot of stuff related to the mughal/British era and their interaction with north indian kayastha, even talks about Raja Todar Mal. Focus is on north Indian since they are the largest group.

3. Kayasthas - a study in the formation of early history(Gupta) : she focuses on north Indian kayastha in great depth but mainly on historical contributions rather than varna issues

4.Castes tribes and culture of India- western maharashtra (Bahadur) - some history/culture of ckp, mentions some prominent ckp warriors like Baji Prabhu Deshpande and many others.

5.Religion and society in Maharashtra - Milton Israel and N.K.Wagle - gramanya(debates) started by a few chitpawans about the non-existence of vaishya and kshatriya varnas in kaliyuga and how/why the Shankaracharya gave his formal written verdict in favor of ckp (to be continued to be viewed as 'kshatriya') based on religious texts. Discussion is interesting because the chitpawan peshwa's own military General (Sakharam Hari Gupte) was a ckp

Main issue with this page:

References clearly mention that NOT all kayasthas are "chitragupta-vanshi" - only Bengali and North Indian and some other states are. North Indian kayasthas consider themselves direct descendents. See the reference on on the wiki page: https://books.google.com/?id=mcvhwD5QZKEC&pg=PA175&dq=Kayastha+and+chitragupta#v=onepage&q=Kayastha%20and%20chitragupta&f=false Again, it is clear from the article in India today by Ms. F.Imam (referenced by wiki) that she is talking only about chitragupta kayasthas. Not even a whisper of others. https://books.google.com/books?id=wWDnTWrz4O8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q&f=false

My point is that all the references on the wiki page as well as all comments are ONLY about chitragupta kayasthas. The only exception being Baji Prabhu Deshpande who was Chandrasenvanshi(or Chandraseniya) or ckp - they have their own page with a lot of info. Also, in Maharashtra the ckp and pathare prabhus are together called as prabhus and in "chandraseniya kayastha" prabhu and "pathare" prabhu, the quoted parts are adjectives. So there is no point in cutting and pasting stuff about ckp here or we will have to maintain two versions and add a lot of extra information in every section (in origin for example : the ckp do not have a Brahman or other mixes in their origin - I can provide an exact quote from Milton/Wagle pg 147: "That the 'pure Kshatriya'(shuddha kshatriya) status of the CKP was fully backed up by the shastras, was the unofficial verdict of Gangadharshastri Dikshit who was appointed arbiter to resolve the dispute. The famous jurist Ram Krishna Prabhu was also in favor of the CKPs' vedokta) )."

This is just one example: we will have to add and duplicate the content from ckp page here - which is not necessary if somehow we specify that this page refers to chitragupta kayastha not the ckp of maharashtra. BTW, that accounts for why there is not a single ancient Chitragupta temple in maharashtra - IMO they do not revere or worship him. The book which discusses their culture and Gods (Bahadur) does not even mention Chitragupta.

There is absolutely no wiki page on the north Indian kayasthas- although their subcastes have their individual pages).

My suggestion is as follows: quick(short term) 1. Rename this to chitragupta kayastha or chitraguptavanshi kayastha as it mostly talks about only Bengali and North Indian Kayasthas who are called chitraguptavanshi. The CKP are called chandrasenvanshi or chandraseniya. Remove reference to Baji Prabhu Deshpande(he is the only exception on this page). 2. Have a general kayastha page that just talks a little bit(one line) about different kayastha types with links to each type(one will point to the chitragupta kayastha i.e. this page). The other will point to the CKP page. 3. As more kayastha groups get inserted ( I read somewhere that some Gujarati kayasthas are Vaishyas but we do not have a page for them) we can just create a new page for them and add a link to the main kayasth page.

long term: separate out north Indian component from the chitragupta kayastha page. We already have bengali kayastha page.

If neither of these options are acceptable to you, we will just have to keep adding specifics/exceptions of all divisions on this page which is really bad and messy.

The point is there is very little in common between these groups other than high literacy - they are .

I can work on temporary fixes to this page in the meantime to point out the exact kayastha type based on the sources.

I am willing to work to fix this fix. Please let me know your decision. I have some of the books for a limited time only. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire set of articles has been problematic for years but try explaining that to the major contributor to those articles, which is not me. I've mostly just been involved with vandal fighting, reverting obvious poor edits and the like. There have been past discussions regarding mergers and splits but it is like banging one's head against a brick wall. Ultimately, it is subtle pov-pushing but I've pretty much given up on it. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not being specific, I was only blaming the people who were major contributors - not you. I know you have been trying to fix this and many other articles. The only reason I wrote to you was because you are the top/senior level editor. Do you mind if I clean this up? The short term steps are a few minutes of work. And it will not be a major change anyway - just a minor reorg. So no one should have any objections IMO (no major content change etc.). The article as it stands now is not an accurate reflection of the sources or facts. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned , this page only reflects Chitragupta kayastha. One source is https://books.google.com/?id=mcvhwD5QZKEC&pg=PA175&dq=Kayastha+and+chitragupta#v=onepage&q=Kayastha%20and%20chitragupta&f=false .Second source is the one by Hayden Bellenoit. Here are the relevant quotes(partial) from Bellenoit. page 34(Bellenoit): "kayasthas, it must be stressed are not a uniform, cohesive group. They possess marked regional variances and differences.1)The first group is the Bengali kayasthas...Over time they fashioned themselves as the Gaur(note: this is one of the 12 chitragupta divisions) subdivision of a broader kayastha group, who claimed north Indian origins. 2)The second, though smaller group, are found found in the maratha country ....These are the ...[CKP].. who claim descent from the great Kshatriya warrior Chandrasen. ...3)But the most numerous...is that of the great north Indian Kayastha families. These claim most direct lineage from the sons of Chitragupta. ...divided into twelve subgroups ...Mathur, Gaur ..etc..etc". I will work on this(short term fix in my previous post) but will wait for a couple of days before fixing this for feedback from others. This is a much needed fix as this page is factually wrong. Please let me know if anyone has any objections to the short term fix proposed in my message above. Frankly I do not want to work on non-marathi castes(Bengali or north Indian) long term.. -Acharya63 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Did some basic cleanup in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=825941310 to keep it relevant to chitragupta kayasthas (probably 80% of Indian kayasthas - just guessing - not sure exactly). Nothing major. The India today article by Ms.Imam clearly refers to Chitraguptavanshi kayastha based on reading the entire article and the divisions she gives. (Gaur, Mathur etc.). Checked that all sections only refer to non-CKPs(they have their own page and different origin). The other kayasthas do not have their page yet(hopefully we will find something on them - I will try to get some more books). Ideally we should separate north Indian kayastha as we have a Bengali kayasth page. This separation will definitely minimize vandalization as each person will have a different perspective on the kayastha based on their location in India. The vandalization may have been a result of their perspective. That is why it was important to the brahmin-kashtriya comment to be removed as it applies only to ckp as per Christian Novetzke and removed the ckp warrior Baji prabhu Deshpande. It is unfortunate that this page was created this way by the original contributors by just calling it 'kayastha'. Acharya63 (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

my recent removals - Amitabh, Abhishek, Shatrugan Sinha etc.

As editors, we are not allowed to add living persons to any caste list unless they self identify. Also, Amitabh has been explicitly prohibited. If you click "edit source" on the notables, you will find this comment "please make sure to only add names of people that already have an article on Wikipedia, and make sure that their article mentions their Kayastha membership and provides a reliable source to support it. In the case of the Bachchan family, they have specifically rejected membership of castes & therefore should not be included here, e.g.: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-28/news-interviews/29821192_1_caste-aarakshan-amitabh-bachchan". Hence, I had to remove these prominent personalities. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

deleted picture /news article of the Governor of Nepal

I reverted this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&diff=845716142&oldid=845715726 that added the picture of the Nepal Governor. User:Black Chapter, please seek consensus before adding any photos of Individuals(especially living). Personally , I am against adding a photo of this individual as he has probably not even self identified. I am also deleting the unnecessary link to the news article on him. What has it got to do with the Kayastha group.? It talks about one person with that last name. -Acharya63 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Please add Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma to Notable Kayasthas list. He is our ex-Navy Chief and ex-Ambassador to Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmal_Kumar_Verma https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/vice-admiral-verma-first-from-bhopal-to-be-naval-chief-109080603035_1.html Wikivh (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: - Although Nirmal Kumar Verma has an article, there is no mention of Kayastha in the article or the reference. You need to find and cite a reference where he self-identifies as being Kayastha, before he can be included - see the existing entries - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Kayastha are a literat and educated class of Kshatriyas - "what a lie"

As per the ancient Hindu caste system, the main Verna are Kshatriya (Kurmi, Koire, Yadav, and Rajput etc.), Brahmin , Kayastha, Bania, Sudra, and at the lowest Dalit.

Kayastha isn't a varna, Dalits are outside the varna system. Not sure what you're trying to argue here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't understand this simple thing about Hindu caste system, then why bother. Why manipulate information on Wikipedia and misuse one sided parliament power?

103.209.70.252 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You're the one listing four varna, and completely forgetting Shudra, and yet you accuse *me* of not knowing anything? What of the Shudra? Are they not one of the four varnas? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas is correct, Kayastha is not a varna. Also it is a fact that they were a literate caste. SO where is the lie? Based on locations they have different origins and hence they are classified differently under different varna(based on location). BTW, Yadav are Shudra(check wiki), varna of Rajput is disputed (check wiki) as they have different origins. Rajputs only claim kshatriya status but they vary in status - many have farming origin(i.e. shudras). So don't make up your own caste system. Look up on wikipedia itself. BTW, as per the hindu scriptures Kshatriya varna was destroyed in kaliyuga - hence only kshatriya "claims" remain (unless they are formally ratified by the Brahmin councils or leaders). -Acharya63 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The caste system that I have mentioned is the true ancient Hindu caste system. Corrupt Brahmin later degraded the original Kshatriya. First Kshatriyas were dropped from 1st Verna to 2nd Verna in the Hindu caste system. Then Kshatriya were degraded to Sudra (fourth Verna)by the corrupt Brahmins. While Brahmin castes do not have any authority to do so to Kshatriya, Brahmin may have unnoticeably used one sided Parliamentary power against Kshatriya. When Brahmin could not keep Kshatriya degraded on the caste basis, then they have given it a form of Forward and OBC caste through Mandal Commission. So, I am not making my own cast system. The purpose of the Wikipedia should be to provide honest information not to hide it or make it up. But, I find information about Kshatriya and Hindu caste to be highly manipulated and distorted on Wikipedia. 103.209.70.40 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. There are only 4 varnas as per the Gita. There is no caste that can be linked to ancient kshatriyas as our religious scriptures (like Shrimad Bhagwatam for example - I can tell you the exact chapter and quote) say that Shudras will be rulers in the Kaliyuga as Vedic Kshatriya have been destroyed completely or turned to other occupations. You might be correct about degrading - even some brahmins have been degraded by other brahmins - example: Dnyaneshwar . But the opposite is also true(for example Rajputs are a mixed caste - and this is the opinion of historians). In Maharashtra, orthodox Chitpawan brahmins consider Rajput and some other north Indian castes that claim kshatriyahood as Shudras ( because as per the chitpawan Peshwas unless the kshatriya claim is formally approved in writing by the Shankarachrya or some top Brahmin leaders, it is not valid). But people are polite and politically correct these days so will not say it openly unless they are talking to brahmins only. In Wikipedia , we do not write our personal opinions. There are a few editors like some recent ones on this article, who have persistently/intentionally come to selectively insert negative stuff only or remove positive stuff. This might have happened on other articles also(like yadav, etc.). On the other hand, a little bit of browsing books shows that there is too much puffery due to one sided opinions on the Rajput(hindu specific only) page . I must confess that there is some puffery on the Deshastha Brahmin page too (but not done by me).By the way, Brahmins do not like the reservation system in India. That was started by the congress govt. and ambedkar, not by BrahminsAcharya63 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Q. Who was the president when mandal commission was implemented? Q. How can Brahmin or anybody have the authority to destroy or degrade Kshatriya (Kurmi, Koire, and yadav or rajput)? How can Brahmin or anybody have authority to link or separate Kshatriya from their own ancestry going back to 7th century or Satyuga? Are Bhramin, Bania or untouchable the new dictator at the one sided Parliament? Q. Why Kayastha are being related to Kshatriya? On one hand you state in your comment above “There is no caste that can be linked to ancient Kshatriyas as our religious scriptures”. Now, you yourself are relating Kayastha to Kshatriya who otherwise belong to third Verna. Do true Kshatriya (Kurmi, Koire, yadav etc) have no right to stand for their own against parliamentary bania etc? 103.209.69.11 (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.209.69.11 (talk)

sorry for my delay in response. My response is very long. This page only discusses chitragupta kayasthas only not other kayasthas.

I agree that Brahmins have no right to degrade anyone. But it is not possible to go back in time and change history. Also, western historians say that a lot of the genealogies claimed by modern Indian castes linking themselves to ancient Kshatriya kings(like Rama etc.) are fabricated. Some historians say that many claims to relations with medieval kings are also fabricated. Some historians explicitly say that many of the medieval kings of India themselves originated from low castes because "real Kshatriyas" had been wiped out- hence the fabrication to ancient kshatriyas happened. The varna classification by brahminical texts is usually based on origin not just on current occupation. I do not want to discuss personal issues on this page - but in short - in response to your question - no Brahmin will ever support the reservation system in India - unless he/she has some political reasons. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to write their personal opinions. They only follow WP:RS. I have never edited the Yadav, Koire, Kurmi pages. I only quoted from those pages. I do not know much about those castes. I apologize if I hurt any feelings - that was not the intent. If you have issues with any of those pages you can discuss on their respective talk pages. An American history professor and Indologist once told us(in a lecture) that the best way to figure out puffery(false claims of high status etc.) by hindu castes is to check their literacy and and the proportion of their population vs their intellectuals during the British era. This is called the Duck Test. Hindu Rajputs (for example) had 90% illiteracy in 1911/21 - i.e. 90% could not even read and write their own mother tongue- so comparing all 100% of them to the Kshatriya king Lord Rama(who was a Sanskrit scholar as per the Ramayana) is absurd. It is VERY unlikely that all of them had high origin as they claim. Whereas even poorest of brahmins had high literacy. Risley (British) and many many other modern western historians agree with this. In short, people have started thinking logically rather than superstitiously.

I myself knew absolutely nothing about Bengali or north Indian kayasthas before I started reading history books. First, kayasthas are not a uniform group across India - they come from different varna depending on place and have different status depending on place. In my opinion, it was a mistake to create this wiki page as it put a non-uniform group belonging to different varnas across India on the same page and hence created confusion. I went through some of the old discussions on this page and it looks like some Chitragupta kayasthas think that they are outside the varna scheme. Their logic is that the mythological God Chitragupta was a'judge' - so to be impartial to people irrespective of their varna- his "so called" descendants could not be placed in any varna. But I don't agree with them - neither do historians. The historical fact is that the kayasthas came into existence after the 5th century. So they must have originated from existing varnas. According to both J.Bellenoit(American historian) and Novetzke (American researcher on south Asia ), all kayasthas irrespective of place were most probably recruited only from high castes - because their profession required high literacy. Chanakya Niti or some some equivalent text(not 100% sure) prohibited education for shudras - so they could not have been recruited from that varna. There is another historian(Sharma) who has written about north Indian kayasthas and he has actually mentioned the name of a Brahmin man who later became a kayastha. Bellenoit says that in north India, the kayasthas (and the Khatris) displaced the brahmins from their jobs when the Mughals came - because being well educated castes, but being less orthodox as compared to the brahmins of the time, they quickly learn persian and became close to the muslims- and even adopted some of their habits - like praying to muslim sufi saints. This created intense rivalry between these three educated castes. Hence some brahmins degraded the north Indian kayasthas. There is degradation of Khatris also by some brahmins - a book by a marathi historian(Vijaya Gupchup) quotes a 19th century Marathi Brahmin who says :"not even a shudra will accept food from a khatri- they say their sword is the needle etc..". But there is no valid justification for such degradation - the only reason is rivalry. In some sanskrit text (I cannot remember the exact name), north Indian kayasthas have been described as the biggest rivals and enemies of the brahmins in medieval times. This is normal between competitors. If you read Andre Wink's book "Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World", he clearly says that the Bengali kayasthas are a mix of Brahmins and kshatriyas from the Sena, Pala and other ruling dynasties. But there are instances of Bengali Brahmins degrading them also. There are no two opinions on whether kayasthas were highly educated or not - all sources explicitly say that they were very well educated - no source has ever called them uneducated or illiterate. About being kshatriyas or not - I do not know the exact details of how the British courts in 1926 decided that they were kshatriyas - but they used hindu scriptures according to Bellenoit - also administration comes under the duties of a kshatriya - since it signifies controlling some political /civilian department. So maybe that is the reason. However, all court cases were either related to north Indian or Bengali kayasthas. No cases involved Gujarati kayasthas (for example) - some of who are Banias as per my reading. It is possible that in the part of India you are from - the local kayasthas were considered by the brahmin leaders of that place as being outside the caste system (third varna). So I am not saying that you are wrong. The kshatriya status probably applies only to some kayasthas in India - not to all. Maybe in some places they are banias and in some places they are considered outside the caste system. Some editors were accusing brahmins of intentionally putting negative stuff on this page - but brahmins of today have no reason to do this in my opinion. Maybe 100 or 200 years back - brahmins were rivals with the other literate communities - but that is not the case today. People should stop assuming and blaming present day brahmins due to some wrongs committed by a small minority of our ancestors. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Below is quote from your response above: “Hindu Rajputs (for example) had 90% illiteracy in 1911/21 - i.e. 90% could not even read and write their own mother tongue- so comparing all 100% of them to the Kshatriya king Lord Rama(who was a Sanskrit scholar as per the Ramayana) is absurd. It is VERY unlikely that all of them had high origin as they claim”.

 In your response, you are now relating Rajput to Shri Ram, which is false again. As per the Hindu history, Shir Ram had two sons Lav and Kush.  Lav was the elder son. And, Kush was the yonger.  The descended from the Luv are known as Kurmi Kshatriya.   And, the descended from Kush are knows as Kushwasha.  Below is the link for Who are awadhiya kurmi. 

http://www.answers.com/Q/Who_are_awadhiya_kurmis 103.206.11.239 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another quote from your response: “It is possible that in the part of India you are from - the local kayasthas were considered by the brahmin leaders of that place as being outside the caste system (third varna). So I am not saying that you are wrong”. You got it wrong again. I am not saying that they are outside the caste system (third verna). By third Verna, I mean they are below Kshatriya and Brahmin but above Bania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.206.11.239 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another quote from your response above:

“I have never edited the Yadav, Koire, Kurmi pages. I only quoted from those pages. I do not know much about those castes. I apologize if I hurt any feelings - that was not the intent. If you have issues with any of those pages you can discuss on their respective talk pages.”

If you don’t know much about Yadav, Koire, kurmi caste . Then you don’t know who are Kshatriya caste. It does hearts when you relate Kayasthas to Kshatirya or Rajput to Shri Ram without knowing who are real Kshatiray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.206.11.239 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read the Gita in original Sanskrit end to end. So I definitely understand what Kshatriya means. Wikipedia has these links :you can click on Yadav, Kurmi and Koeri, Kushwaha. On wikipedia they have been mentioned as farming communities by the editors of these pages- but the two you mentioned do claim descent from Shri Rama's two sons. These pages have a lot of information but I have not read it. You can discuss on their talk page if you disagree with any content. I don't know about every group in India that claims Kshatriya varna status. Of course I know about Shri Krishna(Yadava dynasty) and Shri Rama - all hindus know about them. Also, if you are saying that all Kayasthas in India are the same varna/status etc, then you have definitely not understood what kayastha is. Ancestors of north Indian kayasthas like Amitabh Bachchan, Lal Bahadur Shastri,etc definitely had different status than Bengali kayasthas like Swami Vivekananda, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Jagdish Chandra Bose, etc. Modern western scholars warn against this common misconception. You are saying kayasthas are between kshatriya and Vaishya. If Bengali Kayasthas (as books say), came from a mix of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, how can Bengali Kayasthas be classified as between kshatriya and vaishya? What is the name of this varna? Swami Vivekananda himself said that Chitragupta kayasthas are kshatriyas - he was a sanskrit/hindu scholar. There are only 4 varnas mentioned in the Gita. Please note that wikipedia is not written based on personal opinions. The Patna court classified the Bihar kayasthas as Kshatriyas in 1926. That was the last case involving kayasthas. If you are interested, you can read the court judgement itself here https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/ .It clearly says that the Chitragupta kayasthas (maybe not others) are Kshatriyas. The judgement cites not just the Hindu religious scriptures but also opinions of some Brahmins and some British scholars like William Crooke, Nesfeld , Risley and others. You will also notice that the judgement stresses that kayasthas are not uniform and what applies to one group(Bihar Kayastha) may not apply to another(Bengal Kayastha). Wikipedia did not use this judgement directly - it only used a historians's book that talked about this judgement. I don't know who the original authors of this page were. I, personally, would have never created a page on 'kayastha' as the group is so non-uniform that trying to add a varna section to it is like trying to get a consensus on the skin color of an Indian woman. That is why there is so much confusion. Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You said and I quote "If you don’t know much about Yadav, Koire, kurmi caste . Then you don’t know who are Kshatriya caste.". My answer: I looked at these webpages Yadav, Kurmi and Koeri, the historians/scholars have NOT classified them under kshatriya. They are classified as farming castes. I have never edited those pages - so you can talk to the editors there as to why they have not put them under kshatriya. Perhaps you should spend time on those talk pages instead of this one. Wikipedia is written based on facts and history and not on gossip and personal opinion. Acharya63 (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Kayastha Are shudra Kuswaha (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC).

That is illogical because Kayastha is not one caste nor a varna, it is a functional group consisting of several castes clusters. So it is illogical to classify the entire group under one varna because different subgroups belong to different varna. There are just too many references for these facts. Here is another view from a University of Berkeley researcher. "arguing from the fact of their literary astuteness, concludes an intimate, although illegitimate, connection with the Brahmins....As regards the origin of the Kayasthas, the most probable hypothesis would seem to be that they were an offshoot of the Brahmans of irregular descent". So can we put them all under Brahmin varna? Of course not - because she is obviously referring to one particular subgroup.

Some Kayastha subgroups in north India might belong to Vaishya or some to other varnas. We can say that Kashmiri Pandits, Deshastha Brahmins, Iyengars all belong to the same varna. Because "brahmin" is the varna to which they belong. But we cannot say this about the Kayastha group. That is why the subgroup is important in kayastha for determining varna. Secondly, it is also known that in the medieval era, rivalry and politics and money dominated varna decisions. Hence Brahminical opinions might not match the opinions of modern researchers. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yadav koiri and kurmi are real kshatriya Kuswaha (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not know anything about these three castes - I am not from north India- and my understanding of some communities is purely due to academics. I assume you are talking about castes in Bihar. Please see this quote by Govind Jha."Politics of caste and class thus permeated into all walks of social life in Bihar although the forwards castes of Brahmin, Bhumiyar, Rajput and Kayastha accounted for only 13% of the population of Bihar, whereas upper shudras including Jadav(yadav?), Kurmi and Koiri and lower shudras account for 19.3% and 32%..." Also, please see this classification in a book by Dr.George Kunnath who is a lecturer at the University of Oxford and a researcher (anthropology) from Univ of London. In his book he says in Bihar - Brahmins, Banias, Rajputs, Kayasthas , Bhumiyars are "twice-born".   :Similarly, this Cambridge University Press book says: "The twiceborn castes in Bihar – the Brahmins, Bhumihars, Kayasthas, Rajputs, and Banias – account for approximately 14 percent"

Yadav, Kurmi, Koiri - please discuss them on their respective talk pages. I suggest that you look at some quality academic references for Koiri, Kurmi and Yadav castes that have different opinions than what is mentioned on the pages. Personally, I do not think that any Hindu is Shudra. But wikipedia is not censored. There seems to be a consensus among all modern researchers(at least the ones I read) that any caste that has good literacy in medieval era (Khatri for example), would have to be of high origin irrespective of what Brahmins called them. In Maharashtra, Brahmins had very derogatory comments about the Khatri community in the 19th century- saying that "even a Shudra will not accept food from a Khatri. Khatris think their needle is a sword..etc[paraphrasing]". (see Bombay Social Change: by Historian Vijaya Gupchup - I do not remember the page number). But that does not mean they have low origins. Such comments are often made due to rivalry - a common occurrence in literate castes due to limited jobs. There might have been some political situation in the medieval era that might have led to derogatory comments against Yadav, Kurmi, Koiri as mentioned on wikipedia(I have not edited those pages). If high quality sources support this, these explanations can be added to make it more neutral.

Thank you. Acharya63 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

Adding links to terms.

I would like to add links to certain terms, specifically "Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha" so that potential readers can easily browse information pertaining to the subject. Srivastava101 (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Protect this page from repeated vandalism. I am not able to "undo" edits. It says it should be done manually due to edit conflict. Sattvic7 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Horrendous lead

I'm appalled that this version of the lead has managed to stay for more than a couple of days. Vedah.net, Kamat.com, Hindunet.org are not acceptable sources, and definitely do not belong in the lead as authoritative sources. At least one more user has objected to this version: please discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD before reinstating it. utcursch | talk 15:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Utkursh Atmaram, I sourced the material from one of the most stable and elaborate versions of Kayastha page (dated 01 Sept 2009).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=311315703

But then there is strength in numbers, keep reverting back guys. Carry on. I, for a while, am thinking of engaging in masterful inactivity. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIRCULAR -- you cannot source the material from Wikipedia itself. Have a look at WP:RS. utcursch | talk 00:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Kayastha are not lower caste

Kayastha are not mixed caste as mentioned in this article. Kayastha are above all the caste. They don't fall in any of the four castes in india. They are separate and they have no links from any caste.only peoples who have no knowledge about kayastha say wrong things. But the facts is that kayastha are superior of all. So please edit all articles relating to kayastha and boldly mention that kayastha are superior and separate and above all the castes. Only peoples having correct knowledge of castes understand this and support this fact. Nikhil Ambastha (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Kayastha is not a caste so your statement does not even make sense. And wikipedia editors do not write their personal opinions. Some other Kayastha from another part of the country will not be from the same varna as your (possibly) Ambashtha caste. Ambastha - according to wikipedia is a mix of a Brahmin/Vaishya but other kayastha groups are different. I wish this page was created only as a disambiguation page pointing to different subgroups. Would have caused less confusion. You are free to believe that Kayasthas are superior to all others just as I am free to believe the same about brahmins. But "boldly mentioning" this needs WP:RS. Acharya63 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha are concerned they do undergo complusary Janeyu ceremony/sanskar before marriage ceremony; if not already done separately at initiation age. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)