Talk:Kulin Kayastha

Details regarding the misleading tag of Shudra

• • • • This is not a reply to the rejects who bring up this subject for creating mischief; but to inform those who intend to know the truth of the controversy.

To begin with the matter of Varna was dealt by the courts for primarily deciding matters related to property, inheritance, marriage, adoption etc., as thougher rules were applicable to twice-borns than shudras. Oftentimes, in such cases, a party would prefer his varna to be shudra to take benefit of much relaxed rules in comparison to the stringent rules applicable to the twice-borns.

In Raj Goomar Lall v. Bissessur Dyal 1884, the Calcutta High Court has held that so far as the province of Bengal is concerned the Kayasthas are Shudras. Vide also Asita Motion Ghosh Moulik v. Nirode Mohon Ghosh Moidik (1916) 20 c.w.n. 901; Biswanath Das Ghose v. Shora-shibala Dasi (1921) I.L.R. 48 Cal. 926 and Bhola Nath Milter v. Emperor (1924) I.L.R. 51 Cal. 488 the last two cases have decided in favour of inter-marriages between Kayasthas and Tatnis and Domes in Bengal, on the ground that both of them are sub-castes of Sudras.

The case of Asita Mohon Ghosh Moulih v. Nirode Mohon Mowlih Ghosh went up to the Privy Council, but the point was left undecided by their Lordships (Vide 47 I.A. 141). Finally it was held in Ishwari Prashad v. Rai Hari Prashad Lal (1926) I.L.R. 6 Pat. 506 that the Kayasthas belong to one of the three regenerate classes and are not Sudras, and that the mere non-observance of the orthodox practices cannot take away the rights of a Kayastha in matters of inheritance, marriage and adoption. In the 1884 case of the Calcutta High Court (Raj Coomar Loll v. Bissessur Dyal (1884) I.L.R. 10 Cal. 688, p. 695), four tests were applied, first wearing the secred thread; secondly, ability to perform the home; thirdly, the rule as to the period of impurity; and, fourthly, the rule as to the incompetence of illegitimate sons to succeed. In the 1926 Patna case, on the other hand, it was held that "The mere non-observance of the orthodox practices cannot take away the rights of a Kayastha in matters of inheritance, marriage and adoption." It was decided that the present day Kayasthas are twice-born and are Kshatriyas, being descendants of Chitragupta. Whereas the 1884 Calcutta decision assumed that a caste, even though originally twice born, may, by giving up certain external observances such as the wearing of the sacred thread, become Shudras. The Patna decision repudiated this view. Also on the question of wearing the sacred thread the evidence in case of Kayastha was clear that thread ceremony is invariably performed in the community shortly before the marriage, and they begin to wear the sacred thread from the date of the performance of the thread ceremony. They change the sacred thread every year in the month of Shravan. The Patna case considered a long list of references to Kayastha in Hindu scriptures and endorsement of various Brahmins and several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, on the matter, before deciding that Kayastha were twice-born Kshatriyas. Following the court ruling of Patna, Kayasthas of the were legally recognized as twice-born Kshatriyas.

It is also of relevance here that a different approach was applied for the Kayastha of northern India and sort of created an anomaly. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in 1884 adoption case as well as 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. Thus the controversy was finally and legally laid to rest.

• • • I hope the case is quite clear to the curious and erudite reader. Also, I would advise a few mischief-mongers to stop being a parasite and make the world a better place. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha and Shudra are self-contradictory

It is needless to mention that Kayasthas are one of the highest castes in the Indian caste system. As per Wikipedia's article on Kayastha, though their exact caste status is a subject matter of debate, they are consistently ranked between Kshatriyas and Brahmins. Obviously, the five families who came along with five Brahmins, were not arbitrarily accorded the status of Kayasthas by the King, and that too of Kulins i.e. highest among the Kayasthas. It is obvious from all historical citations that the five Brahmins came with five learned Kayastha disciples, who were therefore accorded the status of Kulins.

Moreover, as per this article on 'Kulin Kayastha', 'The Kayasthas are regarded in Bengal, along with the Brahmins, as being the highest Hindu castes that comprise the upper layer of Hindu society'. Again as per Wikipedia only, Kayasthas are one of the most forward castes, and definitely not 'Shudras'. It would be relevnt to point out here that as per www.vedah.net, which is one of the most authentic Veda related sites, Kayasthas are considered as just another Brahmin community (http://www.vedah.net/manasanskriti/Brahmins.html). Though this may be a subject matter of debate, definitely Kayasthas are anything but Shudras. And this obviously applies to the Kulin Kayasthas, who were considered to be superior among them

Pal subhojit (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We have had this discussion recently at Kayastha. You have only told a part of that story here, and you are ignoring a specific source that is used to support what this article says. It is entirely possible for a subcaste to be ranked differently from the generality of the caste. Indeed, that still goes on today with the OBC/BC/ST/Sc/FC classification system. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You latest contribution, changing Shudra to Kayastha, is a misreading of the source. Since the Kayasthas have to originate somewhere and this section is supposed to be explaining their origin, it is not possible that the Kayasthas originated with, erm, the Kayasthas. And your source does say that the Kayasthas were shudra. You also screwed up the formatting - please read WP:REFPUNC. And stop this warring, please: you are not going to twist history to suit your own puffery purposes. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you are the main contributor, you must know that the Kayasthas originated much early, and were popular as a caste or sub caste in Northern India. Kayasthas exist even in the Puranas, this migration refers to history which is less than thousand years back. Therefore, your objection is totally invalid. I have not misread, rather I have just quoted, as mentioned in the source. I would like to request you not to twist history Pal subhojit (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Shudra Branding of Kulin Kayasthas is the least tolerable... Please don't alter the history and origins of one of the highest castes in India Amicus autem populus (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors are requested to review their sources before undoing an edit. The Kayasthas have been legally recognised as being members of the Kshatriya community. The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.

According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.

H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes. Semper Curious (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Stating the facts

I have been watching this page for sometime, and the recent war of words between Sitush and Pal subhojit. I am new as a Wikipedian. But I understand that this is a place where we should attach importance to facts. I have been through several sources related to this topic, and also checked related pages from 'Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture' by Inden, Ronald B. (1976). The point raised by Pal subhojit is factually correct, though I do not agree with the way he has replaced specific words. My point is, we should not forget that Wikipedia is meant for editing, so that it becomes more & more accurate, in terms of facts. So, neither should we be rigid about an existing article, nor we should attach more importance to one reference over another, and allow editing, obviously based on merit. But at the same time, you just cannot replace specific words, which indicates that your opinion may be biased. Calcuttan (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Shudra branding of Kayasthas has created much unrest among members of the community. Despite having legally attained Kshatriya varna status, Wikipedia and its editors seem least interested in correcting the article. Editors are requested to review their sources before undoing an edit. The Kayasthas have been legally recognised as being members of the Kshatriya community. The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.

According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.

H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes. Editors are requested to not indulge in the defamation of a community and check their personal resources before undoing any edit. Thank you. Semper Curious (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Shudra label came later

I will like to draw the attention to people here that the Shudra label came later from a ruling in Calcutta high court (see discussion page in the Kayastha article). The verdict was eventually overruled in Bihar and UP (United province back then). Ballal sen stories, no matter how popular they are, have no concrete evidences. Please delete lines from wikipedia articles that talks about folklores that have no palpable direct evidence. One book talking about such a story is not enough either. Please keep this article objective free of prejudices. Kayasthas existed long before Sen dynasty in Bengal. Even if Ballal Sen did bring the five Kayasthas from Kannauj, that does not say anything about their caste, precisely because in the land where they come from (UP) they are not considered Shudra. What happened in Bengal later, is a different story, but then using that (which happened way in the future during British rule) to label the five kayasthas as Shudra servants of the five Brahmins is anachronism. I hope that the people responsible for moderating this article will take action or at least respond. If not, I will edit the article myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.46.160 (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to verify your comments above? Please note that court documents are primary sources and are not usually acceptable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Court documents are far more accurate than stories that have been passed around for generation. Possibilities of distortion is maximum in these cases. My suggestion is to complete do away with controversial issues regarding the subject. It will only create chances of vandalism. The sources that you give are even less reliable than the court statement (which can very easily be gotten from google search). The main Kayastha article's talk page will give a lot of clue in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.46.160 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We should not use the court statement, even if you actually provide a reference for it. What we can use are secondary sources that refer to the court statement, provided that those secondary sources complies with our policy regarding reliability. I understand that this may seem silly but it is a long-established consensus and it is in fact a part of the very foundations of Wikipedia. We are not experts and we are therefore limited to stating things that are verifiable by citing other people who are considered to be reliable. Sure, in real life I may be an expert in Indian law, or in genetics, or history, linguistics, social theory, fixing Ford cars, brewing beer etc ... but as far as this project is concerned I am merely a conveyor of information, a go-between. Do you know of any secondary sources that we could use? - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources will be books or articles that cite the court verdict. You might need to do a google search on that. I am not sure how much literature is available. But a quick search showed me this article that mentions about that incidence. http://www.satyaguru.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/WHO_WERE_THE_SUDRAS.331135705.pdf However, I am curious to know why are you in favor of keeping the shudra attribute of Kulin Kayastha while you too do not have any significant evidence except words of mouth from stories that have been passed around. If you have evidence for neither (i.e, they are Shudra or they are not Shudra) should it not be wise to refrain from making such statements in an article like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.46.160 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your last point first, the shudra stuff appears to be reliably sourced. I do not understand your "word of mouth" phrase - are you doubting the source? Regarding your first point, it is not for me to find sources to support your opinion. I do a lot of sourcing and a lot of reviewing of sources provided by others, but the burden is on you in this situation, not me. The link that you provide is unlikely to meet WP:RS. Furthermore, you may not be aware of our attitude regarding balance and neutrality. This basically means that we should show all opinions that are verifiable using reliable sources. Thus, even if you were to provide some decent sourcing for your statement, that does not mean that the current statements would be removed. It is a question of judgment, based on consensus etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning your ability to source. I do respect your efforts. Testimony of that fact is that I chose to discuss this matter first before making any changes. Your source is a book by Thomas J. Hopkins. It talks about one king Adisura. Now it is just a benign question from me. Do you think it is a reliable source that talks about five Brahmins and five Kaysathas (Shudras) that came from Kannauj, that populated the entire Kulin samaj in Bengal? Is it scientifically possible? Genetical bottleneck reaches even if you have population of the order of hundred. The progeny of just five people (not even five actually, but just one, cause we are saying that each one started a clan that exists even today) would have been eradicated long ago because of inbreeding. If the entire race of Kulin Kayastha is from such a small entity of ancestors there will be an extremely strong genetical correlation. Something that will be easily traced by Y-cromosomal DNA analysis. That would have been a very interesting study indeed. But I never heard of any such studies. Now, the more I talk about it, more it will sound speculative. So I will not go in that route. All I am saying is that this whole thing sounds more like a legend than of any factual evidence. If you continue to believe that source is reliable then I will leave it at that. I just wanted to draw your attention to something I believe that has no factual evidence. About wikipedia policies, you know better so I will not argue with you one that.

It is not for us to query the veracity of someone who is more than adequately qualified to make a statement of that nature and whose work is published by an academic press - see this short bio, for example. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Shudra branding of Kayasthas has created much unrest among members of the community. Despite having legally attained Kshatriya varna status, Wikipedia and its editors seem least interested in correcting the article. Editors are requested to review their sources before undoing an edit. The Kayasthas have been legally recognised as being members of the Kshatriya community. The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.

According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.

H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes. Editors are requested to not indulge in the defamation of a community and check their personal resources before undoing any edit. Thank you. Semper Curious (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My recent reverts of anon contributions

So far this month I have had to revert contributions by IPs in a narrow 117.* range on several occasions. Almost certainly, it is the same person who keeps adding unsourced statements and removing sourced information. Please can that person (a) read up on our policies regarding verifiability using reliable sources; and (b) explain here what their problem is with the sourced content that they keep removing. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Shudra branding of Kayasthas has created much unrest among members of the community. Despite having legally attained Kshatriya varna status, Wikipedia and its editors seem least interested in correcting the article. Editors are requested to review their sources before undoing an edit. The Kayasthas have been legally recognised as being members of the Kshatriya community. The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.

According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.

H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes. Editors are requested to not indulge in the defamation of a community and check their personal resources before undoing any edit. Thank you. Semper Curious (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Less & half hearted facts

           First of all i like to thank wikipedia for providing such a good platform to findout the the origin of bengali kayastha, but i beg to differ with Mr.sitash(talk) about his view and presentation which is more personally decisive rather discusssion whish also is an act of vandalism, by ignoring other’s point of view, & creating confusion within a community.I will definately going to give detailed evidence about the court verdict and all the summery of diffrent manuscript quoted by eminent lawyers at that time. But first of all lets analyse the matter with logic:

Its written under the heading “Kulin Kayastha” that “It is traditionally believed that at this point a Hindu king brought in five Brahmins and their five Shudra servants, his purpose being to provide education for the Brahmins already in the area whom he thought to be ignorant.” Now, in vedas & puranas it was clearly written that brahmins were condemned to stump on the shadow of the sudras, and if that happens then they had to took bath or rathyer purify theselves.Secondly, brahmins condemned to drink water from the hand of a sudra, so, how could brahmins had sudra servants?According to puranas brahmins can olny be served by the lower cast of brahmins or rather khsatriyas, who came to the Gurukul(teacher’s house)for learning.While learning under a certain brahmin guru he had to serve him by helping his wife(Guru Maa)in her household activities.So, the line written under “Kulin Kayastha” not only lack evidence but also iilogical.Now again,five kayasthas who came from Kannaj(Kanhakubja)with five brahmins cannot be sudra because kayasthas in Kannauj at a present day does enjoy the status of khatriys and not sudras.It can be produced by the persons who believe that kulin kayasthas are sudras that they doesnot follow the rituals of “upanayan”. this is because the social evolution of bengal took place in a different way from north india. Benagl was influenced by buddhism, islam in such an extant which is uncomparable with nothern india.Due to these emmense influence kayasthas who used to the high rankig officials of the king’s court started adopting the king’s way of life. Same happened with bengali brahmins, unlike brahmins of the other region bengali brahmins intake nonvegetable food items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrishiraj talk (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Less & half hearted facts

Now i am going to give the details of the court verdict and also some of the summery of the quotation of the eminent lawyers of that from the link:

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/

Mr. Justice Field who delivered the judge ment in that case observed as follows:

14. "We think that the whole question has been fairly summed up in the following passage of Babu Shyama Charan Sarkar's Vyavastha Darpana: 'There is, therefore, a preponderance of authority to evince that the Kayasthas whether of Bengal or any other country, were Kshatriyas. But since several centuries past the Kayasthas (at least those of Bengal) have been degenerated and degraded to sudradom not only by using after their proper names the surname 'Dasa' peculiar to the Sudras, and giving up their own which is 'Barma' but principally by omitting to perform the regenerating ceremony, Upanayana hallowed by the gayatri." 23. "The view taken in the Vyavastha Darpana or in the Calcutta decision based upon it has not been accepted by Hindu lawyers of eminence and authority. Referring to the recent decision of the Calcutta High Court, Golap Chandra Sastri in his "book on Hindu Law (1924), at page 143, says that it has come as a surprise to the Hindu community. Sarvadhikari in his book " the Principles of Hindu Law of Inheritance" (1923), at page 835, says that the decision is not correct and that it has given rude shock to the whole Kayastha community in Bengal. Similar is the view of Jogendra Chandra Ghosh in his book " The Principles of of Hindu Law " (1917), at page 1006. These lawyers have not accepted the view that the Kayasthas who were admittedly Kshatriyas have become Sudras, nor the view that their giving up the sacred thread or assuming the epithet of ' Das,' even if this is a fact, would cause degradation. On this point Sarvadhikari in his learned work 'The Tagore Law Lectures ' of 1880, at page 830, 1923 Edition, says :" Even the wearing of the sacred thread, the well-known badge of the regenerate classes, cannot furnish in many cases an indubitable test in this vexed question. There are many Thakurs and Banias who though they are universally recognized as members of the regenerate classes do not put on the sacred thread. The only safe rule to follow in all cases where the determination of the caste of a person is in question is to ascertain the custom and usage by which the social conduct of the person given is regulated. The remarriage of widows and equal rights and privileges of legitimate and illegitimate sons and similar customs and usages are marks by which Sudras can be distinguished." 24. "The learned author in the succeeding pages 831 to 835 of the book examined the question closely with reference to the texts of Srutis, Smritis, and Puranas, judgments of subordinate Courts, authoritative gazetteers, the Durpanas of the Pandits of the Sadar Dewani Adalat, Agra, Yajnavalkya audits commentary, the Mitakshara, which governs the Kayasthas of Bihar, Northwestern Provinces and Oudh and has held that the Kayasthas belong to the regenerate class, are Kshatriyas and are by no means Sudras. He seriously questions whether the non-observance of some of the practices can permanently degrade people belonging to. a high class into a lower one and says that suppose the people of this caste again resume their former practices, as many Kayasthas in Bengal have done in recent years, what would be their status. The question in the Calcutta case, he says, was neither argued nor decided and the opinion of Shyama Charan Sarcar in his Vyavastha Darpana was regarded as decisive on the point. He says the Kayasthas of Bengal cannot be Sudras." 26. "As regards the Kayasthas of Northwestern Provinces and of Bombay (this will include the Bihar Kayasthas), Sarvadhikari says that they justly say that they should be governed by the same laws by which the regenerate classes are governed. Similar is the view of Golap Chandra Sarkar both in his book on Adoption and on Hindu Law. He also closely examined all the texts and authorities on Hindu Law: Vyas, Vishnu, Vrihata, Prasara, Padama, Skanda, and Bhayiahya Puranas, Yajnavalkya and Mitaksbara. He is emphatic in his opinion that the Kayasthas are Kshatriyas and that the non-observance of the ceremonies would not degenerate a higher caste into a lower one so as to affect his civil rights." 27. "Mr. J.C. Ghosh is also of the same opinion. Referring to Vyavastha Darpana of Shyama Charan he disputes its correctness and its applicability to the Kayasthas of North-Western Provinces who have got the sacred thread. He says that the distinction of caste being based on the nature of occupations of classes the Kayasthas who are Judicial and Revenue Officers, administering the laws of the Rishis and the Vaidyas who were physicians in the Hindu times, could not be regarded as Sudras." 30. "Dr. Muir gives a similar explanation of the mixed classes mentioned in the Smritis, According to him the origin of the mixed classes by inter-marriage between the four tribes is imaginary and allegorical. He says "where the abstract qualities of any two of the four tribes were thought requisite for filling a particular occupation, persons following that occupation were supposed to be descended from the offspring of an intermarriage of a man belonging to the one tribe, with a woman appertaining to the other." 31. "He illustrates this by referring to Ambasthas or the physician class of Bengal who combine in themselves the culture and learning of Brahmans and the commercial instincts of Vaisyas. The higher instinct is supposed to be derived from the superior class represented in the Smritisas the father and the lower instinct from the lower order represented by the mother. Thus he says "The principle of heredity underlies the Bystem, and gained considerable support from the state of early society." The scientific way of dividing the members of a society according to character and occupation Laid down by Dr. Muir has been expressed in the form of allegory by the Dharma Sastras of Manu and other Eishis. It is sufficient to refer to Manu for allsthe Smritis and Puracas agree therein." 36. "In Padma Purana, Uttar Khanda, it says that Chitragupta had twelve sons by two wives. They were all invested with the sacred thread and were married to Nagakanyas. They were the ancestors of the twelve sub-divisions of the Kayasthas. The story also says that the Kayasthas are Chitravansi Kshatriyas and never Sudras. They are entitled to all the Sanskars." 38. "In Shristhi Khanda the same Purana says that the sacrificial rites and study of the Kayasthas should be like the Dwijas and their occupation like that of the Kshatriyas." "Vignana Tantra says the same thing, adding that the descendants of Chitragupta are Kshatriyas by caste, and not Sudras by any means." 40. "Meru Tantra quoted in Shabda-Kalpadrum under the word 'Kshatriya' supports the same view." 52. "Again in Chap. I, Sloka 235, he says that Danda-dhrita the Magistrates and Judges of the Courts should be (dharmagya) persons versed in laws and good administration, Kayasthas who are versed in the art of writing." 53. "Similarly, Shukraaiti in Chap. XXXII, Sloka 420, describes Kayasthas as lekhaks, and in Chap. II, versa 178, says that the accountant and lekhak knew the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas." "Vijnanesvara in his Mitakshara commenting upon these Slokas says: He (King) should cause it to be recorded by that officer of his, who is in charge of war and peace (i.e. by a Kayastha), and not by anybody else. As says a Sruiti: That officer of his, who is sandhi vigraha kari or the officer in charge of peace and war should be its writer (lekhak)." 66. "By origin the Kayasthas were of pure regenerate descent. Even if they be of mixed origin, as some say, they cannot be Sudras as shown below. Yajnavalkya in Chap. I, Sloka 92, calls a son begotten by a Vaisya (twice-born) on a Sudra woman a Karan. Some commentators make Karan synonymous with Kayasthas. Yajnavalkya himself does not say so. The confusion has probably arisen on account of Karan being one of the twelve sub castes of Kayasthas which has nothing to do with the offspring of mixed marriage mentioned either in Manu or Yajnavalkya. This is clear from Shabda Ratnakar which gives several meanings of the word " Karan", such as, "Cause, body, war, son of a Vaisya by a Sudra woman, and a sub-division of the Kayasthas." 68. These are different uses of the word; one has nothing to do with the other. Karan sub-caste of the Kayasthas descended from Arua, one of the twelve sons of Chitragupta, is not to be confounded with the offspring of a Vaisya husband and a Sudra wife. Even if Karan be Kayastha he will not be a Sudra, for according to Manu he will retain the caste of the father though he may not have the same respect on account of inferiority of the mother the reason for this given by Manu in Chap. X, Sloka 72, being that the seed of the father is of greater importance in an act of fecundation. In Sloka 4l of that Chapter he clearly states that the sons begotten by twice-born ones on wives of their own caste or on wives belonging to an inferior caste have the rights and privileges of trie twice-born, that is, of being initiated with the thread, etc., and that he will not be a Sudra. Thus, even if Karan be the offspring of a Vaisya on a Sudra woman, he will be a twice-born, and not a Sudra. In any case Karan is only a sub-caste of Kayastha and cannot embrace the whole community. It is undisputed that if Kayastha is the offspring of a Kshatriya by a Vaisya woman, as given by Wilson in his glossary, he will be a twice-born called Mahishya according to Manu and Yajnavalkya, because both the father and mother are such. If he is the offspring of a Kshatriya by a Sudra wife he will be an Urga Kshatriya both according to Manu and Yajnavalkya, and an Urga Kshatriya is not a Sudra as held in Sri Gajapaty Hari Krishna Devi Garu v. Sri Gajapaty Radhika Patta Maha Dei Garu 2 M.H.C.R. 369; Brindavana v. Radhamani 12 M. 72 at p. 78 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 399; Jawala Singh v. Sardar 51 Ind. Cas. 216 : 41 A. 629 : 17 A.L.J. 734 : 1 U. P.L.R. (A.) 67 and Chuotwfya Jiun Murdun Syn v. Sahub Purhulad Syn 7 M.I.A. 18 : 4 W.R.P.C. 132 : 1 Suth. P.C.J. 313 : 1 Bar. P.C.J. 591 : 19 E.R. 217 where the Vyavastha of the Pandit of Sadar Dewani Adalat was not accepted and the Rajput was held to be a Kshatriya. These authorities have examined the text carefully and have gone so far as to hold that even an illegitimate son of a twice-born retains the caste of his father and does not become Sudra. 69. Thus, even if Kayastha is an offspring of inter-marriage he will be a twice-born. Even Shyama Charan Sarkar whose Vyavastha is the basis of the decision under review does not accept that a Kayastha is the offspring of a mixed marriage or that he is Karan. He is decidedly of opinion that the Kayasthas are Kshatriyas and this is so according to the Smritis and the Puranas. He, however, says that they have degraded themselves to sudradom by omitting to perform the Upanayana ceremony. This will not cause their degradation to sudradom, as Manu himself in Chap. X, Verse 20, definitely lays down that twice-born ones devoid of the rights of initiation with the thread are Vratyas (broken vowed ones) called Vratya Brahmans, Vratya Kshatriyas and Vratya Vaisyas respectively. Among Vratya Kshatriyas he mentions the name of Karan in Sloka 22. So if Karan is synonymous with Kayastha as some commentators say, then Kayastha will be Vratya Kshatriya, that is Kshatriya by origin and descent but of broken vows. Yajnavalkya in Chap. 2, Sloka 38, says that they will be Vratyas, "do long as they do not perform the sacrifices called Vratyastoma," and Mitakshara commenting upon this says "performing which (Vratyastoma) they again become entitled to Upanayana." 83. "The research of the modern writers, as shown above, has led to the conclusion that the Kayasthas are not Sudras but belong to the three regenerate classes." 85. "I would, however, prefer to rest my judgment on the Smritis, the Puranas and other authoritative works and the independent research by eminent writers which I have already referred to. It is, however, important to notice that no contrary view of any Court in the United Provinces and Behar has been referred to us. This shows that it has been accepted without any controversy that the status of the Kayasthas as belonging to the twice-born caste has been accepted in those Provinces. Even Shyama Oharan Sarkar whose Vyavastha is the basis of the solitary decision in the case of Raj Coomar Lall v. Bissessur Dyal 10 C. 688 : 8 Ind. Jur. 621 : 5 Ind. Deo. (N.S.) 462 admits that the Kayasthas whether of Bengal or any other country are Kshatriyas. There is, therefore, no controversy that by origin the Kayasthas are Kshatriyas. Shyama Charan Sarkar, however, says that they were degraded to sudradom by non-observance of the Upanayana ceremony and by assuming the Sudra epithet of 'Das' instead of their own Kshatriya 'Varma'. It has already been shown that his opinion does not relate definitely to the Kayasthas of Bihar and other Provinces except that of Bengal and that, as a matter of fact, this is not so far as the Kayasthas of Behar are concerned. Even if it were so, these lapses referred to above would not cause any actual degradation or the loss of rights of the Kayasthas in matters of inheritance, marriage and adoption. The Sastras do not entail any such result by such deviation from the orthodox practices. The Dharma Sastras have Laid down the rules of conduct, rites and ceremonies in the Acharya and Vyahara Kanda. If any twice-born fails to pay due regard to the precepts of Acharya and Vyahara Kanda or commits a breach thereof he can purify himself by the rules of expiation Lal d down in the Prayaschitta part; so long as he does not do so he may only be looked down upon but cannot be degraded to sudradom or the status of a Sudra so far as his civil rights are concerned. His caste for civil matters is that which he acquires by birth; he retains the caste of his father even if his mother be of an inferior caste. In the case of Bhagwan Kuar v. Jogendra Chandra Bose 30 I.A. 249 : 31 C. 11 : 7 C.W.N. 895 : 13 M.L.J. 381 : 84 P.R. 1903 : 135 P.L.R. 1903 (P.C.) it was held that a Hindu does not cease to be so merely by occasional lapses in matters of diet and ceremonial observances from orthodox Hindu practice. The principle will equally apply where the question is whether the members of a regenerate class have ceased to belong to it by reason of such lapses. If the omission to wear the sacred thread were to cause degradation, the Banias and Thakurs who do not put on the sacred thread would have become Sudra whereas they admittedly belong to the Dwija class. As already shown by reference to Yajnavalkya Mitakshara and Balambhatta such an omission will only deprive a twice-born of his sacramental rights and he can re-gain that right by performing the vratyastoma ceremony." 86. "It is not necessary to pursue the matter further. The reasons given by Shyama Charan Sarkar in his Vyavastha cannot cause degradation of the Kayasthas to sudradom and in any case the Behari Kayasthas are not Sudra." I think it is the enough evidence to prove that what has been written under the heading of kulin kayasta lacks the evidence half hearted.So I rather requets the wikipedia authority to please verfy the matter & give the proper description & not vandalistic self decision, because it is insulting & creating comfusion within a perticular community

                                                                thank you

Please read WP:TLDR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and, well, probably a lot of other stuff also. Court documents are not usually acceptable and I am slightly concerned that you may have just dumped an enormous copyright violation here. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

evidence

You want the evidence I gave you the evidence because till date after that case no one has questioned about the status of the kayastha clan. What you are saying is also contardictory you have written under the heading of "kulin kayastha" that "It is traditionally believed that at this point a Hindu king brought in five Brahmins and their five Shudra servants, his purpose being to provide education for the Brahmins already in the area whom he thought to be ignorant.",Now who believe this? Does believe has anything to do with evidence & proof? Because i dont understand what are u trying to make us believe,kayasthas living at any part of the world believe that they have originated from khatriyas, so who are the persons that believe that kayasthas are originally sudras? i think u dont know that in the Bardwan district of WestBengal, India, there are "Kayastha Ghosh" who call themselves Rajputana Ghosh? and can also produce their family tree in supprot of this. In the talk page you asked someone to provide evidence about "Kulin Kayastha" are originally Sudras, so i gave the evidence. If this evidence is not consider than your sources are incomplete, moreover, with the evidence i also provide what puranas & different manuscript says about the origin of kayastha. You are telling me that my document are incorporated the act of violation, but frankly speaking and i am sorry to say that your way of producing the documents is mere your personal decision and also act of vandalism

                        thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrishiraj talk (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 

The information is sourced. There were also lengthy discussions at Talk:Kayastha#Varna debate, for example. Your original research counts for nothing, and I have already explained that court documents are not usually acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Then could you please explain on what basis u r supporting the theory that kayasthas are sudra? 

you are looking only to the verdict of the court but ignoring the documents of puranas, vedas and different manuscript supporting kayasthas to be khatriyas. in our country documents of vedas, puranas and different manuscripts expalin details of the verna system what ever theory about the varna syastem is there is based on those books, so if those books supports kayasthas to be kshatriya then on what basis u are continuosly telling that kayasthas are sudras.Frankly speaking though you have created this article but as it is misleading the people it also counts nothing. U have not provided enough evidence in support of your article which i have provided.i rather request wikipedia autherity to look into this matter, and solve the issue because the article "Kulin Kayastha" is incorrect, evidence less, iilogical and detroying the healthy environment of this ever circulated forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrishiraj talk (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained that the information is sourced. I have already suggested that you read WP:PRIMARY etc. The Puranas, Vedas etc are not reliable sources. I have not, by the way, created this article but I do have a fair amount of experience of dealing with varna issues and, believe me, when people turn up shouting and screaming on Wikipedia that their caste is not shudra then it almost always signifies that the article has got it right. However, if you can find some reliable sources that would cause us to rethink the phrasing or overall content of the article then by all means do list them. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolution of Dispute through Discussions - Kind Attention Administrators

I would like to bring to the notice of administrators that this page has been a subject of edit war consistently. I believe, such disputes must be resolved through discussions. Defending one particular source, and holding the view that it is the only reliable one, and consistently reverting any new addition from other reliable sources, without trying to arrive at a concensus, is also an act of systematic and tactical vandalism. When so many people stand up and share the same concern, it must be addressed. We all know, caste information are sensitive and such issues must be handled with care. Why should there be such gross discrepancies within two similar articles within Wikipedia? Why should related article on Guhathakurta state - "To protect the Brahmins, five Kshatriya came with them", and the same will be stated as "five Shudra servants" in this article on Kulin Kayasthas? Doesn't this question the reliability of sourcing within Wikipedia community? This literally amounts to misleading people about facts. Is it only about defending one particular source under the garb of policies and getting into an edit war? This is not expected from a platform like Wikipedia, and I would like to request the concerned administrators to look into these issues seriously. Calcuttan (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is agreed in the other article that the source which says "five Kshatriya" is an acceptable source, and there is another source that is equally acceptable within Wikipedia policies that says "five Shudra", then it is possible that both should be included in the article. This sometimes happens.

I have also to say that User:Sitush who I have great respect for, is a little overstrict in his approach to court documents. A court document is acceptable evidence for it's own content - the statement "Mr Foo was indicted for beating his wife" can be sourced to the actual indictment document in a legislature where such things are habitually published. The statement "Mrs Foo gave evidence that her husband regularly hit her with a frying pan" could be sourced to the authorised court transcript where she said "my husband regularly hit me with a frying pan". The jury's decision could be sourced to the official record. Equally, if a court issues a written judgement, that is an acceptable source to verify what the written judgement was. The caveat is that court documents cannot be used interpretively. One can quote Lord Justice Bong handing down a complex judgement, but interpreting the outcome and significance must come from a secondary source.

So in the cited case, one could use the record of the actual judgement as a satisfactory source for statements such as "In the case of Ishwari Prasad And Ors. vs Rai Hari Prasad Lal on 23 February, 1926, Justice Prasad delivered the judgement that the ekrarnama not having been proved, the plaintiffs have no other evidence to prove that they or their ancestors were in joint possession of the properties with Ridhnath or his descendants" or "Justice Prasad differed from the view taken by Raj Coomar Lall v. Bissessur Dyal 10 C. 688 : 8 Ind. Jur. 621 : 5 Ind. Deo. (N.S.) 462, and stated his view that 'in any case the Behari Kayasthas are not Sudra'. However, one could not cite the case to PROVE that Behari Kayasthas are not Sudra (or that the plaintiffs were lacking evidence to their case), but only to verify that this was what was recorded as the judgement of the court. One would need to cite legal textbooks or other sources confirming that the view of the judge about Behari Kayasthas in some way created a legal precedent, or was subsequently enshrined in legislation, or was popularly regarded as in some way setting the matter to rest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Respect from Elen means a lot to me, thanks for that. I agree with Elen, with the proviso that the endemic problem with caste articles is that there is a desire to "prove" non-shudra status and that the sources are twisted. omitted or even completely misrepresented in order to achieve this. Further, these court judgments have to be placed in context: they were often limited in scope (eg: to one state/province/district), they were complex in detail and they were the outcome of a period of agitation by this or that community. That an (often ill-informed) court passes a judgment in these circumstances would need substantial clarification, and it is my experience that in these articles the clarification is never acceptable to the caste members etc due to their wish to deny the possibility of shudra status being recognised before or after the judgement and - significantly - by other castes.

India was and to a large extent still is an endogamous society. As much as the constitution has outlawed the idea, caste matters hugely, and caste status is (paradoxically) a vital part of the government's reservation classification system, The judgement of an Imperial court has a legal basis for the area in which it applied and from the time that it was given, but often no basis in fact/on the ground.We can use a legal judgment that was almost invariably compromised (as were census outcomes), or we can use the subsequent research of academics. Or we use the "court said A in YYYY, but umpteen academics since have said B" formula. Basically, the problem is one of presentation and, believe me, I know exactly what is going on here. More to say, but this is long enough for now! - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Put it another way: if someone wants to enter a two- or three-sentence neutrally worded, reliably sourced set of statements re: the court judgments then that is fine by me. It is not fine to remove the alternates from more recent scholars, nor to give undue weight to an opinion that is now outdated and may have been of limited scope even in its time. And the context - usually Sankritisation - must be given. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your objection - these historic court archives prove little except that the matter came up before the beak at regular intervals and judges were prepared to opine in the course of adjudging other matters - the cited case actually appears to be about the ownership of land and hinged on the legal status of an adoption and the provenance of a document; the status of the Beyari Kayasthas are something of a sideshow. They also suggest that there was no kind of legal precedent - in this case it's quite evident that Justice Prasad respectfully thinks the opinion of another Court is rubbish - but one would want a reliable secondary source to draw that kind of conclusion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And we'd probably need some background info regarding Prasad also. There are judges and there are judges, just as with academics. We do not treat all academics as being reliable sources (David Irving, as an extreme example) and the same can apply elsewhere. Unless the judgment was at the highest level possible and directly related to varna status, we need to exercise care or - as I have suggested all along - use secondary sources rather than primary. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is no contradiction between Guhathakurta and this article, or at least not in the Wikipedia sense. The former is completely unsourced puffery, whereas the relevant statements re: origin in this article are reliably sourced. I was very tempted to stub Guhathakurta a few moments ago but in fact I am going to consider when it should in fact be takent to WP:AFD. Unless there are decent sources that discuss the surname, it seems not to be notable, however widely used the name may be. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

can u explain us what is the source you are reffering about ? because indian varna system is totally or mostly depends on the vedas & the puranas and living in india if the cases of babri masjid is ressolved by the court verdict & if it si accepted then why not the court verdict about kulin kayastha? i m sorry to say act sitush{[talk]}is more decisive rather than he is interested for ressolving the matter in the mode of discussion. I edited the the older version which is more acceptable but I also know that the one & only sitush{[talk]}will going to change it & then block it because he dont want to settle the matter but to forcefully make us believe what he believes, but even that happens that will not change the fact, the status & the belief of the kulin kayasthas all over the world, I need to ask one question that the court verdict if is not fully satisfactory, then the source which tells that the kulin kaysthas are originated from the sudras are properly sourced? because all the authors who did intensive research on indian caste system had somehow & someway depends on puranas & vedas because with out that there is no oppertunity for doing the reseach & there was no possibility for study of genetics at that time so I should again ask the wikipedia forum to please verify this matter from their end or else this issue should be raised again to the court of india to come to conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.134.235 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot make much sense of your comment. I am continuing to remove content inserted by IP contributors that concerns these court rulings. I will do so until appropriate sources are provided and/or the phrasing is radically altered so as not to constitute original research, synthesis. etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gupta period

Among the statements reverted just now was a small section sourced to pp. 116-117 of this book. Can someone please enlighten me. Where in those pages is the support for our statements, ie: for

During the Gupta Empire, the Kayasthas had not developed into a distinct caste, although the office of the Kayasthas (scribes) had been instituted before the beginning of the period, this can be made out from the contemporary smritis. In many early epigraphs discovered in Bengal, brahmanic names with large number of modern Bengali Kayastha cognomens can be found, suggesting that a large number of Brahmin communities intermixed with oher varnas to form the present day Kayasthas and Vaidyas of Bengal

- Sitush (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kulinism

Also among my most recent revert, referred to in the above threads and visible here, is a section concerning Kulinism. Its principal source is Village Life in Bengal Hindu Customs in Bengal. This is published by iUniverse, who are a vanity press and unlikely to be reliable in the context that they were used in this article. If it is the case that this is actually a reprint by them of an older work, please could someone provide the original publication information here so that I can track it down and read the thing. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

First of all, what article u provide about the the origin of kulin kayastha is not fully evidence proof & dont try to teach me about the rules of wikipedia if u continuously edit & try to show your bullyness by propaganding what u believe then this case should be solved under the jurisdiction of court. can you give us a 100% evidence about the origin of kulin kaystha that they were sudras? can you show us some recorded family tree which prove your point of view? if not then we have all the rights to take necessary legal steps for you & by the way about "ghosh" what i have edited i heard it from my grandfather he heard it from his grandfather, so do you want to say that they were lying? the goshes , the boses , the miras & the guhas are all kulin kaystha, at one place you are saying that they are sudras & in another article about bose & guhathakurta it has been written that they are khatriyas ,so its already in a verge of contradiction, so is it not an act of vandalism? you are simply following a single source and disrespecting others as well as disrespecting the verdict of court,if yoy have 100% evidence that prove kulinkaystha sudra then lets take this issue to the court to decide.--Hrishiraj talk (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012

I am not responding beyond requesting that you read WP:NLT. And WP:V. And WP:RS. And WP:EW + WP:3RR. Not to mention the "caste sanctions" notice at the top of this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Talk:Kulin_Kayastha#Resolution_of_Dispute_through_Discussions_-_Kind_Attention_Administrators. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My recent reverts

I have now twice reverted Ruderow, who returned with poor contributions to this article on the very day that their topic ban expired. There is consensus that ee do not use Indic scripts in lead sections (see User:Sitush/Common#Scripts); there is consensus that montages are inappropriate in articles such as this; H. H. Risley is an old source and the man is discredited; S. N. Sadasivan is much more modrrn but has also been deemed unreliable on umpteen caste articles: The Golden Book of India is just ridiculous, as are most British sources of the Raj era. I could go on, but much of this has been explained previously and I am not inclined to waste more time dealing with repetition of poor behaviour by someone who has clearly been biding their time during their ban period, sorry.

Obviously, feel free to discuss improvements in a constructive manner. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha - Originally Kayastha or Shudra debate

There were n number of debates regarding the origin of Kulin Kayasthas here, and whether five Shudras or Kayasthas (later granted Kulina status) actually accompanied the Brahmins invited by King Adisur. Now, like reliable sources which are considered as reference(s) for this article, mention them as 'Shudra servants', similarly there are other reliable sources which mention them originally as Kayasthas. For example 'Tales of Bengal' by S.B.Banerjea (page 28, available on Google Books) mentions that Adisur invited five Kayasthas with five Brahmins. Similarly 'Bengal and Assam' (available on Google Books), actually a report on the Reconstitution of Provinces by Govt. of India, also mentions on Page 104 that five Brahmins and five Kayasthas from 'Kanouj' were invited and were settled in Bengal and formed the Kulin Brahmins and Kayasthas respectively. Similarly, we can find other sources as well. Based on the existing sources mentioned, and based on these new ones, and considering the huge debate through ages, will it not be fair to mention in the article on Kulin Kayastha, that there are both the opinions among historians. I believe this will make the article all the more neutral and make it all the more complete. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe, this is okay with all active contributors on Kulin Kayastha. Please discuss here, in case anyone does not agree. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ekdalian, but I don't seem to be able to see any of the sources that you mention and I'm not sure if it is a temporary Google problem or the more permanent variety (Google Books shows different results in different countries). Since no-one disputes that these people certainly did become Kayasthas at some point, the issue is really one regarding whether they were such before they accompanied the Brahmins or afterwards. This is going to need a very careful review of sources because tense is everything in such situations and it is not uncommon for sources to use a name that later applied to refer to something that happened before it did apply. This is a bit difficult for me to explain but I, for one, am going to need to see what these writers actually say & I'm going to need to see a couple of pages before and after the relevant bit, not merely a single-sentence quote. It is far too easy for things such as this to be taken out of context. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For 'Tales of Bengal' by S.B.Banerjea, the url is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=RsXK6DUO4i8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=tales+of+bengal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HyzJUfuNDYmzrAfztoDoBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ (see Pg 28, and relevant pages), and for 'Reconstitution of Provinces of Bengal and Assam' by Govt. of India, the url is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PuhWAAAAMAAJ and you may search for 'five Kayasthas' (see Pg 104), full view may not be available. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I still cannot see the second source (see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks for an explanation) and while Banerjea has shown up, there seems to be nothing particularly reliable about that and there is no certainty that he is using "Kayastha" in the sense that we intend. They became Kayasthas and as such it is perfectly ok to say something like "The Kayasthas came over with the Brahmans" without elucidating on who or what the Kayasthas were at the point of arrival, as Banerjea pretty much does. We have sources that specifically explain the point. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I undertand that you could not view the second source mentioned above. But, I cannot agree with you, as regards the first source is concerned. I have great respect for you because of your strict and logical approach, and we are all aware that you protect such articles not only from vandalism, but also any possible distortion. But, my point here is that we are not a court of law, and we are not supposed to be over-judgemental.

Banerjea in his 'Tales of Bengal' (Pg 28) categorically states that 'According to tradition, a King of Bengal named Adisur imported five Brahmans, and as many Kayastha servants from Kanauj in Upper India.', then mentions that four of them were granted Kulin status. The same page also mentions about existing Brahmin and Kayastha families in Bengal. So, why should we assume that he is confused with their status pre and post migration. Since the word 'imported' is used, it naturally implies that the imported Kayathas later on became Kulin Kayasthas. It would not be fair to assume that imported Shudras became Kulins, as far as the above statements are concerned.

Also the second source, which you couldn't view, ('Reconstitution of Provinces of Bengal and Assam' by Govt. of India) also categorically mentions on Page 104 that five Brahmins and five Kayasthas from 'Kanouj' were invited and were settled in Bengal and formed the Kulin Brahmins and Kayasthas respectively.

If you are still not convinced, we can discuss other sources (including the second one) as well. My only concern is regarding the priciple of selection of such statements. I also believe (and many active contributors as well as administrators would probably agree) that contradictory views must be presented in such articles, involving sensitive information like caste, without being too much judgemental or overprotective about currently mentioned sources (which would anyway remain as it is), and that would actually ensure the neutrality of such contentious issues. In fact, there are several other reliable texts that can be discussed here, but the point remains the same. I don't think there is any reason to be hypercritical or over-judgemental, and it would be more logical if we accept these versions as they are. It would obviously not be a big issue, if both the opinions are mentioned parallely, in fact, I suppose that should be the norm. Like we agreed to that particular statement on Kayastha, mentioning them as 'a mixed caste', that all opinions as per source(s), even though contradictory, should be mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed we should show all opinions that are given by reliable sources. However, we can only discern the opinions if the sources are not ambiguous. It is the ambiguity that concerns me here, although I'm also concerned whether Banerjea is even reliable - that source seems to be making up dialogue. I'm away for a couple of days: perhaps you could transcribe a bit from the second source and we can discuss it then? - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I 'll surely do that, and then discuss. Ekdalian (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from 'Reconstitution of Provinces of Bengal and Assam' by Govt. of India (reprint by D.K.F. Trust 1983, Original from the University of Michigan) Page 104 -- "In ancient times King Adisur had established his Kingdom in Vikrampur, in the southern part of the district of Dacca. He invited five Brahmans and five Kayasthas from Kanouj, and settled them in his dominions. The descendants of these Brahmans, who form the Kulin Brahman Somaj, in course of time spread over the districts north, south and west of it. The Kulin Brahmans of all the districts of Western Bengal, are connected by inter-marriage with those of Eastern Bengal. Then the five Kayasthas, who came to Bengal at the time of Adisur, were the forefathers of the great Somaj of Bangaja Kayasthas which has its principal seats in Dacca, Backergunge and Jessore." You may please go through, and let me know your feedback. Ekdalian (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Any idea when that was first printed? It reads like it might be from the Raj period, in which case it is useless. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably 1905. In case this is actually useless, we may consider another text 'Notions of Nationhood in Bengal: Perspectives on Samaj, C. 1867-1905' by Swarupa Gupta, Series Editor Michael Krausz (available on Google Books, pls check pages 50-51, url is http://books.google.co.in/books?isbn=9004176144) mentions categorically in Page 50 footnote (continued in Page 51 footnote) -- "Adisur was a legendary Sena king of Bengal who was supposed to have invited five Brahmans from Kanauj to Bengal. With them came five Kayastha attendants. This legend was fitted into a quasi-historical, sociological narrative of Bengal and deployed to explain the realities of caste and sub-caste origins and connections......". Page 50 (last para, last line) mentions about 'five legendary Kayasthas supposedly brought from Kanauj by Adisur'. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The more recent source is better, thanks. I'll do some digging here: my suspicion is that we may need to show both opinions but let's see what turns up. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you see pages 74-75 of this? Or page 220 of this (only available in snippet view here, reproduced at p. 98 of this)? Also in snippet view are:

• this at p. 206
• p. 13 of this
• p. 78 of this
• p. 55 of this
• p. 123 of this
• p. 91 of this
• p. 2003 of this
• p. 463 of this
• p. 14 of this
• p. 161 of this

Not to mention p. 240 of this and 302 of this. I've stopped looking for more because it is clearly a common idea and, unlike your sources, it appears to be stated explicitly. What I need to do is track down some of those snippet views. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply Great!! I could see most of these pages, obviously its always difficult to track down the entire relevant portion of those available in snippet view. Anyway, if you need any particular help on any of these while tracking down, please let me know. I 'll obviously try my level best to help you out. I sincerely hope that all these have the potential to improve the content of this article, as well as Kayastha significantly. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I should add here that too many sources may actually deviate us from the point. The point is, we have both the opinions, and we have n no of sources supporting each view. Therefore, I believe, if we can actually keep it simple (this is obviously not a thesis paper) and mention both the views, that would make the article rational as well as neutral.

I have already appreciated your 'Great' efforts, but I would also like to point out that most of the sources you have mentioned are related to Kayasthas in general, only few are specific to that of Kulin Kayasthas. The caste status of Kayasthas has always been a subject matter of debate, and that is reflected in our article on Kayastha. Here, let us be specific, and let us focus on the five attendants who accompanied the Brahmins invited by legendary King Adisur. Various sources mention these five attendants mostly as either Shudra or Kayastha (few call them Kshatriya as well). Let us, at least, mention these two contradictory opinions at the first place. Further research on Kayastha (Varna status) may actually help us improve the article on Kayastha (though major views already mentioned there), but would not be relevant here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you may be missing my point but I'd rather wait until I've got hold of some of the snippet view stuff. My gist is, the "Kayasthas came over with Brahmins" opinion is not in fact supported by sources if you read them correctly. That doesn't necessarily make the Shudra notion anything more than a myth. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last statement not only reflects your depth, but also says everything, this is actually nothing more than a myth. The last source I have cited also says -- this legend was fitted into a quasi-historical social narrative of Bengal. My point is, this mythical story should be represented by both the major/contradictory versions. You are reading between the lines, which is probably too much for a myth like this. Anyway, you are welcome to do your research before we arrive at the logical conclusion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe, it is our responsibility to mention all possible versions from reliable sources, especially in cases where sensitive issues like caste are discussed. I would like to repeat that we are not a court of law, and we have no reason to be judgemental about which version could be more correct, or else decipher which author actually meant what when he stated something. This is a Start-Class and Low-importance atricle. So, there is enough scope for improvement. Being cynical about every other information, apart from whatever is already stated, will lead us nowhere. Rather, like most other articles on caste (for example see Baidya), we may also consider and mention what the particular community claims. Even if you consider that to be secondary, let us state major versions of this quasi-historical mythical story, as available. If the article mentions that "most of the sources available mention the five attendants originally belonging to either Shudra or Kayastha Varna, and some even as Kshatriya", citing the sources, that would only make the article all the more complete.

Please check the following link this Pg.73, 'A Story of Ambivalent Modernization in Bangladesh and West Bengal' by Pranab Chatterjee which categorically mentions that "Adi shura, who had imported five Aryan Brahmins (top caste of priests) and their five consorts, some Aryan Kshatriyas (second from the top) into Bengal" and even mentions how he (Adisur) was related to then Sena King Vijay Sen (1096-1159 A.D.). Let us put together all such information, and improve the content and reliability of this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I have not received any further input, I believe I should incorporate all the views (citing reliable sources) regarding the quasi-historical legendary story. All constructive inputs are most welcome. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I 'll obviously wait for User:Sitush till you confirm that your hunting (for some specific source, I guess) is over. But, then, my point is, in any case, we cannot ignore these varied versions, even if you find something specific. As per our convention, we need to show all possible versions, especially when it comes to such contentious issues. Therefore, I would like to request you to go through my composition as well (apart from your own research), and suggest me on any point I may have missed. Needless to mention, I am seriously looking forward to improve the content as well as reliability of this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Sitush, it's been more than a week now, though I understand, you must be looking for something specific. Would request you to comment on my version, especially if you have any reservations regarding any statement (although the entire stuff is sourced). And finally, I would obviously request you to go with this version (along with your suggestions, if any), which covers all varied and reliably sourced opinions regarding the origin of Kulin Kayasthas. Articles are meant to be improved, if you can dig into some source even later on, that can always be taken care of. Needless to mention, other contributors are welcome to come up with their comments/suggestions as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Sitush, I believe, you are still struggling to find any specific source, mentioning categorically whether they originally existed as Shudras or Kayasthas in Kanauj. Honestly speaking, my personal opinion is, we are being over-strict or over-judgmental and trying to arrive at a conclusion, which even historians failed to, especially because this is not purely a documented historical event, rather as mentioned so many times, this is a quasi-historical legend/myth. You know, even there are various versions regarding who Adisur actually was and even the exact period when Adisur may have invited them. Therefore, it is probably useless fighting over such a mythical story, and probably impossible as well to ascertain the origins. Neither the existing versions categorically spell out what you want (probably too much for a myth), nor the sources I have cited. So, I would request you once again, let us incorporate the other version(s), highlighting the majority view, as already discussed. There is no reason to deny the minority view as minority view. Needless to mention, I sincerely hope, together we can make the article much more balanced and unbiased! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Sitush, I would like to add that the ambiguity issue you have raised is totally irrelevant here. Honestly speaking, I have understood your point very clearly, and repeatedly mentioned in our discussions. The ambiguity issue could have been relevant, had the current source, or similar other source(s) mentioned clearly your point i.e. the Kulin Kayasthas existed as Shudras in Kanauj, when they accompanied the Brahmins invited by Adisur and came to Bengal. Since no one has come across any such source, all the sources must be treated at par, since they either state that the Brahmins were accompanied by "five Shudra servants" (existing version), or else "five Kayastha attendants" and very few as "five Kshatriya consorts". Your only valid point is majority opinion, which needless to mention, must be highlighted. Now, if you still don't understand this point, or accept the fact, then I have hardly anything to say. Defending existing version of an article just for the sake of defending will lead us nowhere. Moreover, this is, as already mentioned, not even a chronological historical event, rather simply a legend/myth/whatever! Therefore, it is too much to ask for exact historical background of this quasi-historical myth. And even, had there been a reliable source, or if I find one, mentioning that they existed as Kayasthas, will it be considered as sacrosanct? The answer is No. Probably that could also be stated in that scenario. But, all the versions, as available still need to be stated. That's all I have to say. Hope you have understood my point. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Sitush, I hope I could explain myself clearly. Awaiting your response!! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Sitush, I have always put in that extra effort to avoid an edit war, and arrive at consensus with co-editors. You know, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." You may express your response to my explanation, which I believe, conforms to all Wikipedia's norms, or any concern, if at all. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Shudra branding of Kayasthas has created much unrest among members of the community. Despite having legally attained Kshatriya varna status, Wikipedia and its editors seem least interested in correcting the article. Editors are requested to review their sources before undoing an edit. The Kayasthas have been legally recognised as being members of the Kshatriya community. The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.

According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.

H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes. Editors are requested to not indulge in the defamation of a community and check their personal resources before undoing any edit. Thank you. Semper Curious (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No discussion about Dutta is necessary

Please take out the discussion about Dutta as Duttas are Mauliks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.241.24 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Like Bose, Ghosh, Mitra and Guha, Dutta is equally relevant as far as this quasi-historical narrative (related to the origin of a section of Bengali Kayasthas) is concerned. Whether they were granted Kulin nomenclature or not (according to the narrative) is another issue. In fact, all reliable sources mention about the Duttas wherever there's a detailed discussion about Adisur and Kulin Kayasthas; the part related to Dutta here is sourced, which shows that the author has also given due importance to the Duttas. Therefore, as per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, there's no question of removing the sourced information related to Dutta here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Kind attention administrators : Prevent blatant defamation of a Forward Caste through Shudra branding

The Shudra branding of Kayasthas has created much unrest among members of the community. Despite having legally attained Kshatriya varna status, Wikipedia and its editors seem least interested in correcting the article.

The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.

According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.

H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes. Editors are requested to not indulge in the defamation of a community and check their personal resources before undoing any edit. Thank you. Semper Curious (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

False

Plz don't spreed the false information অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

CFork

I have redirected the page to Bengali Kayastha pursuant to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your concern. This article is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Bengali Kayastha (though related) IMO, and existed long before the creation of the article on Bengali Kayastha. This version was finalized after lengthy discussions with Sitush. Also, the content is neither duplicate nor redundant. The article is meant for the Kulin Kayasthas like the one on Kulin Brahmin, which exists as a separate article along with Bengali Brahmins. In case you still have concerns, we can discuss. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that the two stubs—Kulin Brahmin and Bengali Brahmin—cannot be merged with one another, providing a reader with detailed information at a single place? Coming to this article, which of the scholars cited in the history section discuss Bengali Kulin Kayasthas as opposed to Bengali Kayasthas? All we need at bengali Kayastha is some detailing of the Adisura fable. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, in case you / other reliable senior editor can merge the Adisura fable and expand the relevant section there, I have no objection. Same is applicable for Kulin Brahmin. I am not taking the initiative due to paucity of time. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus version: using the term 'majority'

@Sitush: this is an old consensus among us, when we had created the article! I would like to reduce the synthesis that we had agreed, may be 10 years back! If you check the latest revision history, you will find that I have replaced the term 'majority' with 'many'! Please let me know, if you are okay with this? If not, you may suggest how we can rephrase the statement in order to avoid WP:SYN to the extent possible. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)