Misplaced Pages

Talk:Caste system in India

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ogress (talk | contribs) at 22:00, 19 June 2015 (→Merger proposal: you can't do it without proposing a merger properly). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:00, 19 June 2015 by Ogress (talk | contribs) (→Merger proposal: you can't do it without proposing a merger properly)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Castewarningtalk

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHinduism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslam Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman Genetic History (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RSS

Ok, following sentence is marked "citation needed":

Hindu Nationalist organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have actively criticized the caste system.

The citations are present in the article of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:

The RSS has advocated the training of Dalits and other backward classes as temple high priests (a position traditionally reserved for Caste Brahmins and denied to lower castes). They argue that the social divisiveness of the Caste system is responsible for the lack of truth adherence to Hindu values and traditions and reaching out to the lower castes in this manner will be a remedy to the problem. The RSS has also condemned 'upper' caste Hindus for preventing Dalits from worshipping at temples, saying that "even God will desert the temple in which Dalits cannot enter"

  1. RSS for Dalit head priests in temples,Times of India
  2. RSS rips into ban on Dalits entering temples Times of India - January 9, 2007

Clarification on Caste and Economics

"In India, 36.3% of people own no land at all, 60.6% own about 15% of available land, with a very wealthy 3.1% owning 15% of available land". That adds up to 100% of the people, but only 30% of the available land. The easiest explanation for this is that 70% of the land is not owned for farming purposes, but I cannot be certain about this from either this Wiki page nor the citations given. Or does the government or no one at all own the rest of the land? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.29.71 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the remainder is not available for farming purposes. I am surprised that it is so high, but you will need to dig into the sources to resolve the myster. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Very poor article

This article repeatedly tries to blame the British for the caste system, which is historically absurd. There is no section actually describing the caste system and how it operates in India. The history section contains no real history at all. The article falsely asserts that caste is found in other religions. (It's true that in India some followers of other religions have adopted caste from Hinduism, but that's not the same thing.) This article needs a complete rewrite by someone who knows Indian history and is not primarily motivated by a desire to deny that caste is intrinsic to Hinduism and to blame the British for it. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So what? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The parts regarding the British are high quality academic sources discussed many times in the archives.VictoriaGrayson 02:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can write an article demonstrating whatever they want to believe, by selective use of sources. It's obviously nonsense to say that the British were responsible for the caste system. I will find some other sources when I get time. Meanwhile the other points I raised have not been addressed. The most important are that there is no actual description of the caste system and no proper history of it. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Intelligent Mr Toad 2: There is a certain school of academic scholarship, post-colonialism, which focuses on studying the contribution of colonialism to the ills of the third world. There are a lot of their ideas that are accepted as well as a lot that are not. Their ideas on caste system are on the borderline. The fault of article is not making it clear that this is a particular strand of academic scholarship, not universally accepted. To that extent, we are misrepresenting the academic consensus. I did try to fix it once but, unfortunately, there are plenty of editors here that share the post-colonial ideas and they keep deleting my fixes. Please feel free to reinstate them. Here is a pointer to the old discussion Talk:Caste_system_in_India/Archive_8#The_word_.22postmodern.22 - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of that school of historical interpretation. I have no objection to the article noting that such views are held by some writers. I object to their views being presented as facts. I also object to the same statement about the British being repeated at least three times, including in the opening paragraph. But as I said before my real problem with this article is that it provides neither a proper description of the caste system nor a proper history of it. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
One of the articles cited for the British stuff is a review article. A review article summarizes the research of several scholars.VictoriaGrayson 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing statement from lead

Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. The statement brings in colonial regime right after talking about ancient Hindu life. The paragraph continues on the effect of colonial regime on caste, based up on the initial assumption cited from Zwart. Importantly Zwart does not discuss about the origins of caste, nor about the effects of colonial regime. He merely makes a passing reference based on contemporary scholars. The article is mainly about the logic and consequences of affirmative action in Independent India. The whole article contains a couple of citation on the effects of colonial regime.

Presently the lead section gives undue weight to the effects of colonial regimes, based on an article which discusses something else. WP:Lead WP:RSCONTEXT

Apparently it attributes origin of caste system to colonial regime which may or may not be true but currently is unsubstantiated here. In fact the whole paragraph violates WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE of harping mainly upon the affirmative action and the relation ship between state and caste even before describing what caste is and what are its attributes. -- AB 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add a lot of unnecessary white space to your messages. People need to be able to see all viewpoints without having to scroll too much.
You are arguing WP:DUE, but, to argue that, you should have a considered view of the overall literature on Caste. You don't exhibit any such. So, offhand, I don't see any merit in your argument. What Zwart talks about is not relevant here. All that matters is whether the statement here is supported by the source, which it is. Now, Zwart gives plenty of references for the viewpoint, which you need to look at to get an understanding of why it has been made. Your own views carry no weight here on Misplaced Pages.
By the way, my own views agree with yours somewhat. But I don't yet have an argument that is valid for Misplaced Pages. Neither do you. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
My contention is that Zwart doesn't discuss the cited claim, neither provides the reason/citation for making such an elaborate claim as to caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime to be included in the lead section of the article. Please point out if you find out that in Zwart. I will be obliged if you quote where in Zwart discusses/cites rather than an obscure reference to 'contemporary scholars' which I think violates WP:RSCONTEXT. Until you provide me the quote may I reverse your edit? --- AB 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add following points for removal of the statement, even if Zwart mentions one or two ' contemporary scholars'. 1. The cited article is not about the claim. 2. There is no wide spread academic or otherwise consensus for making such a sweeping claim. 3. If it is Zwarts' and his ' contemporaries ' opinion, then at best it becomes one of the view points about the interaction between colonial regime and caste system, not an undisputed and authentic entry into lead section of an encyclopaedia. -- AB 14:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from Zwart: "Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime."VictoriaGrayson 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see it in the abstract. What I am asking is where are the names and a discussion so as to make a sweeping claim? WP:FRINGE-- AB 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Please bring out the consensus citing reliable sources before pushing fringe POV into lead section. -- AB 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, no new consensus is needed for the prevailing text, which has been there for several years. You should look through the archives to see the past talk discussions. You might disagree with it. And so do several scholars. The way to contest is to include the opposing viewpoints in the article as required by WP:WEIGHT. You can't simply censor it because you don't like it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to argue for the change to the prevailing text, unless there is something obviously faulty with it (like being unsourced). - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
So I went to books.google.com and googled the actual phrase "caste system was constructed by the british" and found a plethora of sources supporting that beyond Zvart. Dirks alone got a glowing review from Edward Said.
Those are just the first four I grabbed from the first page of sources, so I think in terms of scholarship, that is not a fringe position. Ogress smash! 16:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ogress.VictoriaGrayson 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As it now exists in the article, it is the first reliable statement about origins -construction - invoking scholarship to substantiate the point. Nothing else till then mentioned about the origins of caste. The citation from Zwart was not a conclusion, but an ex hypothesi argument for driving in his intended objective of the - relation between post colonial government's affirmative action and caste system. Zwart does not conclusively talk about the idea, rather mentions that post modern theorists tries to credit government with the power to 'construct' social and cultural identity. He continues that In post colonial India this concept is prominent in studies of colonial government and caste. Some authors claim that India's caste system was constructed by British colonial administration.(p236, ibid.) Now the problem here is Zwart does not mention,nor provide a reference as to who these scholars are. It is in this context I wanted to remove the initial statement about origins of caste in the Lead section. To the uninitiated, caste system, as per the ,lead of the article, look like categorically constructed by the British colonial administration.

And I still think that it is in contradiction to what is mentioned in WP:LEAD i.e. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Let me read those new citations by Ogress now. AB 18:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Zwart gives ample references: "(Pant 1987; Dirks 1989; Inden 1990; Appadurai 1993; Ludden 1993)" in the paper. Have you looked at those sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
None to categorically state British colonial administration constructed caste system. Care to find and quote? Rather than a vague statement of 'Zwart gives ample references'. Burden of proof is on whom? ( Not on me I assume, for finding out upon whom Zwart relies for saying what?) AB 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You are being deliberately obscurantist: they literally say these things. I'm not going to type out the sentences because you can't be arsed to read the cites, which have page numbers attached. I feel like this should be a new WP policy, IMNOTGOINGTOCHEWYOURFOODFORYOU Ogress smash! 19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ogress and Kautilya3.VictoriaGrayson 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ogress (talk · contribs) They say these things? Who and what? And relax. AB 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You were provided with quotes before, and found some excuse to dismiss them.VictoriaGrayson 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki: Your argument is that Zwart is making a statement which does not appear in any of his sources; so it is invalid. It doesn't work that way. Zwart is a scholar writing in a peer-reviewed journal. So, he can summarize his sources and we can take those summaries as fact. If there are other sources that contradict this view, then we say Zwart's sources (postmodernists or whatever) say this. The other sources say that. But your claim is that you think that Zwart's sources don't say what he claims. Unfortunately, you are not a reliable source. We don't care what you think. (Well we do, but only up to a point. When you start claiming superiority over reliable sources, you have lost the game. So, please stop doing it.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki: I would at this point alert you to WP:CALMDOWN. Also, I am not worked up, so I'm not sure why you would say that. "They" is a pronoun referring to the scholars you are referencing. Ogress smash! 19:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I've always found the statement on the British quite odd, but never dared to touch it; I know close to nothing about the caste, c.q. jati system. But I also tried a quick Google search, and it seems to me too that this claim is not so weird after all. And I'm surprised by this!
Nevertheless, more info on the historical origins would be very welcome! If only for the recent research om indian genetics, which shows that after 200 CE the Indian social system lost its "genetic mobility," that is, social groups were fixed and no longer inter-married. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Of course such a claim may have many google hits. It indeed is odd particularly with regard to WP:UNDUE to disregard any or all of other interpretation of origins of caste system. If you could help me out, could cite a dozen sources on a couple of view points belonging to Indology, Structuralism, and Marxism. Lets try to reach a consensus on what should go in the lead regarding origins of caste/caste system AB 19:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kautilya3 and Ogress.VictoriaGrayson 19:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I am not stating 'Zwart is making a statement which does not appear in any of his sources; so it is invalid.' Instead what I am stating is that, Zwart himself doesn't state 'British colonial administration constructed caste systems' in conclusive manner, because that is not the intention of the whole article. What he makes is an initial observation so as to drive his point which is not "British colonial administration constructed caste system". So what my contention is, again, the article by Zwart is not concluding the statement in the lead, categorically. At best, Zwart points to existence of some reference as to support the statement of ' British colonial administration constructed case system' which you neither finds out. Of course, I am not contending inclusion of this statement in the body of WP article with reference to who made it; but to include it in the lead with categorical emphasis, such passing reference wouldn't suffice, especially in a topic such as caste system, where there is no dearth of RS. AB 19:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Well you are barking up the wrong tree because we are not saying that Zwart made these claims. We are saying that "contemporary scholars" make these claims, which is exactly what Zwart said. Your trouble seems to be that you don't what citation means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this new original research that caste system is founded by British? --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Please see Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 8 for an earlier discussion. The consensus is that "caste" existed prior to the arrival of the British. But the "caste system" was their construction. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That is the wrong way around. The right thing to do is to expand the History section first. Then the new lead will automatically fall out. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain why you say wrong? Is it according to any WP policy that the 'right thing to do is to expand the History section first'?? AB 20:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the lead should summarize the article, not become a separate article of its own. So, without developing the content for the body, you can't do it for the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ABEditWiki is just repeating the same stuff over and over again. And this forces Kautilya3 and Ogress to repeat themselves.VictoriaGrayson 20:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Zwart may have said in passing that contemporary scholars says so but my contention is that, is it enough to make it to the lead? I fear we need some unbiased third party for an opinion here. How do we go for such a process? AB 20:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add your messages strictly chronologically at the bottom. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to figure out who said what.
If contemporary scholars say it, that should be good enough for it to go into the lead. Why shouldn't it? As for an "unbiased third party", I am such because I don't agree with the statement, but I know that it needs to be there by Misplaced Pages policies. So I would encourage you to follow my advice by developing new content on the history of caste in pre-British times. You are merely looking for quick fixes, by saying that the statement you don't like should simply disappear. That won't work. If you want another mechanism for dispute resolution, you can go to WP:DRN, but the chances of getting a resolution there are practically nil because this talk page discussion has been made a mess of. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Origins

Why statement starts as "caste was 'thought' to be part of ancinet Hinduism" why thought to be when its a fact? Why no statement stating that Caste system established by Hinduism? British may have used it, but root of caste system is hinduism, not british. We have to mention it. I will change lead accordingly. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my friend. You are engaging in WP:OR now. Please read the sources instead of wasting our time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: Hold on, we will build a consensus here and will go to lead afterwards. We need a better statement/s incorporating different views of origins of caste sytem, not just one. AB 20:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
"Hinduism", as a category, may be seen as a British invention, so to state that "Hinduism created the caste system" has a nice irony in it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposing a balanced lead section

The first two paragraph of the lead section are fairly well written and keeps balance as well as NPOV.
Third paragraph may contain a brief about origins and a rough chronological map of evolution of caste systems, (not only during colonial and democracatic regimes but also ancient, medieval and modern times) as described by various point of views such as indologists, structuralists, marxists and post modernists (not only constructivists as done in the body of article about Colonial regime constructing the caste system.

Another paragraph would contain different views about the system as practiced and perieved today.The modern day consequences and interaction with the political-economic interface can be mentioned here.
-- AB 12:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I believe you are mischaracterising these sources that you don't like as "constructivists". You think modern scholarship is going to be essentialist? I feel a bit like you don't understand scholarship when you say things like this unless you plan on loading the page with HIndutva nationalism. Can you provide reliable scholarship sources to illustrate what you mean? Ogress smash! 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Off Topic)So you intend to say those who plan to load the page with 'Hindutva Nationalism' ( Whatever that means!) understand scholarship, invariably? AB 18:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologise, I actually couldn't understand that sentence, would you rephrase? Ogress smash! 19:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. Cheers!. AB 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that there are two slightly different statements:

  • Lead: "Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime."
  • History: "Caste used to be considered as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars have argued that the caste system as it exists today is the result of the British colonial regime, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration."

I think that the first should be changed to reflect the cahnge from a fluid system into a rigid system, instead of suggesting that the whole system originated with the British. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Well, if only if post modern constructivist interpretations of origins of caste system exist there. Plenty other interpretations which are beaming with reliable sources do exist on caste. AB 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The existing lead is correct. This is a direct quote from Zwart: "Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime."VictoriaGrayson 19:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Zwart is not the ultimate and only authority of caste system.I am afraid you are being inexplicably stubborn here, blocking any attempt to reach a consensus here. AB 20:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I still know very little about caste and caste system, but now I maybe know a little bit more than half an hour ago, and the correct info might be that "caste" already existed at 200 CE, but that the "(rigid) caste system" was created by the British. So, several statements may be correct, and the problem may be pinned down at the "correct" formulation of the information, and the avoidance of ambiguous and/or somewhat suggestive statements. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
To be more precise: "Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life" - does this mean that there were no castes in "ancient" times? And: "contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime." - does this mean thatb there were no castes at earlier times? I can't tell from this sentence! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, ABEditWiki, Vic may not be the easiest editor to argue with, but he sure has a good grip on his sources, and he usually knows what he's tlking about. Stating that he's "blocking any attempt to reach a consensus here" definitely is not going to help here. Just take it lightly, at the personal side. At the professional side, what may help may be an attempt to find some counter-voices, preferably from Oxford University Press and the like - that is, simply from the best sources available and nothing less. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I get it. :) Well needless to say, nothing is personal. AB 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See also

These articles raise the same issues regarding the British Raj

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

And, this issue is explained in detail in Census of India prior to independence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Robert Lingat died 35 years ago; he's hardly the foremost authority anymore. You are also missing the point of the argument, which isn't that varna didn't exist, but that caste and casteism as it exists in theory and in practice is the direct result of Western colonialism. The scholars are saying: in pre-British India, we have a very different system with very different principles and realities. Caste qua caste only appears as a result of the imposition of foreign ideals and the colonial need to create a rigid, racist, hierarchical structure. Before you start yelling, read instead of assuming. Ogress smash! 19:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Lingat invented the subject of Classical Hindu law in practice, and the posthumous English language translation of his work published in French remains the principle — if not the only — text on the subject. It was he who first raised the issue of the British misunderstanding of the practice of Hindu law. I'll leave it to other editors to decide if these See also's should be added to the main article; I doubt most readers would click on them, anyway.—Pawyilee (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Who's responding to what?

Anybody still at the right as to who is responding to what? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content

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

It has been sourced from a reliable source and the body of the article explains why it has been said citing plenty more sources. You are engaging in original research in calling it "complete nonsense." - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If someone gives a hundred references which say the sun rises from the west, does that mean they are right? This nonsense can be definitely inserted in the main article if you insist, but definitely not in the lead. Notice that the page number has not been given to the book of the solitary Indian scholar who has been cited as reference: Sathaye, Adheesh A. (17 April 2015). Crossing the Lines of Caste: Visvamitra and the Construction of Brahmin Power in Hindu Mythology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-027312-5. Is it because the Sathaye book is available in its entirety online? Is it because it was felt necessary to give reference to at least a single Indian scholar for this piece of nonsense? Soham321 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are you talking about the race and ethnicity of scholars?VictoriaGrayson 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Because many scholars even today are racists. Only recently, the Nobel prize winning scientist, and co-discoverer of DNA structure, James Watson was sacked from his job for articulating racist views publicly. Soham321 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

you can insert nonsense in the main article, if you insist, but not in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, you will need to develop your own Misplaced Pages to make up your own rules. Where is the reliable source for the Sun rising in the West? You supposedly have a hundred! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Contentious, controversial, and disputed content can be definitely inserted--even if it is nonsense--in the main article if you give reliable sources, but not in the lead. That is my position. The very fact that other editors have seen it fit to either place the Disputed content tag in the main article or else to remove the disputed sentence from the main article means that there is a genuine content dispute taking place here. Let us both of us give an opportunity to other editors of this article to voice their views on this issue now. Soham321 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that contentious material cannot be put in the lead? Did you read it in any policy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There was a content dispute (about the issue of what to insert in the lead) with respect to content on this page:Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Pallonji is an Irish citizen, but an Indian permanent resident who believes that the color of his passport is not important and who views himself as a global citizen. Sitush wanted to describe Pallonji as an Irish businessman based on the reliable sources available that describe him as an Irish citizen or Irish national. I said he should be described as an Indo-Irish, or Irish-Indian businessman in the lead.Finally, an Admin stepped in and described him as simply a businessman in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:LEAD, all controversies about the topic should also mentioned in the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be written with a neutral point of view. That is why you are not being permitted to insert non-neutral information in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing called "non-neutral information." Neutral point of view, WP:NPOV, has to do with how the article text is written. It has nothing to do with cherry picking sources depending on your whims. Such cherry picking is prohibited. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The first line in WP:NPOV states: All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Since PV Kane in his authoritative and monumental and frequently cited work History of Dharmasastra does not agree with the controversial view taken by the mediocre and unknown scholars being citied in the disputed sentence in the lead of this page we should agree that the disputed content does not represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, let us expand this discussion to other editors. Give it a rest for a few days now. Let us see what other editors think of this discussion and of the disputed material. Let us not make the mistake of assuming ownership of this article because as per WP:OWN, that is forbidden.Soham321 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

You are entitled to your opinion, but i did give the reference to PV Kane's monumental and frequently cited work History of Dharmasastras which is the authoritative work on the dharmasastras and which traces the evolution of the caste system in ancient and medieval India and which controverts the disputed edit. If you have half a dozen mediocre and unknown scholars on one side, and one renowned and frequently cited author on the other, who would you go with? Moreover, the reference to the solitary Indian scholar being mentioned in the disputed edit does not include the page number of his book being cited despite his book being available in its entirety online?Soham321 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Again my objection is to placing this edit in the lead of the article. You are welcome to place this material elsewhere. Soham321 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You are approaching this all arse-about-face, Soham. The lead is supposed to reflect and summarise the article. Such a significant argument posited by modern scholars (whether you accept their opinion or not) has to be a part of the lead. As with most scholarship, Newton's comment that successive generations are "standing on the shoulders of giants" holds true: those writing and proposing ideas now have the benefit of hindsight that their forebears lacked but created. We cannot just dismiss a widely-held aspect of modern scholarship because we do not like it and, even if Kane is acceptable as a source, that is but one voice. Please take another look at WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and the subject of due weight. It is not our role to judge these scholars, merely to paraphrase them. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The view that the modern caste system was created by the British is a view of the lunatic fringe. As evidence for this, see here: Lunatic Fringe Soham321 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC) I have a theory about this. Many of these wealthy non-resident Indians are ardent nationalists. No doubt that is why they are so keen to deny the very existence of the caste system in pre-British India. So what are they to do about this? Well, why not give funding to mediocre and useless scholars of Indology who get very little funding anyways. Give them funding and instruct them to spread fringe theories. For a good scholarly expose of those espousing lunatic fringe theories about the Indian caste system and other topics related to India, see here: https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_global_south/v002/2.1.bose.html Soham321 (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Some more interesting and relevant stuff: California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Just do a control-F on the word "caste". Soham321 (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure which sources you consider to be written by "wealthy non-resident Indians". I know that Hindutva can be a big problem with revisionist history and that the Brits were unduly influenced by the Brahmins but neither of those seem to be used as sources. Am I missing something as I pop in and out of this discussion? I've got the feeling that we may be talking at cross-purposes. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Note also Kane has no bearing on the issue here. He wrote about the history of dharmasastras, not about the history of caste as it was practised. The latter is documented by historians as required by WP:HISTRS. Moreover, Kane's volumes were written between 1930-1962. They can't trump contemporary scholars and contemporary research. I am also concerned that you are continuing to make racist remarks about researchers that you don't find convenient. That can invite more serious sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

California Textbook case

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

This has nothing to do with anything.VictoriaGrayson 01:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Let us compare the disputed material cited above in the California textbook controversy case with the disputed content of this article: Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system as it exists today is the result of the British colonial regime, which made rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.Soham321 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Some other interesting and relevant material pertaining to the California Textbook case: The "corrections" demanded by the Hindutva organisations are integral to the Sangh Parivar's political agenda in India, and similar to what the BJP government was trying to do with the NCERT syllabus and textbooks in social sciences, particularly history. For example, among the "corrections" suggested is a clear attempt to deny the integrality of the caste system in ancient India; it was proposed to delete the reference altogether in one textbook. In another, it was proposed that the picture of an untouchable be removed. In yet another book, a reference to caste system as part of Aryan society was replaced by: "During Vedic times, people were divided into different social groups (varnas) based on their capacity to undertake a particular profession." Another reference to caste is to read as: "A late hymn of the Rg Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes. A saffron assault abroad Soham321 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And this is an extract from an interview of Prof Witzel of Harvard University who represented the State of California in the controversy:

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

I think your point is clear, but it fits in in: the castes existed prior to the British occupation; the British turned it into a rigid system. If there's anything to be disputed, it is the question if the the caste-system was already rigid before the British. If so, there must be sources on it. Welcome, by the way. It's a relief to see how the discussions have been changed recently, with unexpected fluidity and "alliances" in positions taken. A great improvement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:What I read from Soham321 edits here is this - that castes existed prior to British colonialism. I do not see him stating that the British turned into a rigid system. In my view, the notion of Colonialism making it into a rigid system has to be seen in context of operation of different regimes from the initial beginning of caste system. Some RS has to be there to compare and contrast interactions between caste and different political regimes. AB 05:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. I am not stating that the british transformed the caste system to make it rigid; it was already a rigid system before the british arrived in India. This also what the 2013 genetic analysis (quoted in the next section) says when it states that a certain rigidity in the caste system had developed roughly two thousand years ago. Soham321 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC) This is a relevant link from Prof Michael Witzel's personal website: Witzel. It contains court judgements pertaining to the California textbooks case. (Hindutva organizations had taken this matter to court. The Hindutvas lost all the cases that they had filed, and finally their case was dismissed with prejudice meaning they cannot file any case pertaining to this matter again.). This is an extract from the first court judgement: It is true, of course, that the texts do include significant discussion of the caste system. Such discussion does not, however, by itself cause any of the texts to violate the law. The caste system is a historical reality, and indisputably was a significant feature of ancient Indian society. Nothing in the applicable standards requires textbook writers to ignore a historical reality of such significant dimension, even if studying it might engender certain negative reactions in students. Indeed, it appears to the Court that to omit treatment of the caste system from the teaching of ancient Indian history would itself be grossly inaccurate.Soham321 (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP BOLDING QUOTES: we use {{quote|}} or "". Ogress smash! 07:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)ok.Soham321 (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that would imply that the academics couldn't win an academic point. So they played politics to get their way. Not a particularly honourable position to be in. How did the Hindutva forces win the first round? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence from Genetic Research on existence of caste system 2,000 years ago

This is an extract from a news article: The caste system in South Asia — which rigidly separates people into high, middle and lower classes — may have been firmly entrenched by about 2,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis suggests.Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics. Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, and caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago. Genetic study on caste systemSoham321 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And this is a link to the actual paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248 Note that this paper was published in September 2013 Soham321 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Genetics are a waste of time for articles about Indian history. Have you noticed how many qualifiers there are even in the bit you quoted, eg: "may have", "suggests", "according to". And it is mixing research on genetics with research on ancient texts - most ancient Indian texts are widely regarded to be more fiction than fact. That the caste system existed in the ancient world is not disputed even by the likes of Zwart. What the contemporary people are saying is that the British administrative efforts, driven often by Brahmin urgings, served to intensify the significance of caste in a modern context, to reinforce boundaries within the system etc and thus made it more "rigid". There was a certain amount of fluidity in the pre-British system, whereby people's caste roles were redefined. That, for example, is why there are so many "degraded kshatriyas". Or so the postcolonialists say.
In a society where there was little geographic movement, it is inevitable that the DNA profile will be fairly narrow for a considerable period of time. One doesn't need a degree in genetics to realise this and, generally, there is much rubbish written about genetics in the historic Indian context, usually by people who conduct very limited surveys for a socio-political purpose. At the end of the day, we simply do not know and never will because we all have the DNA of millions of our predecessors, and none at all from some with whom we are related. Basically, never use these reports because they are couched in such terms as to be meaningless for our purposes. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you click on the link to the news report? It has comments by Prof Michael Witzel of Harvard University who had represented the State of California in the California textbooks case. The Hindutvas were of the same opinion as you--that the British created the caste system as we know it today. Their view was not accepted by Witzel and the State of California (including the California judiciary). Soham321 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you read what I said? You are talking bullshit - nowhere have I said that I share the opinion of the Hindutvas - their opinion is not even relevant anyway and you are flogging a head horse by repeatedly raising it. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You may claim that you do not share the views of the Hindutvas but the fact remains that they share your view that the caste system as we know it today is a creation of the British. They even filed cases in the State of California pertaining to this issue and other issues so that their views are reflected in California text books. They lost. Soham321 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN?

  • comment: I think this issue will go to "Dispute resolution board". Matter has been already discussed vastly. Still I appeal to all editors to discuss this matter more extensively here so that moderators on DRN will not reject this case after seeing vast discussion on talk page. Thank you. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 12:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Someone at some point has to take this to DRN. Soham321 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you should first try to find some more sources which tell us more on the history of the jati-system. If there are, we can expand the article; if you can't, then there's no issue to be resolved, but only a statement on the British influence on the jati-system, referenced by multiple reliable sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content continued - History and "rigidity"

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

"That the caste system existed in the ancient world is not disputed even by the likes of Zwart. What the contemporary people are saying is that the British administrative efforts, driven often by Brahmin urgings, served to intensify the significance of caste in a modern context, to reinforce boundaries within the system etc and thus made it more "rigid". There was a certain amount of fluidity in the pre-British system, whereby people's caste roles were redefined. That, for example, is why there are so many "degraded kshatriyas". Or so the postcolonialists say"
This view is not what the lead reflects. With regard to its origin, to the uninitiated, caste is ' thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life' and 'is the result of the British colonial regime'. I have mentioned it earlier as well. It is the first sentence on the origins of caste system in the lead and it directly comes to Colonialism as if there has been no time period such as ancient, and pre - British India. I assume the article is not only about the caste system in Colonial and post colonial India. Further the lead has 5 references to affirmative action based on caste, which I believe is POV pushing.
PS: How do I cite sources and request for a rewrite? Here in talk page? AB 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@ABEditWiki: author, year of publication, title, publisher, pagenumber, eventually quotes. No need for DRN; first look for sources, and try to add info on the history, as Kautilya3 suggested. The discussion is heated, but fair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There are two references given for the disputed content without the page number of the book (one of them by Sathaye) being given. This is a pity because the Sathaye book at least is available online. However, i will add that the view of these relatively obscure authors is contradicting the view of the eminent Indologist Prof Michael Witzel of Harvard (who had represented the State of California in the California textbooks case) and also contradicting the view of the judges who had considered and ruled on this material in the California textbooks case which has been mentioned in an earlier section in this talk page.Soham321 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Susan Bayly is a relatively obscure name in the field of Indology. She cannot ever be compared to a scholar like Michael Witzel of Harvard who had represented the State of California in the California textbooks case. Bayly's views echo the views of the Hindutvas (when she says that the caste system as we know it today is a creation of the British); Witzel dismisses these views as nonsensical. Please see the two earlier sections of this talk page in this connection. Soham321 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Susan (and Christopher) Bayly are both highly respected in their field. You have to stop banging on about Witzel in the context of the books thing. No-one in their right mind cites NCERT books anyway because they are notorious for reflecting government propaganda, whether BJP or INC. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Witzel is a Professor at Harvard University. He has edited several volumes of the Harvard Oriental Series besides being a prolific and well respected scholar. Bayly in contrast is a relatively unknown and obscure name in the field of Indology. Bayly's view that the caste system as we know it today was a creation of the British was also the view of the Hindutvas who filed cases in California that California textbooks should contain the views Bayly is expressing. The state of California was represented by Witzel. The judges of California sided with Witzel, and ultimately dismissed the case of the Hindutvas with prejudice, meaning it can never be appealed again.Soham321 (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please, relax Soham321. Bayly does not say that there were no castes before the British, does she? Please provide more sources, and help to improve the article, instead of accusing other editors of being Hindutva-sympathisers. If you think Sitush is a Hindutva-sympathiser, I'm one too. Ha! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not accusing anyone of being a Hindutva sympathizer. I am simply saying that the views of those who think that the caste system as we know it today is a creation of the British is also the view of the Hindutvas. Further, the Hindutvas had taken this matter to court in the State of California where the State of California was represented by Prof Michael Witzel of Harvard. The judges of California ruled against the Hindutvas with prejudice, meaning the matter can never be appealed again.Soham321 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's quite relevant information, so add it to the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the number of sources, I count six references for the disputed sentence. It would be wise to split "the disputed info" into two: origins (pre-British), and influence of the British (rigidity). The second part seems to be well-sourced; for the first part sources it must be possible to find sources which describe the pre-British origins of the jati-system. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

This is interesting: according to André Béteille, Varna and Jati, Sociological Bulletin Vol. 45, No. 1 (MARCH 1996), pp. 15-27, for two thousand years caste was described as varna, and only recently has it come to be described as jati.
regarding Witzel: Bryant is not sufficient reason to "forget about Witzel". Rather the contrary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of reasons to forget about Witzel. Witzel did not even know the difference between the dress of Brahmin priests and Muslims.VictoriaGrayson 15:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Just so you know, the only people in the scholarly world who are strongly opposed to Witzel are the Hindutvas. There is a good wikipedia article on Witzel: Michael Witzel. Your claim that he did not know the differene between the dress of brahmin priests and muslims is false. The California textbooks had a wrongly captioned picture, and Witzel agreed that the correct picture should be placed in the textbooks. Regarding Edwin Bryant, Bryant is a Professor at Rutgers and not Harvard as you were claiming earlier. Furthermore, Bryant and Witzel do not seem to be on opposite sides considering Witzel has written a glowing review of Bryant's book "The Quest for the origins of Vedic culture" and further an article of Witzel was included in a book edited by Bryant. Soham321 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE INDENT YOUR COMMENTS, do not continue someone else's comment as your own. I have just indented yours. You show a marked unwillingness to learn the standards of discussion and use them here, this is the third time I've had to ask you to stop doing weird things with your comments. It does not help if we cannot read the page easily.
Now, the issue of the California case is not relevant here, why do you keep bringing up the California case? Ogress smash! 21:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Shouldn't Jāti and Varna be merged into this article? Same topic, short articles; they can easily be merged. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - for reasons stated above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Varna provides the broad theoretical framework of classification and/or stratification system as found in Hindu mythology/scriptures. Jati is often used instead of caste and is the translation of caste in Hindi. Essentially both denote aspects of social stratification system found in Hindus of Indian sub continent. AB 15:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think of Jati and Varna as religious/traditional concepts and "caste system" as sociological/scientific concept. I prefer to keep science and religion separate. We have enough complications already without trying to confuse the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree on jati, that it is exclusively a religious /traditional concept. Jati is a synonym for caste, or more clearly, Jati was the term used before Europeans named it caste. The traditional/religious nature of jati, varna and caste is also discussed by the WP entry Caste system in India, as former two cant have a separate context devoid of religious/traditional bearings. Maintaining topics varna and jati as exclusively or predominantly religious/traditional concepts, would be to erroneously construct such new entities and hence may fall in WP:OR. AB 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: These are different concepts and should absolutely not be merged on this page. Also, a merger proposal requires you follow the guidelines for a merger proposal, which you have not done. Ogress smash! 21:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier you were arguing that Witzel should not be taken seriously. Now that i have shown that 47 Asian Studies scholars have endorsed the views of Witzel, you are saying i am boring you. Soham321 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Really? Where did I say that? It looks like you are yet again making things up. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Here is the relevant diff: Sitush says Michael Witzel need not be taken seriously. Soham321 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Another relevant article which shows how controversial this issue is Hindutva and Witzel :

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

Soham321 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The California textbook controversy has no relevance. There is a difference between caste and caste system.VictoriaGrayson 21:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, Aren't you the same person who was questioning the credibility and scholarship of Michael Witzel when i first put forth his views? Are you going to remain silent on the fact that 47 Asian Studies scholars endorsed his views on the caste system in India (among other issues)? Soham321 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand the difference between caste and caste system. Witzel's views have nothing to do with this article.VictoriaGrayson 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Zwart source and the role of British colonial regime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: