Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Caste is a complex subject

I feel compelled to write a bit of an essay on caste here, which is admittedly WP:OR, but I hope this will define a framework for how our articles on caste should be structured.

  1. Caste came on to the world's consciousness through the European colonisation of India. The Portuguese, who were the first to arrive, seemed to have recognized the phenomenon correctly, as seen by their use of the term "caste," meaning lineage. The French and the British, who came later, hob-nobbed with the upper classes of India, particularly the Brahmins and the land-owners, saw caste through their eyes. Therefore, they understood it to mean social stratification or hierarchy, which was an idea they were familiar with from their own societies. The British, especially, appointed Brahmin pandits to advise them about Hindu practices so that they could codify them into law. So, the Brahmins' delusions about caste (e.g., varna) came to be seen as the reality (which is largely based on jati). Varna and jati, which are distinct concepts, became fused in the western thinking.
  2. The politicians of the Indian independence movement, who felt tremendous guilt about the caste-based excesses, especially untouchability, wished that the whole caste thing would go away. They neither understood the caste realities or, even if they did, paid no attention to the contradictions between the western conception of caste and the Indian reality.
  3. After Indian independence, the Nehruvian socialists believed that caste was merely an archaic practice that would soon disappear with development and education. They believed that they would be able to "abolish" caste by law, whatever that meant. Indian academics were discouraged from studying caste and the people that studied it were looked down upon. Most Indian writing about caste after independence sees caste through the prism of western conception, which in turn was based on pre-independence Brahmin delusions.
  4. However, the socialist predictions didn't come to pass. Caste has survived through development and education, and spreads its wings ever more widely, especially in politics. Some courageous sociologists, led by M. N. Srinivas have studied caste and written about it, and their analysis is totally at variance with the Western conception. Dipankar Gupta is a more contemporary sociologist studying caste. Today, we have two separate concepts of "caste": the Indian reality and the Western myth. We understand the Indian reality through only the writings of Indian sociologists. The Western myth is found everywhere.
  5. Dialogue between Indians and westerners is often confused, because the two sets of people mean entirely different notions by "caste". (It took me a really long to realize this!) When Indians say caste is a bad idea, they are typically complaining about the the social fragmentation it brings. When a Westerner says caste is a bad idea, they are condemning stratification or hierarchy. So, they often appear to agree, whereas in fact they are disagreeing with each other!
  6. The best understanding of caste is that it is a phenomenon of multiculturalism, which India excelled at through the ages. (This connection was made to me by an American political scientist, whose name slips me at the moment, in a lecture I attended at University of Illinois.) So, caste is a good idea (though not with all the excesses it has had in the past). The present rise of Hindutva is directly correlated with the weakening of the caste system. Doubtless, the Sangh Parivar hates caste. The homogenisation of the Hindu society that it desires can only be achieved through a destruction of the caste and the multiculturalism it represents. So, those that condemn caste are indirectly playing into the hands of Hindutva.
  7. The contemporary Western academics are still stuck in the colonial myths of caste. For example, Louis Dumont's Homo hierchicus is a monumental celebration of a fantasy. Dipankar Gupta tried to attack it in his Caste in question: Identity or Hierarchy?, but not loudly enough in my opinion. When the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia defines caste by (i) social rank, (ii) descent, marriage, commensality and (iii) occupations, it gets it perfectly backwards. Occupation (and culture) should come first, descent etc. second, and social rank the last. Caste wasn't designed to define ranks. It was designed to delineate subcultures so that they could coexist peacefully. The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology rightly says "caste is an institution of considerable internal complexity" which has been "oversimplified by those seeking an ideal type of rigid hierarchical social stratification", our article on Caste cites it and chooses precisely this oversimplification as the canonical definition. We shouldn't be doing that!

I hope that all the editors of the caste-related articles keep these issues in mind. Please feel free to ping me if you need any help on the Indian viewpoints on caste. I am at the moment focusing on Hindutva-related topics, but I will be happy to help wherever I can. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much of sociology and very little history. I am not against a sociological presentation of caste but wasn't this obsession with sociology-only approach to caste highlighted as a problem in a previous discussion on this page or elsewhere? Most of what we call jati arose during the Gupta and Post-Gupta periods and was directly linked to agrarian expansion, land grants, deurbanization and rise of feudalism. Your essay has absolutely nothing on it. So, I don't see how you expect this essay to lay the framework for improving this article, sorry. 122.177.232.88 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And with the "multiculturalism" POV you also seem to be conflating caste and tribe. Caste system was a socioeconomic system and like all real world socioeconomic systems it had a hierarchy. Whether or not that hierarchy was as Brahminical texts describe it is a different story, but I don't see how you expect editors of all caste related articles to edit within this occupation first social rank approach last approach. 122.177.232.88 (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, caste is a social phenomenon. So, I don't see how there could be "too much sociology" in discussing it. There is another page on the History of the Indian caste system. Since you seem knowledgeable about that history, I hope you will register as a user and contribute to it. The connection with "multiculturalism" isn't mine, as I have mentioned. Neither is it mainstream terminology. However, it closely corresponds to the mainstream terminology of "identity" and provides a more interesting and substantive perspective. The main point is that castes weren't designed by some authority and imposed on the society. They grew up organically as a way for caste groups to protect their identity, customs and "culture". This voluntary and organic aspect of castes is completely missed, both in brahmanical writings and the European colonial writings. Uday Reddy (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OR of source?

@Reddyuday: you have reverted my edit. My concern is WP:OR. Can you identify page number from the currently cited source, for the following:

  1. Historically, it separated communities into thousands of endogamous hereditary groups called Jātis, which is synonymous with caste in contemporary usage. The Jātis were grouped by the Brahminical texts into four categories...
  2. ostracised by all other castes and treated...

My first concern is which page number of the source or which Brahminical text verifiably lists or groups "thousands of hereditary groups into four categories..."

My second concern is that the lead asserts (thousands of) jatis are synonymous with castes. Then asserts "all these thousands of jatis ostracised...". Which page number supports this?

My third concern is the inconsistency between the lead and main article. In Views of Gandhi section, jati is equated to subcaste, but in the lead it is claimed to be synonymous with caste. FatimaBhutto (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@FatimaBhutto: If by "source", you mean the Brian Smith's article, I don't see why you need page numbers since it is just a short Encyclopedia article. You can read all of it. I think this source is being cited mainly for the difference between jati and varna.
You are possibly objecting to the claim that jatis were "grouped" into varnas and, moreover, that this was done by "Brahminical texts". That concern is valid, especially if the statement is read too literally. We can try rewording it. The real point is that the "Brahminical texts" only mention varnas whereas, in real life, one sees jatis. The grouping has never been formal, as far as I know. Also, the "ostracising" was also informal, done through custom and convention rather than on the basis of texts.
Regarding your third concern, Gandhi might have used a different nomenclature of "caste" (which was a European term rather than Indian), but his nomenclature is not what is commonly used by people at large. So, his would be a minority view. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: - that is indeed what my objection is - there is no mention of "jati being grouped into varnas by Brahminical texts' - this is OR. I had reworded it here to remove that OR. Any suggestions?
On Brian Smith, this article should not rely on anti-caste blog website. It includes opinions on Operation Green Hunt and other Marxist blogs - which makes it NOTRS. The blog may have copyright violation issues. This article should refer directly to the source, with volume(s) and page number. FatimaBhutto (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@FatimaBhutto: I have reinstated your edits, combining it with the older text. I hope it meets with your approval. The Brian Smith article is really there in the Encyclopedia. I will fill in the page numbers. Uday Reddy (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Reddyuday: It is better now, but there is still a trace of OR. Neither Robb nor Smith write, "Brahminical texts mention older system of castes...". Which para and page supports that?

The other problem is the alleged "Brahminical text" reference in lede is not discussed in the article, just mentioned in the passing. If this must be in the lede, then somewhere in the main article at least identify which Brahminical texts, summarize citing reliable source how those text(s) describe the alleged "older system of castes". FWIW, the Vedic hymns thought to discuss varna (Sudra from feet of Purusha etc.), are widely accepted to be a modern mischief and corruption of that Brahminical text.

One more point about Smith - he writes varna were "classes" (paragraph 10-12), then describes confusion and disagreement between scholars on the difference between varna and jati. If you want to use Smith as source then use the word "class" in lede as Smith does. If you want to stick with 'varna was caste', then find and use a different source. FatimaBhutto (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@FatimaBhutto: The fact that the varna system is Vedic is fairly clear because varnas were well-established by the time of Buddha. It is true that scholars believe Purushasukta to be an interpolation in Rigveda, but that interpolation was also done in later Vedic times. I accept that varna should be discussed again in the main text of the article. I suspect that it used to be there, before the History of the Indian caste system section was forked off into a separate article. I am surprised that Robb's book doesn't mention this. I will find another reference.
Our History of the Indian caste system article, which is quite poor at the moment, suggests that jatis came first and varnas came up as a classification of jatis. Frankly, I used to believe that till recently. But there is no evidence of jatis during the Vedic times. Like the anonymous poster said in the previous section of the talk page, it looks like jatis were a later development during the Gupta times. Moreover, I also think the idea that varna is a classification of jatis is false. The varna system of Vedic times was a claim by two jatis, viz., Brahmins and Kshatriyas, for special status. They wanted to set themselves apart from the commoners and establish their hereditary rights. In due course, other jatis grew up emulating them and claimed their own hereditary rights. So, there is no real relationship between varnas and jatis. There is merely an analogy.
I am not trying to claim that 'varna was caste'. In fact, I disagree quite strongly that varna is caste. I merely reworded the text that was already there to account for your (quite valid) objections. The idea that varna is caste is very very widespread in the West. So, we can't simply get rid of the idea. We are merely saying, there are two notions of "caste" out there. One is right and the other is wrong.
While I am generally happy with everything said in the Smith's article, I think it is a pity that he doesn't recognize that jati/caste is a social phenomenon, not a religious one. If a potter's son wants to become a carpenter, say, there are no religious injunctions against it. But in practice, it is impossible for such a thing to happen because no carpenter would teach him carpentry. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Reddyuday: You may have misunderstood a part of what I wrote. My concern is with "older system of castes" phrasing - it is this that Robb does not support. Robb does support, "jātis have been grouped into four caste categories or varnas", on pages 91-99, 349-353 (which is what I edited to here). The phrase "older system of castes" implies some serious things - if you want to insist on the phrase, you must find reliable support and include that. Neither Robb and Smith support that specific phrase.
Similarly, if you wish to include claims or phrasing in the lede or the main article about Brahminical text, late vedic, epic period, medieval texts or whatever, alleging that "some texts" discussed varna/jati as a caste system, then identify that ancient/medieval text by name, identify specific chapter and hymns, and include reliable scholarly published source(s) about it. I refrain from commenting on rest of your opinions and theories (read Baudhayana Chapters 24-27 for ancient Hindu carpenters routinely teaching youth from all varnas). This talk page is not and should not be a forum. FatimaBhutto (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@FatimaBhutto: If you are actually disputing the fact that varnas arose in Vedic times, then please read the page on varna and debate it there. This fact is well-known and mentioned in hundreds of sources. If your source disagrees, then it would be a fringe source of questionable ideas. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Reddyuday: See WP:Forum. It is your responsibility to provide a reliable source with page number which supports "Brahminical texts" and "older system of castes" phrasing. I am removing that phrase for now. If and when you find reliable source(s) that supports it, feel free to add it back. FatimaBhutto (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@FatimaBhutto: Since the article on varna has been linked, that is where you need to go to look for sources. If you want a reliable source, please read Dipankar Gupta's Interrogating caste cited in the Bibliography. The chapter 8 on Varna to Jati is precisely about the issues you are discussing. Changing article text before consensus is reached is a hostile edit and starts an edit war. So, I suggest that you revert your own edit. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Dr. Ambedkar's photo

@Bladesmulti Can you give a good reason for removal of the photo. That it was added by a sockpuppet is again an Ad_hominem. You should argue why the photo does not belong on the page i.e. argue against the content rather than the person who added it. --Gaurav (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling sock puppet a sock puppet is not ad hominem. The photo was not added because Ambedkar has own section. There is no proof or valid submission that he campaigned against the caste system, in fact he campaigned for the privileges for untouchables. Both are very different things. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Who, according to you, were the untouchables?--Gaurav (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Many names for that, most specific would be shudra. Source is not supporting that Ambedkar was specifically against the caste system. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't caste system responsible for the plight of the shudras? --Gaurav (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the current article says "Certain groups, now known as "Dalits", were excluded from the varna system altogether, ostracised as untouchables." What would you say of this? --Gaurav (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with this discussion that Ambedkar is being misrepresented by the sock puppet and you reverted without understanding the reasons. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you be more specific why "It has nothing to do with this discussion"?--Gaurav (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
And please don't revert the article until the argument is finished. --Gaurav (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Lets wait until SPI clerk and CU completes their investigation concerning AbhinavKumar1289. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell me how is a person proven to be a sockpuppet? --Gaurav (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What were the NEEDS of untouchables? It was the eradication of caste system. So Ambedkar fought for it. The sources are given in the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhinavKumar1289 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The word "postmodern"

Can someone quote Zwart where he uses the word "postmodern"? Or does anyone have a link to the whole article?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Kautilya3:.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: The paragraph that introduces the British goes like this: "... In the heyday of class analysis and planned economy, scholars credited governments with the power to shape society and reduce economic inequality. Postmodern theorists now credit governments with the power to 'construct' social and cultural identity. In India, this view is especially prominent in studies of colonial government and the caste system. The theory is also used to explain religious identity (Pandey 1992; see Kooiman 1995, and Talbot 1995 for critical discussions). Some authors claim that India's caste system was constructed by the British colonial administration. Interestingly, the methods whereby colonial administration in India is said to have done this - registration of the population by social category, followed by implementation of policies and laws specific for each category - are similar to the methods now used to enforce affirmative action for the backward classes. In both cases, moreover, registration and the policies based upon it promote political mobilization, and with it, group formation and identity politics...." In another part of the paper, he says explicitly, "Postmodern scholars see the caste system not as an ancient given, but as a construction that originates largely in British times." Regards. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I can never understand postmodernism, but the above paragraph is not much different from the claim that British rules and laws made rigid a loose caste system. This argument is made not only by postmodernists, but by others. I am not sure if the anthropologist Nicholas Dirks quoted in the next sentence is a postmodernist (whatever that means). One can find similar sentences in Barbara and Thomas Metcalf A Concise History of India. Here is one paragraph.

The caste ‘system’ is thus one of the countless parameters of life in India that is a product of modern change, as are other aspects of social life, not least the powerful position of princes, magnates, and gentry, bol-stered by administrative action then, and now too often identified as ‘traditional’.

So I am not sure "postmodern" is necessary or accurate here. Kingsindian (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The Metcalves rightly put `system' in quotes. I don't believe there is any such that called the caste `system' at all. So I cannot also understand how the British are supposed to have constructed this thing that doesn't exist. If they just cooked up an imaginary thing called the caste `system' and wrote about it, that makes a lot of sense. I will try and find Dirks to see if I can make any sense of these things. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The book does not make the argument that there is no such thing as a caste system. It says pretty much what the paragraph says, there were loose affiliations which were made rigid by British rules and laws (among other factors). My point in quoting it was simply that such a view is not confined to postmodernists, as the paragraph implies, but is widely held. Kingsindian (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have missed some subtleties here. There are only 3 occurrences of the term "caste system" in this book, on p. 112 and p. 138, with quotation marks and both in the context of British constructions, and on p. 173 where it is used without any quotation marks in the context of Gandhi. But there are numerous occurrences of "caste" without any "system". So, the book is saying there were castes in India and the British made a "system" out of them. The book is not saying that the British made castes. I think you understand this much. But what is this "system" that the British are supposed to have made out of the castes? I don't think the book is clear on that. You say something has gotten rigid. But, what exactly?
The other problem is that the Indians have gotten used to saying "the caste system" mimicking the British but without consciously thinking about what it means. Most of the time when they say "the caste system" they just mean "caste". So, when our article says that the British constructed the "caste system," they are confused. They are asking, caste has been there in India for ever. What do you mean by the British constructed it? So, putting "postmodern" in there will hopefully make them feel better because, for most readers, "postmodern" just means mumbo-jumbo. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the first time I have seen a justification based on "feeling better". Just a joke. I am not much convinced by this distinction between "caste system" and "caste". The book makes no such distinction. The book uses "'caste system'", "caste 'system'" and "caste system" for the three times it uses the phrase (single quotes around whole phrase, single quotes around system and no quotes respectively). It also uses 'caste' with and without quotes. There is no reason to assume that this has any meaning, nor does the book say anything of the kind. I don't see any such distinction made in this article either. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Our WP page on Nicholas Dirks says that he belongs the postcolonial school which, apparently, "draws" upon postmodernism. So at least that bit of the mystery is solved. Looking at this extract from Dirks's book, I find that he is not saying that the British constructed the `caste system' but rather caste itself: I am suggesting that it was under the British that "caste" became a single term capable of expressing, organizing, and above all "systematizing" India's diverse forms of social identity, community, and organization. So, in my view, this is a much more substantial attribution to the British than what we find in Metcalf and Metcalf. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the term that it is incorrect to use at least for lead. I will probably revert to some 2 days older version. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The source is quite clear on the postmodern context of these attributions. If you would like to contest it, you need a source that contradicts it, and then we can have a debate. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Someone drawing upon postmodernism does not mean they are themselves postmodernist. As I said already, the idea that British laws etc. made rigid a loose system is much more widespread than just postmodernists. From the Nicholas Dirks extract, the sentence before the one you quoted is: " By this I do not mean to imply that it was simply invented by the too clever British, now credited with so many imperial patents that what began as colonial critique has turned into another form of imperial adulation." The context of this argument is the previous paragraph, which is opposing this paragraph with the view that caste was something "fundamental". Of course many things changed due to British rule in India, including notions of "Hindu" and "Muslim" (this is also discussed in the Metcalf source, but would be too much of an aside here). This and the Metcalf source, who are definitely not postmodernists, should be reflected in the paragraph. Kingsindian (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Based on my memory from a few years ago, the Zwart article is a review article which talks about Nicholas Dirks. Thus Zwart is probably calling Nicholas Dirks postmodern.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Please avoid WP:cherrypicking. I suppose you have the text of the Zwart article, and can see that the "constructivist critique" that Zwart calls "postmodern" is credited to Pant, Dirks, Inden, Appadurai and Ludden. I am happy to debate what these sources mean, but I am not agreeing to cherrypicking. Dirks is merely clarifying that his claim is not that the British invented the concept of "caste" but rather that they synthesized it out of many identities that were present in India. Note that he is talking only about identities whereas Metcalves are talking about a `system' (clearly emphasized). So, we cannot fuse these two ideas. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that I was doing the opposite of cherrypicking. I will make one final effort. Just look at the abstract of Zwart's article.

Most social scientists today agree that identity is a social construction, not a primordial given. They also agree that the state (through its power to dominate discourse) is a key agent in the process of identity construction. The literature on caste in India is illustrative. 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.

Both statements ("social scientists" and "contemporary scholars") are without any qualification of "postmodern". Are "most social scientists today" postmodern? If they are, why not just drop the qualification? Perhaps the argument was first put forth by postmodernists, but it is widely accepted today. Regarding the second point, I am not persuaded at all that there is any distinction between "caste" and "caste system". Neither the Metcalf book, nor, more importantly, the wikipedia article, makes any such distinction. As I tried to make clear above, the placement of the quotes is without any significance, since it is interchangeably used in all different ways throughout the book. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian also has a point in that the abstract does not mention postmodern.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, saying that you want to pick a sentence from the abstract rather than the body of the paper is cherry picking. If you read the whole paper (which I highly recommend), you will find that the paper, in fact, says exactly the opposite of what you think it does. Zwart is trying to refute the postmodern/constructivist theory that the State can construct identities at will. He does this by showing that the independent Indian government tried to demolish caste and put in place "backward classes," but it didn't succeed. Every commission that tried to come up with a definition for "backward class" came back with a list of castes. Ergo, the State cannot do everything it wants. It has a role to play in constructing identities, but it doesn't have supernatural powers to do that. Most social scientists agree that the State has a role to play, but only whacko contemporary scholars argue that it has supernatural powers. And, Zwart says you would be right not believe the whackos. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I read the whole article? Where is it?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: You can always try looking for papers at Google Scholar. Some of them require library subscriptions. But this paper has a free copy available as well. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't working before, but now it is.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If Zwart wants to disprove some thesis more power to him. I did not refer to Zwart's argument because it is not relevant. The source is important only as a review of the literature, not for his own arguments. If Zwart says baldly, without qualification, "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." And that becomes "contemporary postmodern scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime." in the article, that is not correct and WP:OR. Wikipedia editors should not be intepreting sources. Kingsindian (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No we are not "interpreting" sources. We are summarizing the sources, faithfully without distorting what they meant. This is the same argument I used in your defense at Talk:Bal Gangadhar Tilak page. You can't edit out context that you find inconvenient. The fact that "postmodern" doesn't appear in the abstract doesn't mean a thing. The abstract is not the place for details. The first place where the author introduces the subject, he makes clear that he considers these scholars postmodern. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I am totally unpersuaded that Zwart would have left out one word "postmodern" out of the abstract because it is not the place for details. However, I do not want to argue more about this, since we are going around in circles. This issue is totally dissimilar to the other page, where the source itself talks about the Afzal Khan killing etc. in the same sentence. Kingsindian (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should discard the words "postmodern" and "various" as neither are in the Zwart's abstract.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My responses seem to be driven mostly by this. If someone asks for my "vote", it's against inclusion of the word "postmodern". Kingsindian (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree the word "postmodern" should be eliminated, as well as the word "various" since neither are in Zwart's abstract.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I am going along with eliminating "postmodern" from the lede. But I added it at another instance of Zwart in the body that I had missed earlier. When I get time, I will read through a journal article called "Castes of Mind" and see what Dirks is saying. @VictoriaGrayson: if you need this or any other articles that you can't access, please feel free to send me private mail and I can send them to you. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There shouldn't be postmodern at any of the instances.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Would you care to explain why? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the same argument which applies to the lead, applies to the body. If Zwart's comments are expanded and the link to "postmodern" directly shown, then it might be ok. But simply repeating the sentence in the lead, with the word "postmodern" included, seems strange to me. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to expand the Zwart discussion to show the link with "postmodern". Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with History of the Indian caste system

There appears to be rough consensus for the merge, citing issues with the neutrality of the source, with no apparent prejudice against a later WP:SPINOFF should size later determine its need. --slakr\ talk / 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of the Indian caste system is going nowhere. Even defining caste is problematic, as Caste system in India indicates. I said some months ago (see the history) that History of the Indian caste system appears to be an attempt at some sort of POV fork and I really, really don't see why we need a separate article. Much needs to be done with Caste system in India but splitting this content doesn't help matters because the "history" is all about various interpretations of the term itself. Sitush (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support No need for 2 articles.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing in "History" that isn't or cannot be in the main article. If the main one gets too bulky at some point in the future, re-creating the "history" is easy enough. A POV fork, or something that can easily devolve into one, is the last thing we need right now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the opening line from D.D. Kosambi says, "Almost every statement of a general nature made by anyone about Indian castes may be contradicted." Caste is a very complex topic, and there is no harm in multiple pages discussing it. At the moment, I believe that History of the Indian caste system is more accurate than this page. So, we would first need to bring this page in line with the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Reddyuday, the discussion is about a merge, not a deletion; all the non-redundant content would of necessity come here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I regard both the articles as works in progress. So, it is premature to contemplate merging them. And, merging them would make it difficult for the editors to focus on the right material. On the face of it, the History article has to cover some 3000 years of evolution of a complex concept, and has a right to exist on its own. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There is little data on ancient Indian caste systems. Not more than a couple of paragraphs worth.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that that is so at present. But a lot of work needs to be done. See for example the discussion at [1]. Uday Reddy (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose History of Caste system is a pretty large topic in itself and even with the POV issues it requires a spinoff. If there are problems with that article please try bringing them to a larger forum instead of taking a WP:LIKELYVIOLATION approach. This neglect of history of caste system by editors here is in fact quite surprising. One could very easily argue from WP:NPOV that more weight for a historical treatment of caste is required in this article as well. 122.177.232.88 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You read so many guidelines just for making 1 or 2 comments around wikipedia and only for a single day? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Sitush, actually I am supporting a redirect because other article is clearly FORKED from this article. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - There is no reason why the material in the other page can't be included in a section here. If the section becomes too long, it can always be spun off later. If someone thinks that there should be more space in this article for history, they can always expand the section. (Basically a rehash of reasons above, now that I read them). Kingsindian (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racism

Hinduism is nothing but Casteism, a covert mask for Racism; Google "map shows most racist people on earth"; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thaugust1932 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

convenient

This article is biased. The British did not invent or solidify the caste system in India. It was there when they arrived and needed very little encouragement by themn. It's so amazingly obvious how this article tries to shift the blame for a corrupt system entirely conceived of by guess who, the Indians perpetrated on other Indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in other Religions and Hinduism.

The article said, "Traditional scholars identified caste system with Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent, but the system is found in other religions, albeit on a smaller scale, including Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism in the Indian subcontinent.[1] " It was giving reference of a book by Stephen Cohen. But in the book on page number 21 (given in the reference) no such content is there. The content given above is distorted one and it seems that it is an opinion of the writer who has written this way on this page. My edit was removed on 23rd March so I have undone that removal. I have edited it. I have tried to put the original content as it is there in the book which is cited. Sangharsh apte (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Sangharsh

@Sanghash apte: The sentence in the book says: Some caste identities are not easily shed, and caste-based differences are still to be found among Indian Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and Jews. So, what is your objection to our paraphrasing? Moreover, where did you get that caste is "dominant" in Hinduism? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cohen, Stephen P. (2001). India: Emerging Power. Brookings Institution Press. p. 21. ISBN 0815700067.

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)

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)

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.
-- ABTalk 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? ABTalk 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!. ABTalk 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. ABTalk 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."VictoriaGraysonTalk 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. ABTalk 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. ABTalk 20:25, 18 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. -- ABTalk 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 Wikipedia.
By the way, my own views agree with yours somewhat. But I don't yet have an argument that is valid for Wikipedia. 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? --- ABTalk 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. -- ABTalk 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."VictoriaGraysonTalk 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-- ABTalk 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Please bring out the consensus citing reliable sources before pushing fringe POV into lead section. -- ABTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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. ABTalk 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?) ABTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ogress (talk · contribs) They say these things? Who and what? And relax. ABTalk 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You were provided with quotes before, and found some excuse to dismiss them.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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 ABTalk 19:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kautilya3 and Ogress.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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. ABTalk 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'?? ABTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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? ABTalk 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 Wikipedia 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. ABTalk 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caste_system_in_India/Archive_8&oldid=1136594706"