Talk:Caste system in Sri Lanka

Untitled

I'm not a member of any particular party here, just an armchair visitor of Sri Lanka through Wikipedia, a user trying to learn something about Sri Lankan society. I'm Puerto Rican and caste means something so different in my society that I realize I have to learn more about caste in Sri Lanka to understand about the society. I am really the target audience for this article. I find that this article assumes a lot of previous knowledge. For instance, please explain what the difference from northern system is, not just that it is different and has more similarities to the southern system. When I go to the articles on these systems to better understand, I get the impression that northern is based on varna more while southern is based more on jati. Moreover it appears to me that jati and varna systems are integrated into one system in the referred-to articles, with varna a broader grouping and jati as subgroups within a particular varna So what's the difference in Sri Lanka? I do now know that there was once a Tamil system and a Sinhala system, as well as "Adi" groups like the Rodiyah and the Vedda. But over time, there has been some restructuring. Also, I think there is too much detail and not enough main point. I cannot see the forest for all the trees.--Upstatepolyglot (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This page may need some work. Some things seem to be nonsense: "Also Sri Lankan monarchs seem to have overwhelmingly depended on American manpower for functional needs such as menial tasks, weaving, crafts and ritual drumming." American? --80.101.102.100 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that the Govi Caste was traditionally the highest caste, it held land and that all other caste were low castes is totally incorrect, contrary to history and a mere repetition of Govi propaganda

The Wikipedia entry states that the Govi Caste was traditionally the highest caste, it held land and that all other caste were low castes. That is totally incorrect, contrary to history and a mere repetition of Govi propaganda

The following few selected quotations from the mass of such references in Sri Lanka’s historical literature prove beyond any doubt that the Govi caste was definitely not the highest caste in our culture. The following few selected quotations from the mass of such references in Sri Lanka’s historical literature prove beyond any doubt that the Govi caste was definitely not the highest caste in our culture:

Ancient texts such as the Pujavaliya, Sadharmaratnavaliya and Yogaratnakaraya list the four caste groups as Raja, Bamunu, Velanda & Govi in descending order, where the Govi caste is the lowest. The Pújavaliya also says that Buddhas will never be born in the Govi caste as it is a low caste. The 10th century Dampiyaatuvagetapadaya and the 12th century Darmapradeepikava go even further and state that the Govi caste is a ‘Neecha’ castes (Dampiyaatuvagetapadaya D. B. Jayathilaka edition, 1933, pg 217. Darmapradeepikava Sri Dharmarama edition, 1951, pg 190)

Other ancient texts such as the Gavaratnakaraya and Sarpothpaththiya (Sarpavedakama Col. Museum publication, 1956, pgs vi, 5 & 123) respectively classify even cattle and snakes as Raja, Bamunu, Velanda & Govi, where Govi is the last. Ballads sung to date at ancient Gammmaduva rituals also refer to the above four castes in the same sequence and describes the limits of their privileges (Gammaduwa, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, page 13).

Although Govigama writers have attempted to dismiss the above as a mere classical division unconnected with realities, the repetition of the same caste hierarchy in the British/Kandyan period Kadayimpoth (Kadaim Poth Vimarshanaya, H. A. P. Abhayawardena, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, pages 163 – 168) as well, indicates the continuation of the tradition up to the end of our monarchy, and well after the arrival of the Portuguese.

The term Govi is used throughout as an insult in the Ummagga Játhaka (Ummagga Játhakaya, Educational Pub. Dept, 1978 edition) written in the 15th century, Kurunégala period. The astrology text Mánasagari (Sloka 2201, page 596) says that a debilitated moon in the horoscope destines a man to be a cultivator.

The Goviyas are referred to in uncomplimentary terms such as Kudin(Epigraphia Zeylanica (EZ) V pg 293, EZ I, pgs 246, 53 fn 7 etc.) and Väriyan (EZ III pages 139, 141 etc. ) in ancient SriLankan inscriptions and as Bälayan, Galayan, Valayan, Gonvayan and Gatara in literature (Kadaim Poth Vimarshanaya, pages 167 & 217. Dambadeni Asna saha Kandavuru Siritha, page 91).

In Sri Lanka’s past, cultivators or Goviyas were chattels (EZ II pgs 140 & 142. Ancient Land Tenure, Codrington, pg 34). The low esteem in which the goviyas were held is illustrated by inscriptions such as the 10th century Kataragama pillar inscription (EZ III page 223), 14th century Niyamgampaya inscription (Sahithyaya, Department of Cultural Affairs, 1972, page 130) and 15th century Saman Devala Sannasa (Ancient Land Tenure, Codrington, page 27) which groups the Govis together with buffaloes and pack bulls.

The North Gate inscription in the ancient city of Polonnaruwa depicts the Govi Kula in its comparative rhetoric as the lowest extreme (EZ II, page 164). The same concept of low status is echoed in the 13th century Dambadeni Asna (Dambadeni Asna saha Kandavuru Siritha, page 135) and the 15th century Parevi Sandésa(Parevi Sandeshaya, Kumaratunga Munidasa Ed.1958, verse 188) as well.

Therefore an unbiased look at historical evidence confirms beyond doubt the low status of the Govi caste in the Sri Lanka’s feudal system and its rise under colonial rule. However under colonial rule and democracy in Sri Lanka, Govigama writers have rewritten history to suit their newly acquired status.

Really now in Srilanka there are no cast difference in rural areas, but still finding the right person normally in village area.In Buddhism, we can't blame anyway. Krish Ferdi (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by the promoter of The Govigama Supremacy Myth

I think it is important to document the chronology of the current vandalism on the Caste in Sri lanka page.

In early September a user added fully referenced historical information on the Sri Lankan Caste system, particularly on the true status of the Govigama caste in Sri lanka’s history. A few days later, despite the references in the contribution, User:RaveenS deleted this information stating that it is unreferenced. These historical facts that RaveenS didn’t want Wikipedia readers to see, have since been repeatedly vandalised by other pseudonym logins from Canada.

Although the Govi and the Vellala were two distinct and unconnected communities in Sri Lanka’s history, politically ambitious individuals from both communities attempted to equate and link the two in the 19th century. As such the ‘Govi Supremacy Myth’ and the ‘Vellala Supremacy Myth’ are inextricably dependent on each other for their sustenance. The Govi Supremacy Theory was debunked in Sri lanka over a decade ago. And, except for Vellala propaganda dating from the 19th century, there doesn’t appear to be any historical evidence as such to support the Vellala Supremacy Theory either.

The depths to which individuals descend and even sacrifice their personal integrity to promote the ‘Govi Supremacy Myth’ continues to surprise me. It is mostly done through intimidation, repetition or stealth. Never have I seen any evidence from such promoters to support their 'Govi Supremacy Myth'. If they have any evidence at all to prove that the Govi caste was not a low caste in the Sri lankan feudal system, they should include it here for the benefit of our users. If there is no evidence to support the Govi Supremacy Theory, the promoter of the theory should withdraw it and desist from further vandalism of this page. 10:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Page vandalised again

Vandals have attacked the main page Caste in Sri lanka again ( on 30 September 2006 by user [[1]] ) and once again deleted the information they wish to supress. As usual, no verifiable references to contradict the information under attack are offered. Therefore it has to be assumed that the Vandal has no evidence to the contrary and is desperately attempting to push the ‘Govi Supremacy’ point of view through intimidation. --Veri 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply from User [2]

There is no evidence that the so called four fold division of society as aspired by the cited material (all local and not credible and picked for a biased reason) ever existed in Sri Lanka. It only existed in North India . The socalled Karave mainly south Indian fishers and sometimes mercenaries are not Kshatriyas {{Fact}} inspite of self asertion. Do not denigrated others to bring up some others. This is Wikipedia and truth prevails. All latest anthropological reviews of Sri Lankan society is in agreement that the Govi are a dominant group of people throughout the Sinhalese hinterland. Karavae are immigrants attempting to gain prestige and position via all methods available . Don’t use Wikipedia for such a sociological changes, this is not a forum for you propaganda. Keep that to websites and local newspapers. Thanks Bandara2000 21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For more see talk page on Govi page[3]

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

--Veri 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorect use?

on the version [4] respectively classify even Sri Lankan cattle and snakes into the four caste categories as Raja, Bamunu, Velanda & Govi, where again the Govi is the lowest form.

Raja = King Bamunu = Brahmana Velanda = Merchants Govi = Farmers

are they cattle and snakes? incorrect use of reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by NavodEranda (talk • contribs) 12:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankarar - stable workers

Thankarer - there a lot of thankarar still in jaffna specially called as thanakara kurichi

if you read any old deed in udupiddy parish area

udupiddy kovil pattu then immayanan,karanvai, thankara kurichi, kompan mmolai kompan tharai, thease area people are thanakarer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.9.200 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues?

What the hell is an "issue"? Does it mean that the article has possible imperfections or inaccuracies? If so, why not say so, without resorting to silly jargon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.24.11 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

bodhi vansa?

the caste system mentioned donot have any place to put the bodhivansa people who do rituals at sri maha bodhiya.can any body resolve this issue?Samanpress (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

undiscussed page move

Caste system in Sri Lanka was prevalent before 1972, but even after its name was changed to Sri Lanka, it remains legalized.

Page must be moved back to Caste system in Sri Lanka, and the recent(after 1990s) reforms should be added. I can count about 120 books that includes the relevant information. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caste system in Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320050247/http://www.iccsus.org/IstConf/111.html to http://www.iccsus.org/IstConf/111.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caste system in Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927020022/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/SriLanka.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/SriLanka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220250/http://www.defonseka.com/k16.htm to http://www.defonseka.com/k16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040511/http://www.royalasiaticsociety.lk/inscriptions/?q=node%2F237 to http://www.royalasiaticsociety.lk/inscriptions/?q=node%2F237

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Social Class in Sri Lanka

I propose that we merge this article into Social class in Sri Lanka due to the Caste System of Sri Lanka being mostly eradicated and therefore it is odd to have an entire article focused purely on the caste system of a casteless society. Hindianu (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hindianu. I request you to take this up at WT:INB or WT:SRI LANKA. You are making huge changes without consensus which is not recommended. Also your claim of Sri Lanka being a caste-less society doesn't hold, obviously because this article proves otherwise. And the caste system is not the same as "social class" because the caste system is also based on kinship and endagomy which is not the case in social classes. Xenani (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The caste system in Sri Lanka is historic and ancient. It's groupings are the same as those in South India but it's more egalitarian due to Buddhism. It's mostly a non-issue now and this has been stated in several articles and reports. It has been like this since the colonial era at least. Hindianu (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hindianu, You should probably back that up with a source. These sources states the caste system (although not so strict as an in India) is still present on the island: . Xenani (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It's complicated to explain the current status. Caste is not discussed in public, whether for employment or most cultural issues, but it still does remain in certain traditional areas such as religion (though religious attendance is itself declining). But there is still some evidence of the caste discrimination though one can debate whether this is socioeconomic (such as living in a ghetto) rather than actual caste discrimination. Have a quick read of the following blog post - it states how the caste system has evolved into something more complex and hence I think it is better to discuss the caste system within a larger article that can discuss points about the new social stratification system in Sri Lanka. http://srilankatwo.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/living-wisdom/ Hindianu (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hindianu, I am sorry but your arguments are not valid. A blogspot isn't a reliable source per WP:RS. Xenani (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Just noting, for the record, that this discussion seems to have been happening in parallel on Talk:Social class in Sri Lanka#Proposed merger with Caste System of Sri Lanka. I've removed the one remaining merge template without prejudicing and subsequent discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Hierarchy

The ranking system of castes varies from region to region, time to time, etc. It is not an established hierarchy even if it is cited (old sources used anyway). I mean it is not moral to keep this table of hierarchy which was reasently added to the Sinhalese caste section.Xenani (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Blackknight12: which are the reasons for adding this table, and which arguments do you have for keeping it? @Sitush:, your opinion on this is requested. Xenani (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it not moral to keep this table of hierarchy? It is factual and based on the history of the society of this country. There is no derogatory words or anything of the like. In a system of social stratification as rigid as a caste system there is a very top and a very bottom, that is the point of it. Although mostly irrelevant these days this is the hierarchy that has survived over the last more that 200 years.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Blackknight12: Sinhalese caste Hierarchy depended on the kings wish. Last kingdom which practiced a caste hierarchy was the Kandyan kingdom which did not have castes like Karava,Durava and Salagama. so these hierarchies were just fabrications of the researchers. The traditional sinhalese caste hierarchy was Raja, Bamunu, Velanda and Govi according to the inscriptions set up by the kings officials which are more valid than what is fabricated by the foreigners and late researchers. If you want to publish a caste hierarchy for sinhalese find one from the reign of king Parakramabahu VI who united the whole country.

@Blackknight12:, please validate the hierarchy you have created in this table. It appears to be WP:OR and WP:POV. Cossde (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not come up with the list. All my additions have been properly sourced in case you havent noticed. Furthermore you have failed to provide any description of what is exactly original research or POV that you are claiming.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Blackknight12, you have not provided multiple sources to validate this hierarchy. The structure which you have proposed is based on Ryan's chart. This is in contravention to other published sources such as [5], [6] which states that Radala is not a sub class of Goyigama, which is in fact the highest caste above that of Goyigama. Hence you are POV pushing on a controversial subject with sources that support your claim and establishing a chart as OR. Furthermore, establishing a hierarchy which is highly controversial and which has been used as a means of discrimination is not suitable in an encyclopedic article. Caste is still a sensitive topic in Sri Lanka and Caste based discrimination has been deemed illegal by the Sri Lankan Constitution to prevent discrimination. By establishing a hierarchy chat you are propagating this discrimination by adding validity to it.Cossde (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes! Defininantly! We should totally censor ourselves and refrain from understanding the truth of our past because it is a sensative topic... That is a ridiculous argument. The fact is a caste system existed, whether we like it or not, it is not something we can't hide from, nor should we. It was the norm at the time. If we start censoring ourselves now, we might as well not talk about civil war injustices and corruption or prositution or many other things in the country and beyond, because it makes us look bad or might hurt our feelings. While there may still be caste based discrimination, this is not a reason to avoid telling the history behind it or to equivocate on it. As you said caste based discrimination is illegal in the country, and it is not up to us to police it. Moreover a hierarchy is exactly what caste is! Groups of different social status ranked from highest to lowest. It is a fact of life and that will always exist in a society in one form or another. Today its called Upper Class, Middle Class etc.

As for your claims on providing sources...I have cited Ryan 1953, Perera 1978 and De Silva 2014 all of whome have cited a myriad of other primary and secondary sources themselves. And your one quip stating that "Radala is not a sub class of Goyigama", please see here in De Silva 2014 pp 201-2, and I'm sure if you read Ryan's book Caste in modern Ceylon you can find it in there too. The source you mentioned yourself, Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan p97 clearly states that "Radala, the most exalted section of the Goyigama..." while the IIDS working paper does not elaborate on the issue at hand. Your claims are clearly wrong here.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Blackknight12:, this really goes to the basis that a generic hierarchy can not be established effectually due to many reasons, including geographical variations as mentioned by Ryan in his book p99. Therefore, using his hierarchy would not be accurate. Furthermore the fact that discrimination exists in the present day, we need to avoid fulling it by creating hierarchies that are in itself controversial and inconclusive. Given that cast discrimination is present in Sri Lanka in the present day, creating a hierarchy would be in-contravention to Wikipedia:Discrimination. Remember modern class divination are not used as a form of discrimination nor is it a closed as social mobility is possible. Cast discrimination is more like discrimination based on Race, we don't list a hierarchy of races in Sri Lanka. That is why its illegal to discriminate a person based on sex, race, religion and cast in Sri Lanka and in Europe it would be based on sexual orientation or social status as society moves to a more just and egalitarian society. He need to record history with the casts and its natures, at the same time avoid propagating discrimination based on cast positions which Ryan himself has stated that has not remain constant.Cossde (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)