Jump to content

Talk:Forward caste/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Andhra Pradesh Forward caste list

SITUSH Any questions/concerns , please talk here.Foodie 377 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here in wikipedia You write on your community

I am a reddy from AP and USA. I request others to not to write on reddies as they like that they are OBCs. You write on yourself as you like but not on others insulting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talk • contribs) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be sanitised

Clearly, the article has been written by persons belonging to so-called forward (meaning upper) castes and they have very selectively used some figures to support the claim that upper caste population in India is equal to or more than backward caste population. The command over English language itself is a marker of upper caste identity and upper caste wikipedians are continuing to determine the content of Wikipedia content for obvious reasons. It is nothing paradoxical that tools of liberation in the West invariably turn out to be weapons of oppression to perpetuate inequitous status quo in the subcontinent. Wikipedia could be no exception.

""The command over English language itself is a marker of upper caste identity""--------THE argument is ridiculous , even ambedkar had a excellent commend over english ? does that make him antisocial or any less humane?? .....the reality is that instead of elimination of caste system due to political compulsion we r experiencing a reversal of caste system !! is this the new equal social order to be created ?? the domination of obc,sc,st by virtue of their number in Indian democracy has pushed the GENERAL category citizens to the fringes .....be it in education,job,politics,society anywhere .... and then they say this is social justice and affirmative action ........all crap ....this is a revenjfull action meant to subjugate GENERAL category citizens .....obc,sc,st may feel better off and prosperous for sometime but brothers and sisters this will have disastrous consequences for the country ......lets not our freedom be a short lived one ....let us not give our enemies a chance to destroy us by promoting division among us .....let us make a attempt to live harmoniously .....our country has enough for everyones need ...please do not give a few people a chance to divide us and rule once again .....praying to GOD that better sense may prevail among our brothers and sisters ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.170.22 (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Intercaste Marriages

What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Forward Castes? If it is less than 10%, aren't they anti-social? Maaparty 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone be labelled anti social because of the preference of marriage? does socialization begin/end with marriage? 59.92.188.102 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC) concerned indian.

figures given in the article

the main article gives a figure of 36-39% for Forward castes. Lets analyze the problem. Officially, SC=15%, ST=8%, OBC=52%, Muslims=12%. That makes up 87%. So forward castes, at best can be just 13%.nids(♂) 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how all these days politicians were projecting. National Family Health Survey was taken in 98-99. It says Forward Castes population is around 38-39%.National Sample Survey 99-00 points out forward caste population is 36%. You can download Employment and Unemployment among social groups in India, 1999-2000 55th Round PDF file(Registration required) from http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_nsso_rept_pubn.htm.

I paste below figures given by NSS 99-00

Rural Out of thousand people

SC ST OBC Others

106 213 374 307

Urban Out of thousand people

SC ST OBC Others

39 146 314 502

You apply rural and urban population weightages and you will get the figure of 36%.Statistically NSS survey is considered large with a sample size of around 600000.

Also you are quoting 52% OBC figures given by Mandal commission which has been proved wrong by subsequent surveys. Mandal derived based on 1931 census by using wrong calculations as indicated by Yogendra Yadhav,Psephologist.(Citation given in Reservation in India article)See population section of this article.Mandal figure for OBC includes Muslim OBC,so it should not be added separately like what you did. Govt surveys indicates Forward caste population is around 36-39%. Yogendra Yadav agrees that it has to be atleast 33%. --Lravikumar 12:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So, according to the sources you cited, OBC population would be around 35%.nids(♂) 12:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes.These are the only data available with Government of India regarding population of various communities. Sample size of both surveys are large.(NFHS around 90000,NSS 600000) and both came with almost similar figures for OBC,BC,SC/ST. Mandal did not conduct any survey and cooked up 1931 census figures to arrive some figures. After 1931 census so many things have happened like a) Partition happened and mass migratrions of Hindu,Muslim communities happened as a result of it. b) Muslim population has gone up from 9% in 1947 to 12 % in 2001 c) SC/ST population has gone up from 19% in 1947 to 24 % in 2001. which shows population of communities are changing dynamically.

See Also.Regarding Yogendara Yadav comments on Mandal commission figures(He is the only psephologist in India who predicted NDA will lose in 2004 elections when NDTV/India Today/Outlook surveys were giving more than 300 seats for NDA)

http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=292238&category=Social%20Sectors&Country=INDIA

Actually, the last time proper census was done was way back in 1931 and all the other estimates are just projections (Mandal commission was crap, ofcourse). Do you have any online link for 1931 census report. I have tried that but unsuccessfully. Also, do you have any idea about the percentage of forward castes in 1931 according to 1931 census report.nids(♂) 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1931 census is not available online. 1871-1901 census are available online. Those censuses does not show caste wise population. It shows Brahmin,Rajputs &Kshatriya,other hindu communities,Dalits,tribes populations separately. I hope 1931 census also would have been taken in that way. I don't know how Mandal commission can derive Forward and backward population from those caste figures. (For example Yadav is considered Kshatriya but backward caste)Also those censuses includes Burma,Bangladesh,Pakistan population also. You can find some caste wise info from following links for the period of 1871-1901.Current demographic pattern should have been entirely different.Mandal gave some nonsense figures and till 1998 politicians took major decisions based on that figures.

http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&action=previous&record=20

http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=51

Demographic pattern cannot be totally different from what NSS indicated because of its large sample size. Otherwise two different nationwide surveys cannot come out with almost similar figures.

Who is forward?

Qn. All these castes listed out here were getting almost 100% reservation for Centuries while the current backward communities (per Govt) were sidelined and had no access to education or jobs. So should we call them forward or backward????

Answer: The now designated "upper caste" communities in the past had many privileges that "lower castes" did not have that point is accepted. But that can't be equated to them having reservation because of the following. In the past the upper caste communities earned those privileges with their hard work and contributions. It is an undisputed fact that the majority of warrior clans were upper caste they shed blood and died to protect all lower castes and upper castes alike. The majority of the intellectuals who pioneered India's two largest empires were upper caste brahmins like chanakya, and so were the other contributors in (mathematics, philosophy, science etc). So in conclusion the privileges that upper castes had in the past were acquired by them through their own hard work and sacrifice. Whilst in modern India lower castes ascertain privileges (reservation) by doing nothing whatsoever other than having a lower caste surname. Lower castes love to talk of how belligerently they were downtrodden by upper castes but they fail to talk of how many millions of upper castes throughout the centuries died fighting for the freedom of lower castes. Due to the fact that all the armies of India were constituted of upper caste Kshatriyas or people from other upper caste warrior clans. This is not to say that lower castes did not contribute in the past indeed they did, but no historian will contest the fact that in the past 95 percent of the contributions were by upper castes therefore being the main contributors they enjoyed sociological privileges that the lower castes did not have in the past. But we don't live in the past anymore so this is why we should forget these denominations of lower caste or upper caste and we should call ourselves INDIAN, if people still keep living in these past regressions they are bound to only get more of the negativity from the past and not find a fresh new outlook for a bright future. Judging by the questioners rather flawed reasoning maybe if he had a little common sense he would realise what a platitudinous confabulation he made with his rather imbecilic question. Bandwidth bandit 09:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition

"Forward caste" (or "upper caste") is used in India to denote people from any religion who do not currently qualify for Government of India Reservation benefits (that is, set quotas for political representation) for backward castes, scheduled castes and tribes.

It refers http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/5704._.html The article has not talked about the definition any where!!!

I've added a [citation needed] tag. The details will be deleted after maintaining the Fact Tag. Also Forward Caste is not officially/ethically mentioned any where. It should be deleted. BalanceRestored 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


One of the question answered by Yogendra yadav states that

""All the upper castes (all those from any religion who do not qualify currently for SC, ST or OBC quota) are about 33 per cent of population.""

So this has been given as definition for Upper caste. Forward caste or Upper caste is interchangeably used. So definition given for Upper caste has been given as citation. We had long discussions few months back and then it was decided article satisfies notability criteria for inclusion. There are wiki articles on many castes, Backward class, Scheduled castes , Scheduled Tribes etc. --Indianstar 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular things can be a hoax. The reference provided is incorrect. There's no such definition in the Indian law. If you show me 1 article that defines what you just stated we can consider having the same.BalanceRestored 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Forward Caste should be deleted.

There's nothings as such ever present. This is more or less personal belief of Individuals. It has to be deleted. The page is falsely created and it was never mentioned any where. BalanceRestored 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Backward Caste

According to the Government of India there should not be any caste based discrimination. Mentioning Backward Caste, when it is Backward Class is a form of discrimination. This article is doing the same, violating the Indian Law. Also, this article does not source any definite source, written by any prominent author hence should be deleted. BalanceRestored 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are created based on Wikipedia notability guidelines. It does not follow Indian law. Article is sourced based on Government surveys, statements by various political leaders including Prime minister and cabinet ministers, sociologists etc. --Indianstar 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please provide valid references with any one among the following stature have written that and is published. Some things that's popularly told about need not be true.BalanceRestored

Article marked Hoax

This article does not refer any appropriate resource. Again the resource mentioned at the definition is false. This article is fictitiously present. This is not a dictionary term. Not a single author across the globe has ever defined it. All the citations those are present point to a term named "Other Backward Classes" and not backward Caste. Because it violates the India Law that forbids discrimination, If any one would officially define this term, they will be sued/questioned by the law. Hence no one will ever try to define the same. So, kindly consider taking off the articles BalanceRestored 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article has so many references from many columnists, Government surveys, Political leaders including prime minister and opposition leaders using words Forward caste or Upper caste. [1][2][3][4]. No body is claiming that these castes are above others. Article only states that castes other than mentioned in this article are eligible for reservation benefits. Do you think Indian prime minister[5] is creating hoax by calling certain people as Upper caste?. Do you think he is violating Indian constitution? If you have concerns about particular sentences in this article, please mark it as citation needed. If you feel certain sentences needs to be modified then please discuss in talk pages. Let us resolve differences through discussions. --Indianstar 05:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You just referred the following article http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/06/05/stories/2006060504941400.htm . Can you show me the following terms Upper caste or Forward Caste in it? BalanceRestored 06:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/17uplift.htm But I do not again get it. It is not defining Upper Caste or Forward Caste. Kindly find me a definition BalanceRestored 06:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


parliamentofindia.nic.in

The Synopsis section of the website that belongs to the Indian Parliament uses the term "Forward Classes" and not "Forward" or "Upper" Caste. Hence using the term "Caste" is invalid. So, we should bring this page down. Also the terms "Forward Classes" and "Backward Classes" are dynamic. A new page "Forward Classes" needs to be created instead, and this page "Forward Caste" has to be brought down.BalanceRestored 11:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for the representation of OBCs at the website http://ncbc.nic.in/html/guideline.html states, "Castes and communities, having no representation or poor representation in the State Legislative Assembly and/or district-level Panchayati Raj institutions during the ten years preceding the date of the application", So, any caste or community can fall in this category. The list also contains Non Hindu communities.

Move article to Forward class ?

I think User:BalanceRestored does have a point (if you look past the hyperventilation ... my apologies BR :-) ) that according to Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, National Commission for Backward Classes, as well as Article 340 of the Indian Constitution "Backward classes" and "Forward classes" seems to be the official terminology for what is currently discussed under "Backward caste" and "Forward caste". (The act itself does not define or refer to forward castes or classes, but NCBC's annual report does; see page 42 and 47).
So I suggest that we move the two articles to Forward class and Backward class respectively. Of course, "forward caste" and "backward class" will then be redirects, and the two articles' leads will need to mention that the "caste" term is often used instead of "class"
Any thoughts or objection ? Abecedare 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: The proposed renaming will also bring the article names in line with Other backward class. Also note that the "forward class", "backward class", and OBC categories are created and administered by the Government of India and are not strictly social constructs (although clearly they are based upon the social caste system) so it behooves to give the official terminology somewhat greater weight than the (inconsistent) popular usage. Abecedare 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Government of Indian does not abolish traditional practices, But, this structure is built so that every caste and community gets equal respect in the society. If tomorrow by change there is a big calamity and if communities who are currently not in the list decrease in numbers and representation, the law will help them come back, any one can get in to this category, the highly respected Pandits even can get in to this list if things are vice versa. Please understand, the list is purely mathematical. The current list contains celebrated communities in them. BalanceRestored 05:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It is Ok with me to move article under different name as suggested by BalanceRestored. But I am surprised to see BalanceRestored confidence that Backward class/Forward Class list will get revised based on actual Social/Economical criteria based on Law. Is he away from India for long time?. Logics does not play any role in reservation decisions??. For example, In Tamilnadu people from Agricultural/Industrial castes are always in Backward class list and people from Middle/Lower middle class always appear in Forward class list. It totally depends upon people's voting power not based on social criteria. Law is not followed, it is always tweaked in reservation decisions. --Indianstar 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Every good thing takes its course in due time. Our country was a just born baby after independence. Things where bad, but they are slowly improving. Now, the country has just attained it's youth, already with +20 joining the billionaire list and 1 making it to the top 5. Lot of social and economic updates have been taking place from time to time. I fully understand that there are both bad people and good. But, it is not good closing the door for the good to mature. Good things take time to happen, but when they happen they are permanent. I've seen people complaining about certain sections getting undue advantages. But, often fail to understand who they are. They are all our bothers. I won't like having a brother who is back in his life. If I am in a non Indian country and am being asked what's your country all about. I need to proudly answer "I live in the most perfect country and my country has the most perfect law to stand behind it". Every thing is happening step by step. Have faith in GOD and practice what's being told 100% the way it is only then things will go in a better way. Again ask your self "Can you feed a baby with an Adult food all of a sudden?", No. We will need for the educated community to get to the parliament step by step only then all the things will go in the right direction. We should be satisfied that there's a big number difference in the educated in the early 1950 and 2007. BalanceRestored 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the pages and changed the first sentence to reflect the new article names. Thanks for your inputs. Abecedare 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made the definition keeping in mind the definition of the Other Backward Classes, SC, ST. Other wise due to change in the number of population certain castes will not be called forward. BalanceRestored 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprised to see many Brahmin communities in the OBC list now. So, the list is mathematical as it was observed before. BalanceRestored 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vanniyars

Some vandals have been adding Vanniyar to the FC category here, even though they enjoy the Scheduled Caste reservation benefits in Tamil Nadu. How can Dalits become FC? Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Forward class" is used in India generally to denote peoples, communities and castes from any religion who do not currently qualify for Government of India Reservation benefits (that is, set quotas for political representation) for Other Backward Classes, scheduled castes and tribes. Axxn (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Listed in AFD

I have tagged this article for deletion on the ground of violation of WP:NOR, the article is indeed an original research which aims at discovering communities to qualify under it under dubious grounds which has no acceptability elsewhere and tries to mislead readers in general. As I have rejoined wikipedia after a long time, I am also seeking help in completing the necessary steps for deletion. someone kindly list it in appropriate category to start discussion Ikon |no-blast

I have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward class. I copied your above deletion argument. The deletion discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward class. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks a lot for all you have done.  Ikon |no-blast 14:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you add Reddy to FC

Reddy or Reddies are farmers, Warriors and kings in Andhra Pradesh in Medieval times and now and are forward class people. Please add the them to list. Please do not delete this page. It is good information for lot of people who do not know on India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.76.70 (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Namespace Move

I suggest this article should be moved to General Class, because it talks about it. even if it is not moved I would start substituting General in the place of Forward in this article, coz that is the more appropriate term. Ikon No-Blast 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about castes which are classified as forward. So no need to change.90.46.215.187 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Most commonly used term is "Forward Castes". General Castes includes some castes which are not considered Forward Castes (like Muslims and Christians), but don't receive reservation benefits. Axxn (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you include them, otherwise it violates, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Ikon No-Blast 13:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't mix General Class with Forward Castes. Both the terms are entirely different from each other. General Class means those Castes which are not eligible for reservation benefits, while Forward Caste means those castes which were on the top of the Hindu Caste Hierarchy. Axxn (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the basis of deciding who are on the top of the hindu caste hierarchy. If you don't have a sound base it is OR 122.162.231.19 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The article itself defines FC means castes which don't get reservation benefit. I wonder, what is the agenda of editors on this page. Ikon No-Blast 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You can request a page move if you want. But I don't think many will agree with it and a consensus could be reached. Axxn (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

forward class refers primarily to hindus who don't get reservation because they are well off.non hindus who don't get reservation are in other religious people category.what's is the issue then.Linguisticgeek (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The user ikonoblast tried to delete this article two times in the past (see here), but got whacked. Now realising that he might not succeed in deleting the article, he is trying to destroy it by other means. Be aware of his intentions.122.177.218.88 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To IP122.177.218.88: I can only find one request for deletion initiated by Ikonblast, not the two that you claim. The outcome of that was not that he got "whacked"; indeed the discussion recognised Ikonblast's basic concern but sugggested that AfD was not the appropriate way to deal with it. Your suggestion that Ikonblast was and is "trying to destroy the article" amounts to a personal attack. Please try to be civil and address the concerns raised instead of attacking the individual raising the concerns. You need have no worries about the article: if it meets Wikipedia's criteria, it will remain; if it does not it is right that it is challenged and improved. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Timberframe. He tried to delete the article twice. Once in 2007, and then again in 2009 (Please see the top most box of this talk page). How many times we have to prove that one article is worth it's place in Wiki? "Trying to destroy the article" was definitely not a personal attack. It was a legitimate concern. If it is wrongly interpreted, then I am extremely sorry for that. The user ikonoblast was previously accused of pushing POV in to many caste-related articles by a number of users. On top of that, he can't be judged as a neutral party here, because he belongs to the Yadav community (part of the OBC group), which is against the FCs. Me myself can't be partial, since I am a FC. Please get a neutral opinion about this. However there is a general concern that Ikonoblast, with his better knowledge of Wiki policies and all that is succeeding in pushing POV. I request you to get a moderator with a good knowledge in India related matters to look in to the edits this user has made. Please don't reject views expressed by editors like me, because we are new here. 122.177.186.59 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the second AfD nomination. I've read through both of them and I do believe that Ikonoblast has a point: despite numerous citations of uses of the terms "Forward Class" and "Forward Caste" among sources which are doubtless reliable, what seems to be lacking is an authoritative definition of what either term means. Rather, I get the impression that the terms are used in the vernacular in much the same way that in Britain we may talk about "blue collar" or "working class" - we each have an idea in our own minds of what the terms mean, and dictionaries do their best to capture the essence of those ideas, but there's no single and incontravertible definition that is universally recognised. Although the terms are widely used, as Wikipedia editors we cannot infer a precise and consistently understood meaning, and to do so would indeed be original research. That in turn means that we cannot give a single definition or state as fact an assumed generalised definition, which is what the lead does at present. The article can by all means discuss the various meanings and uses of the terms where these are specifically stated in the cited sources, as well as other terms such as "General Class" which may also used as synonyms for some of the meanings. That may be the direction the article has to take, starting with a statement to the effect that "these terms, while lacking a single unambigously defined meaning, in general relate to...". Then we'd have to decide on a title for the article, but that need not be contentious since redirects could be created for all the alternatives.

Your ad hominem characterising Ikonoblast here on the basis of a claim that he has been accused of pushing a POV in other articles and suggesting that he's still trying to get the article deleted shows bad faith and is something of a straw man. His recent edits to this page do not mention deleting the article, so why imply that it's still under threat? -- Timberframe (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User Ikonoblast has been repeatedly replacing "forward" with "general" in this article claiming that general is the most commonly used term. But a quick search on google gives only 2,580 results for general castes, while 10,500 results are found for Forward Castes.Axxn (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Although google results give more results for Forward caste, it is not used in any formal documentation. If you live in India, you should be aware it is Illegal. Ikon No-Blast 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward class or forward caste

Are these terms equivalent? I notice that they're used interchangeably and that two graphs/tables (sachar committee and statewise distribution) use forward caste rather than class). Finally, where are these graphs/tables from? Are the terms used in the original graphs/tables or are they compiled by some wikipedian? I followed the linked references but could not find any mention of the term 'forward' in either link nor could I find the graph/table. (I also randomly clicked a couple of links in the references section and could find no mention of the word 'forward' on the linked page - but the search was cursory so I'm not making anything of it, yet.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Forward Caste is the most commonly used term. But since someone complained that it was not politically correct, the term "Forward Class" was used. Axxn (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If government documents use forward caste (assuming that they do - the above graph and table examples are unclear on that) and it is the 'common name' of the group, then we should use forward caste rather than class. A google search on forward class pulls up lots of references to programming concepts and wikipedia's entry on 'forward class' - we don't want to be in the position of changing the way people talk about things. Just my 2cents. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Axxn (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, Govt. of India don't use this term called forward caste. Ikon No-Blast 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RP, I had looked into this question two years ago (!), and at that time at least my conclusions were that GoI used the class prefix in its documents when referring to forward, backward and other backward classes (see section above). May be worth rechecking though, since more GoI and Google Book documents may be available now then were then. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick search in Google Books earned more results for F Caste than F Class. Moreover the term "Forward Class" is more commonly used to denote many other things (couldn't find this meaning in the top 10 results). I think the term "F Class" is confusing. Axxn (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the term F Caste is used in government sites, but sites like IAS (see page 5 here), CUSAT and most of the Indian Universities use it. IAS can't be considered as a govt. site? Well, if you meant hardcore govt sites, then I fond 62 results here. Axxn (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The IAS reference is a good one. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Although the term forward caste is used in some studies, it never reveals whom they consider forward. If you come across a list of cast, term used is always "general". No, list till day have been prepared which tells you who are General! If this article goes the way it is going, it might be marked OR. Ikon No-Blast 16:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
@Axnn You need to see this too[1]. Count the numbers. Ikon No-Blast 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Since google returns more result[2]for the term General caste, I would like to see it in the article that more usable term is general & should be used throughout the article Ikon No-Blast 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Caste Hierarchy Caste discrimination has two dimensions:1)British census records: 2) Reservation policy. Since reservation policy itself is based on British census, it is the most important part of this discrimination. Please note, the work of S.N. Srinivasan defines Backward Caste and Dominant Caste. Backward caste are those who were declared shudra in British census. Many communities in North India & everyone except for Brahmins in South India were called Shudra. Some of them elevated themselves in subsequent censuses, where census officers didn't try to make any verification of their real status. Such castes are called Dominant Castes, which is the case with Jats & Maratha. Only those casts who have not been classified as shudra in any of the census are actually eligible to be called forward caste. I mean to say it is General excluding Dominant caste, and it is the way it is used mostly. Present article which uses the definition of General Caste and calls it Forward is in fact flawed and should be rectified. Since, Backward, Dominant and General are well defined terms you just cannot argue about it. Forward caste though formally has not been defined it is often used as General excluding Dominant. I hope some knowlegdeble person would take a look. This article talks about General Caste and tries to brand them Forward, which is wrong and that is what I wanted to say so far. Ikon No-Blast 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether 'Forward caste' and/or 'general caste' exists as a commonly used term or not. A casual scan of Google gives mixed results. The first page of listings is mostly wikipedia, blogs, and yahoo; but there is also this which indicates that the Kerala government recognizes it as a well-defined enough entity to get a scholarship. General Caste produces a similar mix but also throws up this from JSTOR that explicitly contrasts 'general caste' with 'scheduled caste' and 'scheduled tribe'. Seems to me that Forward class is pretty much the wrong title, that the concept of forward caste or general caste is not OR, but the choice between the two needs some more indepth analysis. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The term FC is never used in any formal Dissertation or thesis, so you won't find it in Research works, hence Jstor does not use it.Ikon No-Blast 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not strictly correct. On JSTOR, I find 71 results with "Forward Caste" (including this one in Asian Survey and 50 for "General Caste". --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You should see this too, why it is not a usable term [3]. Besides being an undefined term, it has practical difficulties of identification. Hence these terms like forward and upper are considered dubious. Ikon No-Blast 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "General Caste" is only used in govt. media. In newspapers and magazines, I haven't seen anything other than "Forward Caste" being used. Just compare this with this. The classification everyone understands is: Forward Caste, Backward Caste and Scheduled Caste. Very few sources use the term "General Caste". Axxn (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
One more thing. The statement written by Ikonoblast is entirely wrong. Sudra is not an inferior caste. Sudra castes like Kayasth, Jat, Maratha.etc were considered forward only. Those outside the caste system (Avarna) and impure Sudras were considered backward. "Only those casts who have not been classified as shudra in any of the census are actually eligible to be called forward caste" give some proof to this, as the British classified the castes based on their occupation and not as Brahmin or Sudra. For exmaple see this. I think he is trying to confuse everyone here. And I can't believe some one is referring SN Sadasivan again. He is a militant neo-Buddhist from Kerala who is known for his hate speech towards Hindus. A great NPOV source I'd say. Axxn (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
@Axxn Stop giving ref. of wikipedia on wikipedia itself. The whole article is flawed. Instead read some good books, either by S.N. Srinivisan or by Yogendra Singh. Srinivivasan was the pioneer of the Backward/Dominant caste concept, accepted worldwide. Also, go through the works of Francis Buchanan and Risley, to know what was the exact classification during census. Ikon No-Blast 06:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Again @ Axnn Srnivasan is not Sadasivam. I wonder why wikipedia don't have an article on him , an eminent sociologist. Ikon No-Blast 06:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am done arguing with you. I have stated my facts and is no longer interested in this dispute which is going on for the past 3 years. I am not dumb to misunderstand your motives and so stop trying to teach me history and the so called "Backward/Dominant caste concept". If you want to delete the article, then go ahead and delete it. I hope it will give you some satisfaction. I am not going to waste any more of my time on this. Find some one else to have a fight with. Ciao. Axxn (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

all i can say about this debate is the the Mandal wallahs will never be satisfied.A simple article about people who don't recieve any benefits from the governement of india is being targetted is shameful. Forward class,upper caste,General Category, are all used inter changeably they mean the same thing, people who don't have reservations.wikipedia is about providing information not playing politics.nominating the article twice for deletion and then after being unsuccesful with it now tagetting this article is bad faith and threatening users with R.V.V. is criminal.i agree with Anand Ikon No-Blast's main motive is to destroy this article and all other articles related to the forward castes.I am sick of this Linguisticgeek (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The above user's comment is close to WP:NPA attack and violation of WP:CIVIL. Since, they have failed to put any valid argument on this subject, they should either voluntarily, withdraw from this subject or some admin should impose restriction on them, on their editing privilege on related subjects. Ikon No-Blast 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a solution to this dispute. Some one plz add Ahir to the list of Forward Castes. Then Ikon No-Blast will stop vandalizing this page.122.177.189.180 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

you cannot add them here because they are in OBC list. Ikon No-Blast 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving Ahead

Definition of Dominant Caste as defined by Sociologist Srinivas A caste which weilds predominant Political and social power, whose status in caste hierarchy is not Too Low.[4]. It tells us some conditions for qualifying as Dominant Caste: 1) It should be a lower caste but not too low(as per census record). 2) It should be politically and economically powerful. If the caste is politically and economically powerful and also have higher status in census records then it becomes Forward caste. Given the scope of this article, let us remain at the level of General caste, which includes Dominant caste and Forward caste. Otherwise the article would become subject of intensive research which only highly qualified sociologists can do not the wikipedians. Ikon No-Blast 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You invented these terms and definitions? 122.177.189.180 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No dear, I have attached the reference, Read it with a bit patience. Ikon No-Blast 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Since, it is clear now that this article talks about General Caste, and not about Forward caste, I think it is ready for a namespace move and substittion of general instead of forward throughout the article. Ikon No-Blast 11:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see a consensus for this so I've moved it back and filed a formal move request below. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to forward caste. Ucucha 16:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Forward Class → ? — move to either Forward Caste or General Caste. Please state your choice, with reasons, below. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to GC, as FC is an entirely different thing. If interested someone may create a separate FC article, and perhaps a separte Dominant Caste article too, because all 3 are different concepts, and let us stick to the hardcore definition of the subject as defined by Masters of the subject, rather than creating def., on our own. Ikon No-Blast 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Either move to Forward caste or keep as Forward class. This title is based on the reservations system of India, not the general-dominant caste concoction described above. When searching for "Forward caste"+"Reservations" you'll get 183 gbooks hits and 115 Gscholar hits. For "Forward class"+"Reservations" you get 28 Gscholar bits and 72 on Gbooks. For "General caste"+"reservations" it's 22 Gbooks and 50 Gscholar hits. The term forward caste itself came to be used only after the Kelkar commission and more so after the Mandal commission submissions. Until such time the term "General Caste/Class" was used to define every caste that was not a Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe (as in, it includes what's currently described as Other Backward Classes in addition to what's included at this title). Moving to an anachronistic title is absurd, especially when the definition is not even the same. It should also be noted, that the same person who did the incorrect move, also took this article to AfD twice. I find it hard to assume good faith on that count (given another similar questionable move I had to revert a few weeks back). –SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't comment on the concept itself, which I have demonstrated throughout the page. Instead, I don't say you sd not have a separate FC article. Also, showing google hits to proove your point seems rude to me, which in my different encounters with you I found you to be. Ikon No-Blast 06:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"General Caste/Class" was used to define every caste that was not a Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe (as in, it includes what's currently described as Other Backward Classes in addition to what's included at this title)-- The comment by Spacemanspiff shows, that he knows and agrees that General caste is the proper term for people who don't get reservation. Ikon No-Blast 06:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Ikonoblast, read the full comment and stop your POV pushing. –SpacemanSpiff 06:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Mind WP:NPA, & WP:CIVIL, infact your daily abuse of admin privilage, may get you involved in Arbcom very soon. Ikon No-Blast 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Would love to read more of your fiction. –SpacemanSpiff 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, you are mistaken, because I don't believe in fiction, It is 100% real. Looks like you feel emboldened by voting here. I give my shit to this move voting. I am going to start Dominant Caste, which will expose the myth of this article. Ikon No-Blast 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop personal attacks and use non-vulgar language. Axxn (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to Forward Caste, as it is the most simple and widely used term (according to JSTOR, Google, Google Books & Google Scholar) as well as used by several Government and Educational entities. Other terms like Forward Class (confused with one of the classes in C++) and General Caste (meaning itself is confusing) are having different meanings which will cause confusion in the minds of readers. Axxn (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Please stop bullying and giving of bogus warnings by several users here. Axxn (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify once again, some users above has stated that this article is for people who don't get reservation. Yes, this article does look like one, and this is very sad, that it has become a propaganda piece, which wikipedia is not supposed to be. Also, as Spacemanspiff says Backward caste/dominant caste is concoction. Well, if it is blame it on Sociologists, but you can't bring your OR here. Ikon No-Blast 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It is better for you to note Wikipedia is not Democracy, so don't vote, present some valid arguments. Ikon No-Blast 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If you guys are voting w/o providing any logic. It might be moved to Forward Caste, but definitions would be changed and castes nominated too would change. You guys may just carry on now. Ikon No-Blast 05:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as is or move to "Forward caste": Spaceman Spiff has summarized the situation well. To that I'll only add: "forward caste" is the most common name for the subject of this article, but I think the more careful and authoritative sources on the subject prefer using the terms "forward class" and "backward class" (example, National Commission for Backward Classes), for two reasons: (1) political correctness, and (2) since the categories include non-Hindus - and Islam, Christianity etc, don't "officially" recognize caste system (sociologists can argue over the ground facts in India, but that's besides the point here). My personal preference is for the "class" title, since I think that as an encyclopedia we should reflect the best available sources (and in this case, the GoI sources are most authoritative since the subject of this article is a creation of GoI policies and classification), but I recognize the case for "forward caste" title based on WP:COMMONNAME arguments. Finally, the "general caste" suggestion, while an acceptable alternate name, is unsuitable on both accounts and anachronistic to boot, as explained by Spaceman. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Plz wait for full 7 days, after than the article may be Split. Ikon No-Blast 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes by Abecedare, where he deletes General Caste and emphasises, on Forward caste/upper caste etc., in definition part. Okay we can have an article on GC & FC & also Dominant Caste, because the creation of FC & DC would automatically make it GC (not FC). Retain the word GC till now because that is the most appropriate & adhere to the purity of concepts Ikon No-Blast 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trolling Issue

Axxn, Linguisticgeek, Spaceman], all of you are requested to stop engaging in edit war, rv war, abuses against me, which is Trolling per WP:Troll. Since, none of you have provided any citation for your claim kindly discuss instead of engaging in disruptive activities. Ikon No-Blast 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward Caste

Some of the castes written as forward everywhere are actually not considered Forward, like Nair, Bhumihar etc. They are Dominant castes and it is wrong to call them forward as this ref., calls Bhumihar as Shudra caste, [5]Ikon No-Blast 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian Evangelical propaganda is your primary weapon now? I just browsed through a couple of JSTOR and Scholar articles and all I am seeing is Bhumihar being labelled as a subdivision of Brahmin. If you want, I can provide references of over 400 scholar articles. 115.113.97.137 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please Identify yourself, because you keep on changing IPs, so, I find it futile to argue with you. Numbers doesn't count, I know, even wikipedia article calls them brahmins, but that does not change the facts. Ikon No-Blast 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, these classifications like Fc, Bc, works on real life dynamics. It takes into account what other ppl thinks abt you not what you think of yourself, even if they are wrong. Just have a look at these interactions to get a feel about what ppl, percieve about bhumihars. [6], [7] [8] [9] [10]Ikon No-Blast 15:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
To make things more clear, just look at the case of Ahirs, rather Yaduvanshi Ahirs. Everybody knows what it means to be Yaduvanshi, but look here what this author says [11], that makes them Backward caste.
Now take the case of Rajputs. Historians one after another has shattered the myth of their being Kshtriya, but just have a glance at Talk:Rajput, how many communities are trying to associate themselves with them, because they percieve them to be kshatriya, that makes them Forward Caste.Ikon No-Blast 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Classes and Communities section

Anyone have objections to removing the Classes and Communities section from the article? It is: largely unsourced (despite appearances), and the cited sources often do not support the statements they are appended to; undue list in this article; and original research. I deleted the section a few minutes back but my edit was reverted without explanation by User:Ikonoblast. Comments, or efforts to add references to the section, are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want you may rv back, but the list you deleted is actually has been mentioned throughout the article. Ikon No-Blast 19:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since there are no objections to the deletion of the section itself, I have removed it again. You may be right that any later references to the section content will need to be cleaned up though. Incidentally, the only other change I made was listing the attested alternate names for the article subject in a consistent manner (I listed them alphabetically to avoid silly edit was over the trivial issue of their ordering) - I also removed the refernce to an off-topic paper that didn't really support the claim it was appended to. If you have objections to this part of the edit, we can discuss it here too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

JATS ARE OTHER BACKWARD CASTES IN EVERY STATE EXCEPT IN HARYANA?

JATS ARE OTHER BACKWARD CASTES IN EVERY STATE EXCEPT IN HARYANA WHY THEY ARE MENTIONED AS FORWARD CAST IN THIS SECTION.PLEASE CORRECT IT........? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 09:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 

you are right jats are not forward class,and they claim for obc quota recently in centeral makes them backward all over..so i hv removed them from up,rajasthan,delhi...thnks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkumar900 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

I've tagged the population figures section for accuracy as there are some sources but the content before almost every inline cite has been changed. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you permit, I can re-check all the references and undo the unsourced changes. Or some Admin can do the same. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reddy as a forward caste

I reverted an entry of Reddy as a forward caste not because I have any knowledge as to whether they are or are not but because the cited source was a book principally related to a food issue. The author of a food-related book does not have the expertise to judge caste classification. The original contributor has reverted me with an edit summary that I can only half make sense of.

So, Foodie 377, please explain why. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

==Andhra Pradesh Forward caste list==

SITUSH Any questions/concerns , please talk here.Foodie 377 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The forward caste section of AP was previously wrong. There is no "intermediate caste". Actually the FCs in AP come to a total of 28.7%. Please have a look at this cite page 4( BTW this cite was already existing in this article before I started editing it...)
click on link:
http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/1998.pdf
In case you are wondering there is no Reddy here , thats because Reddy and Kapu were listed together by the British.So infact this article was previously DUPLICATING the numbers by counting Reddys twice once as 6.5% and again under Kapu section 15.2%. you can note the same in Edgar Thurston's book 'Castes and Tribes of Southern India', below is link for that , u can see reddi is listed under kapu section of the book.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=u8vvtDI9kt0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=edgar+thurston+castes+tribes+southern+india&hl=en&ei=B_whTtnuJ8bLrQeP5YDzAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6wEwAA#v=snippet&q=reddi&f=false Foodie 377 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that is original research and synthesis, especially the Thurston bit. Thurston is not even a reliable source for most stuff (nor is James Tod, for that matter). You cannot do original research or synth. Use the Andra Pradesh source, by all means, but if you think that it is wrong then you need a source that specifically lists Reddy as a FC and does so reliably. So, I suggest for now that self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to make you understand, the Andhra Pradesh source that you are approving, that information is taken from the census of 1921 by the British. See source below the table. And you can clearly see that the total percentage of FCs are 29.9. Now furthermore, please to go page 3 of the same source and first sentence of the 3rd paragraph and see what it says - "The Reddys and Kammas, comprising 6.5% and 4.8% of the State’s population respectively, are the
two politically dominant communities"
and also notice how come Reddy is not there in any category of that table. FC, BC , SC, ST etc. Thats because they were counted under Kapus. It is not original research. So there is no reason for reverting. Foodie 377 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the articles that I suggested to you? I really could not care less what your mathematics, local knowledge or whatever tells you. You are not permitted to use such deductions here, period. If the AP source is unreliable then remove it, but do not add other unreliable sources such as that of a writer concerned with food. It is a fact that Wikipedia prefers what is verifiable to what is true. This may be one of those unfortunately instances where it actually happens. That is just the way it is. You cannot over-rule the system just because you feel like it or know it is wrong. If we allowed that then this project would quickly descend into anarchy.- Sitush (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I provided a new reference. It is clearly written there about the Forward castes of Andhra pradesh.Foodie 377 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is Andra Elections a reliable source? Where did they get their info from? Why is the site selling adverts? Why does it look like a blog? If it is reliable, it is still poor. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ ExspressIndia.com Link 01
  2. ^ ExpressIndia.com Link 02
  3. ^ [12]
  4. ^ [13]
  5. ^ [14]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forward_caste/Archive_1&oldid=1142361400"