Talk:Caste/Archive 1

Aryans Caste System

Why is there not any information of the early influences of the Aryans on the caste system? It is the material children are learning in school. Is it the lack of knowledge on the subject by wikipedia account holders or is it just not considered in-signifigant to the standards of learning for the educational purposes of wikipedia? I am just wondering if I overlooked it in the paragraphs. If someone could clear this up for me I would greatly appreciate it.
<***Preceding comment added by User:Nuclear Theory***>

The information is discussed in more detail on Indian Caste System. keep in mind that the Aryan theory is disputed and not fully proven. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes like this ~~~~ Hkelkar 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Caste systems in other countries

This article does not describe caste like systems in Japan where Buraku or Burakumin were are are treated like Indian untouchables under the influence of Buddhism. In Yemen and Mauretania too retain caste like systems.

Nor does it talk about the Northern European caste system found in Heimskringla, including Earls, Churls and Thralls.

Foreigners in India

If an educated foreigner were to relocate and live in India, what caste would they be placed in? Would any ethnic Indians be in this caste, as well? foreigners are traditionally thought of in the past as belonging to the dalit - the classless society

If memory serves, Westerners (particularly English) are held to be Brahmin, Africans are held to be dalits, returning people of Indian descent keep the caste they had in India (hence the need for many Indian men to return to India to find a nice girl of the right caste) - but for the rest, I think Indians either have not put any thought into it or they guess on a case-by-case basis. But yes, I agree that this needs further looking at. mattabat 20060205 17:00 AEDST

Few White caucasians who convert to Hindu religion adopt [Brahmin] surnames like Shastri or Sharma, I am not sure if people would be as accomodating if a person of African descent did it ?:-)))RaveenS 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory refuted

The skeletal and other human remains of the great cities of Mohinjodaro and Harappa(now in Pakistan) which were supposed to be thriving cities more than 5000 years ago(carbon dating evidence) has thrown out conclusive evidence to refute the Aryan invasion theory and that the north Indians of todays India(off springs of so called Aryans) defeated and killed Dravidians(south Indians) three thousand years ago.The genetic analysis of these human remains shows that the type of people who lived in those areas more than five thousand years ago is exactly the same as the type of people you find in North India now.There was infact a good mingling of people with several gene types.The Aryan invasion theory was just a ploy highlighted by the British to create a rift between north Indians and south Indians,just as they did utilizing the already existing divide between Hindus and Muslims,Dalits and higher castes ,so as to ensure that colonists could never be defeated by ensuring that Indians would be busy fighting amongst themselves.Tamil political parties play the Dravidian card to be in power by propogating Hindi/sanskrit hateread and not sparing the so called north Indian Gods like Krishna and Rama,but they fail to understand that most of the names of citiesin Tamilnadu, like Rameshwaram were named after Rama (rather the cities came into existance due to Rama) and the names of the most ardent sanskrit haters like Karunanidhi and Dayanidhi Maran carry sanskrit names,which made Karunanidhi,name his son after Stalin,as he found there could be no Tamil name that is truely Tamil and not resembling sanskrit atall.

U-hu, scientists have proved that higher caste Indians carry European genes. Just look at them and it's obvious. 1337

No, AIT has been refuted as garbage. AMT is being debated, but AIT is a deliberate lie.Shiva's Trident 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Last Names

Would we be able to locate a short example list of last names and their variants that indicate an Indian person belongs to one of the four castes? Much like Chinese family names, I expect. E.G. Chaudry, Choudry, Chopra are all names meaning the person is of the warrior caste. -- Greggae

Research on DNA sequence to reveal more on the origin of case system

Ongoing research and analysis of DNA sequences are to shed more light on the existing theories of caste system. Many group of researchers have shown that there are no serious genetic differences among Indians (caste polulation and tribal population) based on the mtDNA(DNA inheritted from mother) evidences. Which implies that both the tribal population as well as other caste populations have the same ancestors. Recent Y chromosome(DNA inheritted from father) datas are also indicaing similar results (see Am J. Hum. Genet.; Kivisild. et al (2003), S Sengupta et al (2005))

not true - there was a science and nature article (higher impact factor) on mitochondrial dna vs. Y chromosome dna in the past that suggested support for the aryan invasion theory and the establishment of the caste system.

:http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2003/11/06/stories/2003110600050200.htm

This News does not seem to refute the european orgin of the upper castes.

Scientific American - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E27F4-B639-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F&sc=I100322

"The researchers discovered that the maternally inherited DNA more closely resembled that of Asians, although genetic similarities to Europeans were more common in members of the higher ranks. Among the paternally inherited DNA, however, they found an even greater likeness to European DNA. Thus, the scientists suggest that the western Eurasians who arrived in India were mostly men who placed themselves at the top of the social ladder and married only women in the highest castes."

---

Irony of the so called caste system

Its incomprehensible though that incarnations of God(avtars) and some of the best known Bramhins were actually not born as Bramhins.Lord Rama was a warrior King(Kshatriya) but he was and is still worshipped as God by Bramhins.Lord Krishna was a Vaishya(Milkman)but Bramhins worship him as God.The great Sage Valmiki(writer of the Epic Ramayana) is considered as one of the greatest Bramhins in India,but he was born as a Fisherman(Backward class)but he went on to achieve knowledge and became a Bramhin and so was Vyasa,the writer of the great epic Mahabharata,who is considered as the most knowledgeable Bramhin,but was a son of a fisherwoman.The system in India clearly allowed for people from all classes to become Bramhins if they achieved knowledge.Both Rama and Krishna who Indians worship as God were not Bramhins.The cast system was nothing but a denotation of the job that you did.Sadly,people from the priviledged groups/castes continued to cling on to their priviledged spots/jobs and did not let the lower classes to switch the nature of their jobs(mainly shudras).The entire system was corrupted at the hands of the top three classes,the vaishyas being the richest,the kshatriyas being the most powerful and the Bramhins the most knowledgeable and none of the above three groups let shudras into their fould,let along marrying them.This let the shudras in utter poverty and misery.The inhuman treatment they received has only a few parallels.India is a young nation,as an independent democracy.It should be understood well that whites in USA discriminated the Blacks in an even worser way and this discrimination continued for a little less than two hundred years after USA became an independent nation.Hence expecting that all all vices in India would be eradicated within six decades of its creation would be ludicrous.Much work needs to be done just like in USA where there is no discrimination officially,but blacks are left far behind in development and one can seldom find whites and blacks marrying each other in large numbers.Hence discrimination is practiced,but it can be called as moderated discrimination.The condition of Native Americans still remains utterly miserable.Britain took a while to eradicate its class system as well.Hence one can hope that India can overcome its vices before long.

Implications of the so called affirmative action in India.

Sadly the successive governments in India failed to create an economy where the demand for the work force would be so large that private enterprises would have been forced to employ people from all castes.The private sector grew in India not due to government policies but despite government policies.The need for employment and education for the Dalits has been felt by every section of the society .Rather than focussing on good education and economic policies which would give scholarships to poor Dalits and create a platform for them where they can compete with their counter parts from the higher castes,the government confortably enforced reservation policies for Dalits in education and employment in the public sector and talks are on for enforcing the same in private sector.This is the most comfortable way for a non functional government to claim how much they have done for Dalits and garner political support,rather than creating an economy where employing Dalits no more remains a matter of choice but a matter of necessicity.Such policies which reserve fifty percent seats in all professional schools and work places has created animocity amongst castes as meritorious students from higher castes are denied admission and jobs because they belong to higher castes.This reverse discrimination creats a new crop of people with ill will and is the correct recepie to let history repeat.There have been incidences where students from lower castes have been admitted to medical schools with a grade just above the minimal passing grade to fill up the fifty percent vacancies reserved for them.This is creating a false sense of confidence amongst lower castes who increasingly believe that education and jobs could be achieved without effort and that reservation with which they managed to get into medical and professional schools and jobs in spite of poorer grades is not their right but just a crutch. Government should rather concentrate on creating a great economy that has to induct lower castes and educate them by offering a level playing field with regards to educational resources and scholarships,if not the quality of Indian professionals like Doctors will surely continue to decline as they were not admitted into graduate schools for their merit and high scores but for their castes.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caste"

I have moved the following from the article to the talk section, because it needs a lot of work before it belongs in an encyclopedia article:

In humans, the cast system in India was initially based on the nature of work people did. There were four main castes. Bramhins were the knowledge-workers, Kshatriyas were the warriors, Waishyas were the traders, and Shoodras were the labourers. In very old times, caste was decided by work, but later on the system disintegrated into one where caste was decided by birth. Although no longer strictly enforced in modern India, the caste system retains some degrees of social impact in various regions.

There is a LOT of discussion among anthropologists and historians as to the origins of the caste system -- debates ranging from its origins in early Indian history to its largely being a construction of British colonial rule. "In very old times" is such a vague and meaningless statement that it seems almost to parody an encyclopedia article. I am not sure that the caste system in India was originally determined by work and only later determined by birth; Dumont identifies three defining features of a caste system: hierarchy, division of labor, and social segregation. One could argue that until all three features are in place, one does not have a caste system.

The article defines Indian castes in terms of occupations (knowledge-workers, warriors, traders) and then says that "In very old times, caste was decided by work" -- so what work one did was determined by what work one did? This sounds circular. My understanding is that what makes the caste system the caste system is that what work one does is determined by one's birth.

To say that the system "disintegrated" smacks of non-NPOV.

In any event, the article needs to distinguish between "caste system" as a kind of social system, versus Hindu India as a particular example of a caste system. It must also provide a more precise historical account, as well as account for current scholarly debates.

By the way, in English, at least, the spelling is "caste," not "cast;" also "Vaishya" (ot Waishya) and "Shudra" (not Shoodra). Also, I think it should read "Among humans" or "In human society," not "In humans."

Oh, yes -- "caste" comes from the Portuguese word for "chaste" which suggests that group caste endogamy and social segregation are more essential characteristics of caste systmes than a division of labor. Indeed, among humans almost every agricultural or industrial society, and all state-level societies, are characterized by complex divisions of labor (see the eponymous book by Durkheim); the "caste system" refers to something far more specific. -- SR

Portuguese casta=lineage or race, casto=chaste, and both are of the same origin. But the first is a much more likely source for the modern English word. Imc 21:29, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

"Much of what we know of the caste system in India was documented and codified during the period of British occupation and rule (e.g. Herbert Risley's The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, published in 1892). "

Is this quote above from the article just confused, or is it a bit Eurocentric? Did no one know anything about it before this time, or record anything recently? Imc 21:22, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agrees. It appears to be the result of unconscious Euro-centrism. I modified the paragraph slightly. Still not sure, if it is factually right to claim that caste system was "unknown" before the British rule.

==

Caste

Hi Rajesh,

Could you please specify in the talk page of the article, the specific points of dispute ? Correct me if I am wrong, but I see one version of the argument there, but nothing to counter that for a NPOV/disputed message on the main page. Many Thanks Chancemill 09:03, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure, why couldn't you find the POV in that article. There are lots of... Say for example [1] --Rrjanbiah 09:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I see a lot of information there, some of which I know are true, some of which true but may not be verifiable, and some not true. If you find anything objectionable, please go ahead and edit the article (you can do it better by quoting relevant sources, for counter arguments) - putting a disputed message on top seems to me a bit premature at this stage. Chancemill 09:38, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

I do not want to edit the article 'coz many people (IIRC you too) were keep on tilting the article in favor of Brahmin and Hindu point of advocacies. It may be premature, but it is totally a POV. Perhaps could add it is the point of view of few Wikipedians alone? --Rrjanbiah 09:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to discuss the specific points, I am afraid the disputed message cannot stand. Thanks Chancemill 09:53, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually much of the history of caste system cannot be traced though it remains one of the most important things that need to be talked about as far as Indian history is concerned. Actually, to say that caste is based on occupation is not entirely correct. Also, it is not the degeneration of the original four varna system. Caste is the carrying over of tribal ways of society organization into the modern period. Added to this was the varna system which was superimposed on the existing social organisation. Moreover, regarding the part played by islamic and british rule on the system, my opinion is that they resulted in the hardening of the system, though no one can say that they created them. British with their imperfect knowledge of the existing system and its flexibility, unfortunately imposed the status quo on the existing system. As a result, a system which was flexible became very rigid.

Caste system acts like a buffer as far as the society is concerned, helping new entrants to get easily used to the system. For example, rajputs started as several clans outside the pale of the society but were effectively absorbed into the society without any friction. Caste plays the role of an intermediate form of social organisation not opening up the individual directly to the topmost authority of the land.

This can't be right

Most of the links to articles on specific caste groups are erroneous. Some go to articles on persons, some on moslem groups like shia, some are even worse.

Rudolf 1922 22:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please lend a hand w better links, if you can :) Sam [Spade] 22:20, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. There is no caste based on religion; all religion have all castes. In some religion esp Islam, some people immediately drops their Hindu caste after conversion. My friend who is Jacobite says it is a denomination (he belongs to another caste). There are also Christian brahmins and etc. I didn't fix it as I had a conflict with the whole content sometimes ago. --Rrjanbiah 04:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following two sub-sections, as I consider them outright silly, as others have noted above. In addition I still have the feeling that the article needs a lot of work but don't know enough of it to do it myself. -- Pjacobi 17:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Christian Castes

• Born again
• Catholic
• CMS
• CSI
• Evangelical
• Jacobite
• Marthoma
• Nadar
• Protestant
• Syrian

The above (mostly) seem to be sects among Christians, rather than casts. But there is a caste structure among Christians in India, and I know for sure that this is true at least among Catholics of Goa. It is parallel to the Hindu caste system (Catholics were almost all converts from Hinduism, in Goa ... across the caste divide) but there are some differences. Among the Catholics of Goa, the caste divisions include Brahmin, Chardo (considered to be the equivalent of Kshatriya), Sudir (or Sudra) and Christian Mhar/Chambar (traditional weaver/cobbler), etc. Dr K S Singh's series on the 'People of India' also has an entire volume devoted to castes of Goa, including among Catholics. --fredericknoronha 00:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Castes

• Bengali
• Dawoodi Bohra
• Ehle-Hadith
• Memon
• Rajput
• Shi'a
• Ismaili
• Sunni

Quick Changes

I changed the subheading of 'Indian Caste' to 'Hindu Caste' perhaps an even better change would be 'Hindu Cast in India'. India has sizable populations of non-hindus, and it is not factually to paint this as an 'indian' caste but as a Hindu one. --ShaunMacPherson 15:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--- The above statement is not factual and should be changed back to Indian Caste. The caste system is very much an Human thing rather than Hindu. For example the eters caste in Japan.

Quick Edits

Added the following :

In certain states the caste-based affirmative action has been carried too far creating a situation where the Brahmins are now the oppressed caste!

Reference :

Dalits In Reverse : outlook India http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050411&fname=Brahmins+%28F%29&sid=1 [07 April 2005]

deleted text

There are numerous societies, however, in which immutable caste is combined with a very high degree of social mobility. Furthermore, the concept of caste cannot be limited to societies in which caste is legislated, such as the southern states of the United States until 1965, since the caste distinction separating Negroes (now called African Americans) from all other United States residents is no less forceful now in the lives of the members of this caste than in the past. Other examples of caste combined with social mobility: traditional Igbo society in Nigeria; Twareg society at present; Japan. Although frequently caste is associated with occupation, especially when first instituted, caste identification and enforcement has often survived the complexities of modern economies.

In course of time the difference of vocation, and the greater or less exposure to the scorching influence of the tropical sky, added, no doubt, to a certain. admixture of shudra blood, especially in the case of the common people, seem to have produced also in the Aryan population, different shades of complexion, which greatly favored a tendency to rigid class-restrictions originally awakened and continually fed by the lot of the servile race.

The word occurs in the Veda in the latter sense, but it is used there to mark the distinction, not between the three classes of the Aryan community, but between them on the one hand and a dark-colored hostile people on the other. The latter, called Dgsas or Dasyus, consisted, no doubt, of the indigenous tribes, with whom the Aryans had to carry on a continual struggle for the possession of the land.

(The state of Tamil Nadu reserves 69% of its college admission seats instead of 50% as mandated by the Central Government)

The above is a variety of deleted text from thruout the article. All of it was deleted due to being POV, but is likely still factually accurate. Please have a look and see if you can reword it and find a place for it here or elsewhere. Thanks,

Sam Spade 12:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate page?

The current page is organised horribly. I suggest that the Indian caste sytem should be put onto a separate page as that would make this page much easier to read. --Lesouris 04:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Totally mixed-up page

This page is mixed up. The problem it starts with a word "Caste" which is a Eurocentric view of the world, and used to map MOSTLY Indian social situation. If we are going to discuss the Indian social system, let's use indigenous terms only (translations do no merit). So, let us use - varna, jaati, brahmin, kshatriya, etc.

In that context - we can add details about origins, transitions, current situation, etc. It is totally inappropriate to use the unenlightened use of a Euro-label as a Wikipedia entry point for Indian "varna-ashram-vyavastha".

As someone mentioned, all societies have division of labors and various rights and privileges. These are modern-day castes, with university education deciding what caste the person enters into. While not by birth, they correate directly to standard of living and rights and privileges.

Furthermore, this page does not take into account two parallel modern phenomena: 1) Intermarriages and modern/urban changes in India 2) Global professions as "castes" due to extended education leading to limited mobility, lock-in (good & bad) and steep loss of livelihood in certain cases (e.g. well paid professional --> grocery clerk)

Radical demerger

I moved some text to Indian caste system, List of Indian castes and wiktionary. Some text from the old version has been lost, notably material to do with religious and perhaps economic/functional aspects, which should be integrated into Indian caste system by someone more familiar with those aspects. I just wanted to make a start on un-mixing the topic.Rd232 18:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of advantages of the Indian caste system (Varnashram)

Although most of the material on caste system focusses on its demerits, there are a few advantages to it:

1. It gives structure to society making administration easier.
2. It ensures availability of human resources to meet the demands of each varna's duties.
3. It ensures that people of each varna execute their duties efficiently.

The varnashram in India was invented at a time when people were more spiritual and righteous and as such stipulations to prevent misuse were not in place. With time although the caste system was not changed, people became more and more corrupt resulting in gross misuse. This point has to be noted because I feel it is best to condemn misusers of the system rather than the system itself or Hinduism for having such a system. Rohitbd 15:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jati, kulam and/or varna

"The word "caste" is used to translate the Sanskrit word "jati". It should not be misidentified with the sanskrit "varna" which designates class" seems a bit simplistic. I'm reading a text by Béteille where it says the use of the english word "caste" to designate both jati and varna is pretty unproblematic, and also common among english speaking indians. - chris

Sri Lankan caste system

I have added this section 220.247.240.241 16:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

African Caste

I have mentioned the caste system in Rwanda, Burundi and eastern Congo. There are obviously other similar systems in the rest of Africa. 220.247.240.241 16:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The possible classification of the massacres in Rwanda and Burundi as 'Caste Warfare' rather than 'ethnic warfare' has been removed, this viewpoint being identified as one of 'proponents of caste' by the editor (65.78.17.138). I have removed this reference, as it is POV. The editor's other contributions indicate a casteist position.220.247.229.123 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Readded

I have readded the religious theory about the caste system. It is exceedingly important for it to remain here because it tell us about the origin of the caste system. Kindly do to revert it back, otherwise the whole article will appear foolish. Further, the Vedic arguments are apt for this article, and not for the Veda article. Cygnus_hansa 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

Caste-based politics have strong roots in many Indian states, as most politicians have an inability or unwillingness to discuss economic and social issues in any rational manner.

If that isn't POV, then Germany was neutral in WWII. I'm not really in a mood to delve into this already disputed article, nor do I know enough to really touch it anyway, but this could use a good cleaning with at least some minor attempts at NPOV... FireWorks 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Quota POV

I removed the following paragraph which was formerly the third in the "Modern Perceptions of Caste" section. It's thoroughly anti-reservation POV which elaborates on the anti-reservation arguments already included in the second paragraph.

Proponents of Affirmative Action or Reservations usually point to the centuries old system of social and economic reservation, despite the fact that India was under foreign Christian and Islamic rule for centuries and all Hindu castes were oppressed. Opponents of Affirmative Action tend to say that one needs to look to the future, not the past, if society is to prosper. The quota system in India resulted in further balkanization and stratification of the Hindu society by law, unlike during the Muslim rule (Mughal Dynasty or Nizam Dynasty) or British Raj, when there was discrimination against all Hindus. In the US, there was state mandated segregation imposed by courts of law, which necessitated Affirmative Action. Unlike Affirmative Action in the US, Reservations in India have no uniform basis. It is not difficult to see that Affirmative Action or Reservations or Quotas may be impossible beyond a certain point - society may not generate sufficient wealth to maintain such a social mechanism.

Touchstone 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

HOW to abolish castes ?

To make a beginning we have to start somewhere. Let me start it thisway: Most schools in India while trying to admit a child to the school require an applicatiom form to be filled by the parents or Guardian. This form will have a column for caste and another for religion without exception. Now, how to get rid of this is something to be thought of carefuly and implemented with ofcourse, Government's help. If we can succeed in this we can proceed from here on. NANDA 59.92.134.54 11:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Caste is a form of collusion to divide and rule in India and can be abolished when 85% of the marriages are inter-caste and inter-religious.Known 08:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should we get rid of a mention of caste. Americans mention race. Muslims mention whether you are descended from Mohamed or not.Netaji 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Separation of State and Religion

India is Democratic and Republic country. Prime Minister of India and Constitutional Head The President of India greet yearly more than 20 times on various religious days such as Holi, Dassera, Deepawali, Ide, Moharam, Buddha Jayanti, Mahaveer Jayanti and Narvan Days. Indian Parliament has enacted many laws on religion and even help the Muslims for Hajj aainst the principle of Koran. Kumbh Mellas are orgainsed with the help of Indian Government. There are separate laws for marriage for Hindus, Mushlims, etc., and no uniformity. The Constitutuion of India clearly say about scientific thinking and in actual practice the President offers Official Prayers such Ajmer Chaddar and Amritsar Visit. I request the reader of this talk to press the Government of India to separate the state and religion. vkvora2001@yahoo.co.in vkvora 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

delete purity section

I propose deleting that section as it has too much detail, personal opinions and is unsourced. Unless I hear objections I will do so shortly.--Pranathi 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

please do so; it also seems to be plagiarized, and sloppily so yEvb0 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment

WARNING! Propaganda websites aimed against Brahmin caste

Removed the above comment. Reason: Caste system is akin to racism. Brahmins should not be offended by these sites, they should rather see them as information that people that oppose caste-ism would offer readers. Ofcourse any type of information related to caste is bound to offend one or the other. The warning is not necessary. Readers are wiser to figure out whats offensive and whats not. Thx

Very difficult to do while Brahmins are being ethnically cleansed by the lower castes from Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, by muslims in Kashmir etc, don;t you think?Netaji 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing this page

Too much and too complicated, need to simplify article with content moved to appropriate section. Most of should be merged with Indian caste system. RaveenS 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix the page

I agree with RaveenS. This article should only contain high level representation of caste. Country-specific caste system should be in seperate articles. I recommend that we delete content related to Indian Caste System in this page. The para under Indian caste system in the article seems to misrepresent the status of forward castes and backward castes. But in my opinion this is something that needs to be dealt with in the Indian Caste System article. Let's keep this article clear and concise. If no one has issues I will update the page after a week--- C9

Cover up operation

This whole article has been Vandalised by High caste hindus with an objective to cover up their misdeeds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeditor (talk • contribs) .

This page is getting repeatedly changed by Bhramins( upper castes) who have an ulterior motive in covering up the opression of lower castes. I have reversed the anti quota POV and pro Bhramin POV from modern developments--Yeditor 05:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC

For an Authentic account of India's untouchables refer National Geographic article--Yeditor 05:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

subhash bose

is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He is goes around with a variety of names and vandalises pages related to dalits and caste and fills them up with Hindu propoganda material. I am reversing all his edits--Yeditor 11:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do so and I"ll report you for vandalism. You already have a bad history on wikipedia (see Yeditor's talk page) and have been repeatedly warned for vandalizing other articles. I am watching you.Netaji 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Casta in Latin America

There should be some kind of subarticle on the casta concept and paintings from the era of Spanish and Portuguese control of Latin America. This is a well-known area of Latin American art and there are whole books on the topic. The paintings seem to have been an attempt at a racial version of a biological taxonomy, purporting to show what different racial combinations looked like and assigning each a name.

I am adding this issue to the Talk pages of three different related articles in hopes of prodding someone more knowledgeable to give this article a shot. I personally know only a little, having been introduced to the subject by a web site I've long since misplaced and an art exhibition here in Dallas (probably at the Meadows Museum of Art, which specializes in Latin-American art).Lawikitejana 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dalits attacking temples

Regarding the most recent edit, Holywarrior removed it on questionable grounds. I reworded it. The original edit said that the Dalits were "incited by missionaries" to attack temples. While this is almost certainly true IMHO, the source does not say so. Thus, I removed that part. However, the source does mention the attack and the onset of violence in certain circles of the Dalit movement and so needs mentioning.Shiva's Trident 12:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again. And more has to be removed. This is just a compilation of anecdotical evidence, backed up by newspapers as reference and websites of obscure standings. Please review WP:NOR and other core policies applying here. In an article of central importance like this here, and in an area which is well research, an encyclopedia article article has to rely on secondary sources of first layer quality, especially scholarly research. Not on your own interpretation of newspaper reports and what you've found on the web. --Pjacobi 12:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu is not a website of obscure standing. It is a highly notable newspaper. I think you are under a misconception. The section "modern developments" do not have a lot of scholarly research but mostly newspaper articles. Not original research on my part. I have taken statements from teh article and reworded them to avoid copyvios.Shiva's Trident 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that section "modern developments" do not have a lot of scholarly research but mostly newspaper articles is exactly the problem. This is not the stuff that makes a good encyclopedia. I've counted "The Hindu" as newspaper, obscure website refers to "http://www.dalitstan.org", of which it is highly unclear how representative it is. And the link is broken BTW. But even the very best news sources, whether "The Hindu" or "BBC", only report single incidents. If you synthesize a general trend out of these, it is original research. If you avoid clear statements, by "some say" clauses, it is "weasel words". Neither helps in writing a good article. --Pjacobi 13:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Link may be shifted to External link section for the time being.The article needs massive clean up.Such insertion does not help building article.HW 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree. In fact, I support getting rid of the whole section, or merging it with the other article. However, as long as the section is there, it must be accurate. As far as claims of OR are concerned, the whole SECTION has bits and peices of OR, not only (allegedly) part of MY edits (all that stuff about upper castes gaming the system etc is also OR), I just made it neutral, that's all. Perhaps we should put an OR tag there and see if we can reach a consensus about getting rid of the section altogether. What say?Shiva's Trident 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In a way, it's huge problem here with all articles on Indian caste system (IMHO, as I without domain knowledge follow from formal reasons and total unreadability of the affected articles) which has to be adressed by a coalition of volunteers knowledgeable in the domain and willing to adhere to Wikipedia policy. I was already trying to get attention at Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Indian_caste_system but so far without response.

But now speaking about the concrete section under discussion, I have to say that the restored version simply doesn't address the severe problems mentioned. I've done a 80% revert but with letting the dalitstan.org sentence stay, clarifying that this is considered extremism.

Deleting the entire section would be a sound alternative.

Pjacobi 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted again. The version was really bad:

• Putting "one incident" into on overview article is totally misguieded.
• Conntecting statements from dalitstan.org to "Dalits frequently..." is the same as taking statement from Brigate Rosse and citing them as "Italian workers frequently...".

Pjacobi 08:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu

The assertion that Dalitstan is anti-Hindu is pretty dubious. It for sure is anti-Brahmin and anti-Casteist, but I don't think it's anti-Hindu. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dalitstan is down right now, but it was definitely an anti-Hindu site. I read it a couple of times and they made caricatures accusing Hindus (not just Brahmins) of various fake crimes like "drinking blood" and "conspiring with Jews to take over the world". They said "Hindu and Hindutva are the same", itself a blatantly anti-Hindu accusation.Shiva's Trident 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Hindu" is a very wide term and in the way it is being used here is only a conversation stopper.One should accept the "Anti-Hindu" bias as long as it is verifiable from reliable sources and not any individual author on Wikipedia.TerryJ-Ho 01:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Hindutva","fascist","RSS agent", "revisionist" and other words are also conversation stoppers.One should accept the "Hindutva" bias as long as it is verifiable from reliable sources and not any individual author on Wikipedia. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we are to go down that slippery slope, websites that do cite verifiable sources in their articles like Jihadwatch.org and dhimmiwatch.org should be allowed :).Shiva's Trident 09:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, what about anti-Semitic sites like www.jewwatch.org? They cite "reliable sources" too? Hmmmmm???Shiva's Trident 09:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then cite your sources! :) Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Caste system and surnames

Is there a list classifying Hindu names into their different castes? Especially into the 4 majour castes. Politis 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading MAterial

tam brahmanamaham manye vritten hi bhavet dvijah Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Doesn't labeling people by castes breed ASPD? Known 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any facts to show such a relation?--Utinomen (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A caste is actually a system of social groups based on birth. 24.7.47.195 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Michael, Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.47.195 (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Caste Requires Legal Sanction

Unless I the law recognizes and enforces social boundaries based on birth into a defined social class, there is no caste system. Caste practices may exist, but if they can't be enforced, the social boundaries they rely on can't hold. This doesn't mean that there aren't effects of caste practices that survive, or that classes based on one's momentary position in a given economy don't exist. Caste refers to the specific case where one's social class is fixed simply by classification, and that can only survive by enforcement. If not enforced, it's meaningless. Tmangray 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. look up a dictionary. By your definition this entire article is to be deleted because none of the countries mentioned legally sanction casteism.Rumpelstiltskin223 19:59, 1 January

2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rumpelstiltskin223. Tmangray, you are so wrong. India most certainly has government reservations on the basis of caste, but the law--the constitution--claims that caste is illegal. So do we have a caste system or do we not? Caste is a social system, not a legal system. The offenders are not the law makers, they are the people themselves. --Supriya (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The definitions are out of date. They are holdovers from the time when those caste systems were in fact enforced by law, and when the state and religion were, by law, intertwined. However, I will allow that "legal enforcement" includes instances where the law does not provide for effect challenge of surviving caste practices. But realistically, unless a caste practice can be affirmatively enforced, how can it be maintained over time? In the past when the law actually assigned classifications, rights and privileges were accorded based on that classification. Such things are increasingly unusual, and more often than not are employed as legal remedies AGAINST the effects of past practices. Tmangray 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide Reliable Sources to back up your first statement, otherwise it is not wikipedia policy. What "you will allow" is a violation of WP:OWN. "Realistically", most countries with caste systems have only abolished them legally recently (ie sometime in the 20th century). Casteism going on in Japan, India/Pakistan, Korea etc is social inertia against modern law. In India, for instance, there were many kingdoms and Empires that abolished caste by law (Mughals, Marathas etc) but the practice remained thanks to the social inertia from the period when they WERE legally enforced (Zawabi under Delhi Sultanate etc.). Therefore, legal sanction is clearly not suitable as the SOLE criteria to define Casteism. We have to say legal and/or social. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Restricted to "Clans", "Gens"

Caste systems are not confined solely to tribal systems. Latin America's caste system, for example, had nothing at all to do with clans or gens, simply race. Japan also did not use tribal criteria. Tmangray 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not much difference between race and tribe. Race is an artificial construct invented by 19th century Europeans to sugarcoat their ideas of tribalism.Rumpelstiltskin223 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between race and village. Race was created to refer to supposed subspecies distinctions within the human species, yes, with an eye to distinguishing Europeans from all others. On the other hand, tribalism is real and starkly distinct from subsequent forms of society. Tribal societies are entirely based on extended family affiliations whereas non-tribal societies are not. Tmangray 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your WP:POINT? Rumpelstiltskin223 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just stated it. Race and tribe are distinct terms and concepts. Tmangray 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Latin America

There is no system of castes in Latin America any longer. The degree of racial mixture and the absence of official classifications makes the idea meaningless today. No one has a birth certificate any longer which specifies their race or caste. There persists racism based on one's appearance (which because of racial mixture is almost always deceiving) and economic status, and practices that echo the old caste system, but these are a far cry from a full blown caste system as once existed. In the old system, there's no way a person who was a Moslem, for example, could be the wealthiest person in Mexico such is the case today. The president of Venezuela is triracial today. Even the despots over the years have included people who would have been officially classified as undercaste before the various revolutions. Tmangray 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, there is no system of castes in India any longer either. The degree of inter-caste mixture and absence of "official classification makes the idea meaningless today. No one has a birth certificate in India that specifies their race or caste. There persists casteism based on the person's last name and votebank politics and economic status, and practices that echo the old caste system, but htere are a far cry from the full blown caste system that once existed when Dalits' shadow would not be allowed upon an upper caste-ite. In the old system, there is no way by which an untouchable could ever have been the President of India, as was the case prior to India's present one. There are several Dalits in academia, industry, politics etc.Even despots like Narendra Modi are from very low castes. So, what's your point again? Rumpelstiltskin223 21:20, 1 January

2007 (UTC)

Latin America also includes Brazil, that had an diferent social system then that of Hispanic America.The title of this section is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.119.25 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there is no caste system anymore in India, by your description. You may be right. There may be caste practices, but unless they are SYSTEMATIC, that is, fundamental and dominating social interactions in a regular way, it would be incorrect to call it a SYSTEM of castes. You can't call black white. How would you define the distinction between a class and a caste? The critical distinction is that one is immutable, based on birth and the other not. Tmangray 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my argument entirely. I was applying your argument to India to show how fallacious it is. Just because there is no caste system mandated by law does not mean there isn't a social system of stratification based on historical beliefs in differences. The extent may have reduced because of the absense of state sanction, but the inertia still keeps it in the society. Many sociologists believe that caste and class are not as distinct as you say. For instance, the US library of Congress makes no distinction between caste and class.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Latin America, physical appearance (phenotype) and economic status are the common form of discrimination, not birth or legal classification. That is not caste. In the same immediate family, one sibling can be dark, another light, and another intermediate. They will be treated differently by some people who pay attention to that. Mostly these days, the trump card isn't even this, but socioeconomic status, mere class. Saying there is a caste system today confounds understanding of what the actual, historic caste system was like, and also confounds understanding the class society that exists there today. Tmangray 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:No Original Research. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all I would like to note that there was no caste system in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu before Europeans came. When the Europeons came, they used their ignorant ideology and divided the once peaceful Tutsi and Hutu. So in a sense, the caste system in Rwanda was started by Europeans not Tutsi. Besides, the Rwandan Genocide was classified in this article as an uprising of undercaste Hutu against overlord Tutsis, and that is absolutely ridiculus. The people causing the genocide were the French-armed Hutu extremists who wanted to kill every innocent Tutsi and moderate Hutu. Besides at the time of the Rwandan Genocide the Tutsis were not "overlords"! Who wrote this?.

Even if Europeans are partly at fault for the Rwandan "caste system," Hutus and Tutsis have to shoulder most of the blame. THEY are the ones who discriminated each other, which led to the genocide. Europeans didn't make them do that. Chiss Boy 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a Caste System in Pakistan?

The entry on a Caste system in Pakistan is at the very least partly inaccurate. I am from Pakistan and while there are serious sectarian conflicts between different religious sects (e.g., Shia, Sunni, etc...) and problems between majority and minority tribal groups, these problems have a different root than the Caste system. I have tried to edit this entry three times now but someone keeps reverting it back to the original - incorrect - version with zero discussion. I hope through discussion this entry can be changed to something that represents the true situation in Pakistan.

My problems with the stated definition of caste issues in Pakistan are as follows: jobs are not prescribed or forbidden to different tribal/religious groups; although obviously poorer people tend to have more menial jobs. Intermarriage may occur within tribal groups but this is not the same thing as a caste system. It is rather that minority groups tending to marry within the same group - this happens anywhere in the world - including Scotland, where I currently live.

I have the following problems with the entry on Pakistan:

1. Calling Ahmadiyya, Mohajirs (NOT Mojahirs) and Punjabis, etc... different castes is wrong. They are either from different provinces in the country (analogous to the different nations in the UK) or from different religious sects. This is equivalent to describing e.g., Catholics, Protestants, Scottish and the Welsh in the UK as being different Castes.

2. Furthermore, Mukhtaran Mai is not from a low caste - she is from the Gujar tribe, a poor tribe - the men who attacked her were the village elders who came from a wealthier tribe known as the Mastoi. Mukhtar herself is a schoolteacher - not a "low" job by any description.

3. The discussion of the Hudood ordinance here is totally irrelevant as it is a legal issue and nothing to do with any Caste system at all.

I hope this is reasonable and does not offend any one while still generating reasoned and logical debate.

Thanks, Sraisa 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Caste System

It seems that some Indian Wikipedians have to own up to the fact that there is (at least partially) a racist aspect to their caste system. Whether or not this racism existed before British rule, this racism does still exist today, and should be mentioned. Chiss Boy 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the "racist" aspect of the Hindu (not Indian) caste system? Each ethnic group has their own caste system and each ethnic group is essentially the same racially... so if a person of one caste discriminates against a person of another caste, they'd be discriminating against someone of their ethnicity/race. I think the word you're looking for discriminatory or bigoted and that only happens if a person thinks their caste is better than another like someone of an educated caste or a warrior caste looking down on someone of a manual labor or agricultural caste. [Special:Contributions/172.129.38.235|172.129.38.235]] (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Ayan

Hinduism tried to remove casteism. But failed in its attempt and still it coexist with hinduism other religions including islam, christianity in Indian subcontinent? When Ramayana and Mahabaratha states that the division on the basis of caste and discrimination is not acceptable to god, how it survived till date at least even in hinduism. Why did lord Ram visit Shabari and ate the food she gave if the philosophy of hinduism is in support of casteism. Was casteism in ancient time meant status as Karna was made a king by Dhuryodhana to help him to attain the status of a king to fight with another king. Why is birth in a particular community does not guarantee the caste, as happened with Karan and why is Mahabaratha highlighting such an incident, is it to state that casteism must not be a criteria based on birth? Why is that nowhere in the two epics the issue of untouchability never higlighted. Was it non-existant at that time. And why is that certain issues suggest even the non-existant of untouchability. 59.92.198.93 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the two epics here. Ram also murdered Shudrak, a "shudra" man for the "crime" of doing meditation with the aim of attaining Brahminhood (the guy was apparently unarmed and not a fighter by any means). And although Karna was made a king by Duryodhana, Draupadi denied him right to compete in her "swayambar" because of being a "sutaputra" (son of a charioteer). I believe a first hand reading of the two epics will help answer the questions above. Srays (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this rather prejudiced? "However, one significant blow to inherited social status in India came about with the abolition of royalty when India gained its independence from the British Empire. Ironically, India is in this regard ahead of several democratic European countries that still have kings, queens, princes, princesses, including its former colonial master Britain.24.197.174.13 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I found that some one vandalized the section "Caste in Europe" by adding incorrect information about India, so I had deleted it. For information about Caste in India, please scroll down to the appropriate section which is very elaborate and fair.--vaidix (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer Chiss and others who are puzzled by India's caste system here is the scoop:

The way Indians think, a society is what people want it to be. People like to affiliate with others who are similar to them (birds of same feather flock together) as well as emulate the best in others and avoid the worst in others. Sure, there is a dark side to what people can do to others. But the way Indian system works, several groups of immigrants or locals who have similar origins live together for comfort, job security, productivity and peaceful coexistence in daily life without confusion. Each group also borrows the best features from other groups as time goes. In the end, all groups end up sharing a common culture and religion. In addition, each group takes control of one market for a product or service, and enjoys monopoly in that product or service. Britishers could not break this system as they could not sell their wares and got grustrated, so they started blaming all of Indian society's problems on caste system. Really speaking the problems of Indian society are due to 1400 years of anarchy since Islamic invasions and 300 years of colonialism. The old time kings used to "resolve" problems between the groups whereas the colonials and the new Indian politicians "exploit" the groups and accentuate the problems. To do a thought experiment, I believe Europe would be a more harmonious place without enmities and balkanization if Europe adopted Indian style caste system in which Italians became food suppliers, Swiss became bankers, British did administration, Germans took care of military and so on (seriously .. no jokes).

As for the question raised by Chiss whether caste system is racism: First of all the term racism itself got an undue negative connotation because the concept of "race" was abused by Hitler and others. As some one wrote under Caste in Europe section, the term Pillarisation is a neutral term which simply denotes various categories of people living together in a society but dealing among themselves within each pillar and not between pillars. If the attribute chosen for pillarization is a combination of apparent skin color and features and it can be called "racism". Therefore racism, when used simply for the purpose of pillarisation, is harmless, and can be called "good racism". But when one pillar destroys other, it is bad racism. Similarly the term "caste" had got a negative connotation in India, quite appropriately, because in the recent history of 200 years the pillars of Indian social system were ruthlessly competing with each other to gain favors from British and later Indian governments or to just vanquish other pillars. If the social problems are resolved the Indian caste system would not only be a harmless entity but actually help progress of the society as it had in the paste when India attained 22.6% of world's GDP in 1700CE.

--vaidix (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Vaidix. I am a viashya (I believe). Anyway definitely not from the upper caste. But I fully support the caste system as a means of division of labor. Large coporations do this because it is plain practical. Civil engineers, Mechanical engineers, electrical engineers all work on a project and collectively bring up a project. A civil engineer do not discriminate against an electrical engineer. They hope to get the information they do not know from the subject matter experts (namely the other field of engineers). My family is very close to a brahmin family. I am amazed at how all members of that family can master the chanting of the vedas. I am sure I cannot do it. It must have been inherited. I am actually very appreciative that a family like this lives in my town. At least someone is chanting the vast vedas. Whereas technically that brahmin family is very bad. I help them to fix all the electrical and civil problems in their home. This is a great advantage India has. We cannot just blame the outside rules of India . There was a discriminatory problem within the caste system and the outside conquerers contributed in lessening this discrimination. Today to a high percentage the discrimination has disappeared. I am a Professional electrical engineer who love the electrical field. I am 46 but know there is lots to learn and keep up in the electrical engineering field. My father had a diploma in electrical engineering. So there was a critical mass that enabled all five of his sons to become electrical engineers. But if my grandfather was also in the electrical field the critical mass would have been even greater. I would have all my first and second cousins involved in the electrical industry. This would have given synergy and it will be good for the country and the world. That is what the caste system can offer India. Specialization of work by a group over generations. Books cannot pass down all the vast information in the electrical field. It has been a continuous adding of knowledge since we first started repairing electrical equipment of friends in our home. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Prashobh Karunakaran] comment added by 115.134.90.233 (talk) 10:36, wit26 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems some form of patriotism is distorting the truth of Indian caste system here. The caste system is very much present, in different form and intensities in different regions. In states like Bengal and Kerala, however caste system has very little relevance in real life, its importance shows up in marriages. People are usually willing to marry into higher castes, but not willing to marry a person from a lower caste. A scan of the matrimonial section of the news papers can easily reveal this to anybody (one has to aware of the sophisticated hierarchy though, in reality Indian caste system has much finer layers than the four castes in Brahminism and these change from region to region). Intercaste marriages are common and usually accepted without much ado in the aforementioned states.

On the other hand, Southern India has a much stronger history of discrimination. It is not unusual to find apartment buildings being exclusive to one caste. The separation has been so long and so effective that Tamil Brahmins speak a dialect very different from the rest of the Tamil people and unless used to interacting with the other castes, they don't even understand the language of each other. The anti-Brahminism movement under Periyar's leadership and the caste politics that followed (e.g. reservation in academic institutions and jobs severely biased against higher castes) caused Tamil Brahmins to disperse away from Tamilnadu.

Northern India on the other hand, has retained and possibly reinforced the caste system. Indian literature has ample record of the situation (refer to stories by Munshi Prem Chand, for example). All of M K Gandhi's Harijan movement was about that. Even sixty years back, in those parts of India it was not uncommon for untouchables and Shudra's to be physically abused for the "crime" of crossing the path of a Brahmin. Not accepting cooked food or water from somebody of lower caste has been common practice.

I am not sure what kind of data led the esteemed sociologists and historians to conclude that Indian caste system was a British Fantasy, and though the British rulers may have exploited the caste system, they definitely did not develop it. As early as 15-th century the caste system was very much present in India . The movement by Sri Chaitanya tried to, and succeeded for limited time and space, in overcoming the caste based discriminations - which is one of the reasons it was very popular among people from lower castes. His followers abandoned family-names identifying their caste and adopted the surname "Das" (meaning slave, indicating slave of god). This is a common surname in Eastern India today.

Finally, I agree that the discrimination is not completely one way. While Brahmins and Kshatriyas consider themselves higher in the order, Shudras also consider individuals these castes with distrust. Still, they accept the order of the castes as it is in practice (e.g. sometimes individual from lower castes are uncomfortable/not ready to accept "Pranam" (the act of touching the feet to show respect) from a Brahmin.

Srays (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Castes in Japan

snipped because it's utterly a nonsense which is based on a myth of the West. Japanese hierarchy has nothing to do with Indian caste. "Caste" is actually the White supremacy or the Aryan supremacy which defines "White" is superior to the people with darker skin. The "caste" of India is actually the same as the racism and hierarchy of the Anglo-Saxons world which also defines "Whites" are superior to the coloreds. Since Japan is racially homogeneous, and 99.99% of the Japanese are Mongoloids, it has nothing to do with such a White supremacy things.

In fact, generally speaking, the Burakumins of Japan usually have whiter skins than the skins of ordinary Japanese, and the genuine "Eta", the typical Burakumins are much richer than ordinary Burakumins since they own many exclusive businesses such as meat and butcher business, funeral service, financial business, show business, etc.. "Eta" were discriminated against because they were greedy rich making money by monopolizing such filthy businesses.

Also, those who claim they are Brakumins are not genuine Burakumins. They are merely poors of big cities. They are so-called "Ese-Burakumin" meaning "Pseudo-Burakumins" who are taking advantage of the Burakumin issues to get some benefit and official supports from the government.

So the actual situation of Japanese hierarchy is diametrically different from the Aryan supremacy of Indian caste and the White supremacy in the Anglo-Saxon world.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.95.141.6 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2007‎ (UTC)

Castes in Korea

The definition of the word "Caste" is too enlarged. If one follows the extended definition of Caste, there is no country in the world that does not have caste system. It should be used specifically instead of as a common noun of the hierarchy. Korea is homogeneous country and there can not be racial discrimination characters like Indian Caste or Western racism in traditional hierarchy.And,the pre-modern hierarchy has totally disappeared in modern Korea society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.157.75.134 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism section

Someone may want to correct the tone in this section. I'd do it myself, but I'm pretty clueless on the topic.-Wafulz (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitalaya (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Neutral rewrite needed immediately

• The article is not written in a neutral manner and breaks wikipedia policies.
• The article is heavily politicized and not written with a neutral political agenda.
• No original research The articles contains many "novel narrative or historical interpretations." It is heavily politicized, contains original research and citations are taken out of context for politicization. Several facts are uncited.
• Verifiability: I have checked the relevant books and certain citations and many do not verify and are fradualent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vniop (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on Indian caste to include its relation to religion.

Proposed Overhaul

Since the article on castes appears to be polysubjective, it may be a better idea to break it into several articles. Personally, I feel that this article is a great example of why merging articles together can be, while on one hand a way to 'clean up' WP, it makes reading articles almost impossible.

With that being said, I would propose the following changes made to the article:

• Caste separated into a definition article with a functional summary of castes and the implications of a caste system.
• Etymology section
• Description of caste rules
• Summary of caste relations, linking to full articles for each.

My feeling is that the caste system article would benefit from a format like this, as in its current state it's almost unreadable. redacting the article to the format may be a way to help it fit better into the WP:format, as well as making the article easier to site (in its current state, there are so many topics, there will undoubtedly be errors and needed citations regardless of how many rewrites are actually performed. Larshylarsh (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Something should be done. Vast sections of the article are completely unusable and should be deleted. For example, the Indian section, which is POV, completely unsourced, etc. Umdenken (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I made some edits to organize the section a little bit better - previously the section was completely discombobulated with various mentions of "jati" and "varna" and so on. I've tried to clarify the whole Varna/Jati business a little bit and added a couple of credible references. (Aditya) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.116.1.173 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is hands down the worst article in Wikipedia. It reads like someone copied and pasted an impenetrable and third-rate doctoral dissertation on castes. It should be deleted and started from scratch. 72.153.104.195 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

European Castes

This section is substandard, and there is little scholarly basis for dividing medieval society into the castes provided (mercenary?). There is certainly a fair bit that can be written about European caste systems -- specifically, the Patrician vs. Plebeian caste system in Rome, and noble/commoner dichotomy later on, but what's written here needs to go. Plus, the citation seems sort of questionable. For one, "mercenary" has never been a caste, at least in any European hierarchy. 195.27.20.35 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobles constituded a caste, originally it was a warrior caste, but it redeveloped into a landlord, and further on to a general upper class including landlords and bureaucrats. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Were patricians actually a caste, or were they equivalent to clan chieftans? I think the problem with understanding caste is there is a multiplicity of interacting groupings and stratifications of people, all of which change over time. --Utinomen (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

6:58 P.M. E.S.T.

I am currious of the term astor in Lancaster, aster is to represent a Center perhaps of town, King John, the 1100's. Just a thought of study in if the two are related somehow, as of the experience of culture.David George DeLancey (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Caste is a must in all Indian Biographies

I think biographies of people from Indian Origin for e.g. Swaraj Paul should disclose their castes. Casteism has been a covert mask for socio-economic collusion in India since 12th century. --Dr. Known-- (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

America

Caste in the United States

I have removed the following section.

Further information: Upper middle class in the United States and White Collar: The American Middle Classes

Many, including W. Lloyd Warner, Gunnar Myrdal, and John Dollard, believe that there is a caste system in the United States based on the colour of a person’s skin. However, some hold that this relationship should not be referred to as a full-fledge caste system. Caste systems are supported by ritual, convention, and law. Status can influence and determine class, which also determines the caste system where a person belongs. Weber stressed that class, status, and political power relate and affect each other.

It goes: Government, politicians, military, business people, farmers, immigrants.

“Caste structure is an extreme form of status inequality in that relationships between the groups involved are said to be fixed and supported by ideology and/or law”. In the US, membership in a specific caste is often hereditary, marriage within one’s caste is mandatory, mobility is impossible, and occupation is determined by caste position. Mobility is possible within one’s caste but not between castes. Race and ethnic stratification is evident throughout US caste systems. Each caste system must abide by specific codes of race relations in which certain behaviors and positions are expected by each group. Caste as metaphor for race relations was developed academically by Lloyd Warner 's “American Caste and Class”, Gunnar Myrdal 's An American Dilemma, and John Dollard 's Caste and Class in a Southern Town. Myrdal argued that “the scientifically important difference between the terms ‘caste’ and ‘class’… is … a relatively large difference in freedom of movement between groups”.

The first line gives the impression that most people think America has a caste system, which is cleary false. While there may be classes, it's far from generally agreed that there is a caste syustem: I think this is an extremely minority viewpoint. There's no ideology keeping the classes apparat, and certainly no law, so even on Hurst's definition this is absurd. You can go for any job you wish, marriage between classes is perfectly common. In short, this section is ridiculous, hence why I moved it here. Larklight (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

President Bush once talked about what he called an 'ownership society'. This implies that landowners are members of a high caste and non-owners are outcasts. Signed Anthony Ratkov,August 9,2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.127.63 (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word Caste to describe Social Insects

I suggest that there be a disambiguation page to distinguish human castes (social science) from social insect castes (biology). Because the biology term is less common, "caste" should take you directly to the former, but there should be a link at the top of the page that can take you to the disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martastic (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a caste?

Racial discrimination is not, that religious apartheid of "pillars" is not. Race and religious apartheid shouldn't be in the article!! Caste is some kind of religious or legislated social groups that are based on a general societal function, and generally there is little intermarriage. The Roman apartheid between patricians and plebejs is a classic, the Western legislative caste systems of nobles/priests/the third caste (or in old Sweden: nobles/priests/bourgeoisi/peasants) are typical as well as the Indian of brahmin/ksatriya/vaishya/shudras are. The other things, like apartheid, pillars and race discrimination should better be in an article of social stratification, system discrimination or some such. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I say leave it like it is; you might not think it's a good thing, but it's a pillar of many societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitalaya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arya Samaj

According to the castes in India:

All the Dvija(Twice Born)ie Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas could and did perform the fire sacrifice for themselves. Even this has not always been followed by all sects within Hinduism - for example, in the Arya Samaj, all castes including Shudras can perform the fire sacrifice.

Why is Arya Samaj occurring here? It is AFAIK a modern political renewal movement, not a sect proper, and as much as I know, it is specifically opposed to the caste system, so it is most definitely not a proof in either this or that way. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Caste in Punjab

I think a good idea would be to create an article called Caste in Sikhism or Punajb...there is a controversial talk on Bhappe and its causing a lot of Syappe, so any honest feedback would be helpful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliosphere (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Caste as phenomenon of culture

I think Vniop above made the essential point. It seems articles like this get bogged down by those with a political agenda. Caste is as valid and intrinsic a part of various people's cultures as any other part, surely then the article should just seek to highlight that cultural expression, even if editors personally disagree with the concept? Of course, it could be argued that the very idea of including this subject as part of a 'Human Rights' project undermines the very neutrality of the article anyway... -Utinomen (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Caste System in Fiji

Native fijians also had (and still have) a caste system. The warriors came exclusively from certain families. The priest ( medicine man) came only from certain families and for most the rest were commoners. Can someone reserach the Fijian caste system please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.167.186 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No castes in Medieval Europe!

Conflating the Indian caste system with the tripartite society of Medieval Europe is historically untenable. A caste system is always based on inheritance. You are born into a caste (i. e. varna/jati), you can't change from one caste into another!

In Medieval Europe, by contrast, a person's belonging to an "état" was determined by the occupation/social status of the father, but it could be altered - similarly to the class society of today. A peasant in the Middle Ages could well become a nobleman if he showed exceptional fortitude in battle for example (and many did). And of course the clergy, as it was celibate, was always recruited from the other two "états", as it could not perpetuate itself by its own means. The example of the "premier état" (clergy) shows especially well that the "three pillars" system of Medieval society was based on social function, not on some unchangeable characteristics that you inherited from your parents. (Especially as it was a Christian society, based on the idea that all men were equal before God.)

I think it's a great problem with this article that it lumps together all kinds of social stratification as "caste" (see "caste in the United States"!!!!), without giving a definition of "caste" that is different from "class" or other types of social groupings. Lumendelumine (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the offending section. Hopefully no-one will put it back. Class and Caste are related but emphatically not the same, and conflating them is either muddle-headed or mendacious. It seems that a spurious section about the United States existed at one time, but it isn't around as of today. Luwilt (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've considered the arguments above but cannot see how the Europe section was 'offending'. The caste system in India and in Europe are descended from the same ordering of society - isn't that Dumezil's argument?; the definition of caste surely is 'order', caste is how the Indo-European's ordered their society. That they are based on social function is not disputed by anyone. Just because in India it evolved into a more closed system (why?) but did not in Europe (why not?) does not invalidate that they are the same thing. And the idea that the majority of people did not inherit their position in society in Europe until recently is laughable. What seems to be the difference in the caste system is that in India there is the retention of tribe and clans (which really are unchangeable characteristics that you inherited from your parents) whereas in Europe this was replaced by rank? I propose that the European section be restored, but that it be flagged up that it should be rewritten.--Rusty Tonic (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

More on caste in America

A Wikipedia user named Larklight deleted a section of the caste article because it said that caste existed in America. The deletion was obviously politically motivated. Larklight says that there's no ideology keeping the classes apart,and there's no law preventing them from marrying each other. At one time,America had a rudimentary caste system based on race. There were laws against 'miscegenation',which means there were laws that prevented whites from marrying blacks. I suppose in India it was illegal for an untouchable to marry a Brahmin,so this fits the classical definition of caste. Wikipedia has an article about miscegenation laws,and it says that America's first miscegenation law was made in 1913. In the heyday of these laws,30 states had anti-miscegenation laws. The laws were finally struck down by a 1967 court ruling. When they were struck down in 1967,there were 16 states that still had these laws on the books. This alone is proof that America had a racially-based case system between 1913 and 1967.

The existence of political dynasties in America suggests that politicians are part of a hereditary caste. As an example,look at the Kennedy family. John F. Kennedy was president,his brothers,Edward Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were also in politics. Prescott Bush was a U.S. Senator,he had a son (George H.W. Bush) who was president,a grandson (George W. Bush) who was also president,and George W. Bush had a brother (Jeb Bush) who was governor of Florida. All of this suggests that politicians are part of an elite caste,based on heredity. As for ideology,Bush once spoke of what he called an 'ownership society'. He wanted the government to create a so-called 'ownership society' in which landowners functioned as an elite ruling caste,while non-owners were a downtrodden 'untouchable caste'. Your article on caste is poorly written,it needs to be completely re-written. You may also want to include a chapter about racially-based caste in South Africa. In 1949 South Africa made it illegal for whites to marry blacks,and the law was not repealed until 1985. It was also illegal for whites to have sex with blacks until 1985. Since these caste attributes were codified by law,it can be defined as a caste system,in the traditional sense. Signed,Anthony Ratkov August 9,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.34.160 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Americans elect whoever they want, whenever they want. I'd know, I've spent my whole life here. Just because the Bush and Kennedy families go together means nothing. It just means the people are gullable enough to make that matter somehow. If you want, in America, you can get ultra rich, become president, whatever the sky's the limit. Take Lyndon B Johnson for example. Dirt poor poverty, all the way to US President. You can go out now and buy up a bunch of business, real estate, or whatever else and become the next Donald Trump, assuming you have the resources and motivation to do so. It's called the "class" system, meaning you can move up and down at will, so long as you have proper resources (for the most part money). You're not trapped in it forever just because of your birth. Yes, things were racially segregated in the 1960's I will not try to deny that. I just want to point out that this idea of America having a legitimate caste nowadays is complete BS, unfounded, and makes no sense, at least not to me. Also, in terms of your ruling elites, consider it this way: we can all run. Just put your name into the campaign, put out some advertisements, and make the general public think that you'll do what they want and improve the country. The rich often get an easier time because they have more money to spend, yes, but success is not utterly dependent on the family you're born into.

68.40.243.178 (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite wrong to conflate class divisions with caste. Caste is a rigid system whereby status is determined by birth, and cannot be changed by any human means. This was never the case in Europe or most places outside India. Social mobility was necessarily low in all pre-Industrial societies, but in a class system, as opposed to a caste system, people could change their class and a few did. A king could make a peasant a noblemen, and that sometimes happened. Not even an emperor could change someone's caste. This article in its current form seems to be designed mainly to deny that there is anything unusual about the Indian system, but it is unusual. Luwilt (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Racial Theory of Caste

The following quote comes from pages 153-55 of the Third Edition of The Earth and Its Peoples, a commonly-used textbook on world history:

Stories about this era, written down much later but

preserved by memorization and oral recitation, speak of bitter rivalry and warfare between two groups of people: the Aryas, relatively light-skinned speakers of Indo- European languages, and the Dasas, dark-skinned speakers of Dravidian languages. Some scholars contend that some Dasas were absorbed into Arya populations and elites from both groups merged. For the most part, however, the Aryas pushed the Dasas south into central and southern India, where their descendants still live. Indo- European languages are primarily spoken in northern India today. Dravidian speech prevails in the south. Skin color has been a persistent concern of Indian society and is one of the bases for its historically sharp internal divisions. Over time there evolved a system of varna—literally “color,” though the word came to indicate something akin to “class.” Individuals were born into one of four classes: Brahmin, the group comprising priests and scholars; Kshatriya, warriors and officials; Vaishya, merchants, artisans, and landowners; or Shudra, peasants and laborers. The designation Shudra originally may have been reserved for Dasas, who were given the menial jobs in society. Indeed, the very term dasa came to mean “slave.” Eventually a fifth group was marked off: the Untouchables. They were excluded from the class system, and members of the other groups literally avoided them because of the demeaning or pollut- ing work to which they were relegated—such as leather tanning, which involved touching dead animals, and

sweeping away ashes after cremations.

A link to the chapter can be found here. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have even half info about caste in india,previously it was having but now they have modified all pages and having no relevent information at all.............Why its so?

Wikipedia does not have even half info about caste in india,previously it was having but now they have modified all pages and having no relevent information.............Why its so?

2-3 years back this website was having most of information but now it does not have even half of the information .............every information is either not complete or having no relevence...................

Now there are so many websites having correct and relevent information.

This website is permorming wrost in few years its very annoying for its fans.

I hope some corrective action will be taken.................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.199.177 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation tag moved to the end of paragraph

I have moved the 'citation needed' tag covering the 1901 census decision's motivation to the end of the paragraph in which it is contained. The reason for doing this is that citing only this sentence gives an impression of poor support, while if the following sentences are accurate the support appears reasonably established. Clearly, this paragraph needs at least one source covering all sentences in it.Julzes (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC) My apologies for not attempting a full workover of the article (and merely fixing this one thing). I will attempt on Monday to at least start such.Julzes (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In the hours since this edit, two edits have occurred from somebody not logged in. I didn't read the first as worsening things, though I haven't time or inclination to go back and recheck. The second added a longish quote that may or.may not be desirable, and attempted to have it say the opposite of what the article had said previously with regards to race discrimination being a correlate of caste division. The quote does not read as the person who edited it in appears to have thought it did. The quote substantiates the way the article had read prior to its being added. If it is regarded as a worthwhile add by somebody, please reverse 'controverted' back to the original 'corroborated'.Julzes (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Note: Just having reread the quote I removed, I note that it is confusing outside of the entire article of which it is a part. It appears that upper castes have a 4th non-Asian, non-African, non-European race--perhaps an indigenous-like South Asian one--more substantially in its bloodlines. At any rate, one simple sentence does clearly indicate the quote in its original source meant what the article meant before the quote was added (corroboration, not controversion). Seeing now that the quote is a little confusing outside of its article, I recommend leaving the quote out.Julzes (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)