Talk:Caste system in India

Definition

@Wolfdog: This page is not for posting definition of "caste" in first paragraph of lead. This content belongs only to Caste article. Capitals00 (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to Talk. What do you make of my edit-summary sentiment that I disagree; a definition is certainly needed for THE paradigmatic version of caste, which [is] different across nations and regions? We want to not just explore the Indian formulation of caste here, but I'd argue certainly start with an Indian-specific definition, no? Wolfdog (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we need a baby book definition of "caste" on this page. That term is linked and they can go there to find out if they need to find out.

What exactly is the concern that is being addressed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't keep repeating myself, but here's my last time: a definition is certainly needed for THE paradigmatic version of caste, which [is] different across nations and regions. I guess there's nothing further to say, if the consensus is against me. An incredibly complex and controversial topic that, in my opinion, needs some "baby booking", especially at the page Caste itself then. The idea is impenetrable to outsiders of a caste system. I can happily discuss more there. Wolfdog (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A society is divided into subidentities called "castes". What is impenetrable about that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither page says anything so straightforward, haha. (And certainly, on the page Caste itself, that language would be the very same (over)simplifying that I myself was accused of.) This page, in particular, is very concerned in the lead section with caste's origins and its affirmative action response, rather than the baseline for what caste in India is. It's annoying to see several sentences reverted wholesale too, as though the entire edit I made was rubbish. If the facts are wrong, that's a separate matter. Wolfdog (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to say simple, clear things because the ethnographers over the centuries have seriously mucked up the subject. They also seem to think there is something unique and mysterious about castes, which is different from all other subidentities in the world. Our verifiability requirements make it difficult to introduce our own simplifications. I will try to find some good sources, once again.

The problem with reductive definitions like the EB's version is that they cloud out the complexities and diversities that exist in the system, and mislead people into thinking they have understood the concept, whereas they haven't. I remember reading some sociologist saying that the only thing constant about caste is that anything general you can say about it is false. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your collegiality. I figured this would get into some miry waters. Let me know what you find out with your sources; there's certainly no rush! Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this issue again because of the recent debates about "caste in US". It seems to me that the problems of defining "caste" are insurmountable. It was an English term coined by British colonisers based on sterotypes, which was already difficult to define in 1932. (See the Ghurye section.) Now it has gotten much worse. This seems endemic to the English language, which is inherently wooly. See for example, Definitions of terrorism.

The purpose of this page is to describe the social system as it exists in India. The less we say about this meaningless term, the better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the definitions belong in the main article, this article is about the social system, which we now call caste, in India — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Untouchability section must be expanded esp. with latest works like -

Merchants of Virtue: Hindus, Muslims, and Untouchables in Eighteenth-Century South Asia

Tribe and State in Asia through Twenty-Five Centuries

Though the second book is not directly related to 'Untouchability' but rather is about category of 'Tribe' & it's evolution but it directly ties into first book which highlights state's engagement with new as well as old categories, contexts etc. leading to contestations & transformations of identities in the Indian subcontinent when modern politics was in it's inception with disuptions of Industrial revolution.

Relatively old anthropological works like these further add more nuances to the issue -

The Civility of Indifference

Bicultural versatility as a frontier adaptation among Paliyan foragers of South India

Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo Deep007 bond007 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

// The purpose of this page is to describe the social system as it exists in India. The less we say about this meaningless term, the better. //

Issues -

What comes to anyone's mind when India's society / Social system is discussed ? So if a meaningless term has became main representation of India's social system what does it says abt. academic fields of sociology & anthropology ?

Furthermore the Wiki page fails to mention 'Backwardness debate' which is at the core of modern Caste identity & politics.

Backwardness debate brief - https://www.epw.in/engage/article/how-has-idea-backwardness-taken-shape Deep007 bond007 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this section of introduction needs correction -

// The caste system in India is the paradigmatic ethnographic instance of social classification based on castes. It has its origins in ancient India, and was transformed by various ruling elites //

Anirudh Kanisetti {Tamilnadu based Chola scholar} provides proof of bottom up formation of castes instead of currently prevailing view of top down imposition by elites.

Not Manusmriti, British—caste system in medieval Tamil Nadu solidified after Cholas fell

https://theprint.in/opinion/not-manusmriti-british-caste-system-in-medieval-tamil-nadu-solidified-after-cholas-fell/2009511/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Hcki1Qpj4 Deep007 bond007 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If we are accepting DNA based studies then i suggest these reports & studies should also be included -

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/caste-system-an-indigenous-invention-in-south-india/article4290662.ece

Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System -

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050269

https://www.brownpundits.com/2020/05/02/brahmins-were-made-in-india-not-the-steppe/

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2022/08/15/indra-is-absolved-the-caste-system-predates-the-indo-aryans/ Deep007 bond007 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does the article focus so much on the brittish impact on caste up front?

I would just think a later adaptation of the caste system would be addressed later, and an article about the caste system in India would start with how the caste system in India started, to serve as a basis to preface and contrast the later transformation. Later. On in the article. The first few paragraphs after the first, which seems to strongly preface this theme, seem to be dedicated to emphasizing how much the brittish leveraged and transformed the caste system in the colonial process, which is definitely a highly relevant and serious matter that should be included in the article, but having so much of it up front seems like either deliberately biased framing or exceptionally poor organization. Is that crazy of me to think that? I hope I'm not just imagining things. 66.161.198.172 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

i thought the same thing it's so misleading creates an idea that cast formed during British era which is totally misleading. 2409:4073:4E8D:60A6:0:0:578B:A503 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the take of many modern academics, here and in many other subjects - blame everything on the British, and if that fails, the Mughals. It is very largely nonsense of course. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it’s sad how history gets lost and misrepresented by picking and choosing how we frame and contextualize historical events. It’s so easy to corrupt the nuances of history 2600:1700:2191:41A0:D1CE:E254:9D0C:A26D (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree it’s blatantly pushing a sort of narrative in my view and not representing it properly 2600:1700:2191:41A0:D1CE:E254:9D0C:A26D (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A discussion about the differences in the development of casteism in the US and India?

Coming from the perspective of someone in the diaspora but who has never lived in the United States, I notice that there seems to be a divergence in how casteism is being dealt with in India and how it is being dealt with in the United States.

AFAIK it is very easy to grow up and find a nice job in India without ever worrying about what caste you are. Furthermore in many parts of India the idea of caste is very limited in impact. Caste doesn't have as much impact in South India than say in non-Hindu areas such as Pakistan due to historical reasons.

Comparatively it seems that there is much more controversy around caste in the United States in that a lot of the upper caste (which seems to be influential) oppose anti-caste efforts with the understanding that it is racist for them.

Does this not mean that casteism is worse in the United States than in much of South Asia?

India has laws against casteism. Many of the high level political leaders and wealthy business owners aren't upper caste anymore. Comparatively it seems that most of the political class and wealthy in the US are upper caste.

I feel that this issue needs to be discussed in the article.

Arind7 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! Do you have any sources discussing this? Zanahary (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Scientific studies of casteism in India and the US don't show much difference. One curious thing I found in the US is that the Dalits there claim to face discrimination from Indian Americans as well as regular Americans, in equal measure! -- Kautilya3 (talk)

Chronology

@Kautilya3: it seems to me that Reich et al. (2009) comes chronologically after Banshad et al. (2001), since Bamshad et al. refer to the Indo-Aryan migrations, while Reich et al. refer to the founder effects of groups formed after those migrations:

Six Indo-European- and Dravidian speaking groups have evidence of founder events dating to more than 30 generations ago (Supplementary Fig. 2), including the Vysya at more than 100 generations ago (Fig. 2). Strong endogamy must have applied since then

I don't know if they specify how long a generation is, but if we take it to be 25 years, then 30 generations is 750 years, while 100 generations is 2500 year, that is, 500 BCE, long after the IA-migrations. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The mention of "thousands years" led me to believe they were talking about pre-Aryan times. Anyway, now the whole thing seems to be gone, except for one sentence stuck into a sociological paragraph. I am not comfortable with mixing sociology and genetics, because the connections between them are not known. The idea that "Aryas" were immigrants and "Dasas" were natives is countered by R. S. Sharma. He says both the groups were Indo-European-speaking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about that. Note, though, that Johannes Bronkhorst also refers to Moorjani and Basu. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Biased framework

the article seems biased in its framing if not technically correct. It presents the caste system as something secular that arose after colonial rule and downplays its significance in pre-Mughal pre- colonial India. It’s misleading to frame the caste system of Hinduism and the caste system of today as totally separate entities when they arose from the same ideas and sources 2600:1700:2191:41A0:D1CE:E254:9D0C:A26D (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)