Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Caste system in India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Primary sources

Some of the content in this article is based on primary sources. Example: the British rule and Indian castes summary uses a primary source. This content is suspect, and the use of primary sources is inconsistent with wiki WP:RS and WP:SOURCES guidelines. A fair and balanced summary is desirable, and such a summary is not possible if one uses primary sources.

Instead of primary sources, secondary sources are preferable. I identify any source as a primary source if it reads like an opinion and lecture, and does not identify the source documents those opinions are coming from (that is, the primary source cites no references). A primary source can be an off line book or brochure, or on line web site or blog. These are to be avoided or used with abundant caution in wikipedia, per its guideline. There are a lot of secondary sources on caste, including on the role and effects of the British rule on caste system in India. A summary from secondary sources can significantly improve the quality of this article, make it more balanced and encyclopedic.

To improve the quality of the article, I will do the following

Identify primary sources, remove these citations but not any content if that content is supported by the primary source; I will tag the content with 'citation requested' tag to request secondary sources. This is to assume good faith.
Identify primary sources, remove these citations and the content, if the content is not supported by the primary source.
Rewrite some summaries with secondary sources.

I will do the above after a due pause for a discussion on this talk page. Suggestions welcome, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of primary source is something of a moveable feast. Some things, such as blogs, would usually fail the much less problematic WP:RS guideline and can pretty much be removed on sight unless they happen to be, for example, a blog hosted by a reputed news organisation, eg: the BBC. Your general proposition, however, is fine by me. Anything that does end up being removed can always be reinstated at a later date should more appropriate sources be found. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bougle and "contemporary sociologists"

Bougle, an obscure French author from 1908, and a couple of equally fringe sociologists out of tens of thousands have been given far too much emphasis in this article. It spoils the whole tone of the article and makes it seem like someone is beating a particular drum. It does not even inform us about caste in India and seems to be taking the view that someone should be blamed for the caste system and it had better be the British. This is weird. Modern Indians don't need this, we can take responsibility for our own culture. I have trimmed most of this away. 122.173.209.158 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bougle essay on caste has over 200 unique journal/scholarly citations. That is just in English. If you include French/Dutch/Deutsche/other non-English articles, the number is much larger. Each of articles or books which cite Bougle, in turn, have many citations. Please explain why this is obscure? Bougle meets wiki's WP:RS guideline. The essay was published during British Rule, and offers a distinct view that belongs in any balanced article.

The version you returned the article to, is a summary that is no different, only worse in balance, than the version that troubled you. Instead of vaguely claiming "tens of thousands", I request that you identify a few articles from sociologists that have more citations in high impact factor journals books; or for that matter, Eigenfactor or Immediacy Index publications. Then summarize those few articles to improve the quality of this article. Simply deleting content, without adding better content, is disruptive. Please note that this talk page is for discussion of the article, how to improve it, not a lecture on "blaming someone or your stereotypes of modern Indians." ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

India does not need its history blaming on other people. If you live here you know it was not the British. They just touched the surface. Many villages here never saw the British. You are obsessive anglophobic person and are not a friend of India by making up stories. Goodbye, ruin the article with your silliness. 122.173.209.158 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions above. Nor have you respected the purpose of wiki's talk page guidelines. I respectfully request you identify a few articles from sociologists, per WP:RS, that support whatever you are trying to suggest should go into this article.

Note, to be encyclopedic, wikipedia must include many aspects of one subject. In the context of caste, the effect of / role of / observations during / aspects of British rule on the caste system in India are relevant to the article.

FWIW, Zwart's article is a review article too, meeting WP:RS guidelines. It summarizes the effect of British rule on caste system, from studies by many sociologists. The article has been well cited after its publication. It belongs in this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the strange part of edits by 122.173.209.158: he or she deleted the parts that brought balance, parts I had added along with the Bougle citation - "Other sources suggest that the caste system existed in India prior to the arrival of the British, and enumerating classes and castes do not constitute the act of constructing it. Bouglé, for example, used 17th to 19th century historical reports by Christian missionaries and some Europeans on Indian society to suggest that a rigid caste system existed in India during and before British ruled India, quite similar in many respects to the social stratification found in 17th to 19th century Europe." ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In the sentence added by 122.173.209.158, in his or her first edit, the one starting with "According to GB Malleson..." it claims Bougle as the citation. I checked. There is no mention of GB Malleson in that essay. If GB Malleson sentence was intended as a constructive contribution, the only new addition by 122.173.209.158, a proper reference is requested. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to list all of the contentious sources here? I am not interested in what they say but rather in what they are. A numbered list would make it much easier to refer to things because it looks to me that there may be quite a few that are being queried, rather than just the 1908 work. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Célestin Bouglé, full name Célestin Charles Alfred Bouglé, wrote in French. His major works which cover caste systems in India (and elsewhere in the world) are: 1. Les idées égalitaires: étude sociologique (1899) - see pages 148-210 in particular; 2. Essais sur le régime des castes (1908) - see the whole essay; 3. Qu’est-ce que la sociologie? (1925) - see pages 40-78. None of these mention GB Malleson.

FWIW, I am aware of two publications by George Bruce Malleson, one published in 1857 and the other 1883. These works do not add anything that contradict, or add beyond what was already in the article before edits by 122.173.209.158. Constructive suggestions are welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So the only contention is Bouglé's stuff? It looked like more than that was being adjusted by the 122.* IP's edits. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I have just read the entire article through for the first time in a while, and it may be that Bouglé is the least of our concerns. It is becoming very big and very complex, even for someone like me (ie: reasonably intelligent and with some background knowledge). It also appears to be drifting towards being an essay on comparative sociology. I know that the version of some months ago was very poor & that the subject matter is complex but is some focus being lost now? When we start quoting at length the opinions of people such as Kipling then I begin to get quite concerned. Is there any sort of indication regarding how much bigger it may become? - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 122.* mostly removed a lot of stuff.

The length is bothering me too. That is why, I hesitate to add summaries from George Bruce Malleson, Gandhi's view that 'caste are not varnas', among others. I have another 30 authors, who could be added - but it will just make it many times bigger, more complex - perhaps all this reflects the complexity of this topic, as well as the complexity of India's ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. But I do not plan to add summaries from these 30 authors. I would prefer a smaller article, while respecting wiki guidelines that it be complete, balanced, NPOV and well written.

While we are at this, the section on British rule has had "unbalanced" header since December 2010 for British rule section - long before I first read this wiki article. What and who can we include in the summary to make it more balanced? I will volunteer to read them, and make an effort to address the balance issue further.

On how to trim the article, without loosing the article's sense of balance, NPOV and quality - give me some time to re-read the article, and reflect; I will then post some ideas for discussion on the talk page. Meanwhile, I welcome ideas from others and you on what and where to trim without removing balance, NPOV and encyclopedic completeness. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly have a think. An obvious option is to fork some stuff but somehow I think that we already have quite a few forks knocking around & so I will discard that notion for now. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not like fork idea either. My first pass suggests we can trim the article by 10-20 percent, without taking out the balance, completeness and NPOV.

I need a few days to review and think this through, as well study other articles on wiki that cover complex topics such as caste system in India. For example, Racism in the United States and Racism in Israel is about the same size as caste system in India is now. Apartheid in South Africa is a bigger article. India is much more ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse country than United States or Israel or South Africa (see Stanford University's James Fearon's paper on each country's cultural diversity and ethnic diversity indices). I hope to post some suggestions here on this talk page this weekend, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I just cant believe this apostle person. I have checked the "contemporary sociologists" now I am in Shimla and can get to my uni access. The first one is Frank de Swart. He says of the Brits in this paper:

"This essay examines that selection process and traces its effects on group formation and group identity in India. In the heyday of class analysis and planned economy, scholars credited governments with the power to shape society and reduce economic inequality. Postmodern theorists now credit governments with the power to 'construct' social and cultural identity. In India, this view is especially prominent in studies of colonial government and the caste system. The theory is also used to explain religious identity (Pandey 1992; see Kooiman 1995, and Talbot 1995 for critical discussions). Some authors claim that India's caste system was constructed by the British colonial administration. Interestingly, the methods whereby colonial administration in India is said to have done this - registration of the population by social category, followed by implementation of policies and laws specific for each category - are similar to the methods now used to enforce affirmative action for the backward classes. In both cases, moreover, registration and the policies based upon it promote political mobilization, and with it, group formation and identity politics. Given these similarities, it is interesting to ask what has become of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. Does affirmative action (as it is argued for British policy in colonial times) result in the rise of new social identities? In other words, has the Indian government after independence been able to do with the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes what the British allegedly did with caste?" .... ...."Imagine the grandeur of this thesis. Imperial administrators invented a social structure and managed to make generations of scholars, politicians and people in India believe (and act upon the idea) that this structure was real. This is truly a remarkable feat of social engineering. Governments all over the world can only wish they had the recipe. Indeed, after independence, the government of India tried to do something similar with another type of social structure. The hypothesis that political leaders after independence simply subscribed to the image of caste and intentionally continued to reinforce it is false. They certainly believed that caste was real, but the Socially and Educationally Back- ward Classes is a secular and modern category, and making them eligible for affirmative action was a deliberate attempt by the political elite who framed affirmative action policy to 'deconstruct' the colonial construction of caste."

No, as your reference says, the Brits were just not that powerful. For God's sake, ask any old Indian about what his grandfather thought about caste - it is little different from what a greengrocer will tell you in Chandigarh today! You guys are living in cloud cuckoo land and spreading lies as if they were truths.

Now, remove your stupid claim that the "contemporary sociologists" all blame the Brits. Your own reference rejects this idea. It is just a fantasy of dumb French postmodernist philosophers.

Your other reference: Identity and Identification in India: Defining the Disadvantaged by Laura Dudley Jenkins is just an analysis of affirmative action, it only says that the Brits intervened with affirmative action for backward castes and this is being continued today with the same problems that affirmative action has anywhere.

Your references do not support your claim that most contemporary sociologists believe the British constructed class. Try this from de Swart:

"The caste system, as historians and social scientists since the late 19th century portray it, is governed by division and hierarchy (some classical studies on caste are Mayer 1960; Srinivas 1962, 1966; Beteille 1965; Dumont 1970; Mandelbaum 1970).5 The units of division are endogamous groups with a traditional occupation and a hereditary membership. The basic criterion for ranking these groups is ritual purity. Purity and pollution of castes follow from their traditional occupation and stick to castes as a whole. Most polluting are death and bodily emissions. Castes whose traditional occupation entails contact with them (for instance, washermen, leatherworkers and barbers) rank low. All members of a caste - regardless of whether they follow its traditional occupation - share its rank in the hierarchy. This does not mean that the present occupation of caste members is completely irrelevant to status. Castes are not immobile. Many studies show that given time, means, organization and a favourable political climate, castes and sub- castes (not individuals) can rise in the status hierarchy (Kothari & Maru 1965; Rudolph & Rudolph 1967; Mandelbaum 1970:23-24; Shah 1975). Division between castes is most clearly manifest in patterns of marriage and commensality. Moreover, caste identity follows the segmentary principle: the meaning of caste is relative to context. In the context of local events, castes are small endogamous groups of people with the same name, spread over a few adjacent villages. On a regional level, castes are clusters of local castes, perceived by others as groups with similar status and subsumed under one name. In the context of a state or the nation, castes are clusters of regional clusters. In Indian languages, these three segments are called jatis."

Your own reference describes what most contemporary sociologists believe. Now, remove your childish, patronising of Indians. Indians were not invented by the British!

I have the book by Malleson in my hand. The author is GB Malleson, a British Company Chief Commissariat Officer at Kanpur in 1856 who wrote his memoir in 1890. Even the British have lost interest in those days so the book is reprinted in India:

The Indian Mutiny of 1857 Rupa Publications India Pvt Ltd 7/16 Ansari Road New Delhi

It has no ISBN and cost me 195 rupees in paperback (4 dollars). It doesnt say anywhere who first published it in the 19th century. Malleson is a big British Victorian kid who believes a regiment of Sikhs commanded by the Brits can charge anything with cold steel and win. Real old action adventure stuff but he does fully describe how 1857 happened. If you want any quotes on the British measures to limit landlordism I have them. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

While my knowledge is gleaned from sorting out umpteen caste articles & writing on some of the British "ethnologists" (sic - scientific racists, in most instances) - Risley, Rose, Ibbetson, Crooke and the like - I, too, have the impression that the British meddling certainly affected the system but did not originate it. Given enough time, I could dig out the numerous sources where I have read this. However, the real issue is whether some of the people named in the article fall foul of WP:FRINGE etc & how much weight should be given to their views. How influential were they in their own time? How influential are they now? At what point do we delegate any exposition of their theories to their own articles rather than here? As things stand, we are in danger of interpreting the likes of Bouglé, ie: treating them as primary sources when what we might actually benefit from are secondary sources that describe these changing theories with reference to the people who originally expounded them. If such secondary sources exist. We definitely should not be using people such as Kipling. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not that they are FRINGE, when I looked them up "most contemporary sociologists" don't say what Apostle says they say. Apostle's two main references, Jenkins and de Swart, do not say the Brits constructed caste. I quote de Swart at length above to show this. Bougle is just a Frenchman who hates the Brits for Pondicherry and Bougle is all Apostle has left to support his idea that the Brits invented Indians. God, Bougle is just an opinion and you have him fronting a Wikipedia article. Why cannot you just describe what the Brits did as a matter of record rather than making them into some sort of super-race and the Indians into little sheep. You don't even understand that the Indian states were very independent until 1947 and many saw the Brits as a necessary evil. Come to India, look at the thousands of vast palaces and forts of the Indians, look at the old photos of the princes in military uniform and driving rolls royces and ask yourself if the Brits were alone. God, I must stop reading this article it is so irritating. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand more than you seem to think I do regarding the British-Indian relationship, which in many respects was symbiotic. This article is much improved but no-one is denying that problems remain and that some may indeed have been introduced along the way. I haven't read de Swart or Jenkins, nor did they appear in the list that I asked for above. I'll try to dig them out and also re-read the relevant section of the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back author @ 59.*; your contribution and effort can only make this article better. Let us now consider your comments within wiki guidelines.$

Author @ 59.* writes: Jenkins and de Swart, do not say the Brits constructed caste.

Here is Zwart's public domain abstract, quoted here per fair use principle: "Most social scientists today agree that identity is a social construction, not a primordial given. They also agree that the state (through its power to dominate discourse) is a key agent in the process of identity construction. The literature on caste in India is illustrative. Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. The social construction thesis should apply a fortiori to a project begun by the Indian government almost 50 years ago and still going strong, namely affirmative action for the 'backward classes'. This project is strikingly similar to the British colonial project that ex hypothesi constructed the caste system."

Author @ 59.* alleges the article writes: "contemporary sociologists" all blame the Brits.

Here is what this wiki article actually writes: "Some sources suggest that the caste system became formally rigid during the British Raj, ..."

I really should not continue with this but.. Right at the start of the article you wrote:

"Caste is commonly thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime.[2][15]"

The unqualified "contemporary scholars" means ALL contemporary scholars. This sentence should not even be in the introductory paragraph because it refers to a flimsy theory by a FEW contemporary scholars. Your references are not references to work by these contemporary scholars but to people who are discussing and largely rejecting the conclusions of these few contemporary scholars. The sentence in the introduction should be removed because it is not only incorrect, as pointed out in the previous couple of sentences but refers to an unsubstantiated theory. This article is about a social phenomenon and should contain descriptions of that phenomenon not wild speculations that any Indian will tell you is nonsense. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article then goes on to write: "Other sources suggest that the caste system existed in India prior to the arrival of the British, and enumerating classes and castes do not constitute the act of constructing it. Bouglé, for example, used 17th to 19th century historical reports by Christian missionaries and some Europeans on Indian society to suggest that a rigid caste system existed in India during and before British ruled India,..."

Nowhere does this wiki article, the version as of March 22 2012, claim "all contemporary sociologists blame X, Y, or Z."

The article does cite Zwart. The wording is carefully chosen, to meet wiki's WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR and complete/NPOV guidelines. We can not write more than what Zwart actually writes, and we can not write less than what Zwart writes. Distortion of any source is not acceptable within wiki guidelines.

But you have not summarised accurately. de Swart mocked the construction theory: "This is truly a remarkable feat of social engineering. Governments all over the world can only wish they had the recipe." You can't interpret this in any other way than that De Swart does not agree that the Brits constructed the caste system. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This section of the article is about British rule and its affect on India's caste system. Since the phrase "caste system" was first recorded in 1840, and India was under British from 1840 to 1947, this section is important. We are not trying to blame colonial Brits or anyone; all we are trying to do is summarize verifiable information.

India was under a system of treaties of princely states with the East India Company, formalised as "British Rule" after 1858. Prior to 1858 the local rulers had discretion over native matters and after 1858 still had considerable powers. The British did not exercise the sort of rule that the constructivist theory demands. Your claim that caste system was not used before 1840 is also false, I have in my hand a book from 1836 that says:

"The present odious system of caste is one of those pernicious innovations which have grown out of the barbarous policy that succeeded the decadency of Hindoo literature;.." p 30

"It is difficult to ascertain how long the distinctions of caste have prevailed among the Hindoos; but this is certain, that to however remote a period these political divisions of the popular body may be traced, the narrow prejudices now entertained, and which those divisions tend to encourage and maintain, were kept in abeyance by the wisdom formerly disseminated, and by the national education then extended to all classes of the community".p 30

"From the Mahomedan conquest we may date the decay of Hindoo learning, and the destruction of the fairest monuments of Hindoo art." p 36.

The Oriental Annual 1836 or Scenes in India. A descriptive account by Hobart Caunter. Published by Edward Churton, London. 1836. Modern reprint: Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, Chennai. 2009.

Caste was degraded in 1836 according to Caunter - you should read his descriptions of famine where the higher castes gave food to cows and temples while lower castes died. The Brits didn't invent caste.

My gripe is not that you are blaming colonial Brits, I dont care about the Brits, that was long ago, it is that you are depriving Indians of responsibility for their own history and culture. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to skip your attempts to lecture on "ask any old Indian about his grandfather, etc...", because wikipedia's WP:VNT is one of its key content guidelines. We can not summarize hearsay or opinions or blogs or anything that is not verifiable in reliable sources (WP:RS). Allow me to also ignore your comments that appear as if you are somehow "self appointed spokesperson for 1.2 billion Indian people, or for 600,000 villages of India." We can only summarize what is acceptable within WP:VNT guideline.

Well, in the quote above I have given what you needed, a western account. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article and this section is far from perfect, or complete. You can help us improve this section by citing sociologists or specific reliable sources. with pages numbers if possible for you, that explain one or more of the following: (1) colonial British did not affect caste system in India; or (2) in what ways and how did colonial British affect the caste system in India; or (3) attempts by colonial British efforts to address social discrimination within India given that colonial British government controlled India's legal code and justice system; or (4) anything else relevant to caste system in India during the British rule. You can also help by posting a summary from GB Malleson that will add useful content to this section of the article, content that is not already there (I have the 1857 book with me as well).

Contrary to your prior claims in edit history that Zwart is fringe, you now admit he isn't. I assume you respect him. So, the publication from him and sociologists like him on caste system in India belong in this article.

The social constructivists are fringe. Quotes from de Swart might belong in the article but he does not support your case of British constructivism. As I quoted above "Imagine the grandeur of this thesis. Imperial administrators invented a social structure and managed to make generations of scholars, politicians and people in India believe (and act upon the idea) that this structure was real. This is truly a remarkable feat of social engineering. Governments all over the world can only wish they had the recipe." You can't interpret this in any other way than that De Swart does not agree that the Brits constructed the caste system. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the 5 citations I have provided on this aspect of this article, I suggest we add additional support to the article to make it more convincing that these views are not of Zwart and few other independent researchers already quoted. Here are a few I suggest we include in the section: (1) Nicholas B. Dirks, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of New India, 2001, ISBN=978-0691088952 (2) Mohandas K Gandhi, Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi; (3) Nobel laureates in search of identity & integrity: voices of different cultures, Anders Hallengren (the Chapter on Rabindranath Tagore, and the reference therein The Crisis of Civilization). All of these references strengthen the support for the side 'colonial British rule had an adverse impact on the caste system in India." If you believe Tagore or Gandhi or Dirks are fringe too, please explain your reasoning on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is all postmodern theory. It is not worthy of this article. Stick to actual descriptions of what actually happened. If the Brits had an adverse impact on the caste system use several descriptive sources for how wonderful it was before 1858 then for how dreadful it was by 1946 - allowing for relative local self government in native affairs and the Princely States of course. India wasn't like Africa, a people directly ruled from the centre. It was an odd and complicated sort of colonialism. The Princes could probably have thrown out the British on many occasions had they united but the Brits saved them from each other. It was the Sikhs who saved the East India Company in 1857-8. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is Zwart's article link, for a quick read: http://asj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/235 ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - Kipling is one we can trim out. On Bouglé, his essay on castes, is in three parts. Most of it, including the summary in this wiki article that is based on part 1 and part 2, is a secondary source. The proof is this comment by François Leclercq: Bouglé was a sociologist writing on great variety of issues, who did not read Sanskrit and never visited India. Bouglé talked to and read what was written by the British, the French, the Dutch and the rest on and about India. Then he summarized it in his essay. The primary source part of his essay is his definition of caste - hereditary, hierarchy and exclusionary repulsion. Most of the rest by Bouglé is a review, therefore a WP:SECONDARY source. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I had ignored the quotes from Zwart and the following comments by author now @ 59.* - "No, as your reference says, the Brits were just not that powerful." and "Your references do not support your claim that most contemporary sociologists believe the British constructed class." I did this to keep my reply short. After some reflection, I feel I must at least identify key paragraphs and clarify, for the sake of archive of this debate. Perhaps, it will help future wiki contributors to appreciate the effort we are putting in, and build upon our discussion, rather than go in circles.

I submit the author @ 59.* misunderstood Zwart; that over and over again, Zwart is summarizing numerous contemporary sociologists that support the summary in the wiki article.

The paragraphs cited by author @ 59.* are one side of Zwart's effort to present all sides of arguments. It is not complete.

Lets move beyond the abstract which I mentioned above. Consider the whole article. Page 237 of Zwart's review illustrates some of the many sociologists who suggest colonial British being instrumental in fashioning caste and caste identity in India (Cohn etc). Zwart writes, "Postmodern scholars see the caste system not as an ancient given, but as a construction that originates largely in British times." Included thereafter, are not just many Western sociologists, but Indians sociologists too.

He then discusses Smith's 1985 work. Note, Zwart is referring to two competing theories, much like what this wiki article is doing in simple English, or at least trying to. Zwart refers one of these as 'constructivist thesis' in 2nd column of page 237. Then he summarizes Ludden's work from 1993, writing, "the colonial Census Officers misled by 19th century orientalist discourse, and their upper-caste informants, wrongly considered caste and caste hierarchy to be the basic social facts of Hindu life." Zwart then considers if Ludden is just denying existence of facts, with a stroke of the pen. He explains Ludden further, to explain why this is not so. Then comes your paragraph.. "Imagine the grandeur of this..." This isn't sarcasm; Zwart is building the background for more interesting part of his review of the contrasting literature (for wiki, this is what a secondary source is).

He then reviews Bendix, Weber, Nehru, Ambedkar, Galanter, and others through page 240. Through the next few pages, he summarizes how the caste-based census began the process of parceling jobs, and then people eager for jobs to feed their families, started actively forming caste identities. During the British rule, he writes, people petitioned to be classified as upper caste; and then in late 20th century, they petitioned to be classified as lower castes. On page 242, he writes how official recognition of a caste's ritual status by the British rule determined occupational chances; that high caste status was a prerequisite for access to education and govt jobs in British India, with examples from 1920s (he summarizes Brown 1994, Frykenberg 1965, Ischick 1969, many others). He mentions British motive wasn't socio-economic equality; then discusses the Madras order of 1927; and how new caste associations emerged in the 20th century. On page 246, he finally submits the merits of competing theories of caste system in India during and after the British rule.

All the above supports the Zwart summary in wiki article, as well as the effort to present all sides of caste system during British rule. A balanced and good wiki article must concisely summarize all sides; and that is why a summary of Zwart is worth keeping in this article.

This article is not about affirmative action in India. So, we can not include lot of this debate. But we must include a concise summary of the tons of literature from postmodern scholars, of both sides, on caste system in India during the British rule. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Bouglé essay (part 1 of 3) is the key verifiable secondary source in this article for the orientalist side - that is, caste existed before and without the influence of the British rule. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The author now @ 59.* has inserted his comments above. I hope he or she will consider Zwart's summary I wrote above, with page numbers and details, and then contribute something constructive. Much of what author@59.* has just written is a repeat. This talk page isn't a forum, rather an opportunity for us to work towards an agreement, a broadly accepted consensus to improve this article. I will therefore try to summarize what we may be agreeing on. Before I do so, I should touch upon one new item added this time. That is his confusion with phrase "caste system" versus literature on caste. The phrase is verifiably credited to 1840 (see this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=caste&searchmode=none); the word caste came into literature much earlier, from castus in Europe, and applied to India in 17th century from casta. William Carey (missionary) published letters on caste in India, as did other authors, decades before 1840, and I have read them all. The key point, emerging from this discussion, is this: caste system in India during British rule is important, and a balanced version must be included in this article for an encyclopedic coverage.

Other points of agreement: 1. Zwart's article is relevant; 2. Zwart/Nehru/Gandhi/Tagore/Ludden/Smith/Brown/Ambedkar/etc are not WP:FRINGE. 3. Literature by postmodern and contemporary sociologists on caste system in India during British rule is relevant and must be summarized in this article.

Allow me the graciousness of silence on the many points of disagreement between author@59.* and I. For record, I note the author@59.* has yet to provide the list Sitush or I requested, or a single reliable secondary source that dispute Zwart's content or Zwart's phrasing on contemporary scholars from his abstract and parts of Zwart's article I quoted above. For constructive contribution, I ask that author@59.* provide such a list. Pretentious advice on 'ask any Indian' are unacceptable. In this article, we can only summarize verifiable secondary published sources, such as Zwart's summary of Indian and non-Indian sociologists. For rest, please see wiki guideline such as WP:VNT.

Finally, I do not know what wiki policies are about inserting replies into a thread on talk page, but for me such insertions are difficult to read, and possibly for anyone who would join this discussion in the future. It may be better if author@59.* would append his reply after all others. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hobart Caunter, full name Reverend John Hobert Caunter, has been mentioned by author@59.*. His book Scenes in India, which I took another look at, is a primary source, per WP:PRIMARY guidelines. Reverend Caunter writes, on page 30 of his 1836 book, the barriers he experiences in introducing Christianity to Hindoos. He even writes "caste prejudices were few and faint" in India before the innovations introduced by barbarous policy, by the bondage of a foreign domination. He claims, that in pre-British India, for many centuries until at least the 13th, it was rare to find even a poor man in a village who could not read. Reverend Caunter then goes on, page after page, describing how the 19th century India is in a degraded state, even though it was once enlightened; how India once had a school in every village, how every Hindoo parent looked upon education of his child a solemn duty, etc. etc. He discusses William Jones and what Christian missionaries saw, the famine, the kindness-filled and generous Indians he experiences, the caste biased people he experiences, the lovely Indian girl so pure in thoughts even without Christianity, etc

Despite Caunter's claim of caste prejudices being few and faint in historic India, Caunter does not belong in this article. He is very close to the event, writes an account where he is directly involved, was part of Christian missionary team in India, keeps proclaiming how his religion is superior than the heathen faith (possibility of bias affecting his writing?), etc. Neither his profuse admirations for India, nor his in depth critique of India belongs to this wiki article. Caunter does not belong in this article also because Christian missionaries' side of the story on the caste system in India is already included in the 72 specimen of castes notes.

Like Zwart, you can not take Caunter or any other author out of context. You must not take from any author those bits you like, ignore the bits you don't. For WP:NPOV we must present all sides; wiki articles must describe the controversies, not engage in them. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not take him out of context. Caunter says: "From the Mahomedan conquest we may date the decay of Hindoo learning, and the destruction of the fairest monuments of Hindoo art." p 36., as I quoted above. You are taking him out of context if you think he supports your evil Brit - stupid Indian viewpoint. You are the one who is trying to turn this article into a rant about a postmodern theory that you favour. Theories have no place in the article, they should go elsewhere. 59.90.134.210 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:1937 Jodhpur State Order- Renaming of Mali Caste as Saini.JPG

Evidence that Indians were petitioning to be classified in certain castes during the colonial British era, and British officials such as Lt. Col. Field were constructing/awarding out castes to certain people of India. A Mali is a gardener, like an agriculturist. According to this document, agriculturists can be or become Kshatriyas too.

Author@59* - it is not appropriate to use phrases such as 'evil Brit' or 'evil X' or 'evil Y' etc. You previously wrote, 'My gripe is not that you are blaming colonial Brits, I dont care about the Brits, that was long ago, it is that you are depriving Indians of responsibility for their own history and culture.' Perhaps we should address that too. This may be your agenda here, it does not belong in this article and I urge you to set it aside. It is not a constructive premise for this wiki article.

Please join me in focusing this discussion as to how we can improve this article. Just like you have recently questioned the reliability of Zwart, you must question the reliability of all sources, including the source you have cited and quoted at length: Reverend Hobart Caunter. You have not provided any reason why Hobart Caunter must be trusted, or more importantly for wiki article why Caunter qualifies as WP:SECONDARY, and why Caunter is not a WP:PRIMARY source. Remember, wiki's core content guideline is WP:VNT from reliable secondary sources. The speculations of Caunter do not qualify as acceptable in this wiki article, because Caunter is a primary source.

In contrast with Reverend Caunter are Zwart and dozens of other independent sociologists from all over the world. They have published in peer reviewed journals, are not directly involved in India, or in converting some Indians from one religious persuasion to another, and meet all wikipedia's guidelines for WP:SECONDARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Zwart belongs in this article, Reverend Caunter doesn't.

Contrary to your fear and speculations, I want to include more secondary sources for the Orientalist side, not just the Constructivist side in this wiki article. I have read numerous sources while I have been researching this topic. Other than Bougle, I can not find reliable secondary sources. The few I have come across are primary - either because they were directly involved, or because they read like a blog without any citations. I considered Kipling, the Christian missionaries - but as above discussion shows, these sources have issues as wiki sources. So, author@59.* - I welcome you to help us improve this article. Instead of speculations, give us a list of secondary sources and peer reviewed journal article citations by contemporary or postmodern sociologists who summarize non-Constructivist side and your side of the argument, better than what the article already does.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User ApostleVonColorado's conclusion from the Caste Classification request that it shows how the British had constructed caste would need to take account of the fact that Jodhpur was one of the Princely States of India and largely governed its own internal affairs. He would need to do some WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH to prove that the pro-British, but native, Maharajah of Jodhpur was not responsible for any construction of caste and to show that the act of classification was sufficient in an illiterate population to construct caste. Reading the discussion above I would suggest that he starts a new article called "Sociological Theories of Caste" although such an article might be considered original research. I agree with "59" that ApostleVonColorado is bending the article towards a particular theory of caste when the article should be an account of caste in India. I also agree that the constructivist theory is dangerously close to being racist, denying that the Indians could have been responsible for their own history and generally taking a patronising stance. Argcontrib (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In the above reply, I meant: Other than Bougle, I can not find reliable secondary sources for the Orientalist side.

I await a few secondary reliable sources citations for the Orientalist side, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article against editing, as I see an edit war developing. I'm sure there are good faith edits amongst them, but I don't want to appear to be taking sides by only semi-protecting it. It needs to be discussed here, and when a consensus is achieved, the article can be unprotected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving while simplifying this article

Background: Sitush notes this article is becoming very big and very complex. He commented that while the version of some months ago was very poor & that the subject matter is complex, he wondered if the current form of this article lacks focus? See his comment in Bougle and contemporary section above, signed and date stamped at 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

This section aims to discuss potential improvements to increase focus, and ways to simplify this article without violating wiki guidelines. It seeks comments from all interested wiki contributors.

This article is of a similar size as other discrimination related articles on wiki, a bit bigger than a few and a bit smaller than others. See, for example, Racism in the United States, Racism in Israel and Apartheid in South Africa. Given India's greater diversity and complexity, writing a concise article is a challenge, particularly given the abundance of WP:PRIMARY sources and the less abundant WP:SECONDARY sources. I wonder if any simplified article will always be contested as incomplete, considered as insensitive to one or more specific interest groups.

Here are some suggestions:

Trim out all primary sources. Sections that have no verifiable support from WP:RS sources needed to be tagged as citation needed.
Trim out sections where the content summary moves significantly away from the subject 'caste' that is broadly applicable to current or historic India. For example, tribes of India, affirmative action and legal status for tribes in India, Kipling's observations when he is a primary source, generic off topic commentary in the article's Criticism section, etc.
Merge sections that cover the same topic. For example, the reform sub-section can be merged into a similar section later.
Eliminate repetitive paragraphs if they add nothing unique. For example, the section on genetics is citing many articles each taking one side of the two proposed controversial theories. We may simplify the section by summarizing the two theories and cite the multiple journal articles in one or the other.
Clarify language in various sections, including but not limiting to the lead section to simplify and for clarity. For example, rewrite to avoid the impression that "all sociologists now agree that X, Y or Z is the truth about current or historic caste system in India." The writing should strive to include all broadly supported ideas/theories/sides of caste system in India for balance and WP:NPOV.
The focus of this article can be improved and content simplified if newspaper stories of hate crimes in niche part of India (directly affecting less than say 0.01% of India's population), newspaper stories of those civil right leaders or volunteers who worked on or working on anti-discrimination efforts in India (directly affecting less than say 0.01% of India's population) were to be considered not notable enough for this wiki article. These are important, but are they notable for this wiki article? I do not understand whether notability should be an important measure for this article, and if yes, how to use that measure to constructively improve while simplifying this article. Comments from experienced wiki editors will be appreciated.

While we may never have the perfect article on this controversial and sensitive topic, the article can be improved, made more complete and more balanced than what it is on March 25 2012. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not remove references to specific sociological theories that are contested? Recording that the British maintained a classification of caste is OK, saying that the British contructed caste as a result of this activity is contentious because it is an untestable sociological theory. Do not include theories of this type, they diminish Wikipedia. Argcontrib (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article is more than a dictionary. Encyclopedia covers many aspects of a subject. For social science subjects, particularly those that are complicated, controversial and complex, for example caste system in India, we should expect wiki article to include theories and opinions. As wiki's WP:VNT core policy on content explains, there are no universal truths in social sciences; only a combination of facts, theories, opinions, and opinions about opinions. That is all we have for social science topics. What is testable and what is not in social sciences, is not a topic for this talk page. For wiki, we can not be finders of truth, we can not judge whether a theory is testable or untestable as you suggest, because that would be original research as explained in WP:OR. All we can do is to include a NPOV summary of all reliable and verifiable majority and minority views and theories. Presenting all verifiable theories on social science topics enhances wikipedia.

You are welcome to suggest content, if you have verifiable and reliable sources with theories - testable or untestable - if these have not been covered in this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This Article is Poorly Written

I know nothing about the Indian caste system. I got through the first half of this article, and I still know nothing about it. It's a type of social stratification system. Got it. But this article seems to be written in a manner that is overly politically correct; so much so that it tells the reader nothing. I imaging this has been done for fear of touching on sensitive Indian issues, or some such. Well, get over it and just write the article. Right now it’s crap. The article also appears to biased in defense of the caste system, or at least overly apologetic for it. It's pretty annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You have shared a genuine concern, but I'm hopeless about any fruitful impact. I also suspect some sort of political agenda to keep the theme away from the actual. It's a compromising version of the article and tries to divert the subject from the basic issues. Those who know the caste system from the ground level just wonder the same way as you have done now-AshLey ^Msg 16:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical Criticism section

The version of this section had one blog as citation, and no other verifiable source, as of April 7 2012. It is also a long list of who criticized caste system is India, and nothing more. A more relevant, complete and encyclopedic version would focus on substance of the criticism, the what and the how and other details about historical criticism of the caste system in India. The section also mentioned a Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple claiming, without verifiable citation, that it being the first upper-caste temple to openly welcome Dalits into their fold. However, that internally linked wiki article has no description on this, and does not even mention this. Therefore, I am removing all this unverifiable poorly sourced content for now, to simplify this article. Wiki contributors are welcomed to add back such content with verifiable, secondary and WP:RS compliant references. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kerala - Duncan Forrester reference

I welcome the contribution on Kerala Christians. I request that the wiki contributor clarify the current form on this talk page, or consider significantly rewording it because it reads WP:POV and unbalanced.

For example, Harold Coward summarizes Duncan Forrester when he writes "Syrian Christians had inserted themselves..." on page 18. But that is not all that Coward includes. He also mentions the divide between Catholics and Protestants on caste system in general, and in India in particular. A NPOV, balanced version would include this; the disagreements and tension between the so called Mission of Help and Syrian Church; the Coward/Forrester discussion of Roberto de Nobili; etc. - with regards to caste system in India, both within Christianity in India and Christianity outside India. Perhaps some of this discussion needs to be in Caste system among Indian Christians with a good short summary here?

Finally, I can not find support for the opening clause in this sub-section, "Even though the caste system is an attribute of Hindu Society, the.." Please identify which page Howard Coward claims this. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You should perhaps be made aware that similar concerns regarding POV issues have been raised at Caste system in Kerala, involving contributions made by the same editor & fundamentally comprising the same content & sources. I am trying to locate the sources in order to read them in toto because there have been past instances of severe pushing & cherry-picking by other members of the SC community across a swathe of articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the opening clause is my understanding and if needed i could cite sources. In a previous discussion, Sitush also agreed with it.

Regarding, conflicts between protestants and Syrians :Is it really related to caste system? Ofcourse, the casteist mentality of syrians prevented them from mingling with new entrants to Christianity from the lower castes. Anyway, I have just started the cleaning up process; would add more info on the situation of Syrians in the colonial period too. I welcome your participation whole heartedly. -Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.210.162 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that I would ever have agreed with the opening clause & I have tagged it here. The "cleaning up process" for this articles has been going on for some time and, frankly, as with the other article, if you add much more about the SCs (who were of course a minority community) then you may well be getting into the realms of undue weight etc. It is interesting to me that someone else, who seems to be unaware of the Kerala article, pretty much came out with exactly the same sort of comments about your edits as I have done previously. Food for thought, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: I would welcome reliable secondary sources for the opening clause. May need rewording to avoid combining sources and resultant synthesis and POV concerns.

Protestants and Syrians - from one source you cited, the relevant conflict is their perceptions of caste system in India; See Forrester discussion and summary by Coward. Whether this is something more than one source claims, or whether this is in dispute, I do not know. I need to find reliable sources, read on this more, before I can make an informed comment. Perhaps you can cite two or more WP:RS secondary independent sources to strengthen key parts of the summary you added.

Sitush: Your comment leads me in the right direction. Thanks, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, Pls recall your comment in the Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution: "I've not checked the second source yet but I am a bit concerned that a caste system that was effectively imposed by Nambudiris is becoming subsumed by a lot of content relating to a non-Hindu community. There should be a mention, of course, but the SCs were outside the Hindu system and caste is fundamentally a Hindu concept. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)" Again, I don't agree with your call on undue weight to a minority community as Syrians are the largest forward-caste community in Kerala. Also, their case of enjoying an upper-caste status from a period centuries before the arrival of Portuguese is a peculiar one in the history of India and needs sufficient attention and weight.

ApostleVonColorado, In the book: Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan By Edmund Ronald Leach, p.1, Leach briefs as follows "As an ethnographic category, it refers exclusively to a system of social organization peculiar to Hindu India". In the introductory passage of the this wiki article, the same source is cited against the sentence "Although identified with Hinduism, caste systems have been also observed among other religions in the Indian subcontinent, including some groups of Muslims, Buddhists and Christians.[11][12][13]". Since the introductory clause of the subsection related to Christians converges with the idea of the main article, I think, separate citation is not necessary. --AshLey ^Msg 08:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: Thank you for that citation. I read it. Before that sentence, Leach emphasizes, on page 1, that he is expressing a personal opinion, not shared by others in the book he is editing. Personal opinions are neither secondary nor a foundation as a reliable source. Leach also mentions that the term caste is used by sociologists and anthropologists in ways other than Leach is using. The opening clause ignores this disclosed dispute; so, it can be improved with a qualifier - if something from Leach publication must be included. My other concern is that we can not cherry pick stuff from two different sources, such as Leach and Coward, then synthesize it into a sentence because it causes WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:NOR issues. For these reasons, I am revising that sentence. I welcome another form, if you can do so without synthesis and OR. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, Yes, I got your point, and I'm not adamant to include that introduction as the points I tried to contribute could be narrated in the present form without any distortion. But, when I read this article, I feel, we are trying to put the entire blame on British, though they could have ignited the issues as a part of Divide and Rule. In my opinion, we should be bold here to narrate the positives and negatives of Caste System as an indigenous one, and then we could move on to depict the political games of European colonialists as well as Indian politicians. It's my personal view, and since my research area is limited to the caste system in Kerala only, my opinion may not be abiding with the consensus view.

I would appreciate your suggestion on the POV issue of Kerala system after the new additions--AshLey ^Msg 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: I submit wiki is not, and should not be a place to be bold about whether 'X is indigenous'; nor is it a place to synthesize theories on 'X is not indigenous, Y is to be blamed'. Wiki is a place for content that abides by its core content guidelines - which includes that all content be a NPOV balanced summary from verifiable reliable secondary sources. If we can not find multiple reliable, verifiable, secondary sources for a major claim, it does not belong in wiki articles such as this or other caste-related wiki articles.

I am not prepared to comment on Kerala POV issue yet; I must get more WP:RS sources, read a lot more for a complete picture. Meanwhile, this article is too long (as Sitush and others have noted). In our passion to write, let us not forget the wiki readers, from all over the globe, who seek an encyclopedically short, brief, balanced and beautifully written article summarizing the most important notable aspects. I also wonder whether and how much detail from each state of India must be included in this article. Any thoughts? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, The introductory part is good, but when a reader enters the history, he gets no idea of the origin of the caste system in India - It portrays some similarity with Iranian system, but fails to mention the way it reached in India. Other theorems also fail in this aspect. The article also needs to explain the meaning of untouchability, pollution, purification etc for a newcomer. Similarly the systems of social stratification in Japan and other countries are considered as caste-like systems(not caste systems exactly) in a conditional way and the caste is mentioned as an Indian system in some of the the cited sources. Also, instead of narrating the matter in an encyclopedic way, quotes of Amartya Sen, Gandhi, Ambedkar etc are used in the article, which only helps to confuse the reader.

Separate articles for each state could be created and linked to main article. But if you are specifying the case of Christians in Kerala, I have already mentioned that the case was peculiar. In the pre-colonial period, Christian presence was there in Kerala only. They were culturally a Hindu society for many centuries and was part of the Hindu caste system. This point needs to be mentioned if the article has some space for Caste among non-Hindus, else could be omitted altogether. --AshLey ^Msg 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: Summaries from each state of India would make this article too complex, long and unnecessarily difficult. I am not convinced the case of Christians in Kerala, Christians in Goa, Christians in TN, etc; followed by case of Hindus in Kerala, Hindus in Goa, Hindus in TN, etc; followed by Buddhists in each state and Sikhs in each state and so on.... would make this article comprehensible. I urge we keep the focus on 'caste system in India' for the sake of the reader and wiki's guidelines. Let us remove content that is state by state, broken down to sub-state-by-religion level - is it really notable at national level? Giving undue emphasis to Christians in Kerala or some group takes out balance. Please persuade why such state-and-religion level is notable in an article on caste system in India. On the rest, on explaining pollution etc - I have read 100 books and 200 articles in refereed journals on caste system in India; Plus dozens on caste systems outside India. There is neither consensus on origins, nor on concepts you list, nor whether these are theoretical constructs or were reality 100 years ago. If you have secondary sources, that meet wiki WP:RS and WP:VNT guidelines, and that have not been already included, that suggest content not already in this article, please cite them on this talk page. I will read them, and you, I, others active on this articles can together improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, I didn't recommend State wise summaries, but links to those articles only. I admit, the state wise narration of Christian-case may become a bad precedent, and hence we may merge those sub-sections, arranging the info in a time-line: pre-colonial, colonial and modern period. There is no question of undue weight to Kerala as I have already told that the Christian presence was there in Kerala only, during pre-colonial period. I wonder, how we could narrate the Christian-case in pre-colonial period without mentioning the Syrian Christian community in Kerala. More-over, almost all reliable WP:RS related to Caste and Christianity gives due weight to their case, and we ought to follow same criteria. Christians are not present in many regions of India, and hence we can't generalize their case as like Hindus, since the social stratification may be limited within themselves in one case, or else they may act as a caste within the caste system of Majority community. At one region, caste-status may be related to ethnicity and in other to numerical strength and power. So, Kerala Christian case and Goa Christian case can't be bracketed into a single category, but we may merge into single sub-section avoiding the titles.

Dumont, Louis. Homo Hierarchicus: "Stratification is thus a ’sociocentric’ concept which cannot cope with the unique phenomenon of Indian caste." - So their are secondary sources opposing the view pushed by this articles: "Caste is not unique to India". We need to balance it.

Gerald D. Berreman. Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification - "The rationale which justifies the caste system is both religious and philosophical, relying upon the idea of ritual purity and pollution to explain group rank, and upon the notions of right conduct, just deserts, and rebirth to explain the individual’s fate within the system."....."If one requires of a caste system that it be based on consensus as to its rationale, its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the relative rank of its constituent groups, then none of the examples mentioned here is a caste system." -This source is already cited in the article, gives sufficient weight to pollution etc. Also, the author hasn't considered Caste System equivalent to Ethnic Stratification unconditionally. These views are ignored in this article.

Caste and Race in India .Govind Sadashiv Ghurye -is an online source. It describes the hierarchy and features of the caste system, missing parts in this article. --AshLey ^Msg 13:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: Thank you for the three references. These were part of my library of sources and research. I submit that these three sources write a lot more than the phrases you quote, we must not cherry pick, and ensure that this wiki article remains balanced and respectful of everything that each of these books write.

Dumont, for example, discusses amongst other things, his theory of three periods of caste system study and three explanations of caste - Voluntarist, Limiting and Historical. There he cites other scholars and explains how and why these scholars believe caste is not unique to India. Dumont even goes so far as to state this (at page 25), "Now, contrary to what Hindus often imagine, caste has no place in the Veda, which, for Hindus, contains all relevation;" followed by this, "caste is complex, essentially a question of a particular form of distinctions relating to birth, social situation and degree of education, as are known in all societies." (my emphasis) On page 202, while describing castes, he writes, "This will pave the way for summarily setting in perspective the apparently similar facts found outside India." Pages after pages, this theme prevails. Yes, Dumont tries to discuss, explain the controversies on unique aspects of caste system in India; but no where is he concluding that caste system is unique to India.

Berreman is already cited, as you note. Your concern that Berreman hasn't considered Caste System equivalent to Ethnic Stratification unconditionally, is important and it concerned me. I re-read this wiki article, and I fail to see where this article claims such unconditional equivalence. I may have missed it. If you can guide me to it, we must rewrite to improve this article.

The features/hierarchy/etc from Ghurye you mention, is where Ghurye is a WP:PRIMARY source; he uses census reports of colonial era (page 29-31, later chapters) to propose his theory. Yes, Ghurye is in parts, a secondary source, for example: Ghurye writes that despite numerous work of scholars, we do not possess a real, general definition of caste; that any attempt at definition is bound to fail because of the complexity of the phenomena. Chapter 10 and others by Ghurye discuss how British colonial rule, census and policies caused caste construction and then 'extraordinary revival of caste spirit'; if Ghurye is added, it will cause undue weight to British rule's influence on caste system section.

I concur with you that we should trim, simplify and merge sections, rather than focus on caste-by-each-religion-divided-by-each-state. I am reading a bit on Christians and caste in India, and will try an edit after I am better informed. I welcome others and you to edit, merge and simplify, meanwhile. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, I'm concerned about this sentence: "Caste is neither unique to Hindu religion nor to India; caste systems have been observed in other parts of the world, for example, in Muslim community of Yemen, Christian colonies of Spain, and Buddhist community of Japan." It's an unconditional equation of other systems similar to Caste System with Indian Caste System. --AshLey ^Msg 13:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is not. It is a statement that there are similar (not necessarily identical) systems found elsewhere than India. That is also reflected in the title of this article and many others. Regarding Apostle's reading around, so am I. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, You have to be bit more cautious in translation. The sentence I quoted here can't be translated like you have done. Please don't draw the disputes in other forums to here. I have seen many comments against you in other forums like RSN--AshLey ^Msg 13:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley: That statement indeed means that there are similar, not necessarily identical systems found elsewhere than India. For support, see Berreman's discussion from pages 322-327, including his reasoning why the phrase 'caste in Japan,' is appropriate in the context of Burakumin. Berreman is not alone; Cahill too at pp 336-339 uses the term castes; same for Yemen. I will re-read the three cited references carefully over the next few days, then reconsider your 'unconditional equivalency' interpretation. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ashley, I translated nothing. I am English and have no need to translate English. I mentioned no dispute in the statement that you responded to and have not posted here for a few days previously. I am bemused, and even more so with your blatantly misrepresentative insinuation regarding RSN or whatever. You really must stop doing that: I've got over 50,000 edits under my belt and while that does not make me any more qualified than you, it does indicate a degree of experience here and it is an experience that has been gained without being blocked etc. You may wish to reflect on that when you see comments "against me": I know my way around. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado and Sitush, WIki articles should brief the matter in encyclopedic way and here this sentence could mislead some readers, especially newcomers to this subject. A few sources could support the present view, but not all. A qualifier like "analogous" could resolve the issue as many sources describe it so. If it clarifies the message more, why we should omit it? --AshLey ^Msg 11:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)