Talk:Kayastha/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Note

The Kayastha article has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Some aspects of the article currently being discussed here may have been up for discussion there. Editors here are welcome to participate in the discussion there. MangoWong 03:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When I'd visited the link given sometime back, I saw references to this article, as I did not have the time then, I thought, I'd participate in the discussion later. But, today, when I visited the page, I cannot find those or related references anymore. I would also like to participate in other discussions where you think I can be useful, provided I have time.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC))
The above message was meant for any and all eds who might have like to participate in that discussion. Since you have asked to be informed about discussions in which I think you could be interested, I may post some messages and links for you on your user talk page from now. Without you saying so, it is difficult to know what may be of interest to you and there is a chance that someone may not like messages about things which they are not interested in. But I would not have to worry too much about that anymore. - MW ℳ 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Surnames

Those are not the only surnames and family names of kayathas! What about Shrivastava, Khare, Nigam etc.? What about the original legendary sub-clans of kayathas that are included in the mythological origins section? Thats an obvious mistake! Ankit21694 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit21694 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone else think that the Surnames section is just original research? I keep dipping into the linked articles and they are mostly involved in a circular reference: from this article to them and from them to this.

Who has determined that these names are "common" in the Kayastha community? Where do we draw the line? How do we know that we have not accidentally omitted one that is in fact more frequently used than some which are already in the list? What purpose does the section serve in any event? - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that the names in the list are common ! ( e.g. Saxena, Mathur, Malhotra, Gupta etc.) I agree that in the absence of verifiable references, this list can be considered original research. However, in many Indian communities , the surname immediately tells you who comes from where. I remember when I lived in UK, a man claimed to be a brahmin but gave his name as Srivastav. Since I knew Srivastav was a common North Indian kayastha surname. I challenged him on the discrepancy. That is when he admitted that he was Kayasth and it was easier to say brahmin rather than go through all the explanations as to who the kayasth are. This could be due to UK Hindu community originating from the Gujarat region via East Africa and therefore being ignorant of Hindu communities originating from other regions of India.

Sitush, I would restore the list and put a citation tag and see whether what happens. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. What about my last question - "What purpose does the section serve in any event?" There are, for example, certain names that would commonly (but not exclusively) be associated with people from Wales (Jones, Hughes, Price etc) but as far as I know we do not list them in any article on Welsh people. I might be wrong, but I cannot recall seeing such a thing. This is not a trivial example: the population of Wales is less than the population of quite a few Indian castes/communities. It just does not seem encyclopedic to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The function any encyclopedia is to inform and so I don't see why there could not be a list of specifically Welsh surnames like Owen, Howe, Davis , Jones etc. On a global scale, perhaps, it does not matter but for the British population it may be of importance. In the past user Mathewvanitas removed the list of Maratha surnames from the article, Maratha clan system. I believe it was a great resource and was sad to see it removed. Once again, I recommend , you restore the Kayasth surnames and I will dig for a verifiable reference. If none can be found then you would be fully justified in removing the information. regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the problem. Those names are not specifically Welsh, nor I suspect are the names that were listed here specifically Kayastha. I can imagine that some names are more common but it is likely to be original research to claim uniqueness, even with allowances made for the effects of endogamy over the centuries. For this reason, it is encyclopedic to have articles for the names (as we do, mostly) but not necessarily so to connect to them from here. I'll restore it for now but I remain unconvinced. Perhaps you can find something that I missed. I've not seen MV around for a while, btw, nor can I recall having any involvement with that Maratha article, but my bet is he had pretty much the same viewpoint as I do. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought Owen and Davis were specifically Taffy names but perhaps I was wrong. As far as MV's views on the maratha article, yes, his views were similar to yours , i.e. no reliable source.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Any progress regarding this surname issue? - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
We now have some slight progress, since the section is sourced to Nripendra Kumar Dutt (1965). Origin and Growth of Caste in India, Volume 2. Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-1-4437-3590-2. Retrieved 28 January 2012.. The problems are: (a) I cannot find references to those names in the cited pages of that source, using snippet view; (b) one would think that the initial contribution would list them all but in fact new names keep being added, citing the same source. I am wondering whether this might in fact be a fake reference. Can anyone provide a copy of the relevant pages? - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I have not much to say about the Surname issue, but I would like to bring up the issue of the picture used in this article. This picture, a caricature, is not really representative of Kayasthas, as it claims to depict only a 'special' category of Kayasthas (Bengali Kayasthas). I don't really understand why we should be using this picture, if a more representative and authentic picture/ illustration can be used.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC))
I moved this conversaiton into another section, so it would not get confused with the surnames section. I think a new picture is warranted if one can be found, the caricature pic is interesting (its not bad), but i think we can do better.MilkStraw532 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing to prevent the inclusion of additional pictures. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Three Clusters of Kayastha Populations

Kayastha population of India is just about 7.2 Million, which is only 0.62% of the Indian population. The population of Kayastha can be divided into three clusters and each cluster has major differences with others.

Kayastha Population of India 2011- Source Joshua Project
Kayastha Population of India 2011- Source Joshua Project
Kayastha Population Cluster 2011- Source Joshua Project
Kayastha Population Cluster 2011- Source Joshua Project



Here are the differences –

Chitragupt Kayastha Bengali Kayastha CKP – Chandraseni Kayastha Prabhu Bengali Kayastha CKP – Chandraseni Kayastha Prabhu
Population 3.48 Million 3.52 Million 0.238 Million
Language Hindi Bengali Marathi
Intermarriage with Other 2 Kayastha No - Traditionally No - Traditionally No - Traditionally
Other Factors More Similar to other UPites in terms of culture and everyday living than Bengali Kayastha, or CKP More Similar to other Bengalis in terms of culture and everyday living than Chitragupt Kayastha, or CKP More Similar to other Marathis in terms of culture and everyday living than Chitragupt Kayastha, or Bengali Kayastha


You might want consider separating these Kayasthas into 3 different pages to make it more meaningful.

Here is the more information on Kayastha population distrubution. I am sure many of you will know more information on migration of Kayastha across India, starting from first settlements in UP, moving to Maharasthra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Bengal.

Joshua Project where this population data is taken from, takes it information Indian Population census data. It is presented by Joshua project in such a way that it can be easily diced and drilled down. The numbers of Kayastha population given here can be cross referenced and checked with Indian Population data.

This information on clustering can be a starting point for others to contribute further points to the table that shows the differences between different Kayastha Clusters, and to decide if Kayastha page merit separation. I did not include it on the main page. I am just leaving this info in the discussion pages so folks who manage this page and more knowledgeable about the topic can decide to use whatever is worthwhile, and discard partially or totally if they find it irrelvent.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.152 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You will need to demonstrate the differences between these communities using reliable sources before we can form any basis for splitting the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


What's the Joshua Project? Are they a reliable source? Why did they divide the groups this way? Is there some difference in the groups, other than just a migration pattern? For example, if the Project is reliable, but the only difference is one of migration patterns, then it's likely the case that the information should just be mentioned in this article, rather than having the article split. In other words, even if this is reliable information, we can't split it if there isn't sufficient information to put in each article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I found the answer to my own questions at Joshua Project. That absoultely does not appear to be a reliable source for data about Indian ethnic/caste groups. As far as I can tell, their information is not peer reviewed, nor do they have the status of "experts" such that their word alone is sufficient to make these claims reliable. If they have published these claims in a reliable academic journal or other similar source, we can consider the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the JP has been rejected at WP:RSN on several occasions - I always delete on sight any references to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

Dear Team, The caste kayastha in Odisha is called Karana/Karan.They are considered a hgiher caste below Brahmins,similar to Bengali Kayastaha. The renowned Kayastha personalities are Biju Pattanaik,Naveen Pattanaik,Akshaya Mohanty,Bijay Mohanty,Chintamani Mohanty,pancha sakha,Gopinath Mohanty,Surendra Mohanty,Manoj Das,Bhagirathi Das, Kanduri Das, Bhagwana Das, Bibhuti Patnaik and Pratibha Ray,Jagadish Mohanty, Kanheilal Das,Manoranjan Das. Munishlin (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Qwyrixian is there any reliable source quoted here? Any single King's circular declaring the status of any population group? Any single evidence of the people who written the Vedas are the same as those who are living now in Arjabarta? Any evidence of how varna or caste came into India? Any evidence that it is different from Apartheid? In evidence regarding the Tribal identity of these population groups?
Regarding evidence of the above demand , yes there is one " The History of Bengali People , Ancient Period By Dr. N.R.Ray " .Here it is clearly written that Karans are Kayasthas.117.194.194.194 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you provide details of what the book says? Maybe a paragraph or two? That way we can understand the context for the claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
QUOTATION FROM THE BOOK : " The eleventh century lexicographer , Vaijayanti,spoke of writers as Karanas and said that Karana and Kayastha were synonomous.Further , in the commentary by Ksirasvami on the lexicon , the Amarakosa , Karana and Kayastha are given as meaning a class of Government officials, and the two words are synonymous in the Ajayagara inscription of the Candella,Bhojvarma.............. ,in Bihar the system of writing accounts is still the extraordinary method called kaithi-writing , the name being taken from Kayastha.The Vrihaddharma Purana uses Karana and Kayastha synonymously.The Karana community in northern Bihar is still considered to be branch of Kayasthas, and many of the Kayasthas of northern Rarha still regard themselves as Karanas. The Karanas of Medinipur, Orissa and Madhyapradesh are regarded as the descendants of Chitragupta , .... , so to are the Bengali Kayasthas." pp-174-175, First English Edition, 1994 .Orient Longmann.117.194.200.96 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
We would need a full quotation - the use of "..." is not helpful because context is key when examining sources. The book is only available to me in snippet view. - Sitush (talk)

16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is part 4 of Chapter named "Caste Patterns" of the book. The full quotation is not being possible at present.The whole content does not acknowledge Kshatriya status of Bengali Kayasthas. It also says that the classification of the Bengalis is not according to the Rigvedic aryian system , it is Alpine aryan system: large number of references are there . Kayasthas are like Govt. Officials declaring or getting acknowledged themselves as a different caste . It is strongly substantiated discourse. How is it possible to quote the whole discourse here?117.194.195.155 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is the full quote not possible? Are you using Google Books snippet view? - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
At present I don't have the e-copy of the book.117.194.201.106 (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. Well, when you or someone else does have then maybe we can examine this further. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
O.K. I have collected one copy of the English translation.How to submit it?117.194.206.88 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Kayastha Surnames

Sitush,

I respectfully urge you to restore the surname section under the page for Kayastha.

I agree that some anonymous users have been adding erroneous and unsourced information, but should that be a reason to remove properly sourced, relevant information? Your vigilance in keeping the site "clean" is appreciated, but it's a disservice to the entire page if a section of facts is removed simply because a handful of people anonymously vandalize the section with untruths... It's better to demand that new information be added to the section only if it is properly sourced.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

Melotown (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment above. Can you explain what it is that is encyclopedic about a list of surnames, please? They are neither unique to the community nor is a list likely to be even a fairly complete survey. As such, it appears to give undue weight to those mentioned even if sourced. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Melotown, please can we remove the section that you reinstated. Even with your inline note, it is once again being abused regularly and, as I say above, it is clearly giving undue weight to the few that are mentioned compared to the many that other people have tried to insert over recent months. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. I didn't think of the WP:UNDUE issue. Since we have reason to believe that there are many many other Kayastha surnames, but we don't have good sources for them, it's probably correct to remove the whole list. I think keeping it would only be legitimate if we had a really really good source that explicitly said something like "The following are the most common Kayastha surnames: ...". However, I'm still open to being persuaded Melotown--what makes this specific list so much more important than other unsourced names such that we meet the requirements of WP:NPOV?Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
But in the interest of preserving my sanity, I'm going to remove the section now until Melotown provides a solid argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I support the removal for the reasons given - we don't have any exhaustive or definitive sources, the names that are sourced are almost certainly only a small subset and are very likely not exclusively Kayastha surnames anyway, and that leaves us with an WP:UNDUE short list emphasizing some names that are not specifically prominent. (And it's a maintenance nightmare anyway, with people constantly making unsourced additions, adding news ones and claiming they're supported by the existing source, etc.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Given the controversy that has arisen from this section, I am not opposed to having it removed. My intention was not to provide an exhaustive list of Kayastha surnames. The five surnames that I had added were supported by multiple online sources, and I was open to other surnames being added provided that they, too, were properly sourced. But for some reason, anonymous users have continuously added additional surnames without any sources, which I agree comprises the entire section. While there are surely more Kayastha surnames than the five that I had added, it is likely that only those five surnames have verifiable, legitimate, English sources given that they are all Bengali, as Bengalis have a history of literacy and contact with the Western world that has allowed their culture to be properly documented through modern times. In any event, while it is sad that anonymous users can have such undue influence on the site, I wish not the entire page to be continuously comprised at the hands of a few miscreants. Thus, I am fine with the removal of the section. Melotown (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And that may be a first: editors on a talk page about Indian castes coming to a mutually agreed upon decision, with everyone happy in the end. :) Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Old census reports etc

I have just tagged an 1890s source as being dubious. We really should not be using sources such as these. Can anyone find something that is (a) post-independence in origin and (b) not produced by the Anthropological Survey of India, which mostly duplicates the old Raj sources without proper attribution or critique. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

C.K.P. under the Maratha states of Gaikwad in Barodaand Bhonsle of Nagpur

C.K.P. ( a Marathi speaking Kayastha group) served the states formed by the Gaikwad in Baroda, Gujarat and the Bhonsles of Nagpur. These were not "family holdings" but fully fledged states of the Maratha Confederacy. I hope people do not get stuck up on the word family in the original reference. By the same token serving in Saudi Arabia does not mean one is serving the Saudi family even though the state was formed by the conquests of the Saudi family.

The original reference says on page 145 [1]and I quote " In other new"states" - the Gaikwad in Gujarat and Bhonsle family in Nagpur - the administration was not Chitpavan. Both families used C.K.Ps (Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu) in their Bureacracy." Incidently, the state of Baroda ruled by the Gaikwad was one of the biggest Princely states during the British Raj If necessary I will add additional references. From my own knowledge of the Hyderabad Kayastha and the C.K.Ps, I know that they served the Nizam and the Maratha rulers respectively. and I do know that verifiable references need to be added per Wikipedia policy. The wikipedia article on C.K.P. also mentions administrators and generals who served Shivaji I hope this clarifies the matter for everyone concerned.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

as sitush stated, 2 families does not make worthy mention in the lead which covers the most important and relevant facts. see WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Jonathansammy,can you please list any other refs that you have. The source is a bit vague - as you admit - and we cannot rely on what other WP articles say. Of course, if those articles have reliable sources then we could use those sources here, but I don't have time to check them out right now. I really would advise you not to edit this article for a good few hours as it could get messy: let's see what you have here. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

^ Balkrishna Govind Gokhale (1988). Poona in the eighteenth century: an urban history. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 17 November 2012. ^ a b c d e f TV Gupte (1904). Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu. These are the two references under CKP. Please do not revert my edit. In a couple of days , I should be able to get more references. on CKP serving the Maratha rulers.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, three different editors have reverted that addition. Again, just because there were 2 families that qualify does not mean that we can state, in general, that the whole of the Marathi Empire did. We need a reference that actually says that, directly; we can't draw conclusions on our own based on individual people. Please do not reinsert the information until after you have valid sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be dubious about relying on Gupte - who were they? who published them? why were they writing? are they likely to be any more reliable than all the other well-intentioned blarney published in the British Raj period? Your Gokhale source will need page numbers. As something of an aside, I was under the impression that there were many, many feudatory dynasties forming a part of the Maratha Empire and that the term "princely state" is entirely a British Raj designation. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr/ Mrs Qwyrxian, You say and I quote "Again, just because there were 2 families that qualify does not mean that we can state, in general, that the whole of the Maratha Empire did. We need a reference that actually says that, directly; we can't draw conclusions on our own based on individual people." First of all, for most part the Maratha Empire in the 1700s was more a confederacy rather than a unified empire. The "families", Bhonsle of Nagpur and Gaekwad in Gujarat controlled territories bigger than many modern states and paid nominal allegiance either to the Peshwa (Prime minister) of Pune or the Chhatrapati King in Satara. What I don't understand is why everybody is insisting that the reference only talks about families when it clearly says "states" formed by these families.I agree that not all Maratha states employed CKP as their administrators. The Peshwa of Pune favored their own Chitpavan Kokanastha brahmin caste in making appointments. As a compromise , I suggest, we modify the sentence in dispute as follows: Kayasthas have historically occupied the highest government offices, serving as ministers and advisors during early medieval Indian kingdoms, the Mughal Empire, some states of the Maratha Empire and in important administrative positions during the British Raj. BTW. I am not a Kayastha or a caste warrior you have encountered in recent months! Stewart Gordon's reference is a modern, respectable British source. I do not see why there should be any doubts about its reliability Jonathansammy (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. It always did strike me as unlikely that having served immediately prior to the Maratha period and immediately after it, they were not around during it. However, we have to go off the sources and thus the sort of arguments that have been raised in this discussion. Gordon is reliable but also is a bit vague; nonetheless, your suggested wording provides room for manoeuvre. Let's see what others think first before rushing in, though. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Kayastha

One totally different explanation is recorded in the Dictionary by Molesworth in his Marathi/English dictionary prepared for the British East India Company's officers to learn Marathi language. Since this is a very reliable source and original also, I wish to put it here for discussion. I feel that the reference is valid and so information given in that be put on main page. Information is available on page no. 158 of 6th reprint published by Shubhada Saraswat Prakashan Pune of Molesworth's Marathi English Dictionary compiled by James Thomas Molesworth in 1857. [2] Under word Kayastha following meaning he gives based on reference of a Sanskrit work, "Jativivek". Kayastha – A caste or tribe or an individual of it. One of the two distinctions comprehended under Parabhu (Prabhu) viz. Kayastha and Pathare. Their employment is writing and administration.

Of the distinction Kayastha the origin is from a Vahiya father and Mahiya mother. According to a sentence in the book "Jativivek", viz. "Vaidehikat mahinyayam", Vaidehikat is the offspring of a business class male and in congress with a Brahman female, and Mahiya is the daughter of a Kshatriya father and a business class mother. Of the distinction Pathare the origin is from a Kshatriya male in common with his own Kshatriya wife on the second day of her menstruation. Kayastha is essentially a mix blood community without marriage bond and so "Akulin"; whereas Pathare Prabhu is essentially pure blood community with marriage and so Kulin [3]

This referece shows that other claims of other references that it is a community of some original tribe or caste having migrated to india is not right but it is a community formed during the Magadh period. During that period all class of people mixed and a mix blood community formed and that is the kayastha community. Being a crossbreed, they are very smart and advancing in their ways. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A dictionary written in the time of the British East India Company is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Si Tush, As I said long time ago to you, as a Chemist, I have cited references from as early as 1850s (Edward Frankland if you will) for one of my papers published in a peer reviewed journal. That being so, why does the Wikipedia community thinks that for social sciences the reference has to be much recent ? Yes, we have talked about the motives of the British colonial officials, the "amateur" nature of the research , the racist attitudes etc. Regardless, if these are the only references available, shouldn't one mention them in a Historiography section at least? Regards Jonathansammy (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason is WP:CONSENSUS, including various threads at WP:RSN. Your own description of the sources is exactly why they should not be used. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately, the relative lack of contemporary work on caste related subjects means an article on a specific caste will not reflect the true situation of the said group.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2013

Kaya means "body" asthu means "be it so" or "set" The meaning of Kayastha will be one with the set body or one with good physique. Traditionally the Kayasthas are the ones who have good set Bodies. The Warrior class. They are the ones on whom the kings depended. Ref: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=kAya&direction=SE&link=yes&choice=yes Sweetatom (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure whether your source is reliable but in any event it lists many possible definitions for the word. You cannot select just one in order to suit some personal preference, nor can you provide an explanation of the name that only deals with the first four letters of it. This borders on original research, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Edit Request on 9th April 2013 - Regarding Origin of Bengali Kayasthas

I would like to request all active editors/administrators on this page to consider the addition of the following part under the section 'History' (Ancient India), as available in the article on Kulin Kayastha, based on the reference 'Personal and Geographical Names in the Gupta Empire' by Tej Ram Sharma.

During the Gupta Empire, the Kayasthas had not developed into a distinct caste, although the office of the Kayasthas (scribes) had been instituted before the beginning of the period, as evidenced from the contemporary smritis. Tej Ram Sharma, an Indian historian, says that

Noticing brahmanic names with a large number of modern Bengali Kayastha cognomens in several early epigraphs discovered in Bengal, some scholars have suggested that there is a considerable brahmana element in the present day Kayastha community of Bengal. Originally the professions of Kayastha (scribe) and Vaidya (physician) were not restricted and could be followed by people of different varnas including the brahmanas. So there is every probability that a number of brahmana families were mixed up with members of other varnas in forming the present Kayastha and Vaidya communities of Bengal. Ekdalian (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, can you please provide us a few suggested sentences you would like to insert/replace, and along with each provide a footnote/reference that substantiates that information? Sources must be reputable published sources; ideally ones available online through GoogleBooks or similar are best so we can read them together. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this info before somewhere, so sourcing it should not be a problem. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It is here. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that the problem is still that this article and Kulin Kayastha, where the info was added by me, require a merge. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have quoted from Kulin Kayastha, and the material is reliably sourced. I would like the entire part starting with 'During the Gupta Empire....' to be added under the section 'Ancient India'. Ekdalian (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be difficult to do while the articles are separate: the Kulin article is specifically about the Kayasthas of Bengal, as is the quote. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We already have a separate part under 'Ancient India' mentioning that, "In Bengal, during the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century AD, when systematic and large-scale colonization by Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins first took place, Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage the affairs of state". This is the basis of my request. I would simply like to enhance this part, which would probably make it all the more complete. Ekdalian (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
But we do not need to "enhance" it: we have a separate article. Now, if you were to agree that the two articles should be merged then you might have a point but, of course, the merge would include the information you request because it is already present at Kulin Kayastha. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Kulin Kayastha is a separate article, as you have rightly pointed out, and the question of merging it with this article is a separate debate altogether. Now, as per as our policies are concerned, we can always suggest ways of improving an article. Obviously, you know better. What you and other administrators/editors of this page may consider, is the merit of the statements I am requesting you to add. Because there is a debate regarding the Varna status of Kayasthas in our 'Varna status' section, and since we already have a sub-section 'Ancient India' under 'History' where we have a statement mentioning the origin of Bengali Kayasthas, that's why I believe these additional statements, which are obviously relaibly sourced & related, may improve the quality and content of the article. It is not just 'enhancement' for the sake of 'enhancement'. I would, once again, request you and other administrators to consider merits of the requested statements, as far as this article is concerned, and then come to a conclusion. Ekdalian (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry. The Kulin Kayastha article exists because some contributors considered them to be a different community. If they are a different community then they have little or no place in this article. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Forget about the Kulin Kayastha for the moment. The statements I am talking about are not just about Kulin Kayasthas, but are generic and relevant to the origin of Bengali Kayasthas. My limited point is, we have only a single line in this article on the origin of Bengali Kayasthas and since the exact Varna status of Kayasthas is a subject matter of debate, adding these relevant statements on their origin, will improve the sub-section 'Ancient India' under 'History'. Incremental improvement of an article is what is desired. Don't u think, the few lines I have requested to add will improve the particular sub-section? That's all I am talking about. Ekdalian (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The basis of the Kulin Kayastha article existing separately was that the Kulins are the Bengali Kayasthas. Thus, the statement is accurately placed there and would be irrelevant here because the idea was that this article dealt with all other Kayasthas. I didn't agree with that split and did propose a merge but there has been no response. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Come on, Kulins are not the only Bengali Kayasthas. Our article on Kulin Kayastha also says, "Kulin Kayasthas are a sub-caste of the Kayastha caste in Bengal, India". The above statements regarding the origin of Kayasthas in Bengal during the Gupta Period, are applicable to Kulin Kayasthas as well as non-Kulin Bengali Kayasthas. There is no doubt that the statement is accurately placed there, but it deserves mention here as well, especially because we are already having a single line mentioning the colonization by Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins in Bengal during the reign of the Gupta Empire. Please go through the statements once again, and you will realize that these are applicable to both Kulin and non-Kulin Bengali Kayasthas. And this article obviously is meant for all Kaysthas in general, including Bengali Kayasthas. Had it been applicable only to Kulin Kayasthas, I would not have requested you to consider incorporation of the same here. I understand your concerns regarding the split of two related articles, and that can be discussed separately. Ekdalian (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You have mis-read the sentence that you quote from the article. It is a bit ambiguous but I know what was intended at the time. Before I go fix that ambiguity, can you provide any reliable source to support your view that the Kulin Kayasthas are not the only ones in Bengal? - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I will quote from the same reference (even same page, p.115) by Tej Ram Sharma. "The names of brahmanas occuring in our inscriptions sometimes end in a non-brahmanic cognomen such as Bhatta, Datta and Kunda, etc., which are available in the inscriptions of Bengal. Surnames like Datta, Dama, Palita, Pala, Kunda (Kundu), Dasa, Naga and Nandin are now confined to Kayasthas of Bengal but not to brahmanas." This proves, without any doubt, that the Kulins are not the only Kayasthas in Bengal. Here Datta is mentioned, which is discussed in the article Kulin Kayastha. So this is relevant for Kulin Kayasthas as well, which is obviously a sub-caste of Bengali Kayasthas. But at the same time, it would be equally relevant to add it here in this article on Kayastha. Ekdalian (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No it does not. "Kayasthas of Bengal" is not necessarily different from "Kulin Kayasthas". You need a source that says that the Kulin Kayasthas are not the only Kayasthas in Bengal. It would be ok if it did this is an obvious but indirect manner; for example, if a source said "The Kayasthas of Bengal, including the Kulin Kayasthas, were ..." then that would be fine. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that this might do - see page 1, if it is visible to you. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, given link is a reliable source categorically differentiating between Kulin & non-Kulin/Maulika Bengali Kayasthas. By the way, I must mention here, for your information, that most of the Bengali Kayasthas are non-Kulins. Only those four/five families (represented by surnames) were granted Kulina status. Please incorporate the additional information I have provided regarding the origin of Bengali Kayasthas, in general. Ekdalian (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying - I will try to sort something out soon. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Awaiting incorporation of the same. Ekdalian (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2013

Please refer to this link: https://sites.google.com/site/bombaymathur/articles/kayasthas-kshatriyas-or-shudras It has wonderful research information on Kayasthas, who basically descended from Kshatriyas who denounced violence. You also need to add that in British India the Kayasthas actually fought a court case that wanted to register them as 'shudras' and got it rejected, thereafter officially British considered them as one of the forward castes. Please red the link and update the information on the origin of the word 'Kayastha', the second mythological belief (Parshuram story, the first one being Chitragupta story) and the rejected law-suit. Takeiteasy2013 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done this does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliably published source-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

kayastha an educated class

The kayastha were the emerging educated class and the Britishers tried to put them into shudra so that the movements for independence can be repressed (as people will not listen them at that time if they were put in this category). So please make some editing on the education of kayastha at that very time of the british rule rather than classification as shudra in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangeetasatyam (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources to support your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It is plain wrong anyway, at least from my knowledge. The problem (if any) was that Kayasthas were slow to move from traditional Persian penmanship etc to English and thus were superseded in administrative posts by other groups. Furthermore, they were considered to be shudra long before the arrival of the British. Eg: here and here. It might be worth developing this in the article but would need a fair amount of additional research to flesh it out. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of Kayasthas

I dont know why this list should have a separate page of itself? why cant it be mentioned in the notables section of Kayastha page... Amit (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2013

kayastha is not sudra

Udbhatnagar (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The article does not say the Kayastha are Shudra, it specifically states The exact varna status of Kayasthas has been a subject of debate. Any some parties in the debate have said Shudra, others have said Kshatriya, others have different opinions. We have clear footnotes explicitly noting that Shudra is one among several claims, so accordingly we note it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Revert - Aligning more closely with source & additional cited information

Hello User:Sitush, I agree that I should have discussed. And I must tell you that not much has changed since the last agreed upon version. But you will agree that nothing is static and there is nothing like the best possible version. Therefore, there's always scope for improvement. What was going on were minor tweaks and aligning more closely with source. I sincerely believe that whenever even minor changes are made, you and other active editors/admins are there to ensure that quality of this article is not compromised. While aligning a particular statement with source, I observed that it was meant mostly for Kayasthas in Northern and Western India. And I discovered another relevant statement meant for Bengali Kayasthas in an existing reliable source. And I felt that my revision history explanation would clarify. Anyway, please go through the modification, especially the statement on Bengali Kayasthas, and that the existing statement ends with Kayasthas of 'Northern and Western India' in the source. Needless to say, our common goal is to improve the article or enrich it with more facts. You will probably agree that the statement mentioning 'well-knit sub castes' is not meant for Bengali Kayasthas, and it is categorically mentioned in the source itself. Please go through, and share your valuable opinion. Sorry, but the change was never meant to be unilateral. Rather, I thought, it would help the existing information align more closely with source. Please suggest.

Suggestions or comments regarding this improvement are welcome from other editors / admins as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Sitush, do share your opinion. You have reverted to an incomplete statement saying "In the beginning, they were recruited from the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya castes, but gradually developed into well-knit subcaste communities." but missing the vital ending part i.e. "in northern and western India". Also, the alternate statement for Bengali Kayasthas is cited, and not only complements Tej Ram Sharma's comments, but also describes in one single statement the evolution of the Bengali Kayastha community. Ekdalian (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Regard the "well-knit" bit, I see that it was a copyright violation of the source anyway. I've not got time to delve into this right now but the information was important. Can you possibly reinstate it without infringing copyright? - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I 'll put in my best efforts to re-write this part combining both the sources, avoiding copyright violation. Please let me know your views, in case you have any concerns. Or else, once done, you may edit the same, or suggest me any further change. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent Revert - Major changes

Hello User:Sitush, some of the changes you have done may indeed help clean up the article. But such major overhauling must be discussed here, as per standards set by us only. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not if they are fixes to obvious breaches of policy, eg: WP:SYN or WP:RS. Please explain which of my edits you disagree with. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I need to devote some time. I can cite one example. You are now stating, 'Ronald Inden considered....', in that case every statement may be presented like that, and moreover it is not only Inden but other historians as well who agree on this. You will agree that the last version was a stable one, and accepted by all active editors, and needless to mention, you played an active role too. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
So, you reverted me without really having a clue why you were reverting me other than some vague reference to consensus? That is not how we work. And you are wrong on the Inden point: there is a quotation from Inden and so we must mention his name inline - this is basic stuff. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I expect you to be more rational. I have obviously gone through all your specific changes. What I mean is, I need to devote time to discuss, that's because I am too busy right now. That's all. I believe, you will appreciate that whenever you asked for time, I have always waited, may be I have just reminded you in between. And I would like to repeat that the last version was obviously based on consensus, and you have unilaterally removed parts from it, which were incorporated after lengthy discussions involving all concerned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I misunderstood you, sorry. But you are still wrong on plain policy grounds: consensus does not over-ride policy and in fact WP:CONSENSUS specifically states that arguments that do not comply with policy do not count towards consensus. For that reason, I'll be reverting you before too long unless you can provide a rationale. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting point

I looked over most of Sitush's changes, and generally agree with them, but can understand the request for discussion. Let's start with two specific edits that I think should be wholly uncontroversial:

  1. [2] As a general rule, ancient sources are not reliable for historical facts.
  2. [3] Raj era sources are very rarely reliable. Additionally, I don't understand how we could use the census to verify a religious claim.

Ekdalian, do you have any objection to these two removal, which seem to be to be solidly based in WP:RS? If not, we can start by re-making those. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the above two removal mentioned, obviously these conform to our long-standing policies. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add that since caste formation basically started with the Vedas and Puranas, we may mention that "Kayasthas claim descent from Hindu deity, Chitragupta", based on secondary recent reliable source (not ancient scriptures), since the sub-caste communities are basically based on claims of descent from his 12 sons. Needless to mention, the information regarding this claim, is available in most of the modern reliable texts. This is my opinion. Now, this is open for you to decide. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of the Chitragupta legend - eg: here and here - but, as with much in this article, it is not necessarily universal believed even by the community and thus the more vague mention of Brahmanic texts referring to them as a caste of scribes seems better for now. What we need to get across is that the Kayasthas are similar to the Yadavs etc: they are not really a coherent group and probably only became seen as such with the daft Raj classification system, which originated in perceived administrative necessity.

This is a key problem: the article is unbalanced and misleading. It is going to get a big going-over at some point soon and the emphasis on Bengal needs to be reduced as a part of that because it is twisting things. I've seen several sources that say that Kayasthas are uncommonly proud of their achievements and, well, if you know anything about how other Indian communities try to promote themselves on Wikipedia then alarm bells being to ring if reliable sources are using words akin to "uncommonly proud". I've got a lot of reading to do yet but I'm already finding copyright violations, so don't be surprised if this thing gets changed just to deal with those. - Sitush (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Brahmanic texts referring to them as a caste of scribes, is definitely better. But a single statement on the mythological claim of the Kayasthas would rather maintain balance, that is what I believe.
We have more reliable sources mentioning relevant facts on Bengali Kayasthas (which actually evolved separately), and such statements categorically mention that they are meant for the Kaysthas of Bengal.
I have no issues with the following edits
  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
Stuff related to Gupta Empire and Tej Ram Sharma's comments should not be removed in my opinion. Though these seem to be related, these comments describe the evolution of the caste from another perspective (surnames/cognomens during Gupta Empire), and makes perfect sense, apart from being reliable.
And instead of naming and quoting Inden, it would be logical to say that -- In Bengal, Kayasthas are considered as the highest Hindu castes along with Brahmins and Baidyas, and comprise the "upper layer of Hindu society". Because Inden is not the one, who considers Kayasthas among the highest castes in Bengal. There are n number of sources, for example one is [this] page 20. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Perhaps this was missed on Sitush's talk page. So am posting here. Please advise if the following sources are allowed in the Kayastha article:

Sitush, you are right. People of various origins and professions formed the current Kayastha community. As for scribes (Karanas), the profession was codified in dharmashastras as something that sprung from the offspring of a Vaishya father and Shudra mother; and hence the Karanas were regarded Satshudras (the cleanest or highest amongst Shudras). The last reference (Calcutta Review) has the most detail on this (and also on their self-elevation in the colonial period).
A personal observation: Such problems happen when a profession tries to accommodate, or get itself accommodated, or is forcibly accommodated, under the varna terminology context and sanskritization. The Karanas eventually claimed to be brahmins also in some other places, but that is another topic.
Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Document meeting authenticity requirement to put the Shudra controversy to rest in peace :)

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/

  • Here is a copy of the case that declared Kayastha of North India as an upper-caste.
  • This also meets wikipedia's requirement of authentic documents.
  • You may choose to ignore it.

Kayastha Shiromani II (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not about ignoring it, it's that court cases are generally not reliable sources per our guidelines. They are not independently fact checked, and, more importantly, their actual meaning is open to a lot of interpretation. Does the case still apply? How widely does it apply? Was it overruled or modified by later judgments? Does it apply to only one person, one group, one tribe, and, if so, how is that group defined? All of these are things that require interpretation, and, thus, render the judgment fairly useless for us. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a case in lower courts with following modifications to the decisions are of less use. But this case was the final verdict on status of North Indian Kayasthas; with no modification done to it. Kindly spare some time and go through it. Inability to peruse the case does not make it useless. I have provided the link, kindly use it. Hope you are not prejudiced. Kayastha Shiromani II (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Authenticity of refs to religious text

I hope, dear sir, you are aware of the high standards of legal profession and the integrity of Indian law system. These refs to religious text were presented mainly as documentary evidence in the following case : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/ A few of them might not be there if added later and I would request you to kindly strike them off. the following are major refs. to ancient Hindu text; kindly peruse the case file. Kayastha have been described in the oldest of the Puranas, Smritis and Shrutis:

  • According to the Vedic scriptures, the souls of men after death receive rewards and punishments according to their sins and virtues, and hence it is believed that good and bad deeds of men are not destroyed. The souls of men after death go to Yamapuri which is presided over by the deities called Yamas who keep records of men’s actions and accordingly give them their dues. The principal Yama is called Yamaraja or Dharamaraja, that is, the ruler of Yamapuri or the King of Laws.
  • The Yama Samhita which is an extract from the 9th Chapter of Ahilya Kamdhenu, a work of Hindu Law, says that Dharamaraja complained to Lord Brahma about his difficulties in performing his most responsible duties of keeping records of the deeds of men and doing justice to them. Lord Brahma went into meditation. Shree Chitragupta sprang from his body and stood before him bearing an inkpot and a pen. The God Brahma (Creator) said: "Because you are sprung from my body (kaya), therefore you shall be called Kayastha and as you existed in my body unseen I give you the name of Chitragupta." He then assumed charge of Yamapuri. Dharma Sharma married his daughter Irawati to Chitragupta and Manuji, son of Surya (the Sun) married his daughter Sudakhina to him." Chitragupta had eight sons from the former and. four from the latter and these twelve sons became the progenitors of the twelve sub−divisions of the Chitraguptavansi Kayasthas, namely, Mathur, Gaur, Nigam, Ashthana, Kulshretha, Suryadwaja, Balmika Bhatnagar, Srivastava,Ambastha, Saxena and Karana.
  • In Padma Purana, Uttar Khanda, it says that Shree Chitragupta had twelve sons by two wives. They were all invested with the sacred thread and were married to Nagakanyas. They were the ancestors of the twelve sub−divisions of the Kayasthas.
  • The same legend with some slight difference is given inmost of the Puranas.
  • Padma Purana after stating the legend says: "Shree Chitragupta was placed near Dharamaraj to register the good and evil actions of all sentient beings,that he was possessed of supernatural wisdom and became the partaker of sacrifices offered to the gods and fire. It is for this reason that the twice−born always give him oblations from their food. As he sprang from the body of Lord Brahma he was called Kayastha of numerous gotras on the face of the earth."
  • In Shristhi Khanda the same Purana says that the sacrificial rites and study of the Kayasthas should be of the Vedas and supporting scriptures and their occupation related to writing.
  • Bhavishya Purana states that God, the Creator, gave the name and duties of Chitragupta as follows:

Because you have sprung from my body, therefore, you shall be called Kayastha and shall be famous in the world by the name of Chitragupta. Oh my son, let your residence be always in the region of the god of justice for the purpose of determining the merits and demerits of men.

  • Vignana Tantra says the same thing.
  • The same is the enjoinment of Lord Brahma to Shree Chitragupta according to Brihat Brahma Khanda. He was named Kayastha having sprung from the body (kaya) of Lord Brahma. He was directed to perform all sanskars and to have writing as his profession.
  • Garuda Purana describes the imperial throne of Shree Chitragupta in Yamapuri holding his Court and dispensing justice according to the deeds of men and maintaining their record, in the following words:

(There Dharmaraja, Chitragupta, Sravana and others see all sins and virtues which remain concealed in the bodies of men).

  • Similarly, Apastamba Shakha of the Veda quoted in Shabda−Kalpadrum 2nd part, page 228, Shabda 20,

under Kshatriya, states that Kayasthas are Kshatriyas. Chitragupta who reigns in heaven and his son Chaitrarath, who was light of the family, meritorious and of illustrious deads ruled on earth for a long time as King of Chitrakoot near Allahabad. Meru Tantra quoted in Shabda−Kalpadrum under the word ’Kshatriya’ supports the same view.

  • The Mahabharata (Anusasan Parva, Chap. 130) recites the teaching of Shree Chitragupta requiring men to do virtuous and charitable acts and performing Yagya, saying that men are rewarded or punished according to their good or bad deeds.
  • Turning to the Smritis, Vishnu in Chap. VII, verse 3, says that a document attested by the King is one which is written or prepared by a Kayastha and stamped with the finger prints of the head of the department.
  • The words are Virihat Parasara in Chap. X, Sloka 10 says. Kayasthas should be appointed as writers, they being expert in writing.
  • Again in Chap. I, Sloka 235, he says that Danda−dhrita the Magistrates and Judges of the Courts should be (dharmagya), persons versed in laws and good administration, Kayasthas, who are versed in the art of writing.
  • Vyas says that the writer and the accountant should be that is versed in Mimansa (Srutis) and Vedas (Adhyayana) as explained by Mitakshara in commenting upon Yajnavalkya, Chap. II, Sloka 2, which says that the King’s Councillors should be versed in the sacred books of Mimansa and Vedas, expert in law, truthful and impartial.
  • Similarly, Shukraaiti in Chap. XXXII, Sloka 420, describes Kayasthas as lekhaks, and in Chap. II, versa 178, says that the accountant and lekhak knew the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas.
  • Yajnavalkya in Slokas 317 to 320 describes how the edicts of the king should be written, sealed and promulgated. Apararka in his commentary upon these Slokas quotes from Vyas and shows that these edicts should be written by lekhaks, the ministers of war and peace (sandhi vigraha kari), and that they should be promulgated to the gentry and officials among whom Kayasthas have been mentioned.
  • Similarly, Vijnanesvara in his Mitakshara commenting upon these Slokas says:

He (King) should cause it to be recorded by that officer of his, who is in charge of war and peace (i.e. by a Kayastha), and not by anybody else.

  • As says a Shruti: That officer of his, who is sandhi vigraha kari or the officer in charge of peace and war should be its writer (lekhak).
  • Yajnavalkya uses the word "Kayastha" in Slokas 335 36, Chap. I. Commenting upon this, Mitakshara says that Kayasthas are accountants and writers. He makes the word "Kayasthas synonymous with accountants and writers. Similarly, Apararka says that Kayasthas were revenue−collectors (kar−adhi−krita).
  • The accountants and scribes constitute one of the ten parts of a judicial proceeding.
  • Brihaspati says the same thing, as quoted in Prasara Madhava, Vyavahara Kanda.
  • According to the Smritis, the officers of the realm, such as, ministers of peace and war, courtesans and Councillors, Governors and headmen of villages should be men versed in the Sastras, valorous and born of noble family, pure, intelligent, affluent in wealth and of tested virtue and comprehension: Manu, Chap. VII, Verses 54 to 121 Yajnavalkya, Chap. I, Verse 312.

–—--♠

I am sure you did not mean that refs. to religious text are useless when discussing the caste satus of a particular group. You surely must have meant that given these references you need to be sure that they are from ancient texts and not made up. Kayastha Shiromani II (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I, in fact, did mean exactly that. We need secondary sources. Take your second point, for instance. We certainly cannot say that Kayastha are "sprung from the body of Brahma", as that has no "literal" or "non-interpreted" meaning. We could, if we could find one, instead cite an academic text that analyzed the original religious text, provided it a meaning and interpreted the context.
You'll probably want to review WP:RS before responding, and that should help clarify why we cannot use sources like you are suggesting. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

I am Saravanan a Chemical engineer by profession. I'm a registered member of wikipedia "saravanan sudhandhiran". I am a tamil kayastha (Karuneegar in Tamil). I have some of my research work to be posted in this page. would you provide me edit permission? Saravanan Sudhandhiran (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not accept original research and the chances of a chemical engineer having the requisite expertise for an article concerning a social group are fairly slim anyway. I suggest that you get your research published by a peer reviewed academic journal and then perhaps we can look at it. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Kayasthas and Buddhism

The article has a major gap: Kayasthas and Buddhism. A second century Buddha image found in the vicinity of Mathura records it to be a donation of Yasa, daughter of Grahadina, housewife of Kayastha Bhattapriya.[4]. This is the earliest epigraphic reference to a Kayasth. Some of the earliest archaeological inscriptions mentioning Kayasthas are from Buddhist sources [5][6][7] Some of the Nalanda manuscripts were written by Kayasthas[8] and the Pala kings are regarded to be Kayasthas by some authors[9]. There is one Chandella incription composed by a Kayasthas that adds a clause preserving the lands owned by a Buddhist Vihara[10]. Nagendranath Basu in 'Hindi vishva kosha' (1916-1931) [11]and 'Bangla vishva kosha' (1911) have a detailed discussion on the subject of the historican connection between the Kayasthas and Buddhism.

Malaiya (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Molesworth’s Marathi-English Dictionary
  3. ^ Jativivek
  4. ^ Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India, Volumes 5-7, Epigraphical Society of India, p. 89-90
  5. ^ Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture, Ronald M. Davidson, p. 178-179, 407
  6. ^ The Kāyasthas: a study in the formation and early history of a caste, Chitrarekha Gupta, K.P. Bagchi & Co., 1996 p. 153.
  7. ^ Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, Gregory Schopen, University of Hawaii Press, 2004, p. 42.
  8. ^ Receptacle of the Sacred: Illustrated Manuscripts and the Buddhist Book Cult in South Asia, Jinah Kim, University of California Press, 2013, p. 343
  9. ^ History of the Bengali people: ancient period, Niharranjan Ray Orient Longmans, 1994, p. 177
  10. ^ The Early Rulers of Khajurāho, Sisirkumar Mitra, p. 305
  11. ^ Kayastha, 'Hindi vishva kosha', Nagendranath Basu, 1916-1931

Recent Revert - Kayasthas & Buddhism

Hello User:Malaiya, I have reverted your edits to the last best version. I do agree with some of your edits (subtle ones), but you need to discuss when it comes to major overhauling. In fact, this article has been considered as a sensitive one, and any major change is discussed here, and that is what has been followed by all co-editors. Do not move Sections unilaterally. Please explain how your statements, may be valid ones, on Kayasthas & Buddhism add value to the article, there is obviously a connection between them, like the Kayasthas of Bengal, who were mostly Brahmins (as per references) had actually given up most of the Brahminical rituals including the sacred thread under the influence of Buddhism only. But honestly speaking, we need more relevant statements here. I do not have any objections on statements like that of Andre Wink and addition of Notables (citing valid references). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You have objections to archaeological sources of information? Why?Malaiya (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Where is "Kayasthas of Bengal, who were mostly Brahmins" from? Who claims that?Malaiya (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the works of Nagendranath Basu?Malaiya (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
"given up most the sacred thread under the influence of Buddhism only" Note Buddhism does not require Brahmins to give up sacred thread. Would you like to see photos of Buddhist persons/gods wearing the sacred thread? Malaiya (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism and sacred thread: see

I do understand that it may not be mandatory for Buddhists to give up the sacred thread. Please note that I was just citing a statement from a particular source considered as reliable, just as an example. And since this is not the subject of discussion, I don't want to digress from the issue. And I must tell you, if you understand our policies, it is not actually about my or your knowledge, rather we need to follow WP:RS and state relevant information from reliable sources. Please note that I have no objection to archaeological sources of information, as long as it is reliably sourced. My only point is, we need to have valid and relevant statements relating Kayasthas and Buddhism, which actually add value to the article. No one denies there is a relation, but we cannot afford to include vague statements which would hardly improve the content of the article. We can introduce a single statement under 'Classical India' mentioning the relation between the two as evident from earliest archaeological inscriptions and citing your references. But mentioning names like Yasa, Bhattapriya and even (with all due respect) Nagendranath Basu and his work would only make the content lousy. I can add n number of Brahmin names, mentioned in early epigraphs, who became Kayasthas (especially Bengali Kayasthas), but that would lead us nowhere. As far as this article is concerned, all the active editors (though very few) have throughout maintained utmost standards, in terms of quality and relevance, and that is my only concern. I hope you have understood what I mean. Please feel free to discuss improvements in a constructive manner here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "No one denies there is a relation, but we cannot afford to include vague statements which would hardly improve the content of the article." What vague statement you are referring to?
  • "I can add n number of Brahmin names, mentioned in early epigraphs, who became Kayasthas (especially Bengali Kayasthas)": I would to know about the epigraphs you are referring to. Some Kayasthas, in some parts of India, are perhaps are descendants of Brahmins, as mentioned in Rajatarangini and Harivansh Rai Bachchan's autobiography vol 1. Your claim is that Bengali Kayasthas in general (i.e. mostly) are descendants of Brahmins.
  • "even (with all due respect) Nagendranath Basu and his work would only make the content lousy" Why? An author and historian of his stature?

Are you incidentally a Bengali Kayasth? I might have some suggestions for you.

There is nothing wrong or inferior in being a Buddhist, incidentally. Malaiya (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As co-editors, we should have respect for each other, and I hope you stop being personal. Anyway, I am a Bengali Hindu, and I have great respect for Buddhism as a religion. I don't have any clue, how you could even think that I would consider a Buddhist to be inferior. Though I do a lot of sourcing on castes, and not just Kayasthas, I do believe that inferiority or superiority has got nothing to do with caste or religion. And again, we are digressing from the issue. I expect you to be more rational, and understand my point. I am only bothered about the statements you had incorporated, and that's what I have said. Your statements simply don't fit into the content of the article, and rather make it lousy. I have already explained, we need to work on the statement(s) or in other words, the way it is presented in the article; we can then incorporate the same.
And I strictly follow the policies of this platform. None of the statements related to Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas are mine, these are not only reliably sourced, the fact is that these are mentioned in several references available. Had you gone through the references available in the article itself, you would not have asked such a question. Anyway, you may go through the following links, which clearly mentions such epigraphs. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • this Page 182 (and related ones) by S. K. Sharma, U. Sharma
  • this Page 115 (Details of Bengali Kayastha names during Gupta Period available in earlier pages) by Tej Ram Sharma
While citing sources, do mention the url, so that the same is easily accessible and verifiable (please read WP:V). In fact, even while editing Kayastha, you had neither provided the url nor the isbn; please follow the standard format when it comes to references while editing any article. I had to manually search the references you have cited before actually reverting your version. Also Nagendranath Basu is an eminent historian, but since 'Hindi Vishva Kosha' and 'Bangla Vishva Kosha' are not available online, and are not easily verifiable (not applicable, if you can find it), therefore you need to cite other reliable source mentioning that Hindi and Bangla Vishva Kosha "have a detailed discussion on the subject of the historican connection between the Kayasthas and Buddhism" or a similar statement. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ekdalian: Thanks for the references and the links. Tej Ram Sharma is right in stating that originally Kayastha represented an occupation and not a caste(i.e. an endogamous group). As I had mentioned, Rajatarangini mentions Bramins serving as Kayasthas.
However it is undeniable that
1. Earliest historical known Kayastha was a Buddhist. Without any doubt.
2. Some Nalanda manuscripts mention Kayasthas.
3. The Pala dynasty, known for its contribution to Buddhism (and the Buddhist universities like Nalanda and Vikramshila), has been identified by Mughal period Ain-i-Akbari of Abul Fazl as having been Kayastha.
4. André Wink: "The Pala, Sena and Varman kings, and their descendants ...almost imperceptibly merged with the Bengal caste of the 'Kayasthas'".
Also may I point out that most of famous Buddhist acharyas were Brahmin, thus being a Brahmin does exclude one from being a Buddhist.
Nagendranath Basu was an eminent scholar and historian (1866-1938). He worked on Bangla Vishwakosh for 27 years to publish its 22 volumes, and then 15 years to publish the 'Hindi Vishva Kosha', in addition to numerous other works of scholarship. Mahatma Gandhi visited him while he was working on the 'Hindi Vishva Kosha'. Incidentally he was a founder of Kayastha Sabha. Please do keep in mind that there was scholarship before the internet age, and before ISBN.
Malaiya (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not necessary for cited sources to be available online. However, when it comes to contentious topics such as this one, the absence of a simple means of checking sources often does result in requests for the person adding the info to provide copies by email or whatever. Please also note that archaeological images are not usually reliable sources because we are not qualified to interpret the iconography, the omissions and inclusions etc.

I feel sure that some Kayasthas are/were Buddhists; some, too, would have been Christians and my bet is that quite a lot nowadays are not particularly religious at all - that is the way of the world. We have to reflect reliable sources but we must also be careful to maintain balance: a small number of Buddhists among a largely Hindu community cannot be allowed to swamp the article, for example. So, let's start over here and discuss (a) where we are trying to go and (b) what reliable sources we do in fact have to support our aim. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"archaeological images are not usually reliable sources" I think you have in the past also objected to use of archaeological sources of information. Historians would regard the archaeological sources to be the most reliable.
"Some Kayasthas are/were Buddhists;": The modern Bangladeshi Buddhists (Barua (Bangladesh)) appear to a very Kayastha-like community, some even have a last name Mutsaddi.
"some, too, would have been Christians" Before the arrival of the British? I know there are Muslim Kayasths. There is a family of publishers in Pakistan who claim Kayasth descent.
Malaiya (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Malaiya, what exactly is the point that you are trying to make here? Taking your comments in order:
  • Indeed, some archaeologists are not reliable but why does this come as a surprise to you? See WP:RS
  • Who cares what the Barua resemble? Unless you have sources that say they are Kayastha, it is a red herring. And last names are definitely a red herring. Go read WP:OR and WP:V
  • Christians were in India centuries before the Brits turned up. And they're still in India now. My point was, classifying many thousands of people as being believers in a single faith does not exclude the certainty that some had little or no regard for that particular faith. Perhaps even no regard for any faith.
I really do not understand what you are getting at here: you are digressing from the matter at hand. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Malaiya, as I have said earlier, digressing from the issue is not going to help. I had mentioned that you had neither provided the url nor the isbn for all your references while editing Kayastha, and never meant Nagendranath Basu's 'Hindi Vishva Kosha' and 'Bangla Vishva Kosha', that's the reason I had categorically mentioned an alternate for these. You are saying "Earliest historical known Kayastha was a Buddhist. Without any doubt.", who says this, and that too without any doubt? Be specific, what is the reference? As rightly pointed out by Sitush, obviously some Kayasthas are/were Buddhists and Christians, even there are Muslim Kayasthas as we all know. A community is identified by its majority, and in this case, the Kayasthas were/are predominantly Hindus, historically as well. So please focus on the issue, and discuss the specific statement(s) along with reference, which may improve the content of the article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Was Raja Todarmal a Kayastha?

There have been many, many distinguished Kayasthas. In addition to ones I mentioned, I would guess at least another dozen with Wikipedia articles already.

But Raja Todarmal, was not one of them. Because he was a Khatri. Some recent authors have mistakenly regarded him to be a Kayasth, but all the older references mention that he was a Khatri (like the Maharaja of Burdwan, who were also appointees of the Mughal).


Note that several Kayasth authors/editor have identified him as a Khatri:


The reasons for confusion is that Khatris also served as administrators and learned Farsi. Some of documentation of Todarmal's system was done by a Kayasth:

  • [Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, Volume 32, Pakistan Historical Society., 1984

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZRFuAAAAMAAJ&q=todarmal+kayasth&dq=todarmal+kayasth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BOL6UruPOoqtqgG514CACw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA]

Also note that Todarmal was a popular name, and there have been other notable individuals with name Todarmal.

Malaiya (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

at this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

Arbitrary heading

please delete this line because kayastha is highly status cast not a lower cast or mixed cast.Please don't make any false statement. this sentence degraded status of a highly status cast. "Kayasthas have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Sudra (lower caste) and sometimes Kshatriya as well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinesh11111 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced and various viewpoints are given. Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Global and Broad View towards the caste "Kayastha"

" kāya " meaning is "Body" , " Kayastha " meaning is " Those who are born from Body " . "Kaya" and "Kayastha" are Sanskrit words. According to my opinion All living species and non living things are " Kayastha " .

Even "Earth" was born from Sun's body.

I am " Kayastha " .

At least I am the king of my Body. None others.........

Only for body , everything for body. Do not make differentiation between body and mind. Mind is produced from Brain which is the part of the Body.

Date : 15/04/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.253.76.58 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

Names of many prominent kayastha personalities has not been included. They are Amitabh Bachhan, Sonu Nigam, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, Mukesh (playback singer), Jay Prakash Narayan, Rabindranath Tagore, Bal Thakrey, S.N.Bose, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Padmsree Sharda Sinha, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Shatrughan Sinha, Sri Aurobindo, Manna De. Bhartiya 88 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The requirements for inclusion are:-

  1. An article on enWikipedia
  2. A reliable source confirming that the individual is Kayastha

In addition, the Bachchan family, have specifically rejected membership of any castes and therefore are not included in any caste articles

So, lets split your list up:-

- Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


OK - I have checked the sources and added Sonu Nigam and Ravi Shankar Prasad
I have removed Harivansh Rai Bachchan as per the note above, regarding the Bachcham family
I have removed Munshi Premchand, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Subhas Chandra Bose as their only references were to Wikipedia and their articles do not even mention they are Kayastha
If you can find reliable sources for the names you have mentioned - or those I have removed, please add this information, including the detailed references, to their individual Wikipedia articles, before asking for their addition to this article. Arjayay (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rabindranath Tagore was not a Kayasth, he was a brahmin. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was not a Kayasth, he was a Suvarnavanik. Harivansh Rai Bachchan was a Kayastha. I have his autobiography.
  • People are born in a caste. Caste is a birth based classification. That is why it is termed a "jati" (or "zat" in Urdu). It is not a club that people can join and resign at will. Nobel laureate Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton "the first Black president", and Bill Clinton loved being called "the first Black president". But being "white" is by birth. A white can marry an black (Harivansh Rai Bachchan's second wife was a Khatri), but would still be white. Malaiya (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ironic: Real Kayasthas excluded and non-Kayasthas included

There have been quite a few Kayasthas of distinction. Unfortunately most of them had been excluded for reasons that seem quite frivolous. A few are included now, but most are still excluded.

Which is indeed ironic because the editors of the article have insisted on including a non-Kayastha Raja Todarmal, well known to have been a Khatri. A groups that includes India's first president Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the best known Hindu monk of recent times Swami Vivekanada and a national revolutionary Subhas Chandra Bose does not need a really need a Mughal courtier, specially one who was certainly not a Kayasth.

Some of the oldest known references to Kayasthas are specifically excluded because they happened to have been Buddhist. On the other hand the article dwells quite a bit on supposed questionable descent from Brahmins. For all that the Kayasthas have achieved, it is not necessary at all to claim descent from a "higher" caste.

Some of the active editors like Sitush, are unfamiliar with the Indian society, and thus can hardly be blamed. However some of them like Ekdalian are apparently Indian and presumably Kayasth. That is ironic. One would expect them to know. Malaiya (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaiya, please note that there is NO intentional bias here. Statement(s) you want to incorporate must be reliably sourced and relevant, that's all. Regarding notables, a standard is being followed, that there should be valid references referring to them as Kayasthas. And I have not introduced the same. And for your information, there are other editors involved as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Todar Mal is mentioned as Kayastha in reliable sources, although there is another opinion as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notable Kayasthas: Names removed

User:Sitush removed the following names form the list of notable Kayasthas. All very notable, all Kayasthas. Justification?

Sitush projects himself as an authority on the subject of castes of India.

Malaiya (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Malaiya Now they have been included. BTW no one is an authority here, we all need references to prove or disprove our edits. No original research is to be done on wikipedia --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on current version of this Article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=618943617

Come discuss. Kayastha Shiromani, The Second. 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayastha Shiromani II (talk • contribs)

Pros of this version:

1. Discusses the family tree and various sub-castes which were missing in the previous ones.

2. Enumerates some of the very prominent Kayastha like Kashmiri King Lalitaditya.

3. Draws authority from various religious sources as well as secular ones like Kalhana's Rajatarangini.

4. Gives authentic refs. to various books including Shloka no. and chapters.

5. Gives a general description of traditions and customs.

6. List of Kayastha much more elaborate and representative of the achievements.

7. Deals with various sub-groups different social and ethnic diversity within the Kayastha umbrella caste.

8. Better than previous version which was weakly written and lacked information and references about the caste.

9. Though it draws too much from myths yet this is very relevant as caste are derived so in India with not much scientific laws to guide such things.

Cons:

1. Looks much like mythological fiction at a few places.

2. Pro- Kayastha bent.

3. More emphasis should have been given to secular achievers such as Dr. JC Bose, Dr. SS Bhatnagar etc.

4. Too intent on promoting Kayasthas as Brahmins.

5. The section "other information" not written objectively.

6. Dead references.

Kayastha Shiromani, The Second. 08:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayastha Shiromani II (talk • contribs)

[7] does not cite secondary sources for claims of Kayastha origins at the Puranas, Smritis and Shrutis. The referenced historical "Origins" and "History" of Kayasthas are removed. WP:RS are removed and non-RS like [8] and [9] are used. "Unfortunate case of the Kayasthas of Bengal" are pure WP:POV and WP:OR. "Prominent Kayasthas", "The Family Tree" and "Origin legends" are completely devoid any references.Redtigerxyz Talk 10:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, here is the reference. The Kayastha ethnology, an enquiry into the origin of the Chitraguptavansi and Chandrasenavansi Kayasthas, compiled by K. Prasad [Published 1877] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AH0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP9&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your massive addition yet again, in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
You were bold, and made a revision. That revision was then reverted. It is at that point that the discussion takes place, when we are back at the "original" version, not after you have repeated your change.
The version before your mass changes was 21 kilobytes and had 38 references (one reference for every 550 bytes). Your version has 48 kilobytes and 12 references - one reference for every 4000 bytes. You have, therefore, deleted 70% of the references and added vast amounts of totally unreferenced material.
Moreover, your version is not written in an encyclopedic style and does not comply to Wikipedia's manual of style and other policies
Changes should be made incrementally, not en-masse, as editors have no way of accepting some changes, and rejecting others, whilst they all need references to reliable, independent sources. - Arjayay (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arajay.... firstly, this is not my version. It was one of the most stable versions on Kayastha. The reference provided exhaustive and most of them are with in the article itself like the one to various source books. See the pros and cons mentioned above. I am not to deny that it needs a little cleaning up but it certainly is a superior version to the last one. I have done this considering the massive edit warring in the last few days and it seems I too have involved my self too much... talk about intentions. --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an utter travesty of an article. If you think it's acceptable I suggest you spend some time looking at how other articles are structured and sourced. WP:GA has a good list of examples. --NeilN talk to me 14:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kayastha/Archive_3&oldid=1142766441"