Talk:Caste system in India

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Skin color

[edit]

I was reading encyclopedia articles from the 80s and 90s. It said that people who were higher in the caste system had lighter color skin and people lower on the caste system had darker color skin. It is implied that the caste system is a form of racism. Hope this helps the article.

Gandhi picture to be deleted: Major changes needed

[edit]

This is a plea to Wikipedia activists and authors who are not from South Asian origin. This is an extremely important point to not have Gandhi's picture and Gandhi's saviourism as part of the article.

1. Gandhi was from a highly privileged caste. In fact, the first line of his autobiography My Experiments with Truth, begins with him talking about his caste status. Having his picture instead of a person from an Untouchable caste, who actually fought for dalit rights, makes no sense. BR Ambedkar is the person we need in the picture here. Ambedkar was the leader of Untouchables, contemporary and opponent of Gandhi, sociologist, lawyer, public intellectual, drafter of India's constitution

2. Gandhi actively worked against rights that the Untouchables themselves worked very hard for. Arundhati Roy, the Booker Prize winning author, recounts BR Ambedkar's quotation of Gandhi's fast to take away electorates for dalits, as "barefaced blackmail". This is also much discussed in various other existing social science literature, including in works such as Radical Equality by philosopher Aishwary Kumar.

3. Having Gandhi's picture as the saviour of Untouchables, is also about what academics term "savarna saviour complex", which is exactly the same or in some ways worse than the "White saviour complex". Many of these could be found in popular academic publications and also in prestigious online magazines, such as The Swaddle, which has articles such as Saving the World like a Savarna. Ambedkar wrote Annihilation of Caste, the single most influential text of 20th century South Asia. He also calls out the shallow promises such as savarna people including those by Gandhi.

4. Other major change: Leading intellectual contributions from Untouchable blogs such as roundtableindia.co.in also point to the problem of caste and discuss the correct terms of the system. I tried including the word "savarna" in the article, but it did not included. This is also a very important way to return the anthropological gaze, because "savarna" shows that caste actually belongs not just to Untouchables, but also to the people who are "Touchable", and has been widely used in many academic publications worldwide.

Therefore, I propose to delete Gandhi's picture and instead use BR Ambedkar's picture in the Wikipedia page on the caste system. This would correct many historical wrongs. Gummibaerli1 (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problem with this and think it's probably a sensible change. I am not of South Asian origin and have no real opinion either way on Gandhi (or Ambedkar), so no axe to grind, but I agree it would be better to have someone of a lower caste as the main picture rather than a Vaishya (Gandhi). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
जाति पर बात करने के लिए जाति के आधार पर चित्र या फिर किसी व्यक्ति का योगदान देखा जाए गांधी किसी जाति विशेष के लिए जाने जाते है ऐसा मैंने कभी ना पढ़ा ना सुना और ना ही देखा महापुरुषों के नाम पर अपने राजनीतिक रोटी सेकने वाले ऐसा करता हुआ पाए जाते है हमारा बुद्धिजीवी समाज भी इस भ्रम जाल में फसेगा तो राष्ट्र हित का क्या 2409:4051:2E14:6EF3:D429:1DFF:FE66:571 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2025

[edit]

This is a wrong representation, even if you have to do this it has to be vertical division of the work, not head and toes. What is you definition of shudra and untouchables? 24.5.97.18 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Capitals00 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image in the lead

[edit]

The image of Ambedkar currently in the lead is highly relevant, considering he was from a lower caste background. Furthermore, his efforts and legacy are extremely notable, with him being among the most well known anti-caste voices in modern Indian history. I see no valid argument for the removal of the image EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the relevant section. This page discusses the evolution of the caste system over centuries, not just the present-day phenomena. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article indeed covers the millenia long history of the caste system, Ambedkar is directly relevant to that history because he represents the culmination of centuries of social struggle against caste. Excluding him on the grounds of “modernity” would overlook the fact that his work fundamentally reshaped how caste operates today and how it is studied in historical perspective. The image is thus historically appropriate, not just contemporary. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ambedkar’s relevance to caste in modern India is undeniable, but placing his photo in the lead is still problematic. The lead image of a historical article should represent the origins or core concepts, not a modern political response to them. By that logic, the Manusmriti or depictions from the British colonial period are more appropriate, since they shaped the system itself far more fundamentally. Ambedkar’s opposition belongs in the section discussing reform and modern responses, not in the opening image. Otherwise, the article risks starting with a moral judgment rather than a neutral presentation of history 2409:40E3:20C7:979A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input. I actually think adding an image of the Manusmriti is a great idea. Including both an image of the Manusmriti and one of Ambedkar is the best option. The caste system is both an ancient social hierarchy with deep roots and a modern entrenched institution, that has been challenged and re-interpreted. A lead that includes both the Manusmriti and Ambedkar would best represent the history and depth of the system. The balance would be more aligned with the scope of the article. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you skipped the British lol. They are universally known for dividing and ruling, and they were the ones who rigidified the caste system to its extreme limit. I think the pictures should be in their appropriate section. Anything else is pov :) 2409:40E3:20C7:979A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three images might be too much though. Especially for mobile view. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I greatly respect Ambedkar as an anti-caste activist, I don't regard him as an authority on the caste system, nor do I expect him a neutral viewpoint about it. As per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. EarthDude, you have consistentently displayed ignorance and negligence about NPOV on a number of pages. This is not acceptable in the ARBIPA space. If you continue in this fashion, I will have to ask for sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are wholly inaccurate. Ambedkar was never a "chief architect of India's Constitution". The Indian constitution was mainly borrowed from 1935 British document, something that Ambedkar himself admitted, and he rejected any credit for the constitution. Ambedkar was better known for his pro-Mahar stance,[1] rather than anything "anti-caste" contrary to your claims. Besides, why does his picture merit an inclusion in the lead of an article about the history of the caste system? He had zero role in its restructuring, development or anything else. I am also aware that the image of Mahatma Gandhi on lead existed for a long time until you replaced it with that of Ambedkar,[2] and an editor removed it.[3] I cannot make sense regarding your recent edit war. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and had an immense role in the making of the Constitution.

Also, him being known more for a pro-mahar stance rather than an anti-caste one goes against reliable sources and scholarly consensus. For instance, (Ranjan, 2022) in p. 163) states "The nationalist story of Dr. Ambedkar must not be retold without reference to his revolutionary critiques of caste oppression". Verma, 1999 states "Ambedkar denounced caste system for violating the respect and dignity of the individual". Begari, 2021 states "The anti-caste discourse has a historic trajectory, from Mahatma Phule to Ambedkar and post-Ambedkar phase". Most of all, Ambedkar himself dedicated much of his life against the system, through his role in establishing systems such as reservations, or his own scholarly work, such as the Annihilation of Caste. To state he was merely pro-Mahar and not explicitly anti-caste would be an immense misunderstanding.

On the matter of the previous image of Gandhi that existed in the lead, it had no consensus. More so, just above in this talk page is a discussion over the removal of the image with not a single editor voicing support for keeping the image. Although I do apologise for the unilateral revert. That was an error on my part. I simply think the image is very relevant for the content of the article and very useful for readers who don't know much about the subject. I believe an image of the Manusmriti and one of Ambedkar are the most adequate as per MOS:LEADIMAGE. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ambedkar did not have a significant role in the constitution. You are providing relatively new sources that fail to address his pro-Mahar stance. It does not make sense to call him "anti-caste" in the light of the source provided above unless you have credible sources that address his pro-Mahar stance. Looking at the dates of your sources, it seems they are more influenced with the current political situation of India than history.
Why does this article need to have a lead image? Is the Indian caste system simple enough to be reduced to "Ambedkar" or "Manusmriti"? How do either of them represent it? Ratnahastin (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C’mon, Ratnhastin, you shouldn’t fight with Earthdude. Clear up any misunderstandings. I hate it when people who may be from different countries, communities, or religions but are of the same breed fight. It doesn’t suit you and it makes me uncomfortable. 2409:40C1:10BA:613A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the glorification of Ambedkar in recent years has more to do with political motivations.[4] System of reservation existed well before Ambedkar. The Indian caste system is too prevalent to be described through photos of Ambedkar and Manusmriti. I would mention that Manusmriti was never a dominant text for Hindus. Unfortunately, it was misconceived by the British to be one. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Action Required Vanjari and Banjara are different need separate article

[edit]

Wikipedia combining Vanjari and banjara page which create misinterpretation and need separate articles Banjara different while Vanjari caste are different and redirected to Banjara. might me causing problems. It is more realistic to treat Banjara and Vanjari as two different ethnic groups unrelated to each other. Chandubangar (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]