Talk:Bengali Kayastha

Can anyone provide me the bio of Rabindra nath Chakraborty? never heard about him. Is he a scholar? Timovinga (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

After a quick search, I could gather that Dr. Rabindra Nath Chakraborty is a triple MA, PhD and was associated with IIT, Kharagpur. Ekdalian (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

PhD in what? Please provide details. Timovinga (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not mentioned, sorry! Ekdalian (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Temporarily removed chakraborty, please add it again if you can provide details about him. Right now he is not eligible as per WP:RS. Timovinga (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga, you could have gone through the Foreword and Acknowledgement Sections of the book. Anyway, Dr. Rabindra Nath Chakraborty is a triple MA, PhD and belonged to the Department of Humanities, IIT, Kharagpur. This particular work (book cited as reference) was done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. B.S. Das, MA, LLB, PhD, D.Litt, Professor of History, IIT, Kharagpur. Needless to mention, it is a WP:RS and compliant with WP:HISTRS, which states - "Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field", which is highly applicable for the author, who has a triple MA and PhD in Humanities. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

My bad, we don't use honorific prefix; you are right, CharlesWain. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian:, agree with you that the source is reliable. If an editor is not sure of a source, it is better to place {{Unreliable source?}} or {{Verify source}} tags instead of removing content. LukeEmily (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, I have researched extensively and can confidently state that Kayasthas are indigenous peoples of Bengal, not migrants. Additionally, according to sources common surnames shared with Nagar Brahmins are not noteworthy for the descendent claims as they have been adopted by many other communities. There is also no substantial evidence supporting large-scale migration of Nagar Brahmins to Bengal according to sources. The claims made by Chakraborty are exceptional and the credibility of the book itself is questionable as it is not from a reputable publisher. Chakraborty as a historian is a matter of doubt , there is no source by that we can confirm that he is a historian. Therefore, I firmly oppose the inclusion of Chakraborty's claims. Timovinga (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If analysing these mediaeval texts he came to the conclusion of Bengali kayasthas are descendent of Nagara Brahmins then why his book or his same analysis was not used by other on this topic? See I was right he is not an expert on this subject, thats why his book is full of wrong informations. None of these books by Rabindranath Chakraborty are history related.

1 2 3 Timovinga (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No WP:OR please! The source is a reliable one, needless to mention, and the statement deserves mention as per our policies. Thanks LukeEmily for sharing your views. Ekdalian (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a case of OR, will provide sources if needed, for Chakraborty WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE should apply. Some HQ sources clearly opposing the views of Chakraborty. For these kinds of articles academic scholarly sources are more important than these low quality sources. Waiting for others to comment. Timovinga (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In any case, the quote is attributed to him. Hence, I do not have any major objection. And he is simply giving a reference to the old texts and stating what they are saying- we do that many articles - see Baidya for example. He is not commenting on the accuracy of the opinion of the text.LukeEmily (talk)

Are you aware of all wiki policies? we can't add every authors opinion on articles. Read WP: EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. Timovinga (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The same opinion is given by other historians as well. Several historians have studied their similarities and connection between them; for example, see this. Therefore, it is neither FRINGE nor EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, this article has been reviewed by multiple experienced editors including Sitush, no one has raised any objection regarding the current version; therefore, this represents the consensus version. Hope you understand. Ekdalian (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian same surname doesn't mean they are the descendents of the Nagara Brahmins. Stop doing SYN. Timovinga (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Many scholar already mentioned Bengali Kayasthas share common surnames with many other Bengali castes, check the Bengali Kayasthas surname articles, this is UNDUE also. Stop using this old Bhandarkar's theory to draw a connection between Nagara Brahmins. Timovinga (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga, you are engaging in OR as if you are a historian, not me; you are trying to violate WP:SYN as well! @LukeEmily: would request you to review their current edits (article) since I couldn't verify the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you even saying? do you even know the meaning of OR? all the informations are from reputed scholars. They analysed the migration and connection of Kayasthas and Nagar Brahmins, go through the books, if you can't access them do let me know. You are pushing your POV and delaying the process, you exactly did the same thing in Kayasthas surname articles. Timovinga (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timovinga:, please could you provide the quotes? @Ekdalian:, I could not verify content. But the sources that Timovinga provided are reliable. R.C Majumdar is very reliable and so is H. K. Barpujari.LukeEmily (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note that you need to achieve consensus first here on the talk page for such changes. Ekdalian (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmily, you have commented that "He is not commenting on the accuracy of the opinion of the text". Is he not? If he is not commenting on the accuracy of the text, or analysing the text in historical perspective,then it doesn't belong to "History" section.CharlesWain (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@CharlesWain:, yes, I agree. Maybe another existing section if @Ekdalian: and @Timovinga: agree. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find scope to add it in any other existing section. We need to have a scriptural narrative or medieval texts section like Baidya; else we have remove it. CharlesWain (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• LukeEmily quote from H. K. Barpujari "D. R. Bhandarkar regarded all of them as Nāgara settlers later merged in the Kāyastha community of Bengal (IA, March, 1932, .p. 52). This is not convincing because, in that case, most of the donees of East Indian grants would be Nãgara Brãhmanas who are, however, never known to have been held in high esteem in these parts."

quote from Majumdar "According to Dr.Bhandarkar and others the Käyasthas were descended from Nagara Brahmanas who had a large settlement in Bengal long before the eight century A.D. These are supposed to have originally migrated from Nagarkot in the Punjab to arious parts of Gujarāt and Kathiawar Peninsula, Anandapur (also called Nagar) in Lața being one of their chief settlements. That some Brahmaņas came to Bengal from Lata, as from other parts of India, has already been mentioned above (v. supra p. 579). But the evidence in support of a large-scale immigration of Nagara Brahmaņas is hardly convincing. The Nagara Brāhmaņas in Vanga, mentioned in the Kimasutra of Vatsyāyana, may refer to the Brāhmaņas of the city (nagara). The fact that the surnames of Nagara Brahmaņas such as datta, ghosha, varman, nāga and mitra also occur in the names of the Kävasthas of Bengal does not signify much, as these surnames or name-endings were commonly used all over India about that period."Timovinga (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timovinga:, thanks. @Ekdalian:, based on the quotes provided, Mujumdar and Barpujari were not convinced about the Nagara Brahmin connection.LukeEmily (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is R. G. Bhandarkar proposed a theory to connect Bengali Kayasthas with Nagara Brahmins. No modern scholars agreed with him in this, if we dig a little we can easily find that surnames are common between many castes in Bengal except Brahmins. This is not an original research as Majumdar also said the same, Rabindranath Chakraborty is nobody infront of Majumdar and Barpujari, that's why I suggested to remove Chakraborty as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Bhandarkar is also from raj era, maybe undue if we consider modern scholar's views on this. Chakraborty is not even a historian or an expert on this subject, a book forwarded by a historian doesn't makes it academically reliable. Authors and publishers are main for these kind of academic topics, unfortunately this book by Chakraborty failing both. Timovinga (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please work with @Ekdalian: to get a consensus version - since he is a very senior editor in this topic. Here is the list of points(as I understood your arguments). Ekdalian, Timovinga, please let me know if I missed any point.

Arguments against mentioning Nagar Brahmin connection:

1. Majumdar, a prominent historian, does not agree with the Nagar Brahmin view.

2. Barpujari, another historian, does not agree with the Nagar Brahmin view.

3. Bhandarkar is Raj era.

4. Mittal Publishers is not academic.

5. Chakraborty is not an expert historian

Arguments for mentioning Nagar Brahmin connection:

1. Chakraborty is giving a translation of some old texts. He is not giving his historical opinion.

2. Chakraborty's book seems to be reviewed and based on suggestions by modern historians. Also, if he is or was a humanities professor and as per Ekdalian's comment: Anyway, Dr. Rabindra Nath Chakraborty is a triple MA, PhD and belonged to the Department of Humanities, IIT, Kharagpur. This particular work (book cited as reference) was done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. B.S. Das, MA, LLB, PhD, D.Litt, Professor of History, IIT, Kharagpur. Needless to mention, it is a WP:RS and compliant with WP:HISTRS, which states - "Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field", which is highly applicable for the author, who has a triple MA and PhD in Humanities, he is reliable as far as wikipedia is concerned.

3. Majumdar himself says "Bhandarkar and others" implying that other scholars might share Bhandarkar's opinions hence it is not WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, he does not mention who the others are.

4. We are using modern texts to reference Bhandarkar - not using Bhandarkar's source directly. We do that on many articles to give opinion of Raj era authors.

5. The publishers for Majumdar and Barpujari are not academic either.

6. A quick search on google books shows that the Nagara Brahmin connection is mentioned by Sukla Das in "Socio-Economic Life Of Northern India" (page 54). I have not checked his qualifications.

My suggestion is to include all views as per WP:NPOV but please achieve consensus with Ekdalian since he reverted under WP:BRD. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily, for summarising the arguments. I would like to add a little to your points.(For)3. The "others" Majumdar mentions are also two Raj era, and Kayastha writers; you may check Nagendranath Basu for reception. Basu and Bhandarkar's theory about surname connection has been incorporated by some, refuted by some others and ignored by the rest in modern scholarship. But referring to two medieval texts is something new. I haven't read Chakraborty's whole book, but as much as it's accessible in Google book I found some other extraordinary claims or opinions too.

4.&5.All the publishers are good enough to be included in Wikipedia. RC Majumdar is a very prominent historian, Barpujari is a historian too, and though I can't verify Chakraborty, not much objection about Mittal.

In the conclusion, I have to agree with LE that if we incorporate any theory we must include for and against views to present neutral point of view. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I am travelling from one city to another and shall have no access during flight! Thanks all for your comments. We are getting closer to consensus! I need some time after I reach my hometown. I shall be online again at night, and continue as usual. Thanks for your patience! Ekdalian (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The argument of Chakraborty is fringe as he is refering some mediaeval books. Thats the point we should not use this book. Modern scholars doesn't agree with Bhandarkar's opinion also. It is ok to interpret and analyse this theory and include all opinions under NPOV. But I am not in favour to add Chakraborty under WP:FRINGE. Timovinga (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

As we discussed above, it doesn't belong to "History" section at least; may be moved to another section.CharlesWain (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with LukeEmily that all views from reliable sources must be included including the existing one! A new section cannot be created since it would affect the flow of the article (long-standing consensus version)! I am okay with the other views as per NPOV, but since this is a highly contentious article, we need to keep the content in quotes attributing the same to the author, like other experienced editors on caste have used here! Consensus doesn't mean full 100% agreement but a compromise among editors in the best interest of the article! If you are okay with what LE and I have mentioned (obviously there are some differences), I shall go ahead and edit the article (others are also welcome); else you may go to DRN. Awaiting your final comments! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• A scriptural narrative section can be created like Baidya. LukeEmily, and I feel it doesn't fit in "History" section. We may discuss more about that @Ekdalian:, @Timovinga:.
• I am okay with this inclusion, as it's aligned with sources, and attributed to the authors. We should maintain NPOV. We are all on same page on that.Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  If a book says according to Vedas "Jesus Christ was a Brahmin" then should we also include that? The argument of Chakraborty is fringe, he is clearly lying or had no idea what he was writing, if those medival books contains some ground breaking information regarding the migration of Kayasthas then why any other authors mentioned the same? We need more HIGH QUALITY sources or it is just a classic case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I can't repeat the same thing again and again. @CharlesWain, @LukeEmily are you ok with my last edit? Timovinga (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, last edit is totally fine; I already told so in the last comment. Everyone is okay with other views. Another option is giving quotation from RC Majumdar, like it's given from Tej Ram Sharma. I am okay with either one.CharlesWain (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, LukeEmily and CharlesWain, we need to wait a bit. A very experienced editor has mailed me that Timovinga is a probable sock of Nobita456! I have submitted an SPI! So long, I was assuming good faith as far as the quotes and everything else was concerned, but now, we need to wait for the SPI. I shall update here once the SPI is over, and try to arrive at consensus ASAP. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Ekdalian, CharlesWain, and Timovinga:, it has been a month. I think we are all in agreement that Majumdar's views should be mentioned for WP:NPOV.LukeEmily (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes @LukeEmily I almost forgot, Majumdar and Barpujari both disagreed that Kayasthas are not descendents of Nagara Brahmins. Nihar Ranjan Roy also said the same. Timovinga (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have added other views as per NPOV and our agreement. If anyone have any concern please let everyone know here. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  @CharlesWain and LukeEmily:, let me know whether you have verified the quotes! We can't rely on a suspected sock; SPI result is pending. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Gone through Majumdar few years back, and Barpujari last month. As far as contents are concerned, these are well sourced and quotations are accurate, Ekdalian. I believe LukeEmily also agreed, since they're the one who pinged us yesterday about mentioning the same per NPOV. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please be specific, CharlesWain; have you verified both the quotes? Yes or No! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ekdalian, yes, I did. One of them available freely in public domain. Please check. CharlesWain (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ekdalian please assume some good faiths, I am not against any caste. I hate caste system TBH, imagine judging someone by something which he got by birth, and had no control over it. History is unfortunately something we can not change, thats why Wikipedia must provide legit informations. If it was in my hand I would have shift+delete the whole caste system and its all history. Timovinga (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you both, CharlesWain and Timovinga! Ekdalian (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all CharlesWain for getting this resolved. Ekdalian, I do not have access to the second source but the first source quote is correct. I am assuming the other source is also correctly represented.LukeEmily (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and CharlesWain:, we need to revisit this. I did a quick search on google books. Some modern sources are still supporting the Nagar Brahmin origin. I don't know what the current consensus is but I will quote some more sources that support or at least partially support the theory.LukeEmily (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily, yes some sources support this theory, and some sources oppose it. Currently I have one other source which supports it, and one more which refutes it. But we must remember this is a theory, which was originated in Raj era, and was promoted by some dedicated propagandists; so we should take into account WP:FRUIT. Or, Is there any totally new research into this topic? CharlesWain (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and CharlesWain: I shall wait for the quotes. In between, let me try to eliminate the unnecessary details (exact quotes) in the article, as proposed by the sock! This is a case of copyright violation as well! We can now onwards add the names of reliable authors supporting the theory and those opposing the same instead of further elaboration and quoting entire stuff from the texts. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I have added Majumdar paraphrasing from the source. You should first propose in talk page, if you're planning any edit.CharlesWain (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We can't just add names of authors without elaboration. Tej Ram Sharma has been block quoted, although this is not exact quotation from Sharma. Sharma has written in two different paragraphs; the lines have been trimmed, and one particular line is put outside the blockquote. We shall wait. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay CharlesWain! @LukeEmily: please check my recent edit reverted by CW; I believe CW is waiting for your opinion. This is a case of possible copyright violation! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if CW has paraphrased as mentioned above, how many authors' opinion will you incorporate? This is becoming unencyclopedic! LukeEmily, please check the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't just write 5 lines about one view and just one about opposing view; that is violation of WP:NPOV, and DUE. We can put Majumdar in blockquote. But I will wait. Btw, this discussion is not about Rabindra nath Chakraborty, a new thread should be opened. CharlesWain (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The view supporting the theory was provided in quotes since the theory may be deemed to be controversial! Further, we cannot provide all quotes and make the article content unencyclopedic! Anyway, let's wait for LE. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Waiting for your comments! Also, please go through the next section and check the content added. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian:, Sitush did say that Risley etc. are unreliable. I am not sure why Risley was added recently and will look at the next section for the discussion. About the current section, see Power, Profit, and Poetry: Traditional Society in Kathiawar page 217 by Harald_Tambs-Lyche. He clearly says that even if one does not believe the common origin with the Nagar Brahmin "would seem that the Kayasthas of Bengal are a parallel case . Yet they never attained Brahmin status . Perhaps this should be explained with reference to the presence of important high - status priestly Brahmin elements in Bengal". (1996). So this does not seem like fringe opinion. Secondly, we are missing one point. Majumdar uses the phrase "non convincing" - but that does not mean false. On the other hard he does not address the scriptures that mentions the connections. This seems to be new in Chakraborty. After the sockpuppet verdict of T, I was curious and did a search on google books. Also, came across some that talk about genetic connection(but we cannot use genetics in caste articles). There is no way to prove it or disprove it. But it does not appear fringe as modern sources also mention it.LukeEmily (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Rabindranath Chakraborty's input seems WP: FRINGE, couldn't find the same in any other sources. I have gone through some other pages of Chakraborty too, he indeed has some WP: Extraordinary views about other subjects discussed in that book which I haven't read elsewhere. CharlesWain (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and CharlesWain:, since LE proposed that we must revisit the part added as proposed by the sock, let us discuss here and achieve consensus regarding what to add. Please note that CW had jumped and added the part proposed by the sock before I approved the same! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We have given supporting and opposing views of this theory, and that's more than enough. Anything more than these is redundant. I can see that block quoted part isn't exact quotation from Tej Ram Sharma, but two different paragraphs trimmed and merged together. We can get all the context and details from it. Why do we need to add superfluous contents? CharlesWain (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's wait for LukeEmily! Also, let LE or anyone amongst us propose the para related to Nagar Brahmin connection (including supporting & opposing views) and other concerned editors agree. Thanks, CharlesWain; hope you understand that we need a fresh consensus! Ekdalian (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ekdalian, LukeEmily pinged us to add the contents on 30th December as per NPOV, and I did so after waiting for more than 24 hours. I added and asked if anyone had any concerns, and your concerns were sorted out too. It concluded by this message, and LE thanking me for my edits. That's the stable version. LE hasn't proposed to remove any contents, or you haven't discussed with me either; you're doing edits unilaterally, and adding and removing contents as per your whims ! You need fresh consensus.CharlesWain (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to an older message. LE recently mentioned that we need to revisit this! And I completely agree. We need to propose a draft paragraph incorporating the views as much as possible, but at the same time, it should be encyclopedic! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I got this from a JSTOR source:B. K. Barua opines that the Karaμa caste, whose members performed the same vocations as the Kåyasthas, was gradually absorbed by the later, ultimately forming one Kåyastha caste. D. R. Bhandarkar and following him Ghose are in favour of tracing the origins of the Kayastha caste with that of Nagara Brahmins while Vasu opposes this theory and he goes to claim that the traditions current among them for generations and their genealogical records testify to their affiliation with the ksatriyas.^[1] Mentioning the Nagar Brahmin theory, Niharranjan Ray wrote:There is historical evidence that Brahmins of various classes have come to live in Bengal from outside. But there is no evidence that they ever came in such large numbers as to form separate caste strata(translated). Recent addition of content without context is redundant. We can't add more and more of these supporting/opposing views without context; that's giving undue importance to this theory.CharlesWain (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• @CharlesWain and Ekdalian:, Ekdalian, sorry if I confused everyone with my vague statement earlier. I think we had reached consensus in 2024 and all of us agreed to add the views of Barpujari and Majumdar(they oppose the theory of Nagar Brahmins). And CharlesWain has verified the quotes. I am OK with adding other new views as well since they all apply to the caste(including above source given by CharlesWain). I dug into this deeper only because of the sock issue. I am perfectly OK with CharlesWain's version for now. I am unable to see the entire page of Harald_Tambs-Lyche's book. Perhaps someone can request the page on WP:RX. I don't think we should remove Majumdar and Barpujari but Harald_Tambs-Lyche as well as Baruah(above) are quite modern and very reliable. Since I am unable to see the entire page on google books, I do not know if Harald_Tambs-Lyche agrees or disagrees with the view or if he is simply summarizing all views. I could only see that he was calling them a parallel case. My suggestion - if both of you agree - is to use CharlesWain's consensus version for now (since we all agreed) - then summarize all views on the talk page and try to form a small summary and new consensus from the same in the next few days - including all views for NPOV. About Mahishya (discussed elsewhere on this page), we can discuss on the respective talk page. But some sources like Sangeet Kumar seem to suggest that they have Kshatriya origin.LukeEmily (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Clarifying: By revisiting, I meant looking at more sources due to sock issue but I did not mean deleting Majumdar's view. Sorry I take responsibility for the confusion since I was vague about what I meant.LukeEmily (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• @Ekdalian and CharlesWain:, just an FYI. I looked up the English translation of Naishadha_Charita, and could not find any reference to Bengali Kayastha or Nagar Brahmins. I did find some reference to Chitragupta but nothing to do with any caste. Normally I would not have looked up a primary source for verification if the publication was reputed or if the scholar had been cited by others. But now I do not know where Chakraborty got his information from. Of course, I might not have searched with the correct keywords or may have not understood the context since I did not read it end to end. Or maybe I looked at a "bad" version. But now it does make me doubt Chakraborty's extraordinary claims. You both are free to ignore my comment as it is purely WP:OR. I am OK with omitting or including Chakraborty - neutral about it. You two can decide.LukeEmily (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ghosh's paper is dedicated to the phenomenon of "territorialization" of Kayastha caste in Bengal or its definition as distinct from the Kayastha groups of other provinces owing to observation made by judges and reaction by Bengali Kayastha groups itself, there is also an in-depth paper on exactly this that I cited in bibliography section which also references Ghosh's work as well , can you elaborate on what you mean by implicit consensus? If details are relevant to Bengali Kayasthas than they should be included here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, would request you to go through the relevant section in the parent article Kayastha; other court cases related to Bengali Kayastha need to be mentioned, per NPOV. I completely agree that the content added by you is relevant, but there's more! That's the reason, we (including Sitush, & possibly JJ as well) had decided not to include court rulings here. If you would still like to include, it would result in redundancy since everything is covered in Kayastha, as mentioned. I really appreciate your efforts. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You are free to include them, I have not merely mentioned the 1884 ruling but the effect it had and how it influenced the caste/identity formation of Bengali Kayasthas. Secondly, Ghosh's article is very recent and primarily focuses on the Bengali Kayastha caste not Kayasthas as whole, so it is incorrect to say that these details are covered on Kayastha page when they are not, they are not redundant as they are nowhere to be found on that page. The source cites the verdict only as an example to explain the phenomenon of "territorialization" of their caste identity which the colonial government exploited to undermine the Bengali Kayastha hegemony. To remove very recent (Ghosh (2023) & Bellenoit (2023)) academic analysis of Bengali Kayastha identity formation in the colonial era would be unconstructive. Thirdly, just an implicit agreement between you and Sitush is not consensus nor should it prohibit anyone from adding modern analyses into the article. The conclusion section of Ghosh's article sums up what I'm trying to say :

This article has identified approaches which shaped the interrelated processes of the social construc­tion of identity among Bengali Kayasthas in the early twentieth century. Examining legal discourse centring on inheritance, the article reveals how inheritance settlements both created and normalized caste hierarchies and discrimination based on caste status. Disparaging, casteist portrayals of Bengali Kayasthas were part of a colonial push for orthodoxy.86 The British posited caste attributes as essential, immutable, and fixed. Judges described how Bengali Kayasthas were unwilling to follow rituals; Kayasthas elsewhere in India followed rituals and therefore did not face discrimination. These contradictory identities of Indian Kayasthas took shape in the context of a hierarchical caste system which constituted Indians in relation to each other. The Kayastha dissatisfaction with colonial interpretations of caste played an integral role in bringing about an epistemological shift in the way they imagined and described themselves. The colonial language of caste transformed them into a bounded community with their own unique worldviews within the Hindu nation

Again, the content I added is NOT merely the court rulings but how they affected Bengali Kayasthas and how they chose to react and ultimately describe themselves as. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you cite the "implicit consensus" you keep talking about here? Sitush has in the past warned you about misrepresenting his comments as consensus in order to obstruct any changes to this article,

You seem to be repeatedly trying to obstruct discussion on this page and change to the article by referring to the current version being the consensus version & by invoking me as some sort of god who approved it. ... To be abrupt, it has a whiff of WP:OWN.

This behaviour is disruptive and will lead to sanctions, if you continue to do this. Consider this a formal warning. CharlesWain (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, you are warning me? LOL!! Admins are aware how you had kept the term 'Kshatriya' (as part of short description) in the article on Mahishya in spite of knowing that it is an agrarian caste! Your edits related to Mahishya need thorough review! Why didn't you quote the next statement by Sitush where he says sorry in case he has misunderstood (something of that sort)! Ratnahastin, I would not stop you from adding back the content! In case you believe it should be incorporated, please go ahead; I shall add some more court rulings per NPOV if you choose to add it back! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting, and of course without diff(s) ! I asked you to cite "implicit consensus" you're talking about, you didn't give any link or diff either! CharlesWain (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can warn an editor if they feel that the editor has knowingly or unknowingly caused disruption, I don't think you will find much success by bringing up supposed faults in Charleswain's editing without corresponding diffs. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, I had informed admins Bishonen and Abecedare along with diffs, but not in a mood to proceed further. CW has been editing neutrally for quite some time now. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ratnahastin was there too when you went to Bishonen's talk page last time. They are well aware who is neutral or not. CharlesWain (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This happened long time back, CW! Ekdalian (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: - I have checked the source, it seems there seems to be confusion in your edit. Bellenoit here is describing the regionalization of Kayasthas groups in Bengal and North Indian provinces, he mentions the earlier 1916 ruling by Calcutta High court that declared Bengali Kayasthas as Shudras and of non twice born origin, this was later appealed by Bengali Kayastha but Privy Council in London in 1918 dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the view that Bengali Kayasthas were shudras referring to the regional variations of Kayasthas and in its proceedings noted that "Bihari Kayasthas" performed rites common with " other dvija" castes. Bellenoit now elaborates on this regionalization of different Kayastha groups (from Bihar and Bengal) after highlighting their different practices and adherence to different schools of law.

This ‘regionalizing’ of north and east Indian Kayasthas through legal sinews can also be seen in a case filed with the Patna High Court in 1926. It involved a suit over a mismanaged property inheritance (Ishwari Prasad v. Rai Hari Prasad Lal). The Indian magistrate overseeing the case, Jwala Prasad, was himself a Kayastha. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Prasad characterized the Calcutta High Court’s 1884 and 1916 rulings as ‘inconclusive’, noting that the customs and rituals of Bengali Kayasthas were markedly different from those of Bihar and the Doab. He noted that Kayasthas upcountry were joint Hindu families, according to the Mitakshara school of law of Benares, while in Bengal Kayasthas largely followed the Dayabhaga school of law, which held different view on the ‘joint-ness’ of the Hindu family.130 Over a 47-page judgment citing every smriti and puranic tale he could muster,131 Prasad argued that north Indian Kayasthas had Kshatriya origins on the paternal side. Prasad also cited numerous colonial ethnologists, such as Herbert Risley and William Crooke, using their qualified endorsements of Kayasthas’ dvija origins. Prasad ultimately ruled that Kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence of twice-born status.

As you can see, Justice Prasad here first made a distinction between the Kayasthas of Bihar and Doub from those of Bengali Kayasthas (who were always accorded the Shudra status in earlier ruling), so Bellenoit here is only referring to the Varna status of North Indian Kayasthas (those of Bihar and Doub) and not of Bengali Kayasthas, and designating north Indian Kayasthas as having Kshatriya origin, not north eastern ones (e.i Bengali Kayasthas), here is the quote and page for full context.

On the same page, Bellenoit concludes after reviewing these rulings on varna status of different regional groups of Kayasthas .

A careful look at the variety and regional dimension of these cases seems to indicate that in the suits originating in the Bihari and Doabi heartlands rulings that Kayasthas were of twice-born status were more likely. Closer to Bengal country, though, the legal rulings tended to assign a shudra status.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You are right, thanks Ratnahastin! Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The source is describing the original 1884 ruling in Raj Coomar Lall v. Bissessur Dyal that was the first to decide that Bengali Kayasthas were not twice borns. You are correct that court was indeed taken in by the argument that Kayasthas of Bengal were originally Kshatriyas but had been degraded to Shudra status, therefore Bengali Kayasthas [In 1844] were not twice-borns or part of the top three varnas of Hinduism. Here is what Justice Jonathan Field noted during in the case as quoted by Bellenoit in his recent work on Kayasthas. Bellenoit, Hayden J. (2023). "Legal Limbo and Caste Consternation: Determining Kayasthas' Varna Rank in Indian Law Courts, 1860–1930" (PDF). Law and History Review. 41 (1): 50. doi:10.1017/S0738248023000056. ISSN 0738-2480. Retrieved 2025-01-12.

there is…a preponderance of authority to evince that the Kayasthas, whether of Bengal or of any other country, were Kshetrias. But since several centuries passed, the Kayasthas (at least those of Bengal) have been degenerated and degraded to Sudradom, not only by using after their proper names the surname ‘Dasa’ peculiar to the Sudras, and giving up their own, which is ‘Barma’, but principally by omitting to perform the regenerating ceremony ‘upanayana’ hallowed by the Gayatri

The ruling decided that kayasthas could not “upon the basis of these observances…rank among the three superior classes.”

But I have already described the 1884 ruling in my edits before, therefore I propose the following edit:

Colonial-era verdicts also declared Bengali Kayasthas as Shudras, relying on observations of their ritual practices. One of the earliest such verdicts, Rajcoomar Lal v. Bissessur Dayal (1884), adjudged the Shudra designation but was influenced by a 'semantic-historicist' argument that Bengali Kayasthas had been degraded from an earlier Kshatriya status. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am okay with your proposed edit! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I provided additional context to the 1931 census. I have cited Bellenoit for this purpose,

• Bellenoit, Hayden J. (2023). "Legal Limbo and Caste Consternation: Determining Kayasthas' Varna Rank in Indian Law Courts, 1860–1930" (PDF). Law and History Review. 41 (1): 58–59. doi:10.1017/S0738248023000056. ISSN 0738-2480. Retrieved 2025-01-15.

The 1931 volume for Bengal, though, more clearly mirrored very regional ambiguity in adjudicating Kayasthas’ varna rank. It outlined how court rulings brought benefits to identifiable caste groups who sought to bolster their social standing. It further noted that recognition as “twice-born” was something highly sought after by marginal groups who sought upward mobility, such as Jats and Kayasthas. But for Bengali Kayasthas, the volume was disturbingly ambiguous. While it associated Kayasthas the with “upper classes” of Brahmins and Vaishyas,it also observed that the label “Kayastha” pulled their rank in Bengali society downward. Significant numbers of Shudras over the past 30 years had entered “Kayastha” on their census returns, which hinted at the very “ritual equaled varna” argument that the Calcutta justices made in 1884 and 1916, who in turn cited Sarkar’s Darpana. And those Calcutta High Court rulings were inescapable. The volume admitted that while the various provincial and Privy Council rulings were contradictory (“the legal position is at least obscure”)it clearly noted that in Bengal, “Kayasthas have invariably been held to be Sudras.”

"various provincial and Privy Council rulings were contradictory" is referring to different rulings about Kayastha's varna in different regions of British India, as i have made it clear already that Bengali Kayasthas were not regarded as anything other Shudras in court rulings in Bengal, that's why the census "clearly noted" Kayasthas in Bengal to be Shudras.

The source which Ekdalian cited is actually talking about Kayasthas of Bihar while noting that Kayasthas were recognised as an upper-caste in the 1931 census (this is also admitted by Bellenoit above ("While it associated Kayasthas the with “upper classes” of Brahmins and Vaishyas")). The quote below also backs my previous argument that 1926 ruling was about Kayasthas of Bihar not Bengal.

The most effective caste Sabhas of the Kayasthas were concentrated in Central Bihar, particularly in Sahabad district. Much before the formation of Kayasatha caste Sabhas, a popular social reform movement had been launched in Sahabad district by Munshi Pearey Lal. The movement for social mobility took the form of adopting surnames such as ‘ Sinha’ and ‘ Verma’. They donned the sacred thread, converted to vegetarianism, curtailed the expenses on weddings and started performing Brahmanical rituals. Books and journals such as Kayastha Messenger, Kayastha Gazette, etc. flourished, expressing the political, social and cultural grievances of the community. The Kayasthas of Bihar received a shot in the arm when the Allahabad High Court announced in 1890 that the Kayasthas were Kshatriyas (one of the twice-born varnas). Later, the Patna High Court, in a comprehensive judgement in 1927, decided that the Kayasthas of Bihar were not Shudras but belonged to the upper caste. The Census of 1931 also listed Kayasthas as one of the upper castes.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: - This is redundant as the starting line of the paragraph already states "While the last completed census of the British Raj (1931) classified Kayasthas as an "upper caste"". - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Ratnahastin! Ekdalian (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Scholars differ on their views regarding the origin of Bengali Kayasthas from Nagar Brahmins. Sharma(1978) mentions that D. R. Bhandarkar writes that identical surnames are used by the Nagara-brahmanas. D. R. Bhandarkar and and Ghose believe that the Bengali Kayasthas originated from Nagar Brahmins while Vasu opposes this theory. Vasu says that traditions and genealogical data prove their connection to Kshatriya. As per B. K. Barua, the Karaua( is this same as Karana?) caste, merged into the Kayastha caste. Majumdar(1970) does not find the common names with Nagar Brahmins as conclusive evidence as many other communities used the same name. Referring to Naishadha Charita and Usanas-samhita smriti, Rabindra Nath Chakraborty(1985) mentions that according to these two medieval texts, the Kayasthas descended from Nagara Brahmin who had a large settlement in Bengal in the eighth century AD.^{[disputed – discuss]}. H. K. Barpujari(1990) argues that the theory of migration is not convincing because, recipients of East Indian grants would mostly be Nagara Brahmins but notes that they were not held in high esteem in the region. Harald Tambs-Lyche (1995) says that irrespective of the opinions on theory of Nagar Brahmin origin, the Bengali Kayasthas are a "parallel case" to the Nagar Brahmins. He adds that unlike the Nagara Brahmins, Bengali Kayastha could not attain Brahmin status due to an existing community of priestly Brahmins of Bengal.LukeEmily (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain and Ekdalian:, please let me know your thoughts on the above summary. I have tried to incorporate all views. Please feel free to add other views or rephrase. I have not given the citations as they are already on the page or the talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily, you did a good job. It's Karana, not Karaua; it was misspelt when I was copy-pasting from the source. I have posted a request here, since we are getting only snippet view from Google book. I have full access to Niharranjan Ray's books. Once I get access to Tamb-Lyche's book, I will let you all know my final thoughts incorporating both the authors' views. Thanks again. CharlesWain (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and CharlesWain: I am okay with LE's proposed version! Good job, LE; you have incorporated all the views. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe, we will arrive at consensus very soon; therefore I am not reverting my last edit! CharlesWain, if you want, you may reinstate the earlier version temporarily! We shall replace the paragraph by the proposed version once everyone is okay with it! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain: we are waiting for your confirmation! LukeEmily, we shall close this as soon as CW confirms. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian:, CharlesWain has already requested the source. This may take some time as it is not provided to him yet and he will have to go through several pages to understand the context. We should not use Harald Tambs-Lyche until we get full context of what he is saying - if he agrees with Majumdar that there is possibly no connection with Nagar Brahmins, then we have to mention that also for WP:NPOV. We should wait until we get all summary from all relevant sources and we need CharlesWain's opinion also - since the articles is already a consensus version at this point.LukeEmily (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain and LukeEmily: since the resource has possibly been provided to CW, can we expect CW to elaborate the context a bit here, so that we can achieve consensus formally! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gotten access to the work.

This is my interpretation of what Tambs is saying. Here are the relevant pages.

https://imgur.com/a/TFnKd2X

Tambs is discussing the cultivator Brahmin caste such as Nagar and Anavils of Gujarat, who perhaps made claims to priesthood because of their landholdings. Ethnoven ( raj ethnographer) is discussing them and their theories of origin and says that Anavils might have Kayastha or Nagar origin, but then Tambs says that Kayasthas of Bengal which are also a parallel case did not attain Brahmin status despite similar circumstances and claims of ritual hood likely because of presence of Brahminical culture there. CharlesWain (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain and LukeEmily: LE's NPOV summary looks good and as mentioned earlier, I am okay with it! CW, please confirm. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian:, responding to your ping. Thanks to the hard work by CharlesWain in getting this information. I was expecting Tambs to give his own opinion(whether he agrees with Majumdar or not), or at least give a summary of all opinions, but he does not. I am OK with the NPOV summary above that I made, but we need CharlesWain's opinion too. He was mentioning an opinion by Niharranjan Ray and also something about having some opinions in quotes. Lets wait to hear from him as he might be researching more sources to form his opinion.LukeEmily (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and CharlesWain: awaiting final comments from both of you! Honestly speaking, I don't consider the existing version as a consensus version, the reason being CW jumping into action immediately and adding the sourced content proposed by the sock (before explicitly expressing consensus from my end)! Later, I had to ask CW categorically whether he has verified the sources! Anyway now that we have a NPOV summary (proper one), I sincerely believe all of us should be okay with it. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me clarify why I didn't revert CW and even told him to revert to this version (in case he wanted) in one of my recent comments. That's because I consider the existing version as work in progress (WIP) version; therefore, for me, the existing version is not a consensus version (amongst the three of us) , but a WIP version! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain: please note that LukeEmily has already confirmed. Waiting for your confirmation! If you want to add any other view to LE's NPOV summary, please rewrite the draft; else we shall assume that you have no objection to the draft by LE. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I read the discussion in the previous sections. CW has already stated some of the objections in the previous/current section. Hence the draft in this section is not a consensus version yet. Also, CW may be researching historian Ray's books(as he mentioned). You can try pinging him again after a few days or after a couple of weeks.LukeEmily (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeEmily! Ekdalian (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Couple of days is fine, but not couple of weeks for response considering the fact that he is pretty much active here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain: if you are interested, please let us know your opinion! LukeEmily, please note that this is the last and final call for CharlesWain since he is active in other articles and talk pages. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote the source where it says that Chakraborty belongs to the Department of Humanities, IIT, Kharagpur? I see that his work has only been cited once, that too in the further reading section despite being decades old, that's bad. CharlesWain (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I am a little disappointed with Tambs-Lyche's chapter as I was expecting elaborated analysis of this theory. I will have more to say. Please confirm this before.Thanks for your patience. CharlesWain (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, as LukeEmily stated in one of the above sections: "Chakraborty's book seems to be reviewed and based on suggestions by modern historians. Also, if he is or was a humanities professor and as per Ekdalian's comment: Anyway, Dr. Rabindra Nath Chakraborty is a triple MA, PhD and belonged to the Department of Humanities, IIT, Kharagpur. This particular work (book cited as reference) was done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. B.S. Das, MA, LLB, PhD, D.Litt, Professor of History, IIT, Kharagpur. Needless to mention, it is a WP:RS and compliant with WP:HISTRS, which states - "Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field", which is highly applicable for the author, who has a triple MA and PhD in Humanities, he is reliable as far as wikipedia is concerned."

This information is collected from the Foreword and Acknowledgement Sections of the book. There's nothing to quote since the qualification is stated separately and the fact that the study was done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. B.S. Das, is stated elsewhere. In case you want to verify, you have to go through both the sections. Awaiting your response! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ekdalian, where did the source say that author belongs to department of humanities at IIT-KGP? Also I couldn't find out, despite considerable research, what his MAs and PhD(*upadate:this book itself was originally his thesis, probably in early 1950s) are in. We didn't consider the fact previously that Barpujari, Majumdar, Ray are so widely cited by scholars, but Chakraborty is essentially cited by no scholar ( 1 citation, that too in further reading!). Apparently this source isn't considered reliable. CharlesWain (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad; he belonged to the University of Sambalpur as mentioned at the end of the Acknowledgement Section! He was from the Department of Arts; check this! As mentioned by LukeEmily, the work done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. B.S. Das, MA, LLB, PhD, D.Litt, Professor of History, IIT, Kharagpur is reliable, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Thanks, Ekdalian (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Sambalpur University, 1984. Thanks. The citation thing wasn't discussed earlier, I didn't check it previously either. This issue needs to be addressed.CharlesWain (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, I don't think that would be an issue as far as Wikipedia's reliability criteria is concerned. Nobita (I mean his socks) had tried to establish that this particular source is unreliable, but couldn't! LukeEmily has also reiterated that the source is reliable, as far as Wikipedia is concerned! Still, I am pinging LE once again! @LukeEmily: please share your opinion regarding CW's concern. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing; here the medieval texts part is exceptional, but this source doesn't seem exceptional anyway. Moreover both LukeEmily and I shared another concern in the previous discussion too, when LE said, "He is not commenting on the accuracy of the opinion of the text." This work is considered Magnum Opus of Ray , where he has written mentioning this theory, "There is historical evidence that Brahmins of various classes have come to live in Bengal from outside. But there is no evidence that they ever came in such large numbers as to form separate caste strata(translated)." We can't find mention of medieval text in this context in any other source(?), so I believe this WP EXCEPTIONAL policy applies here. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue earlier with Nobita's socks! And we arrived at the conclusion that WP:FRINGE is not applicable here since many other sources mention the theory (already discussed in details)! Anyway, let's wait for LukeEmily. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ekdalian and CharlesWain:. I have edited the summary at the start of the talk section on current opinions. Please let me know if it reflects your current views accurately. Ekdalian, I think CharlesWain has consistently opposed the medieval text inclusion or suggested that it not be in the history section and we never reached any conclusion. So I have marked current status of Chakraborty as disputed (on talk page). Please feel to correct me if I am mistaken. We can discuss Chakraborty further as you both have made some very good points. Does Tambs say anything on page 210? I think Tambs is fine to include but he does not talk of origin - only that it is a parallel case. Are you both in agreement on everything else except Chakraborty?LukeEmily (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily, consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree! WP:CONSENSUS clearly says that a "consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." I don't think CW's objection is a proper one since the source by Chakraborty has passed all previous objections and is an integral part of the consensus version! WP:STONEWALLING is not acceptable here! Rest, I am okay with your NPOV summary as already mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: awaiting your final comments before incorporating the NPOV summary! CharlesWain, let us know in case you have any other concern regarding LE's NPOV summary. For Chakraborty, you may go to WP:RSN if you still have any concern! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2025

(UTC)

Sukla Das writes, "The complete extinction of surnames like Ghoșa, Vasu, Mitra, Datta, Dāsa, Dāma among Brāhmaņas in the later period and their association with modern Käyastha names of Bengal are also a remarkable factor. During the sixth and seventh centuries A.D., however, Kāyasthas as a caste did not emerge. It was a later development. Vasu opines that some of these Brāhmaņas merged with the other Brahmaņa communities of India and thereby, completely lost their identity, 149 while others blended with the Kayasthas by circumstantial factors. 150" Vasu didn't oppose Nagar Brahmin theory or Bhandarkar, rather he supported it with a little different narrative, but he didn't mention any medieval text either. I am not suggesting to incorporate Vasu's opinions in history section ( raj era Kayastha activist, WP:FRUIT), but my point is that , Majumder writes " According to DR Bhandarkar and others...", and we can see from bottom of the page by "others" he referred to N Vasu and JC Ghosh, and Majumder went on to refute every point they have made. Did Bhandarkar or Vasu mention these two medieval texts? Apparently no, We can't find it in any other source.So Majumdar haven't addressed it either. But this medieval texts are mentioned in a source (Chakraborty) which isn't cited by any other scholar. @LukeEmily:, you also said in the previous discussion that this part doesn't belong to history section; I would like to know about your opinion now after the fresh issue (no citation) came to our notice.

Ekdalian, The medieval text part is tagged "disputed" now. Do you have any good source mentioning the same ? Please address this issue first. This summary was written when only snippet view of Tambs-Lyche was available. I have mentioned from the first comment of this thread that I would check Ray and Tambs-Lyche (for which I needed considerable time and effort) and let you all know my opinion(s). LE wants discussion too. We have to make some changes -some tweaks, couple of line removals and may be addition - maintaining DUE weight for supporting and opposing views. We need to give some context to "parallel case" too from Tambs-Lyche if we all agree.CharlesWain (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, to answer your question, I think the mention about the scripture does not belong to the history section - because the scholar is simply stating what a poem is saying, without any historical interpretation and there is no later historical event based on the scripture's claim. For example, (hypothetically)if the the Bengali Kayasthas and the Bengali Brahmins had a heated dispute about their origin in (say)1901 in the court and the poem was brought into the debate, then the debate would be a historical event associated with the scripture(even if the scripture by itself is not reliable history) and we could have put the event of the debate and what the scripture says in the history section. Ekdalian, what are your thoughts on the section - where should it be? CharlesWain, is the above quote from Tambs-Lyche? In my opinion, no harm in mentioning Chakraborty in some section as long as we make the context clear. But we also need to give all views that oppose the theory and give them due weight - especially because the opponents are world class scholars. They suggest there is no evidence of the Nagar Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas being the same group. Ekdalian, I agree that Chakraborty is reliable based on his qualifications. He may not be that notable or well regarded in the field as the others. Maybe the Sanskrit text was not part of mainstream Bengal literature or maybe it is mentioned somewhere that we have not found yet? Ekdalian, if you have an email address associated with your WP account, you might be able to see the complete context from Tambs too. The parallel case may mean that they the Nagar Brahmins were also writers/administrators/landlords like the Bengali Kayasthas but got a Brahmin status because they did not face any opposition to the claim unlike in Bengal where all non-Brahmin Bengalis were turned into Shudras(for some strange reason that I cannot comprehend) - we can expand on the "parallel case" too - so that readers can understand. Also I see a snippet view of Sarma "...their origin , showing first from epigraphic evidence that Brahmans existed in Bihar and Orissa as early as the fifth century A.D. bearing names bearing names now characteristic of the Kayasthas of Bengal , and there are indications that these Brahmans were of the same stock or migrated from the same region as produced the Nagar Brahmans of western India." Maybe they have some common ancestry or maybe they got a little mixed due to some intermarriages. Its difficult to prove one way or the other. CharlesWain, can you add Ray's view that you mentioned? In general, irrespective of whether the theory is true or false, it is not fringe because too many sources (I even found a genetics source) that discuss it. I think the easiest way to move forward is to give all quotes(opinions) from all sources - supporting and opposing- and then modify the above summary as per WP:NPOV. I feel we should not rush this as it may be resolved in 1-2 days once we get all quotes. If we are still deadlocked when we get all quotes, we can use the dispute resolution and RFC to get other opinions.LukeEmily (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: I completely agree with all your points; thanks for the detailed explanation! I have no issue with the section, you may decide. My only objective is to provide all views/opinions regarding the same to our readers, per NPOV. I don't think RfC would be required. Once CharlesWain shares any other relevant quote, you may incorporate the same in the NPOV summary, and finalize the draft summary. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and CharlesWain:, please see my comment in the previous section(I am OK if you both dismiss it as WP:OR), but I could not find any reference to Nagar Brahmins or Bengali Kayasthas in the scripture mentioned by Chakraborty.LukeEmily (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily, WP:OR is not applicable for authors, it is applicable for editors only! We are quoting from a source, reliable as per Wikipedia, that too attributing the statement to the author. We are not supposed to check primary sources (God knows which version) and engage in original research! It's all about citing secondary reliable sources here. Therefore, there's no point in omitting the statement based on your research! Thanks though for taking the trouble and for your time and effort! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate LukeEmily taking the time to examine the medieval text. We have much discussion about this subject, and I'm eager to end the impasse soon. I will further investigate a few sources and provide a revised NPOV summary here. Otherwise, I've thought of a simple fix. CharlesWain (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Will post some quotations and summary by tonight. CharlesWain (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks CharlesWain! @LukeEmily and CharlesWain: I have gone through the source by Tambs; probably CW had gone through that particular page. I checked previous pages and got the context. On page number 211, Tambs quotes Enthoven, which shows that the sharmans used by the Nagar Brahmins are almost same as the modern day surnames used by the Bengali Kayasthas! But it seems that the author hasn't mentioned whether he agrees or not! Since the author has started the statement discussed here (page number 217) as "Even if we do not accept....", it is clear that the author doesn't reject the theory! Therefore, we shall not mention whether Tambs agrees with the theory or not, but must mention about the parallel case related statement. This is going on for quite some time now; let's close this ASAP! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• " Sharma (1978) mentions that according to Bhandarkar, Bengali Kayasthas are descendants of Nagar Brahmins as these two groups had identical surnames. Majumdar (1970) does not find the common name-endings with Nagar Brahmins as conclusive evidence as these name-endings were used by many other communities all over India about that period. H. K. Barpujari (1990) argues that the theory of Nagar migration is not convincing because, recipients of East Indian grants would mostly be Nagara Brahmins but notes that they were not held in high esteem in the region. Harald Tambs-Lyche (1995) says that irrespective of the opinions on theory of common Nagar/Kayastha origin, the Bengali Kayasthas are a "parallel case" to the Nagar Brahmins as they had similiar professions. He adds that, unlike the Nagara Brahmins, Bengali Kayastha could never attain Brahmin status due to an existing community of priestly Brahmins of Bengal. "CharlesWain (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Bhandarkar would on the basis of the surnames Datta, Ghosa, Varman, Naga, Mitra, etc. regard the Bengali Kayasthas as the descendants of some Brahmana immigrants from Anandanagar.

page 59 Sudarshana Bhaumik writes,

From the various copper plates, we can get an idea about the titles of various jatis like Dutta, Pal, Mitra, Barman, Das, Bhadra, Ghosh, Kundu, Palit, Nag, Chandra and so on. All these titles were used by Kayasthas as a separate class in later years.

page 34 (2023 edition) A couple of lines after that Bhaumik also mentions Bhandarkar and his Nagar Brahmin theory. Sukla Das mentioned Nagendranath Basu and Basu's narrative of Nagar Brahmin theory here, page 53-54. Common name-endings part isn't exceptional as it's mentioned by significant number of scholars, either to support the common origin theory or to refute it; But medieval text part is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the source is non-notable. I haven't included Ray or Bhaumik's opinion (similar to Majumdar) either, as I believe these aren't necessary here. I have omitted the "karana connection" part too as it's not related to Nagar/Kayastha origin theory. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, you do not have the consensus for removing Chakraborty! LukeEmily has mentioned above: Ekdalian, I agree that Chakraborty is reliable based on his qualifications. Moreover, the theory is not exceptional, only his interpretation of the medieval texts cannot make it exceptional since reliable authors are supposed to engage in original research, as per Wikipedia! Anyway, let's wait for LukeEmily. Let us take LE's NPOV summary as the base; you may add or tweak the same if required. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This book is not a new publication, it's decades old. This topic isn't a niche field either, we have many scholarships on the same field. Therefore, lack of citations indicates the ideas of the book may not be recognised or considered impactful within the academic community, and this certainly questions the reliability of the source. In contrast, if a a book is cited by other scholars, it adds credibility to the source.

I made the summary taking LE's first summary as base and taking into consideration every persuasive argument made in this thread. However, I also acknowledge the possibility that the medieval text might be mentioned in some source that we have not found yet. We might found more source in future, till then consider the content disputed. CharlesWain (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You may re-add your this edit with addition of "...as they had similiar professions" after "parallel case", and break the deadlock. We're not touching anything from stable version, that's a simple fix for now. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain: while re-adding, I couldn't insert the clause "as they had similiar professions", since we have quoted the author! Please feel free to add somewhere else, if possible! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"Tambs-Lyche states that Nagars are usually associated with Kayasthas across India although only they were influential in the traditional society in Gujarat. He notes that neither Anavils nor Nagars were predominantly priests and questions whether they became Brahmins due to their position or if the position was delegated to them. He suggests that the Kayasthas of Bengal could be a parallel case; however, they did not attain Brahmin status due to the presence of pre-existing Brahmin culture." - I replaced the quotation which was added from snippet view. We were totally missing the context, and analysis of Tambs-Lyche, which is much more relevant than reference to Reginald Edward Enthoven. Without explanation of "parallel case" the quotation is incomplete and presenting an unbalanced view. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain and Ekdalian:, should we mark Chakraborty as disputed as you both are not in agreement on it and I am neutral as mentioned earlier . Or should we leave it as it is? Personally, I wish the publication had been better or the scholar would have been cited by at least a few (although it is not a rule for Wikipedia). Generally, for some issues like caste identification of a person, even newspapers are OK. But this is a major claim - not something minor- hence I am in a dilemma. Also, I would have felt better if we had actually found some reference to the two castes in the primary source - the poem is about characters in Mahabharata epic - why would it discuss modern castes? I am OK with any decision you both take on it. If you two do not agree, we can use RFC. Are all other issues sorted out?LukeEmily (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: sorry, I don't agree with your proposal! I have already mentioned the reasons above! For now, we (myself and CW) have agreed to include Tambs. You may please check the edits and refine the language if required. Thanks for your contributions including the latest quote; we are fortunate to have an editor like you! Ekdalian (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, This is a classic example of WP EXTRAORDINARY, and I also believe, as I mentioned in a previous comment, this content should be considered disputed until proven otherwise. I tried to find out the medieval text(s) in this context in many other sources but the efforts have gone in vain. The poems about characters of Mahabharata aren't supposed to mention modern castes. Thanks for giving the information. I believe this quashes the possibility of finding the same content, i.e. mention of medieval text, in any other RS.

And, I checked some other pages of the book, and I found more fringe crufts in this book. I seriously doubt reliability of the source. I have seen sources from much better publishers being removed from WP pages for problematic contents. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Manohar Aich to Notable people list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manohar_Aich Bongobankim (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)