Talk:Kayastha/Archive 5

According to Rajatarangini, Durlabhavardhana, the father of Muktapida was an "asva-ghasa-kayastha", i.e. a record-keeper of horse feed. In Rajatarangini, the term Kayashta does not imply a caste. It makes it clear that some Kayasthas were even Brahmins, the term does not imply a caste.

However there have been two ruling dynasties that were Kayastha. Pala kings of Bengal were one of them. I forget the other one. Malaiya (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Malaiya: Kayasthas, much like other castes, have evolved over time. It's true that in classical period of history the 'Kayastha' was merely an 'occupational' class which was synonymous to 'government official'. The Gupta administration too had a administration position named 'prathama-kayastha' (probably meaning Chief-Officer). Pala Empire, too had similar positions like 'jyestha-kayastha'. But by the time of 'Rajatarangini' i.e 12th century, Kayasthas had already crystallized into a caste. This is evident through the emergence of different Kayastha sub-castes of the Gangetic plains under the rule of kingdoms of Gahadavala', Chandela and Chahamanas. It's completely possible that the author was indeed referring to a 'caste'.

Rajatarangini explicitly mentions some Brahmins serving as Kayasthas. "for example, in Rajatarangini the Brahmin Sivaratha is described as a Kayastha."^[1]

The other Kayastha dynasty is the dynasty founded by Gangaya Sahini (A.D. 1244-1256) in Andhra. see Pushpagiri_Temple_Complex#Inscriptions ^[2] Malaiya (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry-mobile.com/m/page/The+great+divide%3A+between+the+Kayasthas+and+the+Kashmiri+pandits Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry-mobile.com/m/ Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry-mobile.com/m/page/Emperor+Lalitaditya+Muktapida Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry.com/ Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no citation provided whatsoever on the very opening line of this WP article on Kayastha 'caste'. The article claims that Kayasthas are not a caste but a "group " of different caste groups. May I know: which source states that : (i) Kayastha is not a caste but a (ii) a cluster of different castes and (iii) a group rather than caste?- Sattvic7 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this is in the lead, it doesn't need an explicit citation. Reading the "Origins" secrion, it seems fairly clear that this community is made up of disparate groups. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your ad hominem 'this community is made up of disparate groups' rather I'd like to know what WP rule states that lead doesn't need a citation especially when it is disputed and questionable! Kayastha is Hindu caste not a random group. Since the citation is not being provided, I'll soon make a bold edit with proper citation. If there'll be any issues with the newly cited material, they'll be discussed in this section. - Sattvic7 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what Kayashta is or is not so go ahead and do what you think is ok. I looked at the article only to see if the statement in the lead was cited in the body. It isn't directly, but the lead is often more general (see WP:LEAD) so not everything needs to be cited. But, I'm now curious as to how my disparate groups comment can be regarded as ad hominem, or even why anyone would take umbrage at it.--regentspark (comment) 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I read that as 'desperate' instead of 'disparate'. My bad! Sometimes shit happens!I take my words back. - Sattvic7 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And there I was thinking I've made some sort of major faux pas!--regentspark (comment) 19:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

phew! Apologies from my side - Sattvic7 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is talking this and that about the Kayasthas without knowing the intricacies.
I would like to just make the following two points very clear:
1. Janeyu is an essential necessity for marriage ceremony in Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha.
2. The legal status of Kayastha is twice-born Kshatriya. This is not just a Varna status but was basis of several judgements regarding inheritance, marriage, legality of child etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil Srivastava (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This is raised following suggestions of merger at Talk:Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. There may not be sufficient content to warrant a separate article, and some content added to Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha was merely commentary generally about the Kayastha, not specifically the Chitraguptavanshi. A merge discussion seems warranted whether there is sufficient material to retain a stand-alone article or whether it would be better to include it in Kayastha. Dl2000 (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If you go thorough a stable 2009 version of Kayastha page it was solely a page describing Chitraguptvanshi group with passing mention of other groups. The current page is more elaborate and inclusive of all the three groups. Hence the need for separate Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha page. The other two groups namely Bengali Kayastha & CKP have separate pages as well.

I am giving a link for Kayastha page of 01 Sept 2009 , do read it and compare with both the current version of Kayastha and Chitraguptvanshi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=311315703

Other option is to restore this 2009 Kathayastha page and then you may jolly well merge the Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha page with it. Best of luck !! Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I don't think the page should be merged. There's enough content available on the history of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. A whole book has been written on the Kayastha Cuisine (of Hindi-speaking Kayasthas) for example. The Kayastha page contains general description of three groups which include Kayastha of Bengal, Prabhu Kayastha and Chitragupt Kayastha. Sattvic7 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Chitraguptavanshi" appears to be a neologism. The "North Indian Kayasthas" are indeed a significant group, and sufficiently distict from the Bengali Kayasthas and the CKP. I would support a separate "North Indian Kayasthas" article.Malaiya (talk)

The term "Chitraguptavanshi" is commonly mentioned in professional journals and historical books, referring to the 12 north Indian Kayastha subcastes. Chitraguptavanshi describes being a descendant of the god Chitragupta, as the suffix -vanshya is the Sanskrit word for "descendant". Unlike the geographically derived designations for CKPs and Bengali Kayasthas, north Indian Kayasthas (Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas) have historically associated with their patronymic roots rather than by their regional abundance. Therefore, I don't recommend trying to classify them vaguely as "North Indian Kayasthas" as their primary identification is with their ancestral patron deity. Srivastava101 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The name Chitraguptvanshi has been in use for NorthIndian Kayasthas and is more relevant to the one binding factor that the members of the group identify to, that is of being descendants of same Hindu deity. While the term NorthIndian is vauge and subjective, lets say for a Keralite that would be too general a term. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It should not be merged. In fact, I think this page should be a disambiguation page. The groups have different status, origins etc. and merging them will create more confusion.Acharya63 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that the current lead image (that has Nehru and Desai at the foreground and Prasad even barely visible.) is not representative of this article's topic.

Can someone restore the image of an older version (that had a illustrative Kayastha sitting with a pen and an inkpot)? I'd be grateful!

- Sattvic7 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Simply adding multiple politicians that may not even care/identify with the caste is not helpful. Acharya63 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not able to understand why the Thackerays are totally missing a mention!! I am adding Balasaheb in the Notables section. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There used to be an image of Chitraguptji with 2 wifes and12 sons in the Chitragupt Kayastha section on this page. The image depicts mythological origin and traditionally Chitragupt Kayasthas use it during relevant rituals and is a part of their identity. If a consensus is reached I suggest it be added to the Chitragupt Kayastha section. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Add Neil Nitin Mukesh, Shraddha Nigam, Mansi Srivastava, Ankita Srivastava, Amartya Sen, Yashwant Sinha, Munmun Dutta among the Notable Kayasthas.

There are also Kayasthas in Himachal Pradesh, who use surname "Kaistha". As well as in north Nepal, who use the surname "Kayastha". Example - Shubha Kayastha, a Nepalese feminist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A124:43E2:6DE6:2108:2072:943E (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaithi was a popular script in North India and was quite important in legal documents. A mention may be added at the appropriate place. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nikhil Srivastava: Either a separate section can be created titled "Culture and Traditions" or it can be mentioned under History/Modern India of the WP. - Sattvic7 (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think culture and tradition would be a more apt section but then all three subgroups will have to chime in to avoid any onesided generalizations. But opinion of other editors may be considered as well. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This page had already been made a mess by mixing three completely heterogeneous and dissimilar communities. Please put culture and tradition on individual pages dedicated to the communities - keep this page to a bare minimum and focus on the differences. Also, you need to stop promoting your community, Mr.Shrivastava. Acharya63 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Acharya63: Yes, they are dissimilar and the very lead of the WP makes it crystal clear that three communities that lay claim to the "Kayastha" are of different belong to different cultural backgrounds. Karen Leonard (1994) says -"Three regional communities in India lay claim to the name 'Kayasth' or 'Kayastha'. The Chitragupta Kayasths of North India, the Prabhu Kayasths of Maharashtra, and the Bengal Kayasths of Bengal, with mother tongues of Hindi, Marathi, and Bengali, respectively, fulfilled similar roles in their regional political systems."

This is the reason why I divided the "Origin" section into three different sections with each explaining about the origin of the particular group. This division is supposed to give better structure to the article an avoid "mixing" or any confusion. I don't understand how does this qualify as trying to "mix" them.

In-fact, I share the same the concern as you because I see some editors here are not following WP:RS guidelines and misinterpreting things. The top section for example says that : "Kayasthas in recent times have introduced the Hare Krishna Movement-ISKCON (Swami Prabhupada), Transcendental Meditation(Maharshi Mahesh Yogi), Integral yoga(Sri Aurobindo), Kriya Yoga(Paramahansa Yogananda) and Vedanta(Swami Vivekananda) to the western world." I have issue with this and I even undid this edit. Just because the founder of a movement was a Kayastha doesn't mean that "Kayasthas have given these movements to the world". It is like saying that "Since the first Prime Minister of Independent India was a Brahmin that's why Brahmins has given India its independence." Sounds illegitimate. I completely support removing the following mentioned line from the WP i.e - "Kayasthas in recent times have introduced the Hare Krishna Movement-ISKCON (Swami Prabhupada), Transcendental Meditation(Maharshi Mahesh Yogi), Integral yoga(Sri Aurobindo), Kriya Yoga(Paramahansa Yogananda) and Vedanta(Swami Vivekananda) to the western world."- Sattvic7 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sattvic7: The very example of India and Nehru is flawed. Nehru was not the founder of India, but those five Kayasthas mentioned were founder/introducer of respective religious movements/ideologies. When global achievements of Prime-ministers of India are discussed leaving out Non-Aligned Movement and Nehru would be as flawed as leaving these five while discussing global achievements of Kayasthas. I advice that they stay there when achievements of kayasths are mentioned in introduciton as they were infact Kayasthas and founders of their respective movements with global impact and respect for the nation and its ancient culture and wisdom (with proper sources provided).Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nikhil Srivastava: Dear, you're not only POV-pushing but also using citations as a primary source (see : WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:PSTS) which are not at all backed by any secondary source for that particular line in question. While it's true that the public figures you mentioned were members of Kayastha community (and they have been mentioned under "Notables" section already), to say that Kayasthas have "solely" introduced these movements would be exaggeration and highly-biased and possibly qualify as WP:OR in my opinion. I think it's far from being WP:NPOV. Thanks. - Sattvic7 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Archarya, stop messing with me, Satvic redid the format. And stop undoing edits without discussions. I have started relying on consensus and you too should. And stop being a busybody, the three groups belong to one and the same caste, stop playing divisive tricks, you aint that smart. You are the one messing this article up, I am only adding sourced content. And yes I am promoting my community just like you are tring to malign it. The page can enlist their substantial achievements if properly sourced. In case you have issue, discuss and reslove them. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a sort of overview article. The three fairly distinct Kayastha communities mentioned in it - CK, CKP and BK - each have their own standalone articles. For this reason, I have yet again removed a ridiculous amount of esoteric information relating to the CKs, much of which was overcited and/or in violation of copyrights anyway. As I mentioned a few hours ago in the above section about removing excess detail about brahmin claims, there is an art to writing useful, informative articles that do not unduly emphasise any one aspect of a topic.

I think we also need to consider moving the sections about the various regional communities so that they follow the generalised History section rather than precede it. This would reduce repetition and improve the readability of this thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

And now we have too much detail again with these edits. We really do not need to itemise each court ruling and they actually confuse the presentation because many readers will not be familiar with the geography of India. The prior version said the same thing without the potential confusion. I know it wasn't perfect but it was better: please can we revert to it. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not delete a single edit of yours. I just added back some long standing content.

No one told me that wikipedia was for one-liners. I thought it was made for details.

Before you start edit warring on this varna section. Lets discuss your previous concern. The CK section. Lets revert it back as it is good content and passes WP:VERIFY.

removed paste of old version of article that includes copyvio - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you deleted; in fact, you added. There are copyright violations in that lot, which was one reason for twice previously removing the stuff from the article & now from this page. Including it is simply undue weight, giving massive prominence to the CKs versus the other major groups and sticking a load of minor detail into an overview article that could be better placed in the article for the specific groups.

I am getting fed up of the sock- and meatpuppeting going on at this article, particularly regarding the CKs. So, please, think twice. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What has made you so edgy? I have seen your earlier edits on many political party pages, you used to be such a jolly good sport. You were a legend and here in India you were sometimes quoted in newspapers.

It is you who has brought this CK section to my notice by adding it to talk page. I did not add any copy vio back. I just expanded the intro with verifiable info. We have to be neutral. The detail passes WP:VERIFY. Read again if you find any copyright vio in my proposed edit.

“ According to Hindu scriptures, the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas of Northern India trace their lineage from the sons of the Hindu god Chitragupta and are thus referred as Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. Chitragupta had two wives^[1] - Devi Shobhavati, who was daughter of a Brahmin Susharma and Devi Nandini who was daughter of a Kshatriya Shradhadev Manu respectively.^[2] The suffix "vanshi" is derived from the Sanskrit word vansh (वंश) which translates to belonging to a particular family dynasty, as "Chitragupta" pertains to the god.^[3] They claim to be Kayastha Brahmins.^[4] In 1779 AD, letter of Banaras Pandits was sent to Peshwa Darbar. The letter affirms their Chitragupta origin and states that some Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are Brahmins(Kayastha Brahmin/Brahma Kayastha).^[5][6] Some medieval geneological inscriptions from some families have been found accounting for their brahminic credentials.^[7] “ Bangali Babu Is Back (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why I am fed up of the socking etc that had gone on and also cannot understand why we shouldn't turn a general article into one that is 80% discussing a subsection of the community then I think perhaps you should consider backing away from caste topics. WP:V is important but it is not the whole story, otherwise we wouldn't need the hundreds of other content policies and guidelines which we have. In this particular situation, it should be conmon sense but there are also things like WP:DUE and how we use summary styles. Taking you approach to its logical conclusion would see every caste etc mentioned in detail in the Indian people article. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Relax. The CK section that you corrected was more than 20,000+ and included may details about subcastes of CK. Let us not add it. But general introduction about CK passes WP:DUE as you say. Lets be neutral and add it. Bangali Babu Is Back (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No. What actually matters is already in the article. Same applies to the excess detail about court cases that you reinstated to the Varna section earlier today. It will be reverted before long. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see that you've reverted everything and have made everything look like Bengali Kayasthas are shudras by citing an old case which was deemed inconclusive.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/

Read point no.12 from the pdf above!

Primary source or secondary source,a source is a source!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources Identifying and using primary sources requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia's editors. Admins are also Editors!

I can understand what you're trying to do and so can others.

This is wrong!

The first historical reference to the term kayastha, not necessarily related to the modern community,

Who is it related to then? The word Brahmin,Brahman,Brahmana has got different meanings:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmana

Kayastha is not an ambiguous word like the above. Then why are you not considering it? Dinopce (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

One person has been writing walls of text here and on user talk pages for a couple of months now, all seemingly with the aim of asserting a claim to brahmin status as some sort of universal truth. It is easy to do that if you cherrypick sources and otherwise ignore our policies and guidelines..

I have just removed a chunk of said POV-pushing from the Chitraguptavanshi section of the article pending a proper discussion. To facilitate discussion, you must be familiar with the information at WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. In addition, you must have a reasonable command of the English language because there are significant nuances in both the sources and in what this article has said for many years. Finally, it would help if you could appreciate that articles need to have some sort of structure that makes them easy to read and to understand - repetition, internal contradiction and statements thrown in at random just to get a point made really do not help matters. Thanks. - Sitush (talk)

Please also read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. I think I mentioned copyright issues here a few weeks ago but they apoear to have been reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Let us continue the discussion here. You agree that the chages I propose pass WP:VERIFY. I agree that the brahmin status is cherry picking. It is not the complete picture. But it is a part of the complete picture. The sources they provide are verifiable. I have done so myself and so have you. To be neutral, we can not completely remove that part of picture. I suggest that we let it stay and also add verifiable sources that say otherwise. That way we can present the completely true picture. That will be the most neutral, verifiable and objective way to go about it. Bangali Babu Is Back (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, a collaborative and verifiable body of work. (Redacted) removed personal attack by impersonating account. Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It also the English Wikipedia. But the question is valid @Sitush:, you have removed a lot of material and cites without real explanation. Care to justify it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to you, no. Suggest you do some research of contribution history and article history before wading in here. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Then I will reset the article to before your intervention, you are supposed to make a case, even to me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Now before you start edit warring I suggest you make a case by case explanation about what is wrong with the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Now make a damn case, explain what is wrong with the sources if not to me than to the other editor who has asked for an explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Whooo. Read the edit summaries. Check out the person who opened the thread. Wind neck in. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I came here to remove some WP:SPS, Raj-era sources etc. reinstated by you. Seems like Sitush has already done that. I haven't gone through all the changes made by Sitush, but I'd like you to know that User:Shitooz is an obvious sock (and has been blocked as such by Materialscientist). Much of the above comment by Shitooz calls Sitush names ("madarchod" = motherfucker, "harami" = bastard, "bahanchod" = sisterfucker etc.) for doubting the high caste status that Kayasthas claim for themselves. utcursch | talk 13:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but he did not add all the material removed did he? I asked for an explanation as to why all these sources were removed, you cannot provide that answer. Maybe they all fail RS, that then is what should be said not "stuff you".Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, read my edit summaries. All is revealed therein but if you have a specific concern & preferably know something about the subject then raise a query about a specific action. No idea how you came to see this article but it smacks of stalking. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Message from DifferentialCalculus:

Hello Sitush , please can you block Shitooz from using my talk page?

He left a very vulgar message on my talk page and he has not mentioned his name so it looks like I typed it(I swear I have not typed it).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DifferentialCalculus&diff=952457993&oldid=952431396

my guess?:

1)Since this is a very "generalizing" article and since kayastha is a community of different castes, some subgroups that have high ritual ::::status are offended. They are reacting.

2)No matter what , even if they disagree, this is no way to react. Please do not use names referring to sisters or mothers on wikipedia it ::::is disturbing.DifferentialCalculus (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I dont think Sitush has added anything derogatory or touchy. He has cleaned up non-reliable sources in good faith. Please do not use derogatory language for mothers or sisters anyone.DifferentialCalculus (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph has been added in the last few hours about CSDS classification in 1947. It cites Varma and Baviskar sources. Why are two sources needed if they are both referring to the same thing? It is hardly controversial (see WP:OVERCITE). I am on mobile at the moment so GBooks is very small to view, but from what I can see, neither of those sources mention the CSDS anyway and the ridiculous quotes from them that I removed also didn't - can someone please confirm here.

Also, please read WP:COPYRIGHT & especially WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING because this article has had a lot of problems relating to those issues and you will be blocked if you continue to contravene the policy. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not add the statement first - I moved to the section only when it was deleted from starting section. But there is a number 3 and 4 shown as references in that source on that page for that statement in quotes. It is attributed to Sheth who is former Director of CSDS. I will remove it as I am unable to see other references. Please add back if needed. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mine was a general comment. I don't care who did it originally, it needed to be done differently then and still needs sorting out now. However, if someone reinstates an edit then they are usually considered to take responsibility for it. - Sitush (talk)

Add these four in the varna section ^[1][2][3][4]. Leo de facto (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nikhil_Srivastava: The following extract seems to be from a source which is a general source and haven't been researched thoroughly before writing. "Some texts refer to them as a caste of scribes, recruited in the beginning from the Brahmin[19] Kshatriya[20][21] and Vaishya castes but eventually forming distinct sub-castes in northern and western India. They have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining all varnas and competing with Brahmins for the highest administrative officers in medieval India.[22][23]"

The person who added the above para is misusing the WP:NPOV clause of Wikipedia.

This person also used the same source to write the following: "The twelve sub-castes of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas—Srivastava, Gaur or Gauda, Saxena, Mathur, Karan, Nigam, Bhatnagar, Ambashtha, Asthana, Kulshreshtha, Valmiki Kayastha and Surajdhwaj Kayastha—are progeny of Chitragupta from his two wives, Irawati and Nadini. [9]"

I think, he might have done that to fool the wikipedia admins(mostly foreigners)that the source is legit.

This is what I feel! I don't see as to why the origin section has to contain this. The Kayasthas who might have started doing business during the Britishers must have been labelled as Vaishya. But,why aren't the Brahmins who might have started doing business,labelled as 'Vaishya'. Also,even the Brahmins must have mixed up somewhere. Manusmriti is a clear example of Brahmin(caste)trying to subjugate others castes(communities) belonging to different varna!

The following para was moved to the 'varna status' section. Having distinct status from the Bengal Kayastha and the CKP, Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are commonly recognized as a forward caste. As per the letter of council of Pandits of Benaras to the Brahmin Peshwa Darbar regarding varna status of various Kayastha subgroups, the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha are clearly said to be Brahmin (Kayastha Brahmin/ Brahma-Kayastha) while the CKP are called Kshatriya.[98]

I know that Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are BrahmKshatriya.So,this Brahmakshatriya part should be there in the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha section of the main Kayastha page.

I'm trying to add a content from Vyom Samhita part where it's written that Kayasthas can exercise the part of Brahmin and Kshatriyas.

If you can find it from somewhere with reference,then please add it.

I could not find the Vyom Samhita part anywhere in this page. Dinopce (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nikhil_Srivastava There's a book named "Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture: A History of Caste and Clan in Middle Period Bengal" by Ronald Inden.

The Vyom Samhita part can be extracted from there.

Dinopce (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikhil_Srivastava Also,the UPA (secondary)-kshatriya part of Kayasthas is given in the following:

"Kayastha Ethnology-An enquiry into the origin of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha,Page 28"

I want to write something like "Kayasthas are primarily Brahmin(varna) but can exercise the rights of Kshatriya as well due to their UPA-kshatriya status.

If you've any idea as to how you can club it,then please do this on my behalf.

I'm not verbally intelligent like you currently.

The fact that Kayasthas like Swami Vivekananda,Jayant Sinha etc being VIDWAAN should be a fact in itself thet Kayasthas belong to Brahmin varna as well. Dinopce (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil_Shrivastava:Testing.

Dinopce (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil_Shrivastava Dinopce (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil Srivastava Dinopce (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You will find answers to all your queries but you will have to be patient. Meanwhile read this: http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry.com/ ^[1] up from start to end. It does mention Vyom samhita somewhere but I do not remember where. Rest will come in due course. As far as India today article is concerned, in my opinion, it has not been written by an anti-Kayasth. Going by the writer's background it may be conjectured that to her, a group that welcomes all without discrimination of caste or creed is an ideal and pious thing. It may be a case of unintended subliminal interpolation. That aside, the article has been written in a general way without many references or quoted sources and at somepoints even defies principles of set theory as explained before. Also noteworthy is that either it confuses between CK, CKP & BK or misses out some completely. In my opinion it may be discounted or only given suitable weightage. Meanwhile for the family and 12 sons part, you may quote this.^[2] Lastly, you have some of the best sources which were attained after due diligence by the judicial process or several councils of pandits and collective expert advices on the matter in question. Why would you quote views of individuals who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject (such as the article in question) and are not experts, when you have better ones? Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The book's link that you've sent me is not showing any text. It's showing dots.

http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry-mobile.com/m/page/12+sub-castes+of+Brahma+Kayasthas. Dinopce (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dinopce: Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I could understand neither the content nor the intent of your latest statement!! Also someone undid subcaste section related edits on Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha page. You need to discuss that with him and explain it to him from scratch, that user seems thick and uninitiated. In my opinion the ellaboration of sources was very well done. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikhil.

You told me,"Meanwhile for the family and 12 sons part, you may quote this.[3]."

The 3rd link in THIS DISCUSSION PAGE is that of "Kayastha Ethnology" book by Prasad,K. It doesn't take me anywhere.

The "Kayasth Research Wing" link(2)that you've sent me above,has got a 12 sub-castes of Brahma Kayasth section in it. It's not showing me anything if I open that page.

I'm talking about the following page http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry-mobile.com/m/ Dinopce (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. This one

http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry-mobile.com/m/page/12+sub-castes+of+Brahma+Kayasthas

The above link is taking me to a page which is showing me dots. Dinopce (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the one who deleted your edits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Utcursch&action=view Dinopce (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dinopce: Very well. That could have happened due to different viewing rights, though I am not sure. Here are other generic links try these:1. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_AH0IAAAAQAAJ/mode/2up 2. http://chitraguptvanshi.wikifoundry.com/ I hope these should work. Also read this one up as well. 3. https://archive.org/details/ethnographicalno00chanrich Comprehensive reading of these 3 should clear many of your doubts and will provide you the confidence and conviction that no one could shake. If you have the power of knowledge behind your words others will respect you even more. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your last sentence is true.

We are taught this since childhood that Knowledge is power!:) Dinopce (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dinopce: as per the discussion I have tried my best to make some sense of the poorly researched article in question from my side. Though I have not removed the reference to the article, I have qualified it with the support of other references to make it more sensible and logical. If you still think it need not be mentioned in the page at all I have no problems with that.

I repeat...Why would you quote views of individuals who only have a cursory knowledge of the subject (such as the article in question) and are not experts, when you have better ones? If you decide to delete it make sure that they are replaced with high quality ones. If for some reason you are unable to find better replacements then, in my opinion, take suggestions and help of other editors before deleting it. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Will talk about this article in question in detail someday. Dinopce (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dinopce: The languages were rearranged using the following logic: 1. CK speak Hindi 2. CKP speak Marathi 3. BK speak Bangoli And as the sequence of subgroups mentioned in the article was CK, CKP & BK thereby followed the sequencing of their languages. All languages are equally important to and loved by their native speakers and the sequence in no way meant any hierarchy or rank. Your rearrangement may just add to a little confusion to say the least and calling me wrong was a bit too harsh. I can see that you are a new user and a very active one. Good luck to you. Also, if you are satisfied with the reasoning, you are free to restore it. Over the period I have seen divisive tricks played to antagonize the three major group against each other. I hope you aint playing any. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I dont know how and why this 'appendix I' is being displayed. It has no relevance to the current discussion.Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not playing any tricks.:)

My logic is also the same as yours. But my logic also includes the languages spoken by CK which are/are not in 8th schedule.

Since languages spoken by CKs will vary from state to state. So,your order is better. Dinopce (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No idea why it's being displayed. It's there in a the discussions. Dinopce (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added another discussion in this page. By mistake,I didn't copy/paste your link over there. So,please see the discussion named "Regarding India Today extract..." immediately below this discussion at your own convenience. Dinopce (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also,how did you send me the message after using the '@' symbol before my username?

I tried to do the same with your username but it's taking me to some Nikhil Shrivastava page which is different from yours. Dinopce (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Learnt!

@User:Nikhil Srivastava Dinopce (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Ambastha referred to in Smriti HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO with the Ambastha sub-caste of Kayasthas. Ambastha has two meanings.

Please refer to point no.73 of the link below to understand this point.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/

Excerpt from point no. 73 of the link above to clarify this confusion:

"but really the Ambastha referred to in the Smiriti is NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED with the Ambastha sub-caste of the Kayasthas who are descendants of Chitragupta through his son Himavan."

It's similar to the Sanskrit word 'Koti'. Koti has two meanings in Sanskrit: First meaning:Crore Second meaning:Type

There are 33 koti(types)of Hindu Gods and Goddesses and not 33 crores.

Please don't confuse between the Ambastha in Smriti with the Ambasth sub-caste of Kayasthas who trace their origin from Chitragupta Maharaj's son named Himvaan!!

PS:I've added this discussion here so that future editors/historians contributing to this page don't mix these two words which have got different origin. Dinopce (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that court rulings are of little use to us. A review of WP:RS and WP:OR might be useful for future readers of the above comment. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I know. It's primary source(WP:Primary). It requires extra knowledge on behalf of the editors or admins like you. You've that knowledge!

You know the truth that Kayasthas are Brahmin and are secondary kshatriya.

Swami Vivekananda was a Vidwaan! Only somebody coming under Brahmin varna can become a Vidwaan.

If a lot of inter-mixing has happened,then why is the proximity with the Brahmins only and not with any other community of other varnas like Bania,Jatts,Yadavas etc? ::The Bengali Kayasthas were far more Brahmanical in their ways than Kayasthas of other parts. ::This is the truth.

The politics of making Bengali Kayasthas shudra,vaishya etc happened to defame the Kayasthas.

All this happened because Kayasthas were meat eaters whereas traditional Brahmins were not.

B.R Ambedkar's wife was a Brahmin. A few intercaste marriages btw Brahmins and other castes don't affect the varna of the entire Brahmin community. It's a personal choice of a Brahmin,Kayasth,Rajput etc to marry anyone of other castes(upper or lower).

Meat eating and drinking alcohol doesn't make somebody shudra. Using the surname Das doesn't make any Bengali Kayastha shudra either.I've a lot of Brahmin friends who don't wear Suta or janeu and eat Non-veg and drink alcohol.

Kayasthas didn't do any business before the Britishers. So,they're also not vaishya.

Kayastha were Hindus. ::So,they're not Mlechha or untouchables too.

If all our Hindu Gods are being considered a myth,then entire Hinduism should be considered a myth too. Hinduism is an established religion now!

The names of places used in Ramayana are actual places. Lanka,Ayodhya etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q=floating+rocks+between+India+and+Sri+Lanka&prmd=imnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifw86GqMDpAhUQILcAHQ3NCS4Q_AUoAXoECA8QAQ&biw=360&bih=629

Floating rocks are the rocks btw Sri Lanka and India.

The only reason why this is happening here is due to the fact that court cases are not being considered.

If you know the truth and you've earned your position here due to your contributions,then why are doing this?

NPOV does not mean writing anything. The NPOV should be done upon truth and facts.

Dinopce (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do the right thing! As a newcomer, this is what I would like to request you. The rest will depend upon you and others. Dinopce (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You have just written a long screed of synthesis based on your own knowledge. That is 100% contrary to how Wikipedia works, although obviously you are free to write it on some other online resource. Aside from our WP:V policy, you probably should check the information at WP:SYNTHESIS. Sitush (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is unfair, the Bengali Kayastha were more religious and emotionally attached to their religion than other more liberal groups. Same is reflected in the fact that within a generation of the first shudra varna decision in 1884 by Raj court of Calcutta there was a sudden rise of so many ideological revolutionaries like Vivekananda, Auribindo etc. and violent revolutionaries like Khudiram, Rash Behari etc. Killings of british judges and officials became usual. The situation went so bad that the capital had to be shifted to Delhi. Sitush, this thing needs a more sensitive handling. Shahid Khudiram Naman (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:V. However, I congratulate you on correctly formatting your comment on your very first edit to Wikipedia using this account. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In eastern India, Bengali Kayasthas are believed to have evolved from a class of officials into a caste between the 5th/6th centuries and 11th/12th centuries, its component elements being putative Kshatriyas and mostly Brahmins. They most likely gained the characteristics of a caste under the Sena dynasty.[10]

I wrote what the truth is. Why is the proximity of Kayasthas with Brahmins only and not people of other community of different varnas?

My question was genuine. If our Gods are being considered as myth even though Hinduism is an established religion now,thanks to Swami Vivekanand then entire Hinduism should be considered a mythology now? Hinduism is not a mythology as it's an established religion. So,all our Gods/Goddesses should be considered as true by default. Santana Dharma is world's oldest religion now officially. These minor things can lead to tensions in Bengal btw the brahmins,vaidhyas and kayasthas. Nobody can know for sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources Identifying and using primary sources requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia's editors.

You've that extra knowledge! The rest depends upon you and the other admins. Dinopce (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The following book considers Brahmin,Vaidya and kayasth to be the new vaisya,why?

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=CqUcAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Vaidya

My questions are genuine.

If a lot of inter-mixing have happened,then the proximity of vaidyas,Kayasthas etc should be with other communities as well. Why is it not so? Dinopce (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I know that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

but people don't! Internal clashes can happen due to these things in Bengal. Don't you think? Dinopce (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a helpdesk where you can ask general questions about a topic. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article and such discussions cannot be based on your own knowledge or opinions about alleged fact. For example, the article does say what CKs believe but we have to be more circumspect: it is their belief but not likely to be "true" except to fellow believers. Pretty much all religious belief is myth or, at least, unknowable. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the helpdesk. Didn't know about it.

Nice to know that you're an atheist. Everyone has the right to his or her opinion.

The society considers us to be Brahmins.

I'd not say all religious belief,but, it's true that most religious beliefs are unknowable(I don't think that Hinduism is based on myth as I gave an example of floating rocks of Treta Yug. You can calculate the years from now. Dinopce (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. My typing is getting affected because of the T9 dictionary auto spelling. It's creating problems. I'll have to switch it off. Dinopce (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say I was an atheist, merely pointed out that most stuff proclaimed by religions is at best unknowable. If we start treating religion A as "true" then it immediately leads believers of every other religion (or none at all) to suspect our neutrality. But I am not really sure what your original point was so perhaps didn't answer it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Last thing which I'd like to say is that Chitragupta maharaj has temples in India. The Brahmins chant the words:Yamay Dharmarajay Chitraguptai vai namah. Not Kayasthas. Swami Vivekanand has told this. Not me. If you specifically mean that our ancestor is the only God out of all the other Gods who is a myth,then it's wrong(whether you're an atheist or not). Religion is a personal thing!

Leaving the decision of primary source to you and others as it'll help in clearing away a lot of confusion about Kayasthas. ::Doing this for the improvement of this article! Dinopce (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Just saw your statement after I published mine.

I'm saying the following once again to put forth my point.

Only those people who come under Brahmin varna can become a Vidwaan! ::People can be good at studies,they can be toppers,IAS officers,Cantabrigian like you(I hope you'll not take it upon yourself as it's a general statement) even if they're varnashankaris but to become a Vidwaan,you need to come under Brahmin varna.

That's it.

Bye! Dinopce (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Still do not see a valid source, sorry. As for mythology, Bagala Babu Is Back has just posted something below that used to be in the article & includes a paper by K K Shah, to which I add emphasis now - SHAH, K.K (1993). "SELF LEGITIMATION AND SOCIAL PRIMACY: A Case Study of Some Kayastha Inscriptions From Central India". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 54: 860–861. ISSN 2249-1937. JSTOR 44143088. Two families from this branch of the Kayasthas have left three inscriptions for us containing an account of the mythical origin as also genealogical tree in order to establish their high Brahminic credentials... - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What I told above is common knowledge.Foreigners might not be able to understand that but Indians(those who want to) can.

D.L.Sheth, the former director of the Center for the Study of Developing Societies in India (CSDS), lists Indian communities that were traditionally "urban and professional" (following professions like doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc.) immediately after Independence in 1947. This list included Chitpawans and CKPs(Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus) from Maharashtra; the South Indian Brahmins; the Nagar Brahmins from Gujarat; the Punjabi Khatris, Kashmiri Pandits and Kayasthas from northern India; the Probasi and the Bhadralok Bengalis; the Parsis and the upper crusts of Muslim and Christian communities. According to P.K.Verma, "Education was a common thread that bound together this pan Indian elite" and almost all the members of these communities could read and write English and were educated beyond school.[53][54][55]

The above is used in all the other articles of Wikipedia wherein the names given in the above para are mentioned. Only in this article,it has been removed citing reasons.

You're free to do what you want to do(related to myth and our Gods)but it'll not be neutral then(by making Hindu GODs fake).Just take into account that more and more people are depending upon wikipedia for their source of information. If Wikipedia will spread toxic information(knowingly or unknowingly)using sources,then it'll fill poison in the minds of people. More and more people are going to base their information on Wikipedia and are going to write about caste related articles and in most cases,will not say that they're basing their information on wikipedia.

You can once again say that Wikipedia has a helpdesk but you already know the truth.

Will try to find a secondary source to use along with my primary source(court case pdf).

Dinopce (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

One last question:The first historical reference to the term kayastha, not necessarily related to the modern community,

If it's not related to the modern community,then who is it related to? The word Kayastha is not as ambiguous as the word Brahmin,Brahman & Brahmana. What is the reason for adding this statement? Don't say that go to a helpdesk as this question is about the article and not about anything else like the proximity with Brahmin only. Dinopce (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "not necessarily related" point, I will check the cited sources on JSTOR. It would be odd if it is incorrect because the inscriptions etc they are referring to long predate the 5th century etc, which we say (and source) later as being when the kayastha groups emerge as groups. Aside from yet again referring you to WP:V, and suggesting now that you read WP:NOTCENSORED in relation to Wikipedia's impact on real-world situations, there doesn't any point in responding to you further on this matter as, for whatever the reason may be, you clearly are not accepting how this place works. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've understood how this place works and have also understood the internal politics. Dinopce (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You've yourself cherry-picked the court cases and have made them to look like Bengali Kayasthas are shudra by quoting that statement.

I can't understand why have you said that this is an overview article. An article is an article. You know the rules and regulations and have used them to your advantage.

Cherry-picking here is being done by you!

What I can't accept is the taking advantage of your rights part?

You've changed entire article and also its meaning in most cases. Twisted it in such a way that it looks negative. Totally non-neutral.

Conscience is also required sometimes!

All this happened because of Kayastha Brahmin part. Kayasth Brahmin and Brahma Kayasthas are our alternative names.

Dinopce (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not an overview article but a detailed article. This should contain all the important points about CKs and CKPs. Dinopce (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm aware of the FINAL DECISION ABOUT THE KAYASTHAS(containing all 3 sub-groups,i.e Chitraguptavanshi,CKP and Bengali Kayasthas)according to Calcutta and Patna high court's ruling. Kayasthas have been placed in the 'Kshatriya varna' by these two courts. The years are already mentioned! Hence Kayasthas are "OFFICIALLY KSHATRIYAS" UNDER LAW.

But the confusion between my thinking and your thinking occurs in the CHITRAGUPTAVANSHI SECTION UNDER THE ORIGIN SECTION of the Kayastha page!

I have added the 6th para WITH REFERENCED LINKS which in the CHITRAGUPTAVANSHI SECTION UNDER THE ORIGIN SECTION of the Kayastha page!

I've added the links with references where the words "Chitragupta Kayastha and Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha" HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SAME LINK.

Note: This is the MY REASON to continue using the word CHITRAGUPTAVANSHI KAYASTHA INSTEAD OF THE WORD CHITRAGUPT KAYASTHA to avoid further confusion in general understanding of this and also at assigning the links

I'm pasting the link below. Plz note the mention of the word "Chitraguptavanshi" in the following link.

^[3]

It's clearly mentioned about the words "Kayastha Brahmin" in the sentence 'Kayastha Brahmins of Karhada and Khandesha are the Brahma-Kayasthas'.

I'm reiterating that I know that the final ruling of Calcutta and Patna high courts have placed Kayasthas in the Kshatriya varna but the origin section containing the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha Sub-group of the main Kayastha page MUST CONTAIN THE REFERENCE OF KAYASTHA BRAHMIND OR BRAHMA KAYASTHAS.

Now coming to the Chitraguptavanshi_Kayasthapage. Same reasoning that I gave above! Since this page is about Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas ONLY,it SHOULD CONTAIN the reference of Kayastha Brahmin or Brahma Kayastha.

PS:I hope that my detailed statement above must have cleared your flummoxed state of mind regarding this! If not,then please let me know.:) Dinopce (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Once you give me a green flag here I'd like to discuss something mentioned in the other parts of the article. Dinopce (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Also,I'd like to let you know that I added the 2nd para in the "Chitraguptavanshi Section" under the origin section in the main Kayastha page using your reference in the Etymology section from the Chitraguptavanshi_Kayasthapage. I hope that you won't mind. I did that for easy readability and to avoid further confusion between these two words.

Awaiting your overall reply at the earliest!! Dinopce (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You've established the Kayastha caste as "clearly Brahmin" by a single source that does not contain context. Nevertheless, you have my green flag to include this, as caste isn't very important in the modern era. I recommend you read this portion on "Lala Kayasthas" (https://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=golam+kayasthas&source=bl&ots=hcmxrSDMDQ&sig=ACfU3U3U6ovmyRpO8Tr1G6hEHIjJGjjuiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCgvvog5PoAhUVs54KHbbAA1cQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=snippet&q=The%20lala%20kayastha&f=false), which is written by a Bhattacharya (Brahmin). The caste system in India is just a consolidation of power in it's basest form. You can go ahead and write what you think is right. Srivastava101 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There has always been differing opinions as to the caste identity of Kayasthas. This is not well known, but the Vyasa Smriti regards Kayasthas, as well as the Baniyas, as untouchables. Other sources view Kayasthas as "Mlecchas", while some label Kayasthas as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, or Shudras. You could technically make the argument to support any of these claims, but the truth is that the Hindu religious scriptures are made in favor of the Brahmins and for the subjugation of all other castes. Taking this into consideration, if you feel you have the evidence to support that Kayastha's belong to the Brahmin caste, or any other caste, go ahead and make the change. Srivastava101 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Srivastava101,

Thanks.

Regarding your words below- "but the truth is that the Hindu religious scriptures are made in favor of the Brahmins and for the subjugation of all other castes. Taking this into consideration, if you feel you have the evidence to support that Kayastha's belong to the Brahmin caste, or any other caste, go ahead and make the change."---- TRUE for the 1st part! Regarding the 2nd part: I don't want to put Kayastha caste into Brahmin caste. I want people to acknowledge the fact that Kayasthas come in Brahmin VARNA too even though they've been placed under Kshatriya varna under law.

This is why it's important to add the one or two credible sources which outweigh the other credulous sources. Note:I'm not citing any sources here and I'm writing this as a personal talk between you and me. If Kayasthas don't belong to the Brahmin varna,then why is that the general populace consider them as Brahmins?Also,in old days,only Kayasthas and Brahmins used to be VIDWAAN. You talked about genes once. This is why I'm talking about this.

I don't feel that Kayastha(caste) belong to Brahmin(priest;caste). I know that Kayastha(caste)belong to Brahmin varna. They're UPA-Kshatriya varna(secondary Kshtriya). Page 28,Kayastha Ethnology-An enquiry into the origin of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha Note:In the above book, it's also written as to why Kayasthas are not Shudra!

This is why they can exercise the rights of Brahmin(varna) and Kshatriya(varna).

Before caste came into being,we were all COMMUNITIES. We used to intermarry within our own community.

When Britishers came to India,the Brahmins(most probably Bengali Brahmins)intertwined it with our varna system,probably to get into the good books of Britishers for jobs or business etc. The mentions in the scriptures where BRAHMIN VARNA is confounded with BRAHMIN CASTE are confusing to the core!!!

This is why it's better to include the credible sources which don't contain any confusing material here.

Finally,Kayasthas(all 3 sub-groups)were placed in Kshtriya varna UNDER LAW (after taking into account the genetic studies as well)in the Calcutta and Patna high court's ruling because of our UPA(secondary)-kshatriya status(which separates us from BRAHMIN CASTE and hence BRAHMIN COMMUNITY;NOT FROM BRAHMIN VARNA). The Pandits of Benaras used to or still have the family tree branches of several communities or families,AS FAR AS I KNOW. Their source should be CREDIBLE ENOUGH!

Last but not the least. The whole confusion of Kayastha being part of Vaishya or Shudra varna started in the Bengal province.

According to Indian law,on Kayasthas,specifically,Ambasthas of Bengal and Ambasth Kayasthas of other parts of India has been given in the following page.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/ Read point no.73(in the link above)from the bottom-up!

EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE LINK OF INDIAN KAANOON(LAW)ABOUT KAYASTHAS but really the Ambastha referred to in the Smiriti is NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED with the Ambastha sub-caste of the Kayasthas who are descendants of Chitragupta through his son Himavan.) That's it.:) Dinopce (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Quick Encyclopedia. The hard part of the ANALYSIS should be done BEFOREHAND by the historians/editors like you and others contributing here so that the general populace don't have to use their brain too much and they can simply believe in what Wikipedia tells them to.

Bye Dinopce (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the verbatim copy of the text from this book from the article, since it does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Specifically, we can't make statements in Wikipedia's voice such as "He was born from the body of Brahma", "he was a god" or even "he was a brilliant person", as statements of fact. I've left the citation in, since it seems to support the preceeding text.

Srivastava101, you had previously removed this citation, saying it is an unreliable source. Is the present use of it ok, and if not, could you explain why not? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This decision of pandits of benaras. Who know more. Full detail given. How unrelaible. Thank u. Pandya101 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Rohannarain (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC) I wanted to add a prominent name to this artice. Shri. Yogendra Narain(IAS) is a Kayastha.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In context of the statement extracted from the source, it talks of the scribes/Kayasthas in general and does not mention Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha in particular. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wWDnTWrz4O8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA404&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=fals Inserting the word "Chitraguptvanshi" in the sentence would be to twist the basic form and meaning and doesn't confirm to the WP rules of editing and citations . Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All subgroups have different origins. The source clearly describes that they are derived from Chitragupta and even lists the 12 subcastes mentioned on the page. Hence it is only talking about the Chitragupta group. In general, different groups have different histories/origins/varna. In my opinion this should be a disambiguation page and details should only be added on the subgroup page - like Bengali Kayastha etc. For example what applies to the Bengali Kayasthas does not apply to the Bihar kayasthas and so on. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Read it carefully, it sweepingly mentions that scribes of Northern and Western India rose to prominence. Then goes ahead and later mentions areas such as Orissa and Bengal too. Thereby generally covering, North Indian, Marathi and Bengali Kayasthas.

Actually we Kayasthas, all belong to the same caste and the umbrella varna is Kshatriya with several claims to Brahmin varna by CKP as well as Chtiraguptvanshi. There may be gradations and heirarchy as there are in other geographically diverse groups of Brahmins and Rajputs but the parent caste is same. Even the Calcutta court case in which Kayastha of Bengal were said to have been catergorized to Shudra, acknowledged their Kshatriya origin. The purpose might have been to divide the united Bangoli front of Bhadralok or encourage conversions. Anyhow the understanding of colonial academics was constantly evolving during the later part of 1800s and early 1900s, as can be seen by their classifying Bhumihar as Shudra ^[4]in early census, though they are now grouped as Brahmins. Go through the Varna section of Kayastha page and you will understand that Kayastha of NorthIndia were always defined as twice born and dealt as such in cases of inheritance etc. Even to this day we customarily undergo Janeyu ceremony as a sanskar before marriage. Shudra status was defined geographically for Bengal and this folly was corrected in the final court case of 1926 by Patna High Court which ended the debate once and for all by going through extensive references and categorized the left out Kayasthas as twice born Kshatriya as well. The Kayastha of Bengal have mythological as well as genolgical proximity to the Chitraguptvanshi, and as such must enjoy the same social status as well. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

They have different origins. There are several groups and the author clearly states "Kayasthas (according to their official website) trace their ancestry from Chitragupta, who was created out of Brahma's ..the twelve subcastes of Kayasthas , Mathurs Saxenas" etc.. - thus it is clear which group the author is referring too. The Chitragupta group is the largest and is scattered all over India. There are many Kayastha subgroups that have nothing to do with chitragupta. Secondly , if you read further, you will notice that the Marathi group has no brahminical/vaishya/shudra component as per Brahminical texts. Hence you cannot generalize it to non-chitragupta kayasthas.Acharya63 (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Going by your logic, if the Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha claim descent from a single progenitor how can there be mixing of various groups!!

Though the pan Indian scribe caste including several local/regional groups (excluding the Big Three- CK, BK & CKP as well) may very well have been drawn from several sections of society.

Also Shudra is a very volatile group, one of the biggest martial clans, from whom the British wrested the control of major part of India, is often mischievously grouped as Shudra as well. You being a Marathi need no further elaboration.

Lastly, the very sentence which I moved, makes no sense as it goes like...According to an article in India Today, Brahmanical religious texts refer to these chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas as a caste of scribes, recruited in the beginning from the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya castes, but eventually forming distinct subcastes in northern and western India. They have therefore also been mentioned as a "mixed caste", combining Brahman-Shudra (lower caste)... First it says that a caste recurited 3 varnas without mentioning the 4th Varna (Shudra) and then calls the mix a 'Bharmin-Shudra' with component of little Kshatriya. So I put salt, pepper and chilli in the pestle and the mix I get is salt and heeng with a pinch of pepper !!! Makes no sense. It should be removed. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You come up with your own theory and reasoning - even if it contradicts the sources. Your discussion is pure WP:OR. Acharya63 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page before making any major changes to long standing content Acharya63 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Every theory once was an original research. Though I am providing many references. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

However, wikipedia editors are not allowed original research. We are not researchers - only editors. If there was some old stuff about varna of a group that was superseded then obviously we can stick to the modern view - however, there are sources that do say that some chitragupta kayastha subcastes like Nigams for example are still considered shudra and do not wear the sacred thread. Acharya63 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Do enlighten us with such sources; just do not make hearsay comments. It will be useful to Kayastha caste's long standing demand for reservations. Perception is a valid basis for such.

Obviously the court had to intervene beacuse there were several contradicting views. The decision of court is final as far as I am concerned and that is Kayastha are Twice born Kshatriya.

By the way, there is another freak theory about Kshatriyas that since Sage Parshuram killed all Kshatriya all who claim to be Kshatriyas in Kaliyug are imposters. You have studied caste system academically and must be well aware of the comment that Swami Vivekananda made about it, who incidentally was a Kayastha as well.

So,lets stick to the legal status and avoid freak theories. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to improve your tone and stop with sarcasm while speaking to other editors. It will work against you. Acharya63 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The source? Enlighten me. People come here with freak theories and cast libel on Kayastha caste without knowing the truth. I have seen Janeyu being done in all my relatives' marriage. I dont see saracasm in my statements but only deep insight and lets not bring personalities here. Let's stick to sheer logic. What works for me and what not is decided by a far superior power. Also going by logic the sheer ancient profession of writing needed intiation into studies at the earliest permissible age, a privilege enjoyed by few particular groups. Have you heard of niyogi Brahmins and ayachak Brahmins? Many sects of Brahmins actually do not perform sacrificial rituals as priests and are into secular professions. The Kayastha is one such sect, infact to this day they are considered socially forward caste yet do not fall in defined boundry of Brahmins or Rajputs of the doab. So dont come up with random hearsay or pov articles. The court has decided it and you may find the full judgement on Indiankanoon.org ^[5]
Here is the link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/
Best of luck. The reading will take some time, but I believe you are not malicious and truely seek knowledge objectively. This would really enhance your academic skill and horizon. And if you found me rude, it was not meant to be so. I sincerely hope you go through the full document of the court case. Stay blessed. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I read that judgement two years back. Secondly, have Brahmins in the north acknowledged that *all* the norther kayasthas groups are twice born? Is there some letter? No. The judgement BTW only talks about a particular kayastha group and specifically leaves out bengali kayasthas who also are Chitragupta kayastha. That is precisely why your community does not have a uniform varna and that is why different subgroups have different varnas. Every subgroup has different ritual status and the sources are very clear on that. My intent is not to disparage your community but to ensure accuracy. Yes, some sources do say that some kayastha have Brahmin origin too but the article does mention that. The janeu ceremony(munja) is done in the childhood and the one done at marriage is called "sodmunja"(in marathi). If you are saying that your relatives only do sodmunja, it is very confusing. My academic studies are mostly about caste debates in maharashtra and how the Brahmins decided the varna. I have minimal knowledge about north Indian castes but I can read the sources to see that what you are saying is not accurate. Please understand that I have nothing against the Kayastha or any other community. I live in a country where caste is irrelevant.Acharya63 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in a country where the courts decides disputes. I believe in the judicial system and the high principals it works on. The principle of natural justice is the highest form of justice. N if you dont know about North Indian Kayastha if behoves you to learn about them. Go study. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And as far as my relatives are concerned, I am a Srivastava and even your sources acknowledge that we customarily use the sacred thread. So dont go all marathi on me, I know what I am talking about. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

@Acharya... since you asked if there was any support of dwija status of other subgroups of Kayastha by council of Pandits even after I provided you with the decision of the court regarding it. Here is the link to lay your curiosity to rest regarding the support of council of Pandits. Several Vyavasthas/council of pandits have shown that all the three sub-groups were twice-born. ^[6] ENJOY!!
Link: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=AH0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=part+IV+decision+of+pandits&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj21aiFldvnAhUVA3IKHYYmBQMQ6AEIKDAA

@Acharya... Here is another detailed one. Hope you are satisfied now. Ref to the detailed letter of Pandits of Benaras to Peshwa Darbar on varna status of various Kayastha subgroups. As per the letter of council of Pandits of Benaras to Peshwa Darbar regarding varna status of various Kayastha subgroups, the Chitragupta Kayastha are clearly said to be Brahmin (Kayastha Brahmin/ Brahma-Kayastha) while the CKP are called Kashtriya ^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil Srivastava (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Add these four in the varna section ^[1][2][3][4].

I've archived everything on this page because the discussions are clearly not going anywhere. @Dinopce:, I recommend reading WP:TALK, in particular WP:TPYES before you make comments. Keep your comments brief, focus them on content and on specific changes that you would like to see, and provide clear sourcing. --regentspark (comment) 10:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My recent comment about the flow of this article was archived while we were trying to deal with an influx of disruptive accounts. I will say it again: I think the article will be easier to read if the History section is placed inmediately after the Origins section, with the detail about the main sub-communities further down. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Could any of the excised content go into the child articles? Fences&Windows 22:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more of moving content round rather than cutting stuff out completely. Of the statements already removed, in theory they could reappear in child articles but I suspect a lot of pov in them so it would need care rather than a copy/paste from the history & a quick copyedit. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: - sorry, I am on mobile so checking my watchlist is a pain, hence delay in noticing your comment. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fair, Sitush. Maybe paste it on the talk page of the child articles in a collapsed comment for reference. Fences&Windows 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have time to do that? It is very messy using a phone. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Jimmy fails agian (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see the links just above the "search archives" box at the top of this page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cant see. Can you share pic. Jimmy fails agian (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I cannot see archive links on any talk page if I use the app, nor in the mobile version of browser rendering. I have to switch to the desktop version on mobile & that is pretty horrific to look at. Perhaps this is the difficulty being experienced here, zzuuzz? - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That may well be the case, and so I'd recommend that advice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)