Talk:Caste system in India

Skin color

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

Regarding the image in the lead

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

I moved it to the relevant section. This page discusses the evolution of the caste system over centuries, not just the present-day phenomena. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

While the article indeed covers the millenia long history of the caste system, Ambedkar is directly relevant to that history because he represents the culmination of centuries of social struggle against caste. Excluding him on the grounds of “modernity” would overlook the fact that his work fundamentally reshaped how caste operates today and how it is studied in historical perspective. The image is thus historically appropriate, not just contemporary. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Ambedkar’s relevance to caste in modern India is undeniable, but placing his photo in the lead is still problematic. The lead image of a historical article should represent the origins or core concepts, not a modern political response to them. By that logic, the Manusmriti or depictions from the British colonial period are more appropriate, since they shaped the system itself far more fundamentally. Ambedkar’s opposition belongs in the section discussing reform and modern responses, not in the opening image. Otherwise, the article risks starting with a moral judgment rather than a neutral presentation of history 2409:40E3:20C7:979A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I actually think adding an image of the Manusmriti is a great idea. Including both an image of the Manusmriti and one of Ambedkar is the best option. The caste system is both an ancient social hierarchy with deep roots and a modern entrenched institution, that has been challenged and re-interpreted. A lead that includes both the Manusmriti and Ambedkar would best represent the history and depth of the system. The balance would be more aligned with the scope of the article. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I like how you skipped the British lol. They are universally known for dividing and ruling, and they were the ones who rigidified the caste system to its extreme limit. I think the pictures should be in their appropriate section. Anything else is pov :) 2409:40E3:20C7:979A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Three images might be too much though. Especially for mobile view. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and had an immense role in the making of the Constitution.

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

On the matter of the previous image of Gandhi that existed in the lead, it had no consensus. More so, just above in this talk page is a discussion over the removal of the image with not a single editor voicing support for keeping the image. Although I do apologise for the unilateral revert. That was an error on my part. I simply think the image is very relevant for the content of the article and very useful for readers who don't know much about the subject. I believe an image of the Manusmriti and one of Ambedkar are the most adequate as per MOS:LEADIMAGE. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Ambedkar did not have a significant role in the constitution. You are providing relatively new sources that fail to address his pro-Mahar stance. It does not make sense to call him "anti-caste" in the light of the source provided above unless you have credible sources that address his pro-Mahar stance. Looking at the dates of your sources, it seems they are more influenced with the current political situation of India than history.

Why does this article need to have a lead image? Is the Indian caste system simple enough to be reduced to "Ambedkar" or "Manusmriti"? How do either of them represent it? Ratnahastin (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

C’mon, Ratnhastin, you shouldn’t fight with Earthdude. Clear up any misunderstandings. I hate it when people who may be from different countries, communities, or religions but are of the same breed fight. It doesn’t suit you and it makes me uncomfortable. 2409:40C1:10BA:613A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It is true that the glorification of Ambedkar in recent years has more to do with political motivations.[4] System of reservation existed well before Ambedkar. The Indian caste system is too prevalent to be described through photos of Ambedkar and Manusmriti. I would mention that Manusmriti was never a dominant text for Hindus. Unfortunately, it was misconceived by the British to be one. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Urgent Action Required Vanjari and Banjara are different need separate article

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

Edit request 6 October 2025

"Add original study references instead of media reports alone" This section only cites media reports & not the study based upon which the onset of endogamy during Gupta empire are made -

{{Text diff ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT |2= CHANGED_WIKITEXT }}

Furthermore add data & info. from new study "Reconstructing the history of founder events using genome-wide patterns of allele sharing across individuals".

Response to paper regarding 22.5 yrs. generation time parameter which suggested onset of endogamy during Gupta empire -

Recent paper abt. founder events in South Asian peoples which further complicates the onset of endogamy & Gupta empire link -

Note from recent study "Reconstructing the history of founder events using genome-wide patterns of allele sharing across individuals" -

The large and comprehensive set of samples from India in our study—including samples from most geographical regions, speakers of all major language families and tribal and caste groups—highlights the widespread history of founder events in this region and provides insights about the origin of endogamy in India (S2 Table). In many Indian communities, marriages across caste (varṇa) and sub-castes (jāti) are restricted. Earlier writings describe the caste system—comprising Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra—as a class structure based on occupation. The later writings especially the law code of Manu (Manusmṛiti) introduced restrictions against intermarriage across castes [61]; though the chronology of Manusmṛiti remains debated [62]. Alternatively, the origin of endogamy has been proposed to be very recent—tracing back to restrictions against intermarriages that occurred in the past few hundred years during the British Raj [63]. Our direct estimates of founder ages provide an independent line of evidence to understand the origin of endogamy in India. We inferred that these founder events occurred between ~120–3,500 years ago across 78 ethno-linguistic groups in India. Our dates are consistent with a previous smaller survey including 13 ethno-linguistic groups from India [18]. In a majority of the populations, the founder events occurred within the past 600–1,000 years, suggesting this period was integral to shaping endogamy in India. These estimates pre-date the British colonization of India but postdate the ANI-ASI admixture (or spread of Iranian farmer or Steppe pastoralist ancestry to the subcontinent) [27,41]. Endogamy likely became stronger during the British Raj which could have further contributed to the founder events in many groups. In this scenario, our dates would reflect average estimates of multiple founder events, though the patterns we observe cannot be fully explained by recent events alone.

This study must also be added to highlight evolution of genetic studies & their results regarding South Asian peoples -

Lastly an older study "Population differentiation of southern Indian male lineages correlates with agricultural expansions predating the caste system" suggests earlier onset of endogamy in South India based upon male lineages

References

Periodisation issue (edit request on 21 October 2025)

Requesting the 3rd paragraph under the subsection "Early Vedic period (1500-1000 BCE)" of the section "History" to be moved to the "Later Vedic period (1000–600 BC)". The 3rd paragraph explicitly says the transition to a 4-varna system occured during the later Atharvaveda period, corresponding to the beginning of the later vedic period. So it would be approriate to include the 3rd paragraph as part of the "Later Vedic period (1000–600 BC)" subsection of the "History" section. 212.104.231.142 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Removing the template since this needs discussion.

Joshua Jonathan, we apparently have a problem with periodisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I just checked the source (1958...); I have a hard time to read the info from that paragraph into those pages... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, guess who added it diff; not MSW... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Lol. I can double check the source, but the question is with regard to the meaning of "Ealy Vedic" and "Later Vedic". RS Sharma's meaning is that Early Vedic includes the compilation of all the Vedas, and Later Vedic is the period of Brahmanas and Srauthasutras. Is that reasonable from your point of view? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I added a link to the 1958 edition now. But you would need access to archive.org, which has been misbehaving. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2025 (2)

The sentence "This class-distinction is still reflected in the fact that the upper castes have a higher genetic affinity to Europeans, while the lower castes are more similar to Asians." in the 3rd paragraph of the subsection "Early Vedic period (1500-1000 BCE)" is misleading. I suggest it should be changed to "This class-distinction is still reflected in the fact that the upper castes have a relatively higher steppe ancestry than the lower castes.". The reasoning for the change in wording is that the population of North Indians despite their caste, have steppe input in varying levels. While the Brahmins of the Northwest may have relatively higher steppe ancestry than the lower castes, the net steppe ancestry among all populations in south asia is a minority, peaking at ~30%(in populations like the Rors of Jatland). 212.104.231.142 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. This suggestion seems more reasonable than the existing text, especially for NPOV, so I've made the change. Perhaps this section could be further improved in the future. TimSmit (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 9 November 2025

Description of suggested change:

Can you add this video of granitng caste in Kerala in 2205? Caste is kerala like kaimal and nambiar was given by kings and has been continuing.

Can you add this where it in the article it best fit?

Granting of the castes, Nambiar and Kaimal in nov 2025 , a continuing traditional ceremony conducted by the Nileswaram Raja since the time when local rulers held authority.

Madankoolon (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Please use a "change X to Y" format. NotJamestack (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)