Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wider Saraswat community and the GSB

This article goes on length about Maharashtrian pannch-dravid brahmins challenging brahmin status of the GSBs. But do the various north Indian Saraswat communities accept them as fellow Saraswats? I do remember the Saraswats holding conventions where all Saraswats including the GSBs participate. Unfortunately, I don't have an academic source to back this finding. If anybody does then that would be a useful addition to the article.Thanks Jonathansammy (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of this, but I'll have a look and try and find it. If it does surface I have no objection to shifting my stance as to how we cover them substantially. AFAIK the only (external) Brahminical entity to endorse them as Brahmins was Gagabhatta of Benares, of Shivaji-is-a-Kshatriya-since-he's-actually-a-Mewar-Sisodia fame, although I haven't investigated the particulars that deeply. Gagabhatta was Pancha Dravida though. The thing that would really help in 'defending' them would be evidence of Vedic transmission among them, especially in relation to a srauta praxis, even if extinct (after all, by 1900 most srauta yajna praxes were extinct). The whole Gauda/Dravida distinction doesn't really work as an ancestral anthropological distinction (see e.g. T. Mahadevan [1] to get a sense of why, but ultimately "Brahmin" is a matter of social construction. As it so happens, though, in practice, by ('undisputed') Brahmins, though. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hölderlin2019 (talk), You can find reports on the Saraswat Sammelans ( convention/ Conference) in English language newspapers where delegates from Kashmir, Rajasthan, Kutch etc participated.See[2]. BTW, Gaga Bhatt, although his family had been in Kashi for generations, was a Marathi Deshastha brahmin. The Kashi brahmins were more pragmatic in these matters than the Deshastha brahmins resident in Maharashtra.For all you know, it would have been purely transactional with the Kashi brahmins getting generous fees for their proclamations.My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hölderlin2019 (talk) Apart from Deshastha Rigvedi brahmins, are there any "undisputed brahmins" in Maharashtra? During the last three hundred years,Rigvedis have looked down upon the Kokanastha, the Kokanstha doubted the "brahminhood" of Yajurvedi Deshastha of Vasai because of their association with Portuguese rule,Prof. A. R. Kulkarni (1 July 2008). "Religion and Bassein campaign of 1739". Medieval Maratha Country. Diamond Publications. ISBN 978-81-8483-072-9.</ref>}} the Karhades have been accused of really vile slurs, and the list goes on.I personally don't like too much emphasis on the Varna status in caste articles at the exclusion of other cultural aspects of a caste. Case in point indeed is the GSB page. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: GSB(Shenvi/Saraswat) are not universally accepted as Brahmin. Sources vary and Brahmin communities also are not united in their opinion on GSB. This is not my personal opinion. Multiple high quality sources make that clear. Deshastha, Karhade and Chitpavan are accepted as undisputed Brahmins. If not, please quote modern sources that says something in the lines of "Brahmins, Marathas and Chitpavans" (implying that Chitpavans are not in the Brahmin category).And in any case, if such sources exist, no one is preventing you from adding sourced content on their pages instead of whataboutery. I believe you are disrupting sourced content by adding unnecessary tags from several weeks on Saraswat related pages. Please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I do not know if you come from a GSB background given that you have being very passionate about adding unnecessary tags on this page but not so much about others - but I will assume good faith. However, you had a private discussion with an obvious GSB pov-pusher very recently User_talk:Ramarao1234 (probably a sock since he is pushing the exact same agenda) on his talk page and wrote to him implying that you will try to change the page to "Brahmin" instead of "contested". Are you going to do that by deleting sources that dispute their varna or calssify them as seperately from Brahmin? For example, recently you removed that "only Brahmins, not saraswats had a tradition of studying sanskrit"[3] although it is well sourced. And you changed the text to say that "Kantak classifies them as different from Brahmins of Maharashtra (implying that they could have been non-Maharashtrian Brahmins)" - when, in fact, Kantak does not consider Saraswats from Maharashtra as Brahmin at all. You also removed a well cited statement from the lede. If you believe anything is cherry picked, no one is stopping you from adding other opinions. If other Brahmins and scholars are not on the same page about GSB/Saraswat varna, we cannot put them in Brahmin varna on wikipedia. I see Sitush has complained about your edits here and here and has several other issues on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a platform to sanskritize a caste or to right any wrongs(if any). There are plenty of sources cited in the article that dispute their varna but here is one more Sociologist and researcher - Saraswat claim to Brahminhood (in the 21st century) is still strongly under dispute, particularly in the coastal districts of Karnataka. and some centuries back: An important and relatively little-known example of a sort of 'merchant republic' form, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries can be found at Basrur, on the Kanara coast south of Goa. The dominant trading community here were Saraswats , a caste of open status , which at times claimed Brahminhood but more usually was identified with mercantile activity ( the Portuguese usually term them chatins , from chetti I will add more sources and am also inviting other editors @Ekdalian and Admantine123: to keep a watch on this page. Please see the edit history of the talk page. BTW, Shahu ( Kolhapur )was a well known Brahmin hater. Did you know he constructed a saraswat hostel for Saraswats in Kolhapur (and many non-Brahmin communities) and not a single hostel for Brahmins. I think a line has been crossed and we need to involve admins if there is further disruption.LukeEmily (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyProbably seems like some editors have anti saraswat mindset instead of positive contributions they involve in negative slanders .If you are so much sure about Varna status show me a single source which deny their Brahminhood claim.Some author mentions saraswat of Maharashtra and Brahmins separately does it mean they denied them as Brahmins?.When case is there and rule is there then how do you mention them as non Brahmins?The shenvi case of Varanasi endorsed by top level Brahmins clearly gave shenvis eligible for six duties reason for that dispute was their fish eating habit and Portuguese invasion.Keeping shenvis don’t you feel you are targeting whole saraswat?

You cannot do allegations like POV pushers,my question is how was that well sourced content removed in lede?You are even calling @Jonathansammy as GSB as he is questioning the changes similarly your edit history is showing the same behaviour with @MRRaja001,this is not right way instead this is POV pushing.This allegations are against rule as you should know they didn’t disclosed their caste and you are guessing with allegations.

Don’t you think this article is full of slanders and British Raj source?.Precisely let me come to Varna dispute section-Which sentence is questioning their Varna ?Author A mentioned them separately ,Author B mentioned them separately etc.Does it justify your stance ?

wagle quote is misrepresented like anything as per the POV wish.

see yours findings here,

1.Saraswat claim to Brahminhood (in the 21st century) is still strongly under dispute, particularly in the coastal districts of Karnataka-

Show me the same statement from any other author?This source context is regarding not brahminhood,I suggest you to read the source completely.

2.important and relatively little-known example of a sort of 'merchant republic' form, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries can be found at Basrur, on the Kanara coast south of Goa. The dominant trading community here were Saraswats , a caste of open status , which at times claimed Brahminhood but more usually was identified with mercantile activity ( the Portuguese usually term them chatins , from chetti-

Here the author is telling they were active in trade(in English it’s called merchant community) does anyone denied the Brahminhood in the whole citation?Isn’t this cherry picking?

Portuguese termed all the people trading in western coast as chatin.The same word is used even today to any malyali irrespective of caste as ‘Cheta’.If the author is exclusively speaking against Varna then it’s better to mention.I request you not to threaten the editors as you did with @Jonathansammyand @MRRaja001. Ramarao1234 (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@JonathansammyI went through all the source very closely,Vishwa saraswat sammelan Occurs every year.Saraswat of west coast,Kashmir,kuch,Rajasthan,Punjab and Gangabelt will be there in the sammelan.The whole group never rejected any other Saraswats existence except one caste from Bengal.You will get a couple of academic resources from Vishwa saraswat Brahmins parishad.Seems like depth discussion is required in this page as this page is full of cherry picked research less negative selections from Google search where only Dravid Brahmins from Maratha empire era challenging saraswat Brahmins has been highlighted from different source neglecting Context.This seems void of Neutrality and I observed in many place there is void of Synthesis(Added multiple source to get POV Push conclusion).Seems like this page need to be revisited with lot of discussions as we have experienced editors here.I invite the editors with neutrality to give your in-site. Ramarao1234 (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily (talk), I have contributed to many hundreds of different wikipedia articles including those related to caste, communities, and culture. These include Gujarati people, Marathi people, Sikh, Deshastha Brahmin, Chitpavan, Karhade,Maratha (caste), Mahar, GSB etc.I am sure you have searched my contributions and so this is not new to you. Does contributing to any of these pages make up me part of that particular community? Anyhow, if you think my citation tags are not valid then please bring it to talkpage and we can discuss it. We both have access to the same information but your intrepretation of Kantak's paper was different from what I read.The British colonial census reports for Bombay presidency that I read for 1891 [4] and 1931[5] had Saraswats grouped with dozens of other sub-castes Brahman castes of the presidency.I know that is Raj era, nevertheless after reading it I certainly can not write that the "British categorized them separately from "Brahmans". BTW, where does Shahu of Kolhapur comes in the picture on the topic of GSB and Brahmin status of the community? Anyhow, if you think I have been disrupive then you can get the admins involved. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Judgement of Dadam Bhatta of Kashi in 1630 on the brahmin status of shenvis

I don't see the mention of a paper in the article by Oxford University scholar, Rosiland O'Hanlon on the judgement by the pandits of Kashi in 1630 on the brahmin status of the shenvis, and also a Saraswat Sanyasi to set up the Kashi math.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Research paper by Rosiland O'Hanlon is completely related to only this issue(Even she has covered view of Patil,Deshpande(2000),susyl bayl,Wagle,Historical documents,Gunjikar).That is the only paper which qualifies the place in that Varna section that explains the incidence and final judgement details .she states the judgement was headed by Kamlakar bhatta(Dadam Bhatt)who was leader of panch Dravid Vedic scholars(Mainly rigvedic deshasthas and few Samathas) in the Varanasi and endorsed by panch gaud vedic scholars.

She explains the cause of issue as administrative success of shenvis in Maharashtra after migration from Goa due to Portuguese invasion.Local Dravid Brahmins raised the issue of fish eating habit and requested Varanasi scholars to declare them trikarma brahmin but after deep discussion Varanasi scholars declared them as satkarma Brahmins(Six duty eligible) and they cited Parashuram(Skandpuran)here to justify their fish eating claim.Seems like Gagabhatt’s decision is based on the same judgement.

I think we must include this paper as this is the only research paper which is giving such a detailed analysis.I am going through two more articles from her and one from levitt which is regarding this issue and Maratha empire era.Irawati Karve and G S Gurhye has mentioned this incidence in few of their articles. Ramarao1234 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy@LukeEmilyJust a take on syenvijatinirnaya.(Mentioned in Varna dispute section by editor)

” The manuscript was published in 1913 by P N Patvardhan in the annual report of Bharatiya Samshodhaka Mandala at Pune”[Patil:2000]

Valaulikar has pointed out that the date of the verdict quoted in the text is not consistent with Gagabhat’s presence in Shivaji’s court. Also the context of the verdict is suspicious.

Shenvijatinirnaya is response of Karhade in 1913 for sayhadrikhand and repeated publications in Maharashtra(Series name:Maharashtra saraswata).Komkanakhyan and Dasaprakarana were the sarasvat response to the Nirnaya; the second was specially structured as the sastric defense of the sarasvat.Ramachandra gunjikar has not mentioned this book anywhere in his writing.valuvalikar notes the Gagabhatti book clearly cites saraswat as satkarma brahmin .Here in nirnaya story(Padmapurana) and purposefully modified result(Trikarmi brahmin) in the lieu of rivalry in 1913.

So this can be considered as Slander for a slander to a slander as usual two rivals are saraswat and Karhade.Gagabhatta gives clear mandate accepted by all,Kashi/varnashi pandits gave mandate accepted by all.So need not to consider this book written for slander if so we should consider konkanakhyana and dashaPrakashana in other community article.In this platform we need not to spread slandering!instead let’s provide positive well cited good informations.(Only NPOV will be appreciated) Ramarao1234 (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

“However, there was a debate in Shivaji's court in 1664, which reached the consensus that they were not "full-fledged Brahmins" but only trikarmi brahmins who do not have the full rights of a Brahmin. This is referenced in a text named Śyenavījātinirṇaya, published by Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal”-This was published in 1913 and no way existed before that,even in the footnote of Madhav Deshpande(2010) 1913 has mentioned clearly.Lie able for deletion as random British Raj book with zero authentication and personal grudge of One community need not to be added here. Ramarao1234 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@JonathansammyOne more information,In Deshpande(2010)the above information of syenvijatinirnaya has been mentioned in the footnote<Direct reference> of author bambadekar(1939).Deshpande even didn’t gave his analysis over this.So this statement is void of British Raj rule.Hope this will get deleted soon.

I am going through that paper and found multiple anomaly till now usage of wagle in wrong context.Direct usage of Mutiple footnote by Bambadekar(1939,1926) which is void of British Raj.I'll update after completing that paper.Wagle(1979) is giving complete different context will update soon as I have ordered that book. Ramarao1234 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

References