Jump to content

Talk:Mahishya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mahishya/Comments)

Varna status of The Mahishya

[edit]

According to most sources, the Mahishyas, unlike the Jele Kaibarttas, are between Kshatriya and Vaishya. This is owing to the fact that they are a dominant land-owning community in Bengal, and have historical relations to the Eastern Ganga dynasty.

Pages after pages attest to this. Please refer to this link -

[1]

I have verified till page 5, and have found umpteen number of sources that mention it as a cross between Kshatriya and Vaishya. In the Bengal caste system, they are what can be reffered to as an 'upper-middle caste', just below the Brahmins, Kayasthas, and Baidyas; stigmatized only due to their historical agrarian roots. The very list of people the Mahishya community has produced can be proof of it's affluence as a caste in rural Bengal. Kreplach123 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong. You are providing logic to establish that Mahishyas are not Shudras, and this amounts to original research; but you are well aware that we need reliable sources as per WP:RS. What you have mentioned above is mythology, not history. You have not provided any reliable source. The link you have provided is a google search result, which you know makes no sense as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Anyway, I am providing reliable sources below, which mentions Mahishyas as Shudras:
1. [source1] page 114 clearly states that "the Mahishyas (Sudra) and the Namasudras (Harijan) are the two most numerous lower castes of Bengal".
2. [source2] page 53 states "while Brahmans and Kayasthas continue the tradition of elaborate hierarchy-maintaining worship, the Mahishya and other middle-ranking Sudras are overwhelmingly Vaishnava in dominant orientation".
Moreover, a senior editor like Sitush, known for his contributions to Indian caste related articles, has asked you to refrain from adding caste infoboxes (when you added one to the article on 'Bengali Kayastha'). Stop engaging in edit war and discuss here, if you actually want to improve the article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for adding infoboxes to any article but in the case of the caste infobox it is known to cause great problems, some of which have been discussed on the talk page for the infobox itself. Please do not add it to any more caste articles - you'll learn in time why it is a magnet for trouble. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sitush, I'll keep that in mind next time! I'll try and find more information on the history of the Mahishya community, and post them here for discussion before making any further edits.

Ekdalian, please don't play the edit war card again, I have been trying to improve the comprehensiveness of the article, and thought the caste infobox should be used given its availability. Everything in the box had been sourced; if only you'd have mentioned why I must avoid the infobox caste, before Sitush did. It seemed to me as though you assumed all my edits as invalid, given your propensity to undo all my sourced edits in other articles as well. I look forward to working on all Bengali community related articles, and would appreciate your co-operation as a co-editor, without you thinking of me as a vandal! I do 'actually want to improve the article', for it is of a predominant community in Bengal, and is as important as, say, Kayastha. I also believe any article on Wikipedia is best left without the 'Shudra' tag, especially when it is not! Thanks. Kreplach123 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few people who come here believing that the shudra word should not be in our articles. However, Wikipedia is not censored and if reliable sources make mention of it then we should also. Yes, some people consider it to be offensive and some have even tried to say that they will sue Wikipedia because of their interpretation of India's laws. The fact is, India's laws have no weight here because Wikipedia's servers are based in the USA. That said, Wikipedians living in India should avoid making edits that might contravene them - let someone else do it. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kreplach123, you know the consequences of edit war, right? Sitush had advised you not to use caste infobox earlier and had reverted your edits in another caste article. I explained here in the edit summary that 'convention is to avoid using caste infoboxes'; how many more do you need? Even if you wanted to learn more, you could have asked on the talk page. (We understand that you are less experienced as an editor here and may have doubts/questions). But instead, you engaged yourself in an edit war just to push your POV. So clearly, you are playing the "edit war card" here. And why do you think I assumed all your edits as invalid/vandalism. We always assume good faith, and when there's something wrong in it, then only your edits get reverted along with reasons. I have seen some of your edits (part of my watchlist) which are in fact neutral and ok. But please note Sock puppetry is not accepted here.
Coming back to this article, I have provided two valid sources which mention Mahishyas as Shudra, and there are other reliable sources as well. Inspite of that, you are stating and I quote "I also believe any article on Wikipedia is best left without the 'Shudra' tag, especially when it is not!". What do you mean? We will not follow our policies because you feel "it is not". Your statement clearly shows that you are being partial. See, you cannot change history. And what is wrong with the Shudra tag? Can it take away the glory that the Mahishya community has earned through their hard work and contribution to the society as a whole? No. Moreover you knew well that related community is Jalia Kaibarta, but kept on adding Kayastha as related (you know its not), which is a violation of WP:NPOV. I completely agree with your observation that the article is an important one; rather I believe all communities are equally important and hence all such articles. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad we had that conversation, Ekdalian. And yes, I am new to Wikipedia editing, but I've have been learning pretty fast, and I must say it's quite interesting, the way the system works! I apologise for some of my previous edits, and I look forward to cooperate with you, given your (and Sitush's) knowledge on Bengali communities. Having said that, what do you think of the new edit I made on Mahishya? :) Kreplach123 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreplach123, good to see that you have tried to segregate history from mythology. But this cannot be the lead section. The article is about the present Mahishya caste, not the ancient Mahishya terminology. Almost every caste claims some mythological descent; for example we cannot have the Chitragupta related stuff in the article on Kayastha or the Ambastha related stuff in the lead section for Baidya. In this case, reliable sources clearly mention that the Chasi Kaibartas broke away from Jalia Kaibartas and took the name of Mahishya. As per convention, this can be a part of 'Mythology' section. And it is always advisable not to modify the lead section (of a consensus version) completely without discussions, especially when the discussions are going on. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Ekdalian. So the lead section remains the way it is, and doesn't change without discussing here. I think the rest of the article needs more detail, because I've read a whole lot of information about the Mahishya community in Google Books, especially it's evolution from the Hele Kaibartas ('holders of the plough') to the present day Mahishya, as well as it's struggle for social upward-mobility as a caste, under the leadership of Birendranath Sasmal. The Mahishya Mahila magazine campaign needs to be added as well. I'll try and add those in the History section when I have more time, and you could do work on the same (considering Kayastha and Baidya have had their fair share of edits by you, and have become articles worth reading!). It would be great if Sitush could weigh in here too, if he has the time! The article deserves better quality, and we can bring it up to the 'Good Article' category, given the vast amount of information at our disposal.

I was wondering if it was appropriate to work on a separate section listing notable people from the Mahishya community, as well as common surnames used by the caste? There are a lot of available citations on them too. Thanks. Kreplach123 (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We will definitely work together in improving this article, and use the information available as you have mentioned. As far as surnames are concerned, usually any such list is avoided; Anyway, notables may be incorporated along with proper citation. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we're avoiding surnames. I'll start working on the notables list soon. Kreplach123 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Sitush/Common#Castelists before you start on a list of notable people. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, those random edits were not by me. The said person used words like "higher pedigree" when referring to the Haliya Kaibarttas, which is not appropriate for an article, apart from not being sourced. Are there any other changes that need to be made? I added images of two notable Mahishyas within the article, and the source for all notables has been added at the bottom (Abha Maiti). I'll soon add the whole history of the Mahishya Mahila journals and the 'Depressed class' lawsuit fought by Sasmal and other prominent Mahishyas. Kreplach123 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, is Mani Lal Bhaumik a Mahishya? He was listed in the previous version of the page, and Bhowmick is a common Mahishya surname. I've been trying to search for citations, could you help me out? Kreplach123 (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Lal Bhaumik may or may not be a Mahishya; we need a reliable source mentioning him as a Mahishya. Also note that the source by Harihar Kanungo is unreliable as per our standards; try to find a better and reliable source for the statements attributed to the source. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay to mention Mani Lal Bhaumik name in the Notables list, and cite the fact that Bhaumik is predominantly a Mahishya surname? I am quite certain he is, and he's born in a poor family from Tamluk, Mednipur, the helm of the Mahishya community! Do I include his name? Kreplach123 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, never; this would be purely original research. Please read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, as mentioned by Sitush. Ekdalian (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it! Enjoying the rain, Ekdalian? :P Kreplach123 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, really! Ekdalian (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up on some common Mahishya surnames I found on Google Books, and even though we can't add them here in the article, I have tried mentioning it in the articles of the surnames wherever possible (Das, Saha, Gayen, Roy, etc.). Unfortunately, many of the common Mahishya surnames don't have individual articles yet (despite having many notable people bearing the surname), so I'll try and create some stub-class ones on them, for the greater benefit of the Mahishya caste's deserved presence on Wikipedia. Some of the common ones are Pramanik, Kar, Kanungo, Maity, Bag, Sasmal, Samanta, Manna, etc. Kreplach123 (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Varna status section of this article surely needs improvement. It's not in line with other caste articles, where much more details, different view points and multiple sources have been given. Just one line doesn't suit for a separate section. Please consider improving the section or merge it with mythology or history section with proper quotation and citation. I will also try when I get the time to gather sources. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Dear Debasish. I will add more reliable sources & content. Please try to find reliable & verifiable sources, as you have mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

[edit]

Bongan, I must appreciate your efforts aimed at improving the 'History' section. But this particular source by Kanungo does not seem to be reliable. Obviously, this does not belong to the category of reliable texts, and is more like a research paper by the author. I understand that we need to improve the article, especially the 'History' section, and we need to check texts by reliable authors for relevant information on the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mahishya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mahishya/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Needs an infobox if possible
  • Needs pictures
  • More expansion
Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content

[edit]

Please do not add unsourced and poorly sourced content, as that is against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Do not remove reliably sourced content either. For more information, please see WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, and WP:RAJ. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've temporarily protected the page. Note that WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy on the en Wikipedia so please use the talk page to discuss your changes.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RegentsPark. I am opening a discussion on the 'dominant caste' related issue. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant caste?

[edit]

@All, please note that the Dominant caste wikilink is not applicable here. If you would like to incorporate the same, you need to provide reliable & verifiable sources which support that the caste "wields preponderant economic and political power" in southern part of Bengal. Also, you need to come up with sources supporting the criteria that they "enjoy a high place in the local caste hierarchy", which is actually not the case. Among the two sources cited in the Varna section, one considers the Mahishya as middle ranking Shudras, while the other one considers them as lower caste. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your concerns have been sorted out; Or is it not? There are multiple sources. I don't care about the wikilink anyway. Pinging Chanchaldm since, they are the author.CharlesWain (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned in edit summary the word predominantly is already there. But sources used dominant word, not predominant. Dominant and Predominant words have quite different meanings. Predominant signifies numerical presence. So The Mahishyas predominantly (ie mainly) live in South Bengal(the most numerous in some specific districts), they are the predominant caste in West Bengal as a whole too(ie they are numerically largest). So using predominant word doesn't solve the problem. Why would not we use dominant word as the sources support so?CharlesWain (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CharlesWain, we have a source which clearly mentions them as a dominant caste in lower Midnapore district and southern 24 Parganas, which we have mentioned in our article here. I couldn't see any other source categorising them as a dominant caste (as a whole, not just economic dominance as in Howrah). If you have any other reliable source, which mentions them as 'dominant caste' in other district(s), and I am unable to figure it out (due to issues related to snippet views), you may simply quote the same along with page no, and I will have no objection in adding the district(s) (as per source). Please note that WP:OR / WP:SYN will not be accepted i.e. you cannot just combine multiple points from different sources and arrive at your own conclusion that they are dominant in any particular district. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The very next line of what you're mentioning about Howrah is, from p 107: ...and in the last twenty years they have become the dominant political group as well.. From p158: It seems the most dominant community of Midnapore comprise of the Mahisyas out of which grew the big zamindars, the Talukdars , the major section of the tenants, as also the freedom fighters of the later age.. Check the other pages as well, it's accessible through the very link given in this article. It's over and above the India Today article. Reliable news websites are allowed; for example check Baidya article, citation 55 is an Indian Express article. Thank you. CharlesWain (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CharlesWain, Midnapore is already mentioned in our article (as the source says). Howrah is a bit dicey, since if we mention it among the districts where they are considered as dominant caste, it will amount to WP:SYN. The definition of dominant caste is right there at the beginning of this section, & we are aware of the same; as you can understand, since the author doesn't use the term 'dominant caste', we are not supposed to engage in WP:OR & mention the same based on two of the above three criteria specified by the author in this case. India Today, BTW, is not reliable as far as caste articles are concerned. If some similar source is used in Baidya or any other article, anyone is free to challenge and remove any statement attributed to it (which is contentious or else something considered as not obvious). Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policies you've mentioned I am aware of, also you've mentioned it earlier. My intention of giving quotations is to point out that the article's view isn't extraordinary claim or fringe opinion. I have given link to Baidya article as It seems TB, who is very experienced editor, incorporated it and that hasn't been challenged in spite of recent fierce debate,on which some experienced editors including you were involved. I strongly believe if some senior scholars write articles in reputed or reliable news media, that can be cited. And I have seen that in practice(including caste articles). Or Am I missing any basic policy? Give link then, please.CharlesWain (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained our policy or the convention; there's nothing new in the article cited in Baidya; if an editor thinks otherwise, s/he can challenge. Moreover, I have informed you about WP:OTHERCONTENT, irrespective of whether you are already aware of the same. But, I can't accept any content related to sensitive caste information based solely on a source like India Today. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Shikha Mukerjee, as far as I understand, is an independent journalist, neither a historian nor a scholar on the subject. Ekdalian (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial concerns(first input) have been sorted out. It's not based solely on India Today. Many scholars including Sekhar Bandapadhaya, Partha Chatterjee, Anirban Bandapadhaya wrote articles about it last year. Obviously there's some differences in opinion, but those contain some important informations. Btw, What is your objection? the wikilink or the content as a whole? And, What do you suggest?CharlesWain (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, CharlesWain, we can't engage in the synthesis of multiple sources. If none of the reliable sources use the exact term 'dominant caste', we must avoid including those districts in the lead section statement related to dominant caste. Rather, my suggestion would be to include exactly what the author says (avoiding copyright vio) in the article body in case you are strongly inclined to include the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reliable and verifiable sources

[edit]

Hello @ all those who are engaged in editing or have kept this page on watch, will you please tell me should I directly copy from a page or supposed to write in my own language if I want to make some improvement? And another thing, some of the scholars and historians of 20th century, have written from early or middle of 20th century to late 20th century(for example RC Majumder). Will all of their works be considered proper source by wikipedia standard and policy? please let me know. Chanchaldm (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chanchaldm, you are not supposed to copy-paste, it is considered as copyright violation. And regarding sources, no Raj-era source (original edition published before Independence) is acceptable as per long term consensus. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ekdalian. In my experience direct copy or copying with some alterations has been objected in some cases, in other cases it has been neglected. And regarding sources,I have seen some Raj era sources in some other caste articles though.I was wondering if it is allowed because of being a later edition of a Raj era book. Thanks for clarification. Chanchaldm (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

[edit]

"Kaivarta & Mahishya are the same caste? You should know better! Mahishya name was adopted recently by a section of the Haliya Kaivartas"- Is it the reason Minanath can't be in notable people list? Chanchaldm (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. The Bengali Mahishya caste did not even exist at that time. By the way, what do you want? Would you consider any notable Kaivarta, Haliya as well as Jaliya (different caste altogether), to be included as a notable here in the article on Mahishya? Ekdalian (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry , I forgot about this section. Since multiple scholars suggesting he is a 10th century Kaivarta from Bengal, I think it's an important piece of history needs to be included. Btw why do you think Haliya and Jaliya Kaibarta different altogether? The article isn't suggesting so. Please explain.Chanchaldm (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you think they are the same, please go ahead & propose for a merge of the two articles. I don't need to explain, one comes under reservation, the other doesn't, just an example. Moreover, we can only consider those as Mahishyas after a section of the Kaivartas took up the new name Mahishya, and who self identity themselves as Mahishya. As per long term consensus, self identification of caste is important for any notable. If Bengali Mahishya caste has no existence in say 10th/11th century, how can an individual be associated with that caste? Ekdalian (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Minanath a Notable under Jalia only and if the two articles get merged then he will be considered as notable People in new article?Chanchaldm (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources mention him as a Jaliya Kaivarta, you can mention him as a notable in that article. Else, if sources mention him simply as a Kaivarta, you can't mention anywhere, since we don't have any article on Kaivarta in general. In any case, his name cannot be mentioned in this article since the Bengali Mahishya caste didn't even exist during his time. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jalia word just signifies historical occupation. In Assam the community is simply known as kaibarta. Whereas in West Bengal kaibarta word is still in use by scholars as an alternative to Mahisya(Jalia here is very insignificant population).But the kaibarta of Assam and kaibarta of Western Bengal had actually not been connected since ancient time. I have discussed the history of Kaivarta of Bengal between 8th and 13th century. Kaivarta of Bengal were associated with tantric Buddhism at that time. These are all important history.Chanchaldm (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of caste of a living person requires self-identification in an interview per consensus Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. It is not a requirement for dead people. I see some entries in the section are BLPs. If no self-identification is found here or in the relevant articles, entries will be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quotation from source

[edit]

Hey Ekdalian I have given citations with page nos which is common practice in Wikipedia. This book is easily available in online libraries, if not in physical ones .page 7 from sharma: The Pala kings were Buddhists in religion, but they supported Brahmanism. They participated in ceremonies that were officiated by Brahman priests. Many Brahmanas, and alternately many Kaivarttas, acted as ministers in the royal courts. Many other sources suggest their dominant position in pala period. For example Nihar Ranjan Ray also mentioned, like brahmins kaivartas also held the posts of minister and commander-in-chief. Thank you.CharlesWain (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ekdalian, please raise the issues here. since I have already open a discussion, please participate. I am actually traveling, can't discuss right now. But it will be helpful if you explain your edits.CharlesWain (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CharlesWain, each & every edit is clearly explained in the edit summaries. These are regular/usual edits done in almost all caste related articles. In case you have any concern regarding any particular edit, you may please provide the diff here so that I can explain more or hear your opinion. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ekdalian, You don't have access to Sarma or Ray?CharlesWain (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may simply provide the quotes here; I can assume good faith, CharlesWain and remove the tag. I shall check my own collection of books later once I am back in my hometown! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't discuss multiple issues at once. I will give quotation. Since You have edited long existing version; please ping respective author(s) for quotations or issues in the meantime.CharlesWain (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed the statements, just added the tags for providing the quotes, which is quite normal; so it's their responsibilities (or else any other editor who's interested & has access) to share the same as per WP:BURDEN. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who would like to restore material (in this case, keep the content as it is). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

Hellow editors, The bengali version of this article is well organised than this version. If the Bengal version is well sourced then we should add a origin section in this article. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchaldm Please add origin related contents from Bengali wiki if you think those sources are WP:RS. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fine.I don't have access to one or two bangla source, but have been checked by multiple editors. Bangla and English wiki article have quite different flow of contents, changes to one section may require changes to other sections. I may improve the article if I find late mediaeval history and history about Parasara and Halik Das of Eastern Bengal from RS. Thanks. Chanchaldm (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong in creating a origin section and give the origin theories of different scholars about Mahishyas? This would make this article better.কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have I said it is wrong? But putting improper tag on long existing reliably sourced content is wrong. As I have already said I do not have acces to all sources. Most of those are in my good knowledge, rest I assumed good faith.Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social stigma

[edit]

Is it necessary to add a Social stigma section? We can merge it with the History section IMO. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello কবির চৌধুরী ১১, this section is a part of the consensus version for a very long time; moreover IMHO, this section highlights the discrimination the Mahishyas faced even during the 1920s in spite of the advancement of a section of them in terms of higher education & all. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information is necessary, but mahishyas also suffered ritual disabilities. So we can add more contents related to it. Mahishya caste movements is one of the most important caste movements in India, more contents can be added as a part of social history.
BTW quotation needed tags are unnecessary, pages have been cited. It is verifiable. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About source and author

[edit]

I read quite a number of opinions regarding contents, but we need to be sure about the validity of the source first. Firstly, Is Samaren Roy a reliable scholar? As I came to know he is a science graduate, later politician and used to contribute articles in newspapers and magazines. Secondly, Can the book be considered WP:RS for any topic? Authors are supposed to cite sources for the contents they write, as we need to do here in Wikipedia. Look, I am personally liberal about sources. For example I haven't removed Dahiya(a book for UPSC) when editing on Pala empire. While working on Buddhist mahasiddhas, I had to use some works of Popular history. I am not against any contents, unless it go completely against mainstream scholarship.Regards,Chanchaldm (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about the reliability of the source, you may remove the content in this case, Chanchaldm. I shall re-check the credentials of the author later when I get some spare time. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have probably used this book once in a article, didn't check credibility of the author then. Please check end of the book, Ekdalian. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give quotations regarding content about Sasmal in last section, Ekdalian? I didn't get access to Maity's book.Chanchaldm (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could not check the end of the book, Chanchaldm, actually preview pages vary. As mentioned, if you find the author to be unreliable, you may remove the statement, though I don't think it's controversial in any sense. Regarding the quote requested, I haven't checked the source provided here; since I have read the same elsewhere, and it is quite a known fact, I didn't bother to check the source cited. A simple google search (Google Books) will give you similar information. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am liberal regarding sources. Should I give quotation?
Ekdalian, I need quotation because I want to expand the section giving more details(got a reliable source). Further I would like to add the names of BC Roy, Sarat Bose etc too, but the source I have containing that information can't be added.Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chanchaldm, Rajat Kanta Ray mentioned the name of "Big Five" at page 349; you may add if you want.CharlesWain (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came to know that castes named Mahishya or Mahishyadas are found in some other districts like Assam, Tripura, Jharkhand etc. I don't know much about origin or history of these communities,but found some informations - in Assam they predominantly live in Surma Valley and are Assamese by ethnicity; In Tripura a cultivating section of Patnis assumed the name Mahishyadas. I am thinking about adding those if I get some more details.CharlesWain (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirmoyee Sarma's statement

[edit]

@Sitush: can you please verify the statement (along with the context) from the Varna status section, "Historian Jyotirmoyee Sarma has opined that the Varna status of Mahishyas is disputed." I am not residing in my hometown, and don't have access to this book! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian I can't see inside any books published by Firma on GBooks. Probably a copyright thing. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Sitush! CharlesWain or Satnam2408, can anyone of you, having access to this book, validate the above statement and share the context here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the caste. I am providing a quote, that may be relevant in this context. I am pinging @Chanchaldm for the explanation as they may have added this. Satnam2408 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote from the page no. 119:
"In the Census of India, 1931, the Mahishyas claimed for the first time to be recorded as Kshatriyas or Mahishya Kshatriyas. By this time they had severed all connections with the Jalia Kaibarttas, and had secured official recognition by the Government of the new caste name.
Their claim to Kshattriya status rests upon the traditional derivation of their caste said to exist in secret writings in which they are represented as the offspring of a Kshatriya father and a Vaisya mother. In 1901 and so far as I know until the present census they have claimed to be Vaisyas and this is the status which their priests the Gaudadya Brahmans also claim for them. The actual derivation of their original name Kaibartta is now represented as being different from the derivation of the same term applied to the Jalia Kaibarttas. In the case of the Jalia Kaibarttas it is alleged that it derives from the roots ka water and vrit exist (ka+vritti +ach) whereas it is contended for the Mahishyas that the derivation of the same word is from an original word kim cultivation and vrit exist (kin+vritti+an). The derivation seems to be clearly one which will not be favoured if a claim to Kshatriya status is persisted in. The movement is young and professes to find an identification of the Mahishyas with the Mahesris of Maharashtra and the Maheswaris of Rajputana. It is not an agitation which has received the considered opinion of the caste association although considerable numbers of printed applications were received from districts all emanating from the same press and evidently distributed to branches of the same organisation.
Regardless of the disputed varna status of the Mahishyas, the distinct entity of the Mahishya caste has been established. In the towns and cities more and more they fill the ranks of the leading citizens" . Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Satnam2408. Ekdalian (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahishya also consider as fighting caste beside of I can give you source

[edit]

Mahishya is belong fighting caste pMinistry of culture Mahishya is fighting caste, before the (*agragain caste) you should add this, its appoved by ministry of culture. 202.142.65.151 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahishya also consider as fighting caste

[edit]

Approved by ministry of culture "The Mahisya" book (page -78), mahishya belong fighting caste beside of farming, you should add this in the first line of your article before the *agragain word. Request you to check this 202.142.65.151 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023

[edit]

Mahisya and Kaibartas are two different Castes. According to Manusmriti Mahisyas were formed from mixed origin of Khastriya Father and Vaisya Mother But Kaibartas have the same origin Not <Manusmriti></Manusmriti> Same origin of Mahisya are Texed at Parasuram Sanghita , Brihaddharma purana and other smriti and srutis. On the other hand Just Bramhavaivarta Purana state that Kaibartas were originated from Khastriya and Vaisya and this purana does not state about the origin of Mahisya. Also this purana does not state exact origin of all mixed casted.althoug Kaibartas and Mahisyas are different still in sen dysentery in west bengal<Ballalcharit</Ballalcharit> There are many Bramhin who take dakshia from Mahisyas named as Raypandit cause they are kulgurus of Chandra vangshiya king Tamaradhwaj. According to Shastras The Bramhin who take dakshia from Kaibartas are called Patit " untouchable by vaidik Bramhin" and so they are not eligible for state of kulguru in Kingdom <Yadu Bhatta></Yadu Bhatta> Please remove Rani rashmoni image cause she is Kaibarta Women and not the Mahisya. 2409:4060:2D08:4FB7:7FC9:33C:D9B4:AFB4 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you have written is known as original research here; read WP:OR! Where's the references, page numbers, links (url), etc! Adopting a new name by a section of Kaibartas doesn't make them actually different, and relevant sources are available in the article. Moreover, most of the sources mentioned above like Manusmriti, Puranas & others are primary sources (read WP:PRIMARY) and are not accepted here! Last part is completely unsourced! Ekdalian (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping

[edit]

Hey TrangaBellam, I see you did a great job reorganizing and improving Baidya article. I believe that's the best of all Bengali caste articles. Could you please do the same with this article? Mahishya or agriculturist Kaivartas form the largest caste in Bengal and were in news in recent years. Actually I got a lot of informations from Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Sudarshana Bhaumik and some other sources, but totally revamping this article seems a lot of tasks for me as I lack the experience and expertise you have. I need your help. Other editors who keep an eye or are interested in this article are also welcome in the discussion. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does Chasi-Kaibarta and Mahishya form separate caste? Sekhar Bandyopadhyay used both name side by side in the cited page in lead. I have multiple sources as references for whatever I have written in the lead, But I am avoiding over-citations there. I will also work on other sections. CharlesWain (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide relevant quotes from reliable sources which say all Chasi-Kaibartas=Mahishyas!! The 1st statement must mention their traditional occupation, like all similar caste articles. Ekdalian (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 104, Caste Politics and Raj, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay has written Chasi-Kaibartta(Mahishya). CharlesWain (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough; you know better! Ekdalian (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even our article states, "Chasi-Kaibarta constituted a backward class and Mahishya as such was not a backward class in the state." Hope you understand! Ekdalian (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That line is taken from a primary source, whereas Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Ayan Guha, or Anirban Bandyopadhya's articles are not primary sources. As you know We give priority to Scholarly secondary sources. I also don't know why you have also edited second line of the article which is taken from cited journal of Sekhar Bandyopadhyay. CharlesWain (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sekhar Bandyopadhyay never mentioned what you have tried to add! We need other scholarly work where it clearly states that both of the groups are one and same. Though, as you know, one is a backward class while the other is a general caste! Therefore, I don't think, your last version gives the right picture! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"agriculturist Kaivarta (a section of Chasi-Kaibarta)" doesn't make any sense ! We need other opinion. TrangaBellam, could you please share your views? CharlesWain (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ekdalian , could you please provide any source which mentioned the community as you have written in above mentioned phrase? CharlesWain (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, CharlesWain; needs some tweaks! Ekdalian (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, lede doesn't require any source! It is a summary of the article! It is already mentioned in our article how an advanced group/section of Chasi-Kaibarta rebranded themselves as Mahishya. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was in late nineteenth century, not present state of things. CharlesWain (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already mentioned above Sekhar Bandopadhyay wrote Chasi Kaibartta (Mahishya). However I have like half a dozen other sources. CharlesWain (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the other section of Chasi-Kaibarta, which exists as a separate caste, is considered a backward class; but Mahishya is a general caste! Still, you are trying to equate the two?? Ekdalian (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want discussion now or should I write about Mahishya movement in details first? CharlesWain (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply avoiding the fact; obviously I want the discussion now! Ekdalian (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please check page 220 CharlesWain (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is original research WP:OR, but I have already cited source. I have very recent source of 2020 mentioning the community as Mahishya (Chasi Kaibartta). CharlesWain (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong! Our article clearly states how a section of advanced Chasi Kaibartas assumed the name Mahishya, which is reliably sourced! Therefore, rather you are engaging in OR/SYN! Ekdalian (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was in late 1890s. We're going round in circle! All chasi Kaibarttas are now widely known as Mahishyas. Present state of thing is that anyone with very basic knowledge about caste knows both names of the community and person with no knowledge about caste only know the name Mahishya. CharlesWain (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ping other experienced editors! @Sitush, Fylindfotberserk, LukeEmily, and Satnam2408: please share your opinion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CharlesWain, you have already pinged TB; you may ping other experienced editors. Ekdalian (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for their opinions. I will write about Mahishya movement in details later. It's important as Rajat Kanta Ray mentioned it mobilized great many masses to participate in Nationalist movement in 1920s-1940s. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ekdalian, please respond me here.CharlesWain (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ekdalian and CharlesWain:, replaying to the ping. What is the dispute? What are the relevant quote from sources? From the edit history it seems like there is a dispute about whether two castes are the same or not. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.LukeEmily (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LukeEmily, sorry for the delay; I wasn't available in between. FYI, Mahishya caste was formed by a section of Chasi-Kaibarta (farmers) who as usual claimed themselves to be superior (even demanded Kshatriya status) during their movement, and finally the Government recognised them as a General caste. Now, CharlesWain wants to equate the two, that too in the lede! While Chasi-Kaibarta still exists as a separate caste, considered as OBC by the Government! These are mentioned in the article along with sources! You may check here (Serial number 52) as well! I have opposed this POV of equating a General caste with a OBC (from which they originally belonged, now exist as separate castes)! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most numerous Hindu caste is that of the Kaibarttas, who are divided into two classes, namely Chasi Kaibarttas or Mahishya and Jalia (Jele) Kaibarttas.page 58 - This single sentence summarises relations between Kaibartta, Chasi Kaibartta and Mahishya.CharlesWain (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain and Ekdalian:, that is a district gazetteer of 1979. Is is simply a republished gazeteer from the Raj era? If so, it will explain why they were considered same and now are different. Who is the author of 1979 gazeteer? Are there any academic references for the same as this is a contentious issue? If one if OBC and one is not-OBC, then the Indian Goverment views them as different castes. Is the gazeteer holding different views? Just trying to understand the contradiction. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, I believe you definitely know 'C' in OBC stands for 'Class', not caste. As far as I know, no, there are no academic reference, government document or primary source that says these two are different castes. There are multiple sources already cited, you may check page 103-13. If lede is the problem, I may create a separate origin section. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ekdalian It's apparent from the article that Chasi-Kaibarta and Mahishya are two names for the same caste. Could you provide any quotation from any academic reference that says these two are distinct castes? Otherwise your last edit must be reverted. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratnahastin, I have already mentioned above that the Government still recognizes Chasi-Kaibarta as OBC (link provided above), but Mahishya is considered as a General caste; LukeEmily also mentioned that if one is OBC and one is non-OBC, then the "Goverment views them as different castes". Hope you understand that a major section of Chasi-Kaibarta rebranded themselves as Mahishya; and Government allows the other section (who remained Chasi-Kaibarta) to claim OBC status, which Mahishyas cannot claim! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked the sources but saw the following statements on the page.@Ekdalian, Ratnahastin, and CharlesWain:, is the following statement accurate? If yes, they might be different castes now but with the same origin. Am I correct in this assumption?In late 1990s Sen commission came to conclusion that Chasi-Kaibarta constituted a backward class and Mahishya as such was not a backward class in the state. By early 2000s, the OBC status was granted to Chasi-Kaibartas. Since early 2010s, better-off among Mahisyas have also been campaigning for OBC status for the caste as whole, but the group named Mahishya still belongs to General category and continues to form the largest caste of West Bengal Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is correct, LukeEmily. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, The socio economic condition section has been drafted by me. Your quoted part is also totally written by me. The statement "...Chasi-Kaibarta constituted a backward class and Mahishya as such was not a backward class in the state." has been taken from a primary source. But your assumption that Chasi-kaibartta and Mahishya are separate castes is not quite accurate.If you consult very recent scholarly sources of 2021 or 2022, they still consider these two different names of same caste. No census report, gazetteer or government document counted Chasi-kaibarta and Mahishya separately either. Mahishya is the new adopted name for all Chasi-Kaibartas. Though Mahishya is not listed in OBC, anyone from this community can still apply for OBC if they could produce document to the effect that they belonged to Chasi-kaibartta caste. ( Vide Anirban Bandyopadhya's India Today article) Hope you understand why scholars don't consider them as separate castes. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain and Ekdalian:, I dont have enough context but trying to understand the sources. Amrita Basu in the book "Two Faces of Protest: Contrasting Modes of Women's Activism"(page 109) says "Mahishya population grew by 770,000 because Chasi Kaibartas described themselves as Mahishyas in the 1931 census . This example of upward caste mobility was not unique : thirty - one castes upgraded their status that year". Thus would mean that they changed their status(not just the name). It is obvious that the origin is the same. Please can you quote a couple of sources that say both are two names for the same caste? Also, do we have a separate page for Chasi Kaibartas? I could not find it. If they are two different castes, why do we not have an independent pages for both? Is this situation like the Maratha caste and Kunbi? Many Kunbis started calling themselves Maratha but both are different castes. Sorry if my questions seem too basic.LukeEmily (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mahisya landlords and professionals wrote to the Census authorities in 1901, appealing for the name to be applied to all Chashi Kaibartas. In other words, all Chashi Kaibartas were now to be called Mahisyas. The name took time to be widely accepted, but by the 1920s, it had become sufficiently well known." -Anirban Bandyopadhya's India Today article. CharlesWain (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check page 638.CharlesWain (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian:, How Furui's analysis of different pala inscriptions mentioning Kaivarta is not relevant here? This article is about Kaibartta/Mahishya community.CharlesWain (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the term Kaivarta mentioned? There's no context as well! Address my concerns mentioned in the edit summaries before engaging in edit warring. Please achieve consensus here before restoring the content, and do not remove tags before acting on the same. Ekdalian (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kaivartavrittis were mentioned! @Ekdalian:. I would invite @LukeEmily and Ratnahastin:, to review the recent and further addition of contents from analysis of Epigraphy, and share their inputs if necessary.Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk and Adamantine123: please have a look at the recent edits. Would like to hear from LukeEmily and Ratnahastin as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the content that was removed here. It can be restored. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the quotes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain:, Please can you provide quotes relevant to the content that is being disputed? Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk and LukeEmily: I have two books and two journals of Furui analysing the inscriptions, that is relevant to this article. This topic has been discussed multiple times in those sources, hence many quotations can be given. I am giving some of those based on which I am mainly trying to improve the section.-
the same village was located in a place called Uddhannakaivartavṛttivahikala.205 Similarly, one of the settlements donated in the Belwa plate of Mahīpāla I was called Osinnakaivartavṛtti.206 Kaivartas, who were deemed to be fishers or boatmen in the Manusmṛti and the Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa,207 first appeared in a grant of Gopāla II as one of the lowest categories of rural residents, side by side with medas, andhras and caṇḍālas.208 The reference to their vṛtti, a land given for livelihood or some service,209 connotes their settling in agrarian frontier and the growth of some section to a class of landholders. This phenomenon suggests the agrarian expansion through peasantisation of non-agrarian groups in the lower social strata like kaivartas. (Land and society, p 154) . Rangpur CPI:It is remarkable that Osinna-kaivarta-vrtti also belongs to Phanita-vTthi, the same administrative unit as the one mentioned in the present inscrlption (Sircar 1987a: 7, 1･28)･ This fact may indicate concentration of landholding kaivartas and probable location of the territory of the kaivarta king who served the Pala kings as a subordinate ruler and then revolted against them in Varendra, North Bengal (Sastri and Basak: 1･12 Commentary, i･29 Commentary). Further, This ‘shift’ may mean the upward social mobility of a part of kaivarttas. Otherwise it shows some diversity within a social group labelled as kaivartta. Rajibpur CPI: The second plate, however, has an additional clause which excludes royal estate including enclosed land of three jewels (Buddhist establishment), kaivartas and carmakaras (Second Plate: ll.43–4). A similar clause, ‘excludiing royal estate of three jewels’ (ratnatrayarajasambhogavarjita) also appears in the Manahali grant (Vasu 1900: 72, l.41). The shrinking territorial control seems to have urged Madanapala to keep tight hold on the royal estate, as was a new fiscal arrangement discussed above. It is also notable that kaivartas still appear as assignees of royal estate, in the aftermath of the kaivarta rebellion. Together with carmakaras, they seem to have done some service to the king, in lieu of which land was assigned to them. Thank you.CharlesWain (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to shift ancient and early mediaeval, ie first part of history section to this section as current caste/varna structure of Bengali society started to form between 13th to 16th Century, not in Pala period. Besides these inscriptions Sudarshana Bhaumik and Rabindranath Chakraborty p 125 may be cited. Quotations from Chakraborty:"The Savaras in Orissa, Bagdis in Radha, and Kaibarttas in northern and southern Bengal gained political eminence. The Kaivarttas of Bengal also from the pre-historic period and the boat-builders assisted the merchants in the riverine and the oceanic trade as testified to by Manu. During the rising days of the Palas of Bengal and the Gangas in Orissa these savara and Kaivartta community, besides trade and commerce joined the royal militia and amassed large landed estates. The savara priests Daitapatis formed the priest class as neo-Brahmins of the imperial cult of Lord Jagannatha as the savaras were engulfed within the Ksatriyaisation process.
In Bengal also the Bagdis and the Kaivarttas rose to political eminence by founding new kingdoms like those of Kalu Dom and Kalu Bhuyan depicted in the Dharma Mangal and Kabikankan Chandi of the seventeenth century Bengal. Evidently the political ascendancy of this powerful military- artisan community of the twelfth century was projected in the seventeenth century. But the Kaivartta revolt of Dibyoka and Bhima in Varendra during the reign of Mahipala and the rise of the Bhuyan dynasty in Tamralipta of the same period testify to the fact that with the decline of trade and commerce these powerful segments of the population in eastern India developed agrarian interest and attained political hegemony, the process which synchronised with the feudalisation of the administrative machinery and militarisation of civil offices during the Sena-Gajapati rule in eastern India.
The revolt of Kaivartta in north Bengal during the reign of Mahipala II was noted in the third category of caste (Varna) system in Bengal. Halikadasa and Parasara Dasa were now regarded as Chashi Kaivarttas of Midnapore. Vallal Sena improved the status of the Kaivarttas and denominated them of clean caste from their old abrahmanya position (Dasa and Dhivara). On the whole the Kaivarttas were an old aboriginal tribe like many others and were merged into the then Bengalee caste based society.
With the proliferation of sub-castes on the super-structure of the major four Varna system of Hindu social hierarchy these Savaras, Vagdis and Kaivarttas claimed equal status with the Ksatriyas and even the neo-Brahmins legitimised their ascent in the society by formulating the Karnata and later on the Rajput myths when the claim for solar and lunar lineage became redundant."CharlesWain (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caste of Digambar Biswas, Bishnu Charan Biswas and Basanta Kumar Biswas

[edit]

In the Nadia district, the surname "Biswas" is predominantly associated with the Kayastha caste. Please provide references to show Digambar Biswas, Bishnu Charan Biswas and Basanta Kumar Biswas were Mahishya.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

[edit]

Respected sir, Can you please add two more notable personality to the list. One of them will be Suresh Biswas, an Mahisya adventurer from Nadia district who became famous for his exploits in Brazil. He apparently also became a tiger trainer in a circus, which bought him enormous acclaim in South America. His fame also earned him a mention in a "Feluda" novel (Chinnomostar Obhisaap) by Satyajit Ray himself.

The second personality will be Anath Bondhu Panja, a revolutionary from Medinipur who famously martyred himself trying to assassin a prominent British official Bernard E. Burge at a tender age. 

 It is my humble opinion that these personalities deserve a place in the list of notable personalities. Wisher08 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahishya&oldid=1252065135"