Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin

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O'Hanlon is completely related to only this issue(Even she has covered view of Patil,Deshpande(2000),susyl bayl,Wagle,Historical documents,Gunjikar).That is the only paper which qualifies the place in that Varna section that explains the incidence and final judgement details .she states the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

Varna dispute

The section on Varna dispute is rather long, and therefore I believe it needs a summary at the beginning of the section. We can, of course, add the summary in lede but it has cover all the disputes, struggles, and judgements in an NPOV manner.I am busy over the next few weeks and so may not be able to do the task.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So by all this high end source it’s clear that they had good social order in Goa before the Portuguese rule.In 1560 Portuguese destroyed the smartha mutt headed by Kashmir pandit/sasthikar and started conversion.Their migration to the neighbouring state made local Brahmins to question their satkarma status mainly in 1630 when they wanted to rebuild the Smartha mutt.So Shenavis were questioned for their satkarma status others were not I.e Sastikar,Pednekar etc.By this the statement of bambadekar can be discarded where he states “In 19th century they created concept of gotra,mutt and gurushishya parampara”.Coming to Vaishnava sampradaya as I have read till now they were following kumbhakonam Mutt of deshasthas then they carved new mutt.For this let’s have a insite from experienced editors. Ramarao1234 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Mainly in the lede generalising the issue may be applicable to all which cannot be a right step in this case.They all belong to General category(GM) as per government record of all the state.The issue of shenvi has been solved by Varanasi/kashi pandits and subsequently by Gagabhatt.After this I can find just slandering each other during the Maratha empire era.So since we have mentioned the existing issue and resolution on which basis this can be a part of lede? Ramarao1234 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the section is very big. We can shorten the section by moving some details to gramanya. On reading multiple opinions from multiple modern scholars as well as references to opinions by Brahmin scholars, it is obvious that their status was and is disputed by both Brahmins and modern scholars(both western and Indian scholars). Some support it, some dont. The Deshasthas, Chitpavans Karhades have not accepted the claim nor have the Kerala brahmins. It is contested in Karnataka too as per Bairy. Thus, "the status is contested" seems to be a correct summary in the lede because it means neither fully accepted by all neither fully rejected by all. We should add a similar(probably more detailed) summary in the varna dispute section itself because not every reader will be interested in all details. There is one thing that does confuse me personally based on my study of caste mobility(Sanskritisation). Here is an analogy that is often discussed(informally). The Kashi/Benaras Pandits are the equivalent of the US Supreme court Judges today. The top (state) religious center scolarly opinions are like the state supreme courts for example: Colorado Supreme Court. And local village Brahmin scholars' opinions would be like Colorado county courts. Just a crude analogy. But how is it possible for a county court(local Brahmins) to override a supreme court(Kashi)? That seems to be case here. It would be possible only if there was some evidence that was not considered earlier by the supreme court. Or if the supreme court verdict could not be applied for some reason to that specific county because of some exceptions that the verdict states. This is purely WP:OR so we cannot consider this equivalency but just a thought that occured. We need to write what the sources say without trying to do WP:OR but I am just trying to read between the lines of the statements made by the sources. Second, the "trikarmi brahmin" is exactly the same as a Vaishya and Kshatriya as far as ritual status is considered, so I do not understand the usage of the term. It is like saying "my profession is of a medical doctor (without any medical degree or license to practice)" or "I am a lawyer withot a law degree". That term (trikarmi Brahmin) is confusing to me. What is clear though is that the ritual status of trikarmi Brahmin is the same as that of a vaishya or Kshatriya. In other words, trikarmi brahmin is not a Brahmin.LukeEmily (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Some Important points out of this,

1.”Status is contested” is not at all applicable to this article as their Brahmin status(Satkarma) was officially accepted by Varanasi Brahmins(Both panch gaud and panch dravid).This is not a small step to neglect,this is the only dharmasabha that had authority to judge Varna.

secondly the definition of “contested Varna status” is a caste which claim to be a Brahmin rejected by Varanasi Pandits.This can be applicable to Devrukhes who lost their appeal in Varanasi. (O’Hanlon-2010)

2.There is no historical proof to prove that this decision was revisited and no authority can go against Varanasi pandits.Issue was “fish eating”

so there is no other findings as their origin,Gotra and details were good as per sayhadrikhand.(O’Hanlon-2013).So Gagabhatt and Anantdeobhatt’s verdict was “They are satkarmi Brahmins”.(viseshvara Bhatt-1960,Mehendale-2012).The issue was not between Dravid Brahmins and shenvis instead it was between Saraswats of Rajapur and shenvis of Rajapur.So intercaste local issue restricted to Rajapur!

” Gagabhatt & Anantdeobhatt resolves the disputes between Shenvi & Saraswat at Rajapur at the invitation of Shivaji Maharaj”(Amit A karande,2023)

3.Syenvijatinirnaya was published in 1913 by editing the verdict of Gagabhatta and anantdeobhatt by some random people so historically nothing happened as written in the book nor any historical documents present for the same(Gagabhatt himself has written book named Gagabhatti which clearly explains the verdict).It’s existence was not there before 1913 it can be considered as one baseless book may be result of slandering between shenvis and karahades(valuilikar,1938).Using this is pure void of Raj era rules.This is equivalent to someone writing whatever they want.

4.Varna dispute must contain only what happened and what’s the verdict of kashi pandits.If required Gramanya content can be added.This must be shortened by removing different authors cherry picked views which is no way concerned with the actual issue.If any author has not mentioned them as Marathi brahmin that doesn’t mean he denied the Brahminhood if so cite the reason and context from the same authors book.Ex:Kantak has mentioned the role played by different community during Maratha empire,here editor has analysed as per the wish brining Sanskrit and reading here,Likewise multiple situation of multiple papers has been written neglecting context.(Void of SYNTHESIS AND NPOV).In Goa,Karnataka and Kerala there was no official issue nor gramanya so mentioning bairy view is just his perspective.

5.Mainly In Varna dispute even we can add the authors who consider them as Brahmins probably the list will be more than list cherry picked list.This can help in achieving Wp:NPOV.

6.We can consider the historical documents which cites them as saraswat Brahmins.(Shilahara shasan mentions arrival of Saraswat Brahmin family).Historical settlement of Kashmiri saraswats has been mentioned in many documents(1550), Portuguese archives mentions them as Bommons.

7.Varna dispute can only occur between two parties and infront of authority.This has already occurred in case of shenvis.The issue was their fish eating habit.Result declared them to be satkarma Brahmins and is signed by all Vedic scholar headed by deshastha Brahmins Vedic scholar leader and signed by all Brahmins of India(Including Chitpavan and Karhade).So the result is PAN Indian.

By this the sentence “Chitpavan,deshasthas and Karhade” rejected is Null and void as their Vedic leaders have accepted that shenvis are Brahmins.

-

So the statement of “Contested Brahmins” is highly not applicable to this article and verdict with historical proof clearly endorses their Brahmin status.Here we can mention the issue,struggles and verdict but we cannot deny their Brahmins status as per our wish. Ramarao1234 (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I read a paper that says that marathi brahmins resident in Maharashtra felt threatened by the GSBs, and the CKPs as these latter two communities competed with them for administrative jobs during the Sultanate, Mughal and Maratha rule in Maharashtra.The Kashi pandits, although maharashtrians, didn't see that in northern India, and therefore may have been more accommodating then the ones in Maharashtra.I will search for that source and get back to you later.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ramarao1234:, we cannot ignore opinions from scholars and silence one side. If we give both sides, as we are giving now, the status becomes contested. Counting how many dont consider them Brahmins and how many support their claims would be WP:OR since no editor can claim to know all sources that exist. There are a reasonable number of good sources that do not support their claim to be Brahmins. The bottom line is that some support and some dont. That is why the status is disputed. I am not talking only about Brahmins but also about modern western and Indian scholars. One way to shorten would be to say some scholars like X, Y, Z support their claim but others like P, Q, R do not support the claim.LukeEmily (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If official verdict is there then we cannot mark them as non brahmins.'Contested' is a word for not confirmed status .Here already the reference is citing Kashi scholars verdict.Hope this Simplifies the issue.

As I have read most of caste dispute during maratha empire was political gameplay and gramanya was the best example.If required I can cite some source.

Regards,

Fadnavis Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rajeshfadnavis:, there are academic sources that say that some local Brahmin communities as well as some modern scholars do not accept their Brahmin claim. Sitush has pointed out that several academic sources treat saraswats and Brahmins as different. For undisputed Brahmin communities like Chitpavans etc. this is not the issue. If you have sources that have more information, please provide them on the talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyI went through the discussions and articles completely,probably I may accept the view of @Jonathansammyin this case.In multiple book it has been mentioned that GSB and Ckp were into adminstration from 800 years,In maharastra post played caste role.Say let me give one example here,Deshasthas never accepted chitpavans as brahmin,Many academic source have been published about their origin to prove Greek/Iranian ancestry.If we go with academic sources blindly then in future someone will start highlighting all the books related to this.So I believe better to simplify this instead of complicating.

A life to remember by Balavant Joshi mentions genetic study of marathi people in this he mentions chitpvans as greek/Iranians. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyIn the state of Maharashtra,5 brahmins mutually never accepted brahmin status of each other.I will mention the cronology.Portugese invasion lead saraswat to migrate towards other brahmins area made them volatile.In konkan saraswats mainly shenvis and karhades mainly padhyes were challenged against their ritual status.When Chitpavans reaches Pune Deshasthas denied their brahmin status,for this Chitpavans denied brahmins status of yajurvedi deshasthas.One interesting point here is Sahyadrikhand (As per researchers probably written somewhere around 600AD-900AD).This was republished by saraswats but was celebrated by Deshasthas.So in conclusion only one brahmin caste remained undispute in Maharashtra I.e.Deshastha.So better to consider Kashi scholars instead of grouping all scholars wordings.

 Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rajeshfadnavis:, there is no source that puts Chitpavans and Brahmins in different categories. The varna of Chitpavans is accepted by other brahmins. But for saraswats, their claim is not accepted. And many sources put them in different categories from brahmins. Can you look at the varna dispute section and see the sources? Also, can you address Sitush's concern? You are not comparing apples to apples. Origin of CHitpavans is not important for current varna status. Their Brahmin claim is undisputed by scholars and other brahmins.LukeEmily (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I still don't wknow is "Sitush's concern", or forgotten about it. Can you forward it again please.BTW, O'Hanlon says some people thought that Chitpavans were progeny of the Arab sailors.Unfortunately as Mr. Fadnavis says, all brahmin groups who have resided in the Konkan region have had their brahmin status contested for this reason or that.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:, Same issue is with Daivadnya. The Brahmin claim of that community is also denied by the undisputed Brahmins(Karhade, Deshastha Konkanastha). We can write what happened 300 years back in the section wherever needed. But we need to focus on the current status also. And we need to see how sources treat them now. Finally, we have to stick to the sources not WP:OR. If anyone wants add to the origin on the chitpavan page, I dont have any objection. But even an arab origin(if it is scientifically proven) will not change the fact that Chitpavans are treated as Brahmins today by local communities as well as by scholars. We dont see statements in sources like "brahmins, marathas and chitpavans" or "varna of chitpavans is under dispute(currently)". In case of saraswats, there are many such sources. Such statements are found for communities where Brahmin claim is disputed such as saraswats and bhumihar Brahmins. trikarmi is the same as vaishya or kshatriya in ritual status. The origin of chitpavans whether Arab or Indian does not matter as the sources do not treat them differently from brahmins. Origin is different from their current varna. As per evolution, all castes have origin in Africa as per Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans . But we cannot say that all castes are the same varna. Sitush's concern is that saraswats and Brahmins are treated differently in many sources. His concern is justified. I think the reason for the problem was that wikipedia had been treating saraswats and brahmins synonymously when clearly they are not the same. Probably the article was written by editors who did not look at many sources closely. Even if we ignore Sitush's concern, the sources we have are clear that their varna is disputed. I am talking about modern views about their varna not just the 300 year old view or name calling. The modern views are of two types: 1. modern view by other communities(do the other communities consider them as brahmins) 2.modern view by scholars. Do modern scholars consider them brahmin. Both are important especially for a brahmin claim. In both cases, it is disputed for saraswats. This has nothing to do with gramanya or name calling by other communities. Some sources listed in the varna section, clearly do not consider the saraswats as Brahmins. Thus we cannot say that saraswats are Brahmins. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyI went through some papers still many papers are there so I may take time.Here you called daivadnya as non brahmins which is wrong anyhow I will discuss in that caste page.

Coming to this caste the sources are very clearly indicating Kashi pandits(1630,1631) and gagabhatta(1664 and as per some historians 1774) termed them as brahmin eligible for six duties.I even came across some gramanya where there was no opposite verdict and one court case(1861) which mentions them as brahmin eligible for six duties.All the disputes was related to shenvis,here it seems like applying this issue to the whole Gaud saraswat brahmins.Anyhow don't know where is Varna dispute for this caste?Can you mention any case with verdict which is creating Varna dispute?(Remember you are using the word Varna not caste ).@JonathansammyThe paper you shared was really good Rosalind O'Hanon,If you don't mind can you paste the verdict letter sent by Kashi pandits to dravid brahmins in the Varna dispute section so that the reference will be easier.Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rajeshfadnavis:, please can you point out which sources are wrong?LukeEmily (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyI will but revert your last edit as it is misguiding where you have removed syenvijatinirnaya(1913) and Bhaṭṭojidīkṣitajñātiviveka(20th century).This is not technical instead it's matter of debate.If you don't like to add these two book names then feel free to remove the content of the same as both are Raj era books. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyThe Kashi pandits verdict is the core and main information of that section so keep it in the same format as entered by @Jonathansammy .I saw you have kept the information in foot note which will be difficult for average reader.If want to trim you can proceed with irrelevant information trimming. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rajeshfadnavis:, the source for our text are not those two books. The source is Deshpande's paper which is modern and academic. The names of the two books are not important and too technical for average reader. They may not be in English (probably they are in Hindi) and the editors have not used them for the text in the article. We can add details in gramanya. The Kashi pandits verdict is there on the page (it is not in footnote). What information did you want to move from footnote to main page? I dont have any objection but only feel that it is too technical. But if you dont agree, I can move it back to Jonathansammy's format. I am trying to make that section smaller. It is too big. Only the details leading to that verdict are in footnote. Anyway, I found a source that says that in 17xx Benaras scholars declared Shenvi as non-Brahmin. LukeEmily (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

shortening varna dispute section

The section is too big and and difficult to read for an average reader . We should shorten it and move details to gramanya. I will start by rephrasing and moving some text to footnotes.LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyExcept Rajapur issue between saraswat brahmin and shenvis followed by Gagabhatt verdict.None of the details are part of gramanya,FYI gramanya is well documented issue which cannot be changed or rewritten.Refer Maharastrachi gramanya itihas (marathi) or many other books related to that.Gramanya was between chitpavan and Shenvi,maratha,Ckp,karhade, daivadnya, Deshastha.If you want I will help you to develop that page with genuine information.Offcourse this Varna dispute of this article is a matter of discussions.First let's finish that. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead Information as per the limit set by wiki

By edit history it is clear that lead information was changed without consensus(Refer history).Even the reference is not using the same words(He is using the word Subcaste of hindu brahmin).So first I request @Jonathansammyor @Lukeemily to revert the lead to the previous state till the clear consensus is reached as current version is clear void of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rajeshfadnavis:, did not understand. Please can you clarify your concern? The lead should refect the body - which it is currently doing.LukeEmily (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyThe lead is blindly declaring them non brahmins which requires very strong source like Kashi pandit verdict like in the case of devruke backed by consensus in Wikipedia like in the case of sonar(vishwakarma).I can see a single person changed the lede which is unacceptable as per wiki policy.Moreover that the case is restricted to shenvis not all gaud saraswat brahmins.lead is representation of all subsect.Hope I am clear. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Content on culture

I believe as this article stands, a casual non-brahmin, let alone a non-Indian, reader will get rather confused about this article with disproprtionate amount of content on varna dispute rather than anything else.I don't blame the regular contributors for this but other people with sourced information and editing skills should add content on contemporary GSB communities, and their culture.I am involved with a number of other wikipedia articles, and therefore will not be able to give additional time for this purpose. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)