Talk:Caste system in India

message: I would just think a later adaptation of the caste system would be addressed later, and an article about the caste system in India would start with how the caste system in India started, to serve as a basis to preface and contrast the later transformation. Later. On in the article. The first few paragraphs after the first, which seems to strongly preface this theme, seem to be dedicated to emphasizing how much the brittish leveraged and transformed the caste system in the colonial process, which is definitely a highly relevant and serious matter that should be included in the article, but having so much of it up front seems like either deliberately biased framing or exceptionally poor organization. Is that crazy of me to think that? I hope I'm not just imagining things. 66.161.198.172 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i thought the same thing it's so misleading creates an idea that cast formed during British era which is totally misleading. 2409:4073:4E8D:60A6:0:0:578B:A503 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the take of many modern academics, here and in many other subjects - blame everything on the British, and if that fails, the Mughals. It is very largely nonsense of course. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it’s sad how history gets lost and misrepresented by picking and choosing how we frame and contextualize historical events. It’s so easy to corrupt the nuances of history 2600:1700:2191:41A0:D1CE:E254:9D0C:A26D (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree it’s blatantly pushing a sort of narrative in my view and not representing it properly 2600:1700:2191:41A0:D1CE:E254:9D0C:A26D (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the article focus so much on the brittish impact on caste up front? 

message: it seems to me that Reich et al. (2009) comes chronologically after Banshad et al. (2001), since Bamshad et al. refer to the Indo-Aryan migrations, while Reich et al. refer to the founder effects of groups formed after those migrations:
I don't know if they specify how long a generation is, but if we take it to be 25 years, then 30 generations is 750 years, while 100 generations is 2500 year, that is, 500 BCE, long after the IA-migrations. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of "thousands years" led me to believe they were talking about pre-Aryan times. Anyway, now the whole thing seems to be gone, except for one sentence stuck into a sociological paragraph. I am not comfortable with mixing sociology and genetics, because the connections between them are not known. The idea that "Aryas" were immigrants and "Dasas" were natives is countered by R. S. Sharma. He says both the groups were Indo-European-speaking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do about that. Note, though, that Johannes Bronkhorst also refers to Moorjani and Basu. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: the article seems biased in its framing if not technically correct. It presents the caste system as something secular that arose after colonial rule and downplays its significance in pre-Mughal pre- colonial India. It’s misleading to frame the caste system of Hinduism and the caste system of today as totally separate entities when they arose from the same ideas and sources 2600:1700:2191:41A0:D1CE:E254:9D0C:A26D (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased framework