Are Bengali "Kayasthas" Shudras?
Shomir
Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have the
Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
Indians?
Shomir
===========================
nkdat...@my-deja.com
Shomir <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com> wrote:
> Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have
the
> Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> Indians?
>
The Kayasthas were probably the scribes by
profession. I don't know if Kayasthas are
Shudras. But they are not unique to Bengal.
North India has them too. Prime Minister Lal
Bahadur Shastri (nee Srivastava) of Uttar
Pradesh was a Kayastha. So were President
Rajendra Prasad and Jay Prakash Narayan of
Bihar.
>
> Shomir
>
> ===========================
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Raja Guha
Yes kayasthas are shudra. All castes who do not perform the
Upanayan(poita ceremony) are not SwaVarna and hence fall outside the
realm of redemption according to the Vedas as interpreted by
Sankaracharya.
Traditionally, kayasthas have performed as petty officials in whatever
administration was current. During the Muslim we were ridiculed by
Hindus for being too cozy with our bosses. And our bosses did not hold
us in much respect since we were not the warrior type.
However, being a literate caste assured "middle-class" status long
before there was one and also let competent individuals achieve status
and some degrees of power.
Yes Datta babu next time you see a cud-chewing bania wrap his string
around his ear and sqat to piss by the road perform a pronam for he is
your superior. (No disrespect intended to anyone!)
This information is from the encyclodedia of castes of India compiled in
1853 by our erstwhile rulers. (They were thorough bastards and knew way
back in the beginning they needed to thoroughly undersatand those they
were about to screw over.)
arj...@my-deja.com
like than others. Starting with Protapaditya of Jessore,
reputed to have defeated emperor Akbar's detachments,
to Michael Madhusudan, to Vivekananda, to Netaji,
to our postindependence army chiefs JN Chaudhuri and
Shankar Roychowdhury. In the freedom movement
against the British, bengali kayasthas took
heroic roles. Khudiram, Profulla Chaki and others.
One little known fact about Prof. J.C. Bose, famous
botanist and physicist, is that he did not accept a
lower salary norm for Indian profs of Calcutta Univ.
with respect to their British counterparts, and
refused to receive salaries for a couple of
years before the norm was removed.
Regards
Arjoe
In article <384884AC...@mail.com>,
yash...@my-deja.com
subject to a lost of discussion.
According to dharma-shastras (like Manu Smriti) they
are varna-sankara, becuse they do not fit any one
of the four varnas. Note however that these are often
regarded to be late compositions.
In Encyclopedia Indica, publised in 30s, there is a lengthy
article on it. It mentions (editor was a Bengali Kayasth)
that the vedic Brahmins did not like the Kayasthas
because they were generally Buddhist.
It is indeed true that Kayasthas were generally Buddhist,
the oldest known inscription mention Kayasthas is on
a Buddha idol found at Mathura. In the Chandel kingdom
(Khajuraho-Mahoba), a kayasth scribe excluded land
belonging to a Buddhist vihara, from a royal donation.
The Pala kings were probably Kayasth.
The Kayasth-Brahmin rivalry has played a role in Maharashtra
history.
Yashwant
PS:
1. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi is a Kayasth.
2. Most non-Brahmin castes have now given up upanayan.
However I have read about some Kayasthas being given the
upveet.
====
arj...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In fact, bengali kayasthas have been more kshatriya
> like than others. Starting with Protapaditya of Jessore,
> reputed to have defeated emperor Akbar's detachments,
> to Michael Madhusudan, to Vivekananda, to Netaji,
> to our postindependence army chiefs JN Chaudhuri and
> Shankar Roychowdhury. In the freedom movement
> guha...@mail.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes kayasthas are shudra. All castes who do not perform the
> > Upanayan(poita ceremony) are not SwaVarna and hence fall outside the
> > realm of redemption according to the Vedas as interpreted by
> > Sankaracharya.
SuBain
If so, you all who are participating in the discussion of who is superior to
whom are Shudras.
Stop this nonsense, and go to Orissa where your kind of sub-humans are
unwilling to clean up rotting deadbodies, because that would be too undignified
to them!! To them, contacting deseases would be better than loosing their
castes!!!
When will these classes get civilized?
Nripendra N Sarker
While a brahmain's is yellow
a kayastahy's is pink.
A sudra does not have any blood at all. Because the
brahmains and others had drunk up.
That's how the people of differerent casts differ.
Shomir <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:382F68BB...@My-Dejanews.com...
> Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have the
> Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> Indians?
>
> Shomir
>
> ===========================
>
Shomir
You are over reacting. No one here is criticizing anyone or is trying to pull down
any one of any caste. Since this news group is full of discussion regarding
castes, I had this honest question regarding my caste. What is so offensive about
that?
Civility is displayed in the language one uses, and you are going overboard with
your personalization of this discussion, when there is no need to do so.
Shomir
======================================
Shomir
> Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have the
> Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> Indians?
>
> Shomir
>
> ===========================
Our good brave and intelligent "KSHATRIA" friend had this bit of information
to add to my knowledge base.
Shomir
----------- Forwarded Message ---------
DATE: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 01:54:26
From: "mail.bc1.com" <agh...@bc1.com>
To: "Shomir" <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com>
NO, you mother-fucker! intellectually we "BENGALIS" are much advanced and
cultured than any of you burstered NORTH INDIANS stupid ass holes. we
kayasthos are "KHATRIYAS", the brave and the intellegents. If you ever utter
such stupid
comment , i will tear you apart and fuck your SISTERS. Bengal-Tiger arun
ghosh, victoria, canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shomir" <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bengali,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.india
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 6:00 PM
Subject: Are Bengali "Kayasthas" Shudras?
> Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have the
> Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> Indians?
>
> Shomir
>
> ===========================
>
--------- End Forwarded Message ---------
arj...@my-deja.com
position against miscegenation. This is mostly hypocritical,
heavily loaded against minority males dating with
white christian women. The reverse is not frowned upon.
I have seen that some Indian brahmins wanting to classify
themselves as caucasians to escape this anti-miscegenation
feelings. Some will even be overenthusiastic about
christian religious occasions, mainly to show their
similarity with the majority community (some form of
bootlicking). They will also go out of their way to
depict some other indians as shudras, mainly to reduce
competition by directing anti-miscegenation feelings
towards potential dating possibilities of the
"shudras". They will also often be anti-african americans.
White americans (many, not all) love those that hate
african americans. One of the ways to keep a "shudra"
in check in a white dominated place is to somehow
insinuate his closeness to african americans. This
will help keep him under the clasp of the tentacles
of racism. I have earlier discussed about inforacist
techniques of insinuating sickenesses/unfavorable
sexual preferences on individuals
to knock them out of heterosexual competitions.
The caste classification by US-based indians is another
subtle way of extending heterosexual apartheid to their
fellow countrymen.
Regards
Arjoe
In article <382F68BB...@My-Dejanews.com>,
Shomir <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com> wrote:
> Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have
the
> Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> Indians?
>
> Shomir
>
> ===========================
>
>
SuBain
>Mr. Bain:
>
>You are over reacting. No one here is criticizing anyone or is trying to pull
>down
>any one of any caste.
"Pulling down" would be an understatement of how some groups of sub-humans of
India have been doing for centuries to some other humans of the same backward
land. The fact that a bunch of people who have as much academic training as to
be writing here in the newsgroup are identifying people in terms of castes is
disgraceful.
>Since this news group is full of discussion regarding
>castes,
Isn't that a shame?
>I had this honest question regarding my caste. What is so offensive about
>that?
Your question is honest all right. There is nothing offensive either. The
problem is that we are too slow in getting civilized.
>Civility is displayed in the language one uses, and you are going overboard
with
>your personalization of this discussion, when there is no need to do so.
No, civility is mostly in one's mind. People who still identify themselves in
terms of castes can hardly be called civilized, no matter how polite they may
be.
There is nothing personal here either. In fact, when I wrote my last post in
this thread, I did not pay any attention to who had written what.
Tell me, Shomir, how did you feel, as an Indian, when you read news reports on
the fact that people in Orissa would not cremate rotten corpses, because they
felt that their castes were too high to touch those?
Sukhamaya Bain
>Shomir
>
>======================================
>
>
>SuBain wrote:
>
>> Are the Shudras the lowest caste of the uncivilized Hindu religious
structure?
>>
>> If so, you all who are participating in the discussion of who is superior to
>> whom are Shudras.
>>
>> Stop this nonsense, and go to Orissa where your kind of sub-humans are
>> unwilling to clean up rotting deadbodies, because that would be too
undignified
>> to them!! To them, contacting diseases would be better than loosing their
Shomir
> "Pulling down" would be an understatement of how some groups of sub-humans of
> India have been doing for centuries to some other humans of the same backward
> land. The fact that a bunch of people who have as much academic training as to
> be writing here in the newsgroup are identifying people in terms of castes is
> disgraceful.
Agreed that it is distasteful to identify people on the basis of castes, but
unfortunately it is a reality. Have you seen any matrimonial adds in the Indian
and even foreign media? How can you ignore this? Enlightened people like yourself
might be free of prejudice, but most Indians are not.
> >Since this news group is full of discussion regarding
> >castes,
>
> Isn't that a shame?
I am not sure if all discussion regarding castes can be branded as "shameful".
There can be constructive discussion, and then there are the hateful ones.
> >I had this honest question regarding my caste. What is so offensive about
> >that?
>
> Your question is honest all right. There is nothing offensive either. The
> problem is that we are too slow in getting civilized.
Yes the process is slow, but thousands of years of adherence to the practice of
prejudice is hard to eradicate. That is not only true for Hindus, but for people
of all religion and races, including Catholics, Protestants, Jews and of course
Muslims. Hindus are no different in that respect.
> >Civility is displayed in the language one uses, and you are going overboard
> with
> >your personalization of this discussion, when there is no need to do so.
>
> No, civility is mostly in one's mind. People who still identify themselves in
> terms of castes can hardly be called civilized, no matter how polite they may
> be.
If you think for a moment you might hesitate to make such a blanket statement.
There could be many people who identify themselves as Brahmins, and Kayasthas, and
also as Shudras. Many or most are gentle, polite, respectful and concerned about
other people, why should they be termed "uncivil" ?
> There is nothing personal here either. In fact, when I wrote my last post in
> this thread, I did not pay any attention to who had written what.
>
> Tell me, Shomir, how did you feel, as an Indian, when you read news reports on
> the fact that people in Orissa would not cremate rotten corpses, because they
> felt that their castes were too high to touch those?
Indeed that is very repulsive and I have made my views known in another thread
regarding that issue. I clearly mentioned the hypocrisy of the Indians especially
the Hindus, who on the one hand depict themselves as the epitome of virtues and
tolerance when they wanted to capitalize on their "noble" act of offering Muslim
burial rites to the deceased Pakistani soldiers in Kargil. On the other hand these
same Hindus would not cremate their own who died in Orissa.
Shomir
===========================
Shomir
arj...@my-deja.com wrote:
I agree with your general comments, but your observations can be
attributed to ALL indians in general, not only the Brahmins. Even the non
Brahmins try to pass themselves off as "Aryans", thus more acceptable to
the whites in the west. Indians I know of are more prejudiced against the
blacks than many white people. Most Indians would object less to their
children getting married to whites, but they, including even those who are
so called "Shudras" would be petrified if their children chose a black as
their partner.
Shomir
arj...@my-deja.com
In article <384AB29B...@My-Dejanews.com>,
in fact, underlines the faulty premise of partition
based thinking in the non-causal perspective.
I know it is impossible to think in a partition-free
manner, with all the baggage that we carry. But,
with time, I hope people will be classified only
by the sense of freedom they exhibit. A lower class
man/woman will be defined as a person who does not appreciate
the detailed and sophisticated sense of freedom
and privacy. That is how I look at it.
Regards
Arjoe
Shyamal Pain
In "Bangalir Itihas" , Mr. Nihar ranjan Roy mentions that Kayasthas are
probably Shudras although
he seems to have doubt about it. I do not recall the exact argument. Also, he
mentions that Kayasthas
are also present in Bihar , Orissa and some other states. In some states they
are known as Karans .
Their profession was related to clerical job(karanik) . They were never
related in any way to Khstriyas
as some posters tried to imply.
However, being shudra makes them part of the varnashram system. There are
other jatis ( tanti, jele, kamar,
kumor, chandal etc) who are outside this varnashram system and are considered
lower than even shudras.
Shyamal Pain
arj...@my-deja.com
in various fields with distinct leadership quality
have come out of Bengali Kayasthas. A bootlicker
cannot be a leader. Can you check out if that was
Niharbabu's argument for his doubt?
Regards,
Arjoe
In article <384FD9F1...@telcordia.com>,
Raja Guha
I believe that the distinction between shudras and "other jatis" is an
example of social have-nots squabling among themselves. To the best of my
knowledge, from a Vedic point of view the same exclusion applies to shudras
and all "other jatis".
Those castes amongst the outsiders, who managed to reach some level of
social status(in the case of Kayasthas, due to the fact that the caste trade
was writting, hence leading to an educated class) created these distinctions
as salve to their understandablly fragile egos. I am told that in many
parts of the South(of US) African-American seclude themselves into distinct
neighbourhoods according to the lightness of their skin color.
The Vedas forbid recitation in the presense of anyone who has not been
"twice-born"(had Upanayan performed). Since listening to the Veda is
essential to attaining Moksha (i.e. achieveing salvation) all those who are
not "twice-born" as well as their descendents are forever forbidden from
salvation. Wow! even the Southern plantation oweners did not deny salvation
to their slaves!
The racist basis of varnashram is made evedent by the rules governing
offspring of parents of different castes - a child takes the caste of his
father unless the mother is a shudra (other other jati) - meaning the upper
castes can rape and molest lower caste women with total impunity even from
their consciences.
By the way, Bengali brahmins are not really regarded as brahmins by their
counterparts in other parts of India due to their partaking "ma-chhi"(fish).
I have a suspision(unsubstantiated) that most Bengali brahmnis are are
actually promotions from shudras and other jatis - caste system did not
exist in bengal until just before the Muslim era - bengal being mostly
populated by pre-Aryan peoples. Anyone w/ knowledge of ancestory of the
bengali brahmins please respond.
"Shyamal Pain" <sp...@telcordia.com> wrote in message
news:384FD9F1...@telcordia.com...
Raghu Seshadri
Dear Raja, there are several errors in your post.
: I believe that the distinction between shudras and "other jatis" is an
: example of social have-nots squabling among themselves. To the best of my
: knowledge, from a Vedic point of view the same exclusion applies to shudras
: and all "other jatis".
Not true at all. Shudras are an integral part of the
system, whereas there are castes which were considered
beyond the pale, and collectively and euphemistically
termed 'panchamas', ie the fifth. Very different categories.
: The Vedas forbid recitation in the presense of anyone who has not been
: "twice-born"(had Upanayan performed). Since listening to the Veda is
: essential to attaining Moksha (i.e. achieveing salvation) all those who are
: not "twice-born" as well as their descendents are forever forbidden from
: salvation. Wow! even the Southern plantation oweners did not deny salvation
: to their slaves!
Big time error here. There is no such doctrine that listening
to the veda is essential to moksha. Where did you get that
from ?
: The racist basis of varnashram is made evedent by the rules governing
: offspring of parents of different castes - a child takes the caste of his
: father unless the mother is a shudra (other other jati) - meaning the upper
: castes can rape and molest lower caste women with total impunity even from
: their consciences.
I don't see how you conclude whatever you do from
your premise. YOu have made a giant leap to nowhere.
RS
sidd
No they cannot. I know they dont apply to me. Dont
generalize on behalf of others, using such absolute
capitalized words.
>> Even the
> non
> > Brahmins try to pass themselves off as "Aryans", thus more
acceptable
> to
> > the whites in the west.
> >ndians I know of are more prejudiced against
> the
> > blacks than many white people. Most Indians would object less to
> their
> > children getting married to whites, but they, including even those
who
> are
> > so called "Shudras" would be petrified if their children chose a
black
> as
> > their partner.
> >
> > Shomir
> >
> I agree with your perception. And that agreement,
> in fact, underlines the faulty premise of partition
> based thinking in the non-causal perspective.
> I know it is impossible to think in a partition-free
> manner, with all the baggage that we carry. But,
> with time, I hope people will be classified only
> by the sense of freedom they exhibit.
What freedom are you talking about ?
There is no freedom from the chains of human society.
The only true freedom is within the mind.
> A lower class
> man/woman will be defined as a person who does not appreciate
> the detailed and sophisticated sense of freedom
> and privacy. That is how I look at it.
>
There is nothing sophisticated about subjective illusions.
> Regards
> Arjoe
> > > In article <382F68BB...@My-Dejanews.com>,
> > > Shomir <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com> wrote:
> > > > Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> > > > Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas.
> Have
> > > the
> > > > Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> > > > Indians?
> > > >
> > > > Shomir
> > > >
> > > > ===========================
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
aaaaaa
<nkdat...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82931n$hos$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <382F68BB...@My-Dejanews.com>,
> Shomir <Sho...@My-Dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Question: Are the "Kayasthas" of Bengal technically Shudras?
> > Obviously, they are not Brahmins, or Vaishyas, nor Kshatriyas. Have
> the
> > Bengalis created their own caste system different from the North
> > Indians?
> >
>
> profession. I don't know if Kayasthas are
> Shudras. But they are not unique to Bengal.
> North India has them too. Prime Minister Lal
> Bahadur Shastri (nee Srivastava) of Uttar
> Pradesh was a Kayastha. So were President
> Rajendra Prasad and Jay Prakash Narayan of
> Bihar.
>
> >
Shomir
naki? Christmas astaché..ektu rääg kom koren, bhälo lagbo.
Shomir
===========================
lrav...@gmail.com
Shudra couldn't read and write in Vedas. Brahmin could read and write in Vedas whereas Kshatriya and Vaishya could read Vedas but not write in them.
Hence Swami Vivekananda was a Brahmin+Kshatriya or Brahma-Kshatriya.