Talk:Kulin Brahmin

Brahmoism

This edit removed information about the origins of Brahmoism in connection with the Kulin Brahmins. The edit summary said the material was unsouced, undue and contrary to WP:WWIN. The first of those reasons is correct; the other two make no sense to me. I am not good on Indian religious movements. Can it be sourced? - Sitush (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Adisura

TrangaBellam I saw you reverted Satnam for his Adisura edits. do we have any source that describes the caste of Adisura except this one provided by Satnam? Nobita456 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is sealioning in all likelihood but our section on Baidya Kulanjis have,

Both of the genealogies [Chandraprabha and Sadvaidyakulapnjika] claim Adi Sura and Ballāla Sena as their own; this is agreed upon by some Brahmin genealogies but rejected by Kayastha ones.

If I recollect properly, Riyaz-us-Salatin had held Adi Sura to be a Kayastha King who ruled Bengal for about a millenia! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

got it.my question is what is the actual caste of adisura? mentioned by modern historians. kulajis hardly make any sense regarding history. Nobita456 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In all probabilities, Adisura was a mythical King who was retrofitted onto a community memory of mass-migration from the west/south. And subsequently appropriated by different castes to aid in social mobility.

However, most scholars doubt the authenticity of the Adisura story. Puspa Niyogi, in her 1967 book, Brahmanic Settlements in Different Subdivisions of Ancient Bengal, says historical evidence does not bear out the tale. Other experts point out that there’s no record in Bengal of a king called Adisura, although there existed a Sura dynasty in west Bengal in the 11th century. Different genealogies have been attributed to Adisura, with one version describing him as a petty chief of north Bihar. His capital is located by some in Gauda and by others in Vikrampur. Different dates, ranging from 654 AD to 1060 AD, have been ascribed to the coming of the five Brahmins in various texts and interpretations.

Historian R C Majumdar points out that the traditional texts also aren't unanimous about whether the Brahmins came from Kannauj or Kashi. He gives three sets of names for the five Brahmins. The compilers of the Rarhi kulajis name them as Bhatta Narayana, Daksha, Chhandada, Harsha and Vedagarbha while in the Varendra texts they are Narayana, Susena, Dharadhara, Gautama and Parasara. Well known kulacharyas such as Edu Mishra and Hari Mishra give another set of names.

What then is one to make of the accounts in these genealogical texts? Says historian Kunal Chakrabarti of Jawaharlal Nehru University, "The story of the five Brahmins probably has no basis in history. But it obviously is part of the historical memory of the community. These texts were written from the early 15th century onwards. From then till the 19th century, many texts consistently mention the story."

Chakrabarti says the repeated references to the tale in various texts indicate that the memory of a migration from the west was strongly etched in the community. The myth extends to the kayasthas as well, five of whom were supposed to accompanied the Brahmins. While the details may be contested, it is known that brahmins did come to Bengal from the central Ganga valley (loosely, the region that’s now UP) from time to time in the early medieval period.

But why were these texts written a few centuries after the likely migrations? Chakrabarti says the kulaji and kulapanjika texts served a contemporary purpose. "By the beginning of the 15th century, brahmins felt that the hierarchies within the community had become lax and needed to be laid down more rigidly. These genealogical records set the kulins apart from the rest," says the professor [...]
— Indian roots and shoots: Five Brahmins and a migration myth, Amit Bhattacharya, Times of India, 8 December 2014

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I got it there is no doubt this can be a myth. but my point is a modern historian mentioned adisura as a baidya, so why we can't write it?? Kayasthas genealogies rejecting baidya genealogies doesn't make any sense to this. when a modern historian writes that adisura was a baidya then it proves that kayastha's genealogie was wrong and baidya's and brahmin genealogies are right in terms of claiming adisura as a baidya.Nobita456 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Because other historians note Adisura to be a legendary figure who was appropriated by different castes (incl. Baidyas). This is not very hard to understand, is it? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

yes other caste like kayasthas claimed adisura as their own.but what was the final result? the final result is adisura was a baidya. making claims and making those claim supported by modern historian is a completely different thing.this is all I like to say.plase mention Adisura as a Baidya.source is already provided. Nobita456 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• If we can mention adisura as a HINDU king then we can also mention Adisura as a BAIDYA king as it is supported by a modern Historian and there is no other claim regarding Adisura's caste. Nobita456 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Trangabellam you can if you find reliable sources regarding your claim.in that case I can also write Adisura as Baidya under WP:NPOV. Nobita456 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

still waiting for your kayastha source.If you don't find then let me add baidya.Nobita456 (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Why can't you follow the citations appended to the end of the line at Baidya? To quote from "The Kulaji or Genealogical Literature (Chapter XV: Appendix I)" by Majumdar, R. C., Ganguly, D. C., Hazra, R. C. in Majumdar, R. C. (ed.). History Of Bengal. The University of Dacca. 1933. pp. 632–633:

Vaidya Kulajis claim Ādiśūra and Vallālasena to be Vaidyas. This view is supported by some Brāhmana Kulajis, but opposed by those of the Kāyasthas.

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you missed my previous comments? As I said claims have no validation. I have a very recent source that mentions Adisura as a baidya,but there is nothing that mentions Adisura as a Kayastha. Nobita456 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We have (1) a chapter by Thomas J. Hopkins—a Professor of Religious Studies at Franklin and Marshall College, USA—on the spread of Gaudiya Vaishnavism to the West under the British Raj where he (trivially) noted Adisura to be a Vaidya king and (2) an article on the social structure of Kapalis from an oral-historical perspective where, again, a Vaidya affiliation is trivially noted.

It is your claim that these two statements can be construed as an explicit rejection of Kayastha claims to this (legendary) King by "modern historians"? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I am talking about the source provided by Satnam. please see it, did you revert that without seeing it?Nobita456 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. Can you describe the source that Satnam provided? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Satnam2408: can you please describe the source as requested by TB. right now I can't do it for some technical reasons.Nobita456 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am not getting involved in this debate right now (since TrangaBellam is handling this); would simply like to point out the extraordinary interest of Nobita456 in order to prove Adisura (not even a historical figure, a king as per popular myth) was a Baidya. I am sorry to say, such 'excessive interest' is something the admins have pointed out. Ekdalian (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey it's enough Ekdalin I am providing sources regarding my claims. see it and then judge it.Nobita456 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire migration theory has no historical evidences. Still it is mentioned in the paragraph named as History. It is mentioned that These migration episode has no authentic values in this article. Kulin Brahmin's kulanjis were written early. The kayastha kulanjis were written much later(later than Vaidyas as well). The source I have provided have described the entire migration episode as 'Historical Explanation'. In this connection He mention the 'Adisur as Vaidya king' Nk chatterjee also explained this in early 19th century. Adisur described as Kayasthas is unknown to me. I am providing the sources. Anthropologist Sarkar's journal is given here p.144 Historical Background:Kulinism in ancient Bengal. another one is here by NK chatterjee. We can incorporate different views regarding this as mentioned by TrangaBellam that some described Adisur as Kayasthas. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How does this response address my queries, derived from Majumdar et al? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Have I denied the fact that Adidur may be a mythical character and Kulanjis have given contradictory information about his caste?At that time I have sources hence inserted that.However, after your revert I have never indulged in editwars.I also have not initiated discussion here.Thanks ,Satnam2408 (talk)

Varendra Brahmin

Are varendra brahmins also considered as Kulin? I think I have read somewhere, but I have to re-look. If someone has the knowledge and perspective, please answer. It will be helpful. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As per my knowledge, Varendra and Rarhi are regional divisions, got nothing to do with Kulin or non-Kulin, i.e. they may or may not be Kulin. I need to check once again! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I was asking as any of the given surnames aren't of Varendra Brahmins. Further I am not sure if Bhattcharjee surname is exclusively of Kulin brahmins. If there's any substantial basis of my doubt, I think the article needs some addition. Thanks Ekdalian for your response.Chanchaldm (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have doubts regarding the Bhattacharjees, it's here since the source says so! Chanchaldm, are you talking about the Varendra Brahmins or the Bangaja Brahmins? Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I read somewhere, Kulin brahmins had two regional divisions-Rarhi(Bannerjee, Mukherjee, Chatterjee, Ganguly, Ghoshal) and Varendra(Maitra, Bagchi, Sanyal, Bhaduri, Lahiri). Kulin brahmins may have few other Surnames too. I have to re-check. Chanchaldm (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghoshal, Maitra, Bagchi, Sanyal, Bhaduri, Lahiri are all non-Kulins as per my knowledge. Ekdalian (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian please check page 147. I have always seen Bannerjee, Mukherjee, Chatterjee, Ganguly as Kulin surnames, but for other Surnames I have got confusing views.Chanchaldm (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Chanchaldm; there is confusion among authors, IMO. As per my knowledge & understanding, Bhattcharjee and Chakrabarti (& it's variations) were titles given to priestly Brahmins and are not surnames. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian please see page 1. Bhattcharjee isn't here, but Ghoshal is.Chanchaldm (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right, Chanchaldm; but I believe the source is incorrect! Ekdalian (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Yes, this doesn't look like a good source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, Fylindfotberserk; not a reliable source. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, Will you please look in the matter? I have confusion what is the fifth Kulin brahmin surname.Chanchaldm (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Same. Bhattacharyas are titles given to priest of highest order so it got Kulin status. But it is not a surname as it does not have one particular gotra. Fifth brahmin is probably Ghoshal but I feel they lost Kulin status like the Duttas Of Kayasthas. Mikemarssss (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say keep it as its is for now, and add the name 'David G Bromley' for attribution. For example including a phrase before the sentence "The five Brahmin clans, which later became..." as in →

According to David G Bromley, the five Brahmin clans, which later became known as .... .....

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Genetic study

May I know why we don't discuss DNA study?(in a learner's voice) JudeB5 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@JudeB5: There is a consensus to not use it. Wait, let me find it. Besides, the study you used is very old (1999), using old methodologies. Modern studies and calculators do find significant relationship between Gangetic brahmins of UP, Bihar, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed at multiple venues, this might be one of the firsts, tied with the WP:CASTEID policy, and here, here here and in many other talk pages I'm forgetting (returned after a long break). The consensus on the ban in caste articles is talked again here and has been maintained since early 2010s. @Sitush, Kautilya3, and RegentsPark: can throw more light on this subject. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Yep, we don't do genetics in caste articles. Fowler&fowler is the best at explaining the reasons but, like me, often not around. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Just to recall some of the issues from the depths of my memory.

The studies tend to be small, self-selecting/self-identifying and statistically insignificant.

The methodology is changing rapidly.

There are few "meta" studies, so most studies are effectively primary sources.

The geneticists are not historians and the historians aren't geneticists. It's a relatively new field and both "sides" tend not to be well informed about the other, yet we tend to see proposed uses here which blur the two into one. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Oh, and WP:MEDRS probably applies. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush: Agreed. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Delighted to see Sitush back.

There are some genetic studies that we do accept, such as the arrival of modern humans in India from Africa ca 55K BP (before present). The African origin of modern humans is now widely accepted in modern biology, with numerous studies dating back to the mid 1980s. Those were done by extracting DNA (mitochondrial and Y-choromosome, which play key roles in female and male lineages respectively) from modern populations, especially isolated isolated ones, both in Africa and in different regions along a coastal migration route to India (eg. Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, Southern Iran, Pakistan, Tamil Nadu, ...)

The Indo-Aryan migration, which is what caused caste to emerge in India, is much more recent, ca 1500 BCE. The migration, moreover, was sporadic and the inflow thin. So, if you are only looking at modern samples along a hypothesized migration route, the variation in DNA will not be enough to decisively conclude anything.

Ancient DNA (i.e. remnants of DNA found in bones etc. from ancient times) has been employed in more recent research. But ancient DAN degrades fast in South Asia as a result of its tropical climate.

Those are some of the more technical reasons for caution. There is also a sociological reason for caution, in my view. Indian society remains riven by caste. So, the suspicion that the scientific study has been planned and its methodology formulated to support what are mostly tales about which caste group is higher will remain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I also agree with the consensus. JudeB5 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Thanks. I'm like T. S. Eliot's Macavity :) I am thinking it might be worth creating an essay type of page in user space for this issue. It keeps cropping up & I can never remember all of the reasons for the consensus, which are numerous! - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Sitush. That's a very good idea, given that the genetic studies will only multiply like rabbits. I'll look for some review articles and then run them by you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush and Fowler&fowler: Would be nice if we can make it a policy as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The policy will probably require an RfC. Let the essay be first fleshed out so people participating in the RfC have something to guide them. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Location

Are Kulin Brahmins really the *only* Bengali Brahmins? And is there not scope for confusion, given Bengali can refer to an ethnicity but also a geographical area? I think the lead paragraph may need to be rewritten. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should consider merging it with Bengali Brahmins. This article gives hardly any new information, all these information are just copy paste from Bengali Brahmins. Kulin Brahmins are just a sub caste of Bengali Brahmins who trace their origin from kanauj. JudeB5 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@JudeB5 It certainly can be considered. There is a process for it, involving tags on both articles + discussion. WP:MERGE, I think, but it's a while since I looked. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sitush; JudeB5, you should follow the process, as already mentioned above! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Before making any edits we should wait for the opinion of @Fowler&fowler and @Fylindfotberserk who are more experienced than me and gain the consensus. JudeB5 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Kulin vs the general Bengali I don't really know too much about. I note that Bengali is the older article though not by much (ca 2005 vs ca 2007). I don't know that this alone makes a difference in considering merges.

The general Bengali is also a little longer: it has a history section. But I can't speak to its quality.

Let the merge proposal below evolve. I'll make a comment or cast a vote later. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please note that JudeB5 has been blocked as another sock of Nobita456, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nobita456! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Kulin Brahmin into Bengali Brahmin. These two articles are so identical. I think we can just add a seperate section in Bengali Brahmin article to describe the Kulin Brahmins who are just a sub-caste of Bengali Brahmins. JudeB5 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree ReflectiveGadget (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)