Talk:Forward class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject {{{1}}}|WikiProject {{{1}}}]] may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

[[Category:{{{1}}} articles needing expert attention]]

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] The article needs to be sanitised

Clearly, the article has been written by persons belonging to so-called forward (meaning upper) castes and they have very selectively used some figures to support the claim that upper caste population in India is equal to or more than backward caste population. The command over English language itself is a marker of upper caste identity and upper caste wikipedians are continuing to determine the content of Wikipedia content for obvious reasons. It is nothing paradoxical that tools of liberation in the West invariably turn out to be weapons of oppression to perpetuate inequitous status quo in the subcontinent. Wikipedia could be no exception.

[edit] Intercaste Marriages

What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Forward Castes? If it is less than 10%, aren't they anti-social? Maaparty 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone be labelled anti social because of the preference of marriage? does socialization begin/end with marriage? 59.92.188.102 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC) concerned indian.

[edit] figures given in the article

the main article gives a figure of 36-39% for Forward castes. Lets analyze the problem. Officially, SC=15%, ST=8%, OBC=52%, Muslims=12%. That makes up 87%. So forward castes, at best can be just 13%.nids(♂) 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how all these days politicians were projecting. National Family Health Survey was taken in 98-99. It says Forward Castes population is around 38-39%.National Sample Survey 99-00 points out forward caste population is 36%. You can download Employment and Unemployment among social groups in India, 1999-2000 55th Round PDF file(Registration required) from http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_nsso_rept_pubn.htm.

I paste below figures given by NSS 99-00

Rural Out of thousand people

SC ST OBC Others

106 213 374 307

Urban Out of thousand people

SC ST OBC Others

39 146 314 502

You apply rural and urban population weightages and you will get the figure of 36%.Statistically NSS survey is considered large with a sample size of around 600000.

Also you are quoting 52% OBC figures given by Mandal commission which has been proved wrong by subsequent surveys. Mandal derived based on 1931 census by using wrong calculations as indicated by Yogendra Yadhav,Psephologist.(Citation given in Reservation in India article)See population section of this article.Mandal figure for OBC includes Muslim OBC,so it should not be added separately like what you did. Govt surveys indicates Forward caste population is around 36-39%. Yogendra Yadav agrees that it has to be atleast 33%. --Lravikumar 12:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So, according to the sources you cited, OBC population would be around 35%.nids(♂) 12:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes.These are the only data available with Government of India regarding population of various communities. Sample size of both surveys are large.(NFHS around 90000,NSS 600000) and both came with almost similar figures for OBC,BC,SC/ST. Mandal did not conduct any survey and cooked up 1931 census figures to arrive some figures. After 1931 census so many things have happened like a) Partition happened and mass migratrions of Hindu,Muslim communities happened as a result of it. b) Muslim population has gone up from 9% in 1947 to 12 % in 2001 c) SC/ST population has gone up from 19% in 1947 to 24 % in 2001. which shows population of communities are changing dynamically.

See Also.Regarding Yogendara Yadav comments on Mandal commission figures(He is the only psephologist in India who predicted NDA will lose in 2004 elections when NDTV/India Today/Outlook surveys were giving more than 300 seats for NDA)

http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=292238&category=Social%20Sectors&Country=INDIA

Actually, the last time proper census was done was way back in 1931 and all the other estimates are just projections (Mandal commission was crap, ofcourse). Do you have any online link for 1931 census report. I have tried that but unsuccessfully. Also, do you have any idea about the percentage of forward castes in 1931 according to 1931 census report.nids(♂) 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1931 census is not available online. 1871-1901 census are available online. Those censuses does not show caste wise population. It shows Brahmin,Rajputs &Kshatriya,other hindu communities,Dalits,tribes populations separately. I hope 1931 census also would have been taken in that way. I don't know how Mandal commission can derive Forward and backward population from those caste figures. (For example Yadav is considered Kshatriya but backward caste)Also those censuses includes Burma,Bangladesh,Pakistan population also. You can find some caste wise info from following links for the period of 1871-1901.Current demographic pattern should have been entirely different.Mandal gave some nonsense figures and till 1998 politicians took major decisions based on that figures.

http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&action=previous&record=20

http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=51

Demographic pattern cannot be totally different from what NSS indicated because of its large sample size. Otherwise two different nationwide surveys cannot come out with almost similar figures.

[edit] Who is forward?

Qn. All these castes listed out here were getting almost 100% reservation for Centuries while the current backward communities (per Govt) were sidelined and had no access to education or jobs. So should we call them forward or backward????

Answer: The now designated "upper caste" communities in the past had many privileges that "lower castes" did not have that point is accepted. But that can't be equated to them having reservation because of the following. In the past the upper caste communities earned those privileges with their hard work and contributions. It is an undisputed fact that the majority of warrior clans were upper caste they shed blood and died to protect all lower castes and upper castes alike. The majority of the intellectuals who pioneered India's two largest empires were upper caste brahmins like chanakya, and so were the other contributors in (mathematics, philosophy, science etc). So in conclusion the privileges that upper castes had in the past were acquired by them through their own hard work and sacrifice. Whilst in modern India lower castes ascertain privileges (reservation) by doing nothing whatsoever other than having a lower caste surname. Lower castes love to talk of how belligerently they were downtrodden by upper castes but they fail to talk of how many millions of upper castes throughout the centuries died fighting for the freedom of lower castes. Due to the fact that all the armies of India were constituted of upper caste Kshatriyas or people from other upper caste warrior clans. This is not to say that lower castes did not contribute in the past indeed they did, but no historian will contest the fact that in the past 95 percent of the contributions were by upper castes therefore being the main contributors they enjoyed sociological privileges that the lower castes did not have in the past. But we don't live in the past anymore so this is why we should forget these denominations of lower caste or upper caste and we should call ourselves INDIAN, if people still keep living in these past regressions they are bound to only get more of the negativity from the past and not find a fresh new outlook for a bright future. Judging by the questioners rather flawed reasoning maybe if he had a little common sense he would realise what a platitudinous confabulation he made with his rather imbecilic question. Bandwidth bandit 09:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"Forward caste" (or "upper caste") is used in India to denote people from any religion who do not currently qualify for Government of India Reservation benefits (that is, set quotas for political representation) for backward castes, scheduled castes and tribes.

It refers http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/5704._.html The article has not talked about the definition any where!!!

I've added a [citation needed] tag. The details will be deleted after maintaining the Fact Tag. Also Forward Caste is not officially/ethically mentioned any where. It should be deleted. BalanceRestored 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


One of the question answered by Yogendra yadav states that

""All the upper castes (all those from any religion who do not qualify currently for SC, ST or OBC quota) are about 33 per cent of population.""

So this has been given as definition for Upper caste. Forward caste or Upper caste is interchangeably used. So definition given for Upper caste has been given as citation. We had long discussions few months back and then it was decided article satisfies notability criteria for inclusion. There are wiki articles on many castes, Backward class, Scheduled castes , Scheduled Tribes etc. --Indianstar 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular things can be a hoax. The reference provided is incorrect. There's no such definition in the Indian law. If you show me 1 article that defines what you just stated we can consider having the same.BalanceRestored 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forward Caste should be deleted.

There's nothings as such ever present. This is more or less personal belief of Individuals. It has to be deleted. The page is falsely created and it was never mentioned any where. BalanceRestored 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backward Caste

According to the Government of India there should not be any caste based discrimination. Mentioning Backward Caste, when it is Backward Class is a form of discrimination. This article is doing the same, violating the Indian Law. Also, this article does not source any definite source, written by any prominent author hence should be deleted. BalanceRestored 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are created based on Wikipedia notability guidelines. It does not follow Indian law. Article is sourced based on Government surveys, statements by various political leaders including Prime minister and cabinet ministers, sociologists etc. --Indianstar 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please provide valid references with any one among the following stature have written that and is published. Some things that's popularly told about need not be true.BalanceRestored

[edit] Article marked Hoax

This article does not refer any appropriate resource. Again the resource mentioned at the definition is false. This article is fictitiously present. This is not a dictionary term. Not a single author across the globe has ever defined it. All the citations those are present point to a term named "Other Backward Classes" and not backward Caste. Because it violates the India Law that forbids discrimination, If any one would officially define this term, they will be sued/questioned by the law. Hence no one will ever try to define the same. So, kindly consider taking off the articles BalanceRestored 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article has so many references from many columnists, Government surveys, Political leaders including prime minister and opposition leaders using words Forward caste or Upper caste. [1][2][3][4]. No body is claiming that these castes are above others. Article only states that castes other than mentioned in this article are eligible for reservation benefits. Do you think Indian prime minister[5] is creating hoax by calling certain people as Upper caste?. Do you think he is violating Indian constitution? If you have concerns about particular sentences in this article, please mark it as citation needed. If you feel certain sentences needs to be modified then please discuss in talk pages. Let us resolve differences through discussions. --Indianstar 05:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You just referred the following article http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/06/05/stories/2006060504941400.htm . Can you show me the following terms Upper caste or Forward Caste in it? BalanceRestored 06:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/17uplift.htm But I do not again get it. It is not defining Upper Caste or Forward Caste. Kindly find me a definition BalanceRestored 06:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] parliamentofindia.nic.in

The Synopsis section of the website that belongs to the Indian Parliament uses the term "Forward Classes" and not "Forward" or "Upper" Caste. Hence using the term "Caste" is invalid. So, we should bring this page down. Also the terms "Forward Classes" and "Backward Classes" are dynamic. A new page "Forward Classes" needs to be created instead, and this page "Forward Caste" has to be brought down.BalanceRestored 11:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for the representation of OBCs at the website http://ncbc.nic.in/html/guideline.html states, "Castes and communities, having no representation or poor representation in the State Legislative Assembly and/or district-level Panchayati Raj institutions during the ten years preceding the date of the application", So, any caste or community can fall in this category. The list also contains Non Hindu communities.

[edit] Move article to Forward class ?

I think User:BalanceRestored does have a point (if you look past the hyperventilation ... my apologies BR :-) ) that according to Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, National Commission for Backward Classes, as well as Article 340 of the Indian Constitution "Backward classes" and "Forward classes" seems to be the official terminology for what is currently discussed under "Backward caste" and "Forward caste". (The act itself does not define or refer to forward castes or classes, but NCBC's annual report does; see page 42 and 47).
So I suggest that we move the two articles to Forward class and Backward class respectively. Of course, "forward caste" and "backward class" will then be redirects, and the two articles' leads will need to mention that the "caste" term is often used instead of "class"
Any thoughts or objection ? Abecedare 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: The proposed renaming will also bring the article names in line with Other backward class. Also note that the "forward class", "backward class", and OBC categories are created and administered by the Government of India and are not strictly social constructs (although clearly they are based upon the social caste system) so it behooves to give the official terminology somewhat greater weight than the (inconsistent) popular usage. Abecedare 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Government of Indian does not abolish traditional practices, But, this structure is built so that every caste and community gets equal respect in the society. If tomorrow by change there is a big calamity and if communities who are currently not in the list decrease in numbers and representation, the law will help them come back, any one can get in to this category, the highly respected Pandits even can get in to this list if things are vice versa. Please understand, the list is purely mathematical. The current list contains celebrated communities in them. BalanceRestored 05:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It is Ok with me to move article under different name as suggested by BalanceRestored. But I am surprised to see BalanceRestored confidence that Backward class/Forward Class list will get revised based on actual Social/Economical criteria based on Law. Is he away from India for long time?. Logics does not play any role in reservation decisions??. For example, In Tamilnadu people from Agricultural/Industrial castes are always in Backward class list and people from Middle/Lower middle class always appear in Forward class list. It totally depends upon people's voting power not based on social criteria. Law is not followed, it is always tweaked in reservation decisions. --Indianstar 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Every good thing takes its course in due time. Our country was a just born baby after independence. Things where bad, but they are slowly improving. Now, the country has just attained it's youth, already with +20 joining the billionaire list and 1 making it to the top 5. Lot of social and economic updates have been taking place from time to time. I fully understand that there are both bad people and good. But, it is not good closing the door for the good to mature. Good things take time to happen, but when they happen they are permanent. I've seen people complaining about certain sections getting undue advantages. But, often fail to understand who they are. They are all our bothers. I won't like having a brother who is back in his life. If I am in a non Indian country and am being asked what's your country all about. I need to proudly answer "I live in the most perfect country and my country has the most perfect law to stand behind it". Every thing is happening step by step. Have faith in GOD and practice what's being told 100% the way it is only then things will go in a better way. Again ask your self "Can you feed a baby with an Adult food all of a sudden?", No. We will need for the educated community to get to the parliament step by step only then all the things will go in the right direction. We should be satisfied that there's a big number difference in the educated in the early 1950 and 2007. BalanceRestored 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the pages and changed the first sentence to reflect the new article names. Thanks for your inputs. Abecedare 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made the definition keeping in mind the definition of the Other Backward Classes, SC, ST. Other wise due to change in the number of population certain castes will not be called forward. BalanceRestored 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprised to see many Brahmin communities in the OBC list now. So, the list is mathematical as it was observed before. BalanceRestored 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)