Talk:Komati (caste)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Andhra Pradesh Low‑importance 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in February 2013.

The contents of the Arya Vaishya page were merged into Komati (caste) on 15 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

References show the Komatis don't only belong west Godavari district but are present throughout central and south India, can't find references that show other wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:25D6:B20A:E8F8:D474:8CFA:5C55 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

If these are not acceptable please advise! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWiki (talk • contribs)

@

WP:HISTRS for this purpose. Finally, when a talk page discussion has been initiated, you should not reinstate the edits until that discussion is concluded and consensus reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Per a request from WiseWiki I looked at their sources and removed the ones that were obviously non-RS. I have no opinion on the content, this is not an area I know anything about. The request and my reply can be found on my talk page [1].

  @WiseWiki you must properly source all content on Wikipedia per the rules that have been linked to here and on my talk page. "[J]ust putting facts as is" is not acceptable here at Wikipedia. If you can not point to a reliable source to back up a statement the statement should not be in Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 00:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jbhunley. Can you check the first reference too, which is a web site of a Jaina Samaj (Jain Society) claiming that Komatis used to be Jains? - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web sites are not generally considered RS for historical claims. See

WP:HISTRS for what is acceptable. A good rule of thumb is to stick to papers from well established accademic journals and books from major university presses. Stay away from web sites, press material, blogs, wikis etc. those types of sources will never be accepted in contravercial subject areas like this. Jbh^Talk 01:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks like the text linked to on that site is from an article written by an academic and published elsewhere but not by a university press. I do not know the material or the involved scholars at all so I can not say whether this person's view is significant, controversial or both. Jbh^Talk 19:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jbulney. Very good observation, which I had missed. As I mentioned below, the views the academic author can be stated with in-line attribution. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley @Kautilya Users are putting content to other communities for some vested reason that could only incite hatred, please review, also Ko-mati having the meaning fox-minded is mentioned in the same references cited by Kautilya the link is as below.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=53qCQY5VzvsC&pg=PT487&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false - — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWiki (talk • contribs)

@WiseWiki: You really need to start signing your posts! Also, can you put your responses below the posts where the issues are raised?

You are right that this source mentions the "fox-mindedness" which I didn't notice earlier. Note, however, that the full statement is: "The caste have, however, a great reputation for cunning and astuteness, and hence have arisen the popular derivations of ko-mati, fox-minded, and go-mati, cow-minded. The real meaning of the word is obscure." So, this is apparently a "popular derivation" done by people that think Komatis have "cunning and astuteness," but the author is disassociating himself with the derivation. This is not the kind of information we should be including in an encyclopedia. Moreover, I have no idea how "ko-" is supposed to mean fox. This is clearly a folk etymology that has no linguistic validity. I should also point out the

WP:OR involved in selective cherry picking you have done with your edit. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kautilya I will sign them going forward, I did check the reference and the same is mentioned in the book, however my only concern is its importance to this article. It does mention incidents about a court proceedings during British times that happened in Madras in the 18th century. What is the need to mention an incident that finds mention during British era where Balijas were aligned to Komati and these individuals had issues. What is the purpose of mentioning this in the article. Will it not create dissent or unnecessary hatred between communities. Wikipedia should be a source of information and not a source that could incite hatred and that is precisely the reason why I suggest removing those hate inciteful texts. Does it help the article? in what way? Lets discuss. --WiseWik (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia simply reports the information contained in reliable sources. We don't make judgements like what you are alluding to. There is a huge amount of literature regarding the trading communities that the British worked with and the conflicts they had to mediate. We should summarise whatever information they provide in a neutral way. We don't censor or cover up information. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dwarakanath Gupta book currently cited to justify the alternative name "Gomati" does not appear to be a reliable source. The book is copyrighted by the author rather than a publisher, which is often an indication that the publisher is not taking responsibility to it. The same author in another, apparently more authentic, work [2] attributes it to Edgar Thurston, who in turn just documented the traditions of the castes. That is the British Raj era and has no currency in the modern scholarship. Nobody has said that the name "Gomati" is actually used. The Komatis just claim that that is where their name comes from. So, I think this is not supported in scholarly consensus and should be removed. (In fact, I don't find anything in the recent edits that is worth keeping. This is just filling up the article with hearsay.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya

I found further information by esteemed research scholars which is also referenced in the article and mentioning the same as per the below. It is explicitly mentioned that "his word is derived from the word 'Gomathi' which means the followers of Gomatheswar."

Author : By Professor G. V. Subrahmanyam, Professor of Telugu, University of Hyderabad, Central University, P. O. Hyderabad - 500 0134. Article Source : Book "Rishabh Saurabh" Published on the occasion of Seminar on "Jaina Heritage of Karnataka, held at Bangalore ( Organised by Rishabh Dev Foundation, Delhi ) on 4th & 5th April 1994" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the link to the book as per the below.

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Rishabh_Saurabh_Souvenir.html?id=quNXMwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conferences organised by religious sects etc are rarely reliable for history. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If an academic scholar makes the claim, we can state it suitably attributed to him as per

WP:BIASED. But it should not be stated as a fact unless there is scholarly consensus about it. (Personally, I think the two sound changes Go > Ko and thi > ti involved here are extremely unlikely. But it is a theory.) @WiseWiki: please provide a quote from the paper you mentioned. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kautilya - Corrected edits that gives undue importance to only one theory proposed by Edgar Thurstan and RV Russel. You yourself have said " this attributes it to Edgar Thurston, who in turn just documented the traditions of the castes. That is the British Raj era and has no currency in the modern scholarship" Why should this view be SUPPORTED or given any importance here? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.53.252 (talk • contribs)

Problems with WiseWiki's second round of edits reverted here:

• These edits put the Jainism theory at the front and weight it more. But this is just a theory as far as I am concerned. The traditions speak of tending to cows. There are a lot of sources that say this, e.g., [3]. This book [4] says it was a designation given by Shiva. So, I am not sure that the Jainism theory should be overweighted.
• The first statement in the edited version is unsourced.
• A reference to Hanumantha Rao has been added. A search on Google Books shows no hits for "Jainism." Please provide a quote to support the content.
• I couldn't find a mention of fox-mindedness in any of the cited sources.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@122.167.53.252: If you are going to be engaging in extensive debates here, it would be best to register an account. And please remember to sign your posts.

I didn't give importance to any particular theory. I have put all of them in chronological order. The point of Thurston and Russell is not that they have any historical validity, but rather that they record the community traditions, which are indeed important. Scholars may accept them or reject them, depending on the evidence, but it is not our job to do so. Unless you produce a reliable source that disproves or contests the traditional account, it needs to stay. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted view is that the Komati is a derivation from the word Gommata and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to use Gomathi as the possessor of Cows and look deliberate since the references cited also mention Ko-mati as fox minded which for some reason not mentioned on purpose in the article.

Also there is a deliberate attempt probably to fan intolerance between communities and hence references are given to Balijas a different community and Tamil speaking Beri merchants. Does it require any mention here and what purpose does it bring other than to confuse or spread hate between communities? I am removing the same for that reason.

If you want these to be mentioned please let Wiki know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WiseWiki: I reverted your edits along with comments and questions here [5]. You should not be reinstating the edits without discussing these issues first. Secondly, the idea of "fanning intolerance" has no validity. Whether my content is a fair and accurate representation of the cited reliable sources is what matters. Please point to the edits where you think that is not the case. At this point you are edit-warring. Please note that ARBIPA sanctions are in effect for this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya @Jbhunley and all the esteemed editors and readers of Wikipedia - Kautilya, the edits to the article is as per the reference cited and have given comments for every edit mentioning the same. Request you to please check them before removing the edits.

1. As per the edits I have only reinstated what is mentioned as per the references cited. Why is the same being reverted would this not be called edit warring? and rather the privileges of such editors be revoked here? And again why is sourced content being modified here. I have clearly mentioned the reference as well as the reason for the edit in the edit summary for all my edits under the heading "Edit Summary".
2. The reference cites Komatis to be present in Maharashtra and will repaste the same reference that you yourself have sourced and cited
3. (BTW looks deliberate as there is inclusion of minor incidents that reference to riots and other inciteful content between communities which serve no informative purpose here)
   • To further reason, why should any incident involving another community that occurred during the British Era in a particular time limited to George Town which is nothing but a nook and corner incident, even find mention here?
4. and again I have only included only the sourced content from the same reference provided then why is it removed and pasted in bits? as if to incite people or communities further?
   • I checked further and found these to be included by user Kautilya and is of surprise to me here as I didn't expect this from Wikipedia editors as I held user Kautilya in good esteem.
5. Again it clearly mentions riots happened when business contracts alluded Komatis and Balijia Naidus who were first to riot with Beri Chettiars which forced the British to apportion commercial and residential areas of George Town.
6. My edit cites the same here below is the reference" [6] Mines, Mattison (1992), "Individuality and Achievement in South Indian Social History", Modern Asian Studies 26 (1): 129–156, JSTOR 312720
7. Also finally let's not discredit the origins of Gomathi for the alternate origins mentioned by authors during British times and exclude the importance of contemporary authors and keep both of them. Mentioning Gomathi as "one theory" seems to discredit the same, hence I have mentioned both the accepted and alternate theory about British authors during the Raj. I also checked further information and also found that the Author is from the same community and hence it's of obvious credence. Also the same that the word Komati to have its origins in Gomathi is mentioned in government journals which cannot be rubbished away.

Regards,

--WiseWik (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)WiseWik — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs)

@

WP:BRD, whereby when an edit is reverted, the issues should be discussed on the talk page, and further edits should be made only after consensus is reached. I mentioned 4 issues when I reverted your "second round of edits" on 9 February. I believe you have addressed only one of them (fox-mindedness reference), and the other three are still outstanding. I recall that Utcursch intervened and added compromise wording stating that the Jainism theory is "one theory" [7]

. He clearly explained in his edit summary that there were other theories, and this should not be mentioned as if it were a fact. Nevertheless, you have since reinstated your preferred wording multiple times. This is edit-warring.

I am glad that you are reading the sources and finding accurate information. However, your edits continue to push a particular POV, e.g., the mention of the Balijas as being the "first" to riot in British Madras. My wording never identified either Balijas or other communities as being responsible for anything. I believe that kind of detail is

WP:UNDUE in this article. All that is needed is that there was competition between communities for trading privileges. More detail on the competition would be welcome, but not on rioting. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

1.You earlier said the British era records don't have much credence and yet seem to push forward the Britsh Authors view that during the British era that Gomati to be derived from fox minded and or owning cows. -- --WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When we discuss castes, the traditions that the communities hold are important. We should not state the traditions as facts. But that the fact that the community believes in a particular tradition is fine. Those beliefs could in fact be true, or may be false. We simply don't know. That is for the historians to analyse.

You also need to pay more attention to the detail. "Owning cows" is the community's tradition. "Fox-mindedness" is something others believed about them (and probably invented for themselves). We need to attribute the beliefs correctly.

As for British era, we discount any history that the British era scholars proposed. But the recording of traditions are fine, unless they are outrageous in some way. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to say cherry picking is right? Rather we can remove the both the Gomati - cow minded and Ko-Mati fox minded here. --WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followers of Jainism

2.Followers of Jainism are still present in south and central India and many are strict vegetarian and follow Ahimsa, I do agree that after the absorption into Vedic Caste System as Vaishyas (third caste below Kshatriyas and Bramhins) the Vaishnavaite and Kalinga Komatis are allowed to consume non-vegetarian food. The existence of Jainism and the customs and traditions of Ahimsa and following strict Vegetarianism all clearly point to Jainism. For being a Vaishya as per the Vedic Caste system, Ahimsa and practice of strict Vegetarianism for Vaishyas is not a rule and many Vaishya castes like Balijas, Nagartha do consume non vegetarian food much similar to the Bramhin castes of Konkan, Kashmir, Punjab, Bengal and other parts of India. Gommateshwara is also present in South India the same is documented and presented in the references cited. though it's obvious Commiti and Gommata are synonymous the alternate versions given by the Britsh finds mention in the article. --WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about vegetarianism etc. constitutes

WP:OR. If you have reliable sources that present evidence that Komatis practised Jainism either now or sometime in the past, please feel free to add it. I only see the Andhra scholars speculating that Komatis must have been Jains because there was Jainism in Andhra. They haven't shown any evidence to make the connection. They haven't even shown any Komati traditions that claim that Komatis were Jains. Moreover, since we know that Gomat meant wealthy dating back to the Rigvedic times (see the separate section below), there are other possible interpretations that these scholars don't seem to have considered. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Reliable references are already mentioned in the article and references of Jaina Komatis and will try to provide few more as I come across the same. The reference to Jain Samaj is already provided also I will reference the presence of Ahimsa a Jain Philosophy as well as existence of Strict Vegetarianism amongst some sections of Komatis. The references are obvious Dwaraknath Gupta is himself a Jaina Komati and he has published books on his community clearly mentioning Jain practices and the usage of Gomati and Komati synoymously. The authors views need to be given more credence than yours, mine or any other random editors here. --WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gomati is believed

3.With regard to edit warring I have mentioned "Gomati is believed to be derived from" though it's Jain origins are glaringly visible. If we have to only mention this findings then the Gomathi to be derived from fox minded or owning cows could well be removed since you yourself have mentioned how Ko mati means fox minded? and to be incorrect in sanskrit, so does owning cows seems to be incorrect as well. Mathi means mind and Go does mean Cow no body would use cow minded in common parlence. Cow minded and owning cows are two different things anyways. Cows are also owned by castes that are Shudra or Bramhins and hence not exclusive that since they owned cows. Many shepherds own cows hence that logic of the British seems way too illogical. --WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is too much

WP:WEASEL wording. You need to state who believes it. Generic "is believed" can only be used when there is scholarly consensus. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Yes the referenes are cited or should we believe the name of this Indian community mentioned by the British as cow minded or fox minded? --WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

4. With regards to edit warring I checked the History of edits and there is no edit from user "Utcursch" you can check the same. Also when the article is about Komati community it was only your edits that included content of other communities and riots which are not some major incident like the holocaust of Jews which should find mention in the article related to Jews but some nook and corner incidents which involved some other community the Balija Naidus and Beeri Chettiayrs during the British Era which was mediated and settled by the British. (anyways the divide and rule policy of the British is an open secret which people with vested interests in India follow to this day). --WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a link to the diff of the Utcursch edit. Please check it. Utcursch is a senior editor and an admin. You should not be reverting his edit willy-nilly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the edit history there is no user by name Utcursch, if his edits are sensible then I dont see a need to remove his edits. --WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an origin section is needed because the komatis are wont to state that they are not dravidians and that they are Aryans. Amarark001 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balija Naidus instigating riots

5. I have clearly given references where its clearly mentioned that Balija Naidus were the first to instigate and riot against the Beri Chettiars and since you did not mention the conclusion given in the references that the british were able to settle the issue amicably by resettling the communities I did add them. Your edits give the view that Balijas and Beeri Chettiars continue to riot and an unending rivalry between them exists.

7. You mention POV but the references clearly cite Balija Naidus were the first to instigate and riot against the beri Chettiars. Below is the reference for the same mentioned in the article. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=imh4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=komati+caste&source=bl&ots=UPEt8nWzsh&sig=dLRi4_vSSASbrRCjU_mZ3_EZoEY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialpWjjIHLAhUGcI4KHRXAAFA4ChDoAQg_MAc#v=onepage&q=komati&f=false -- WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reference says that the 1652 riot was initiated by the Balija merchants and the 1707 riot was initiated by the Komati merchants. No connection is mentioned between the two riots. They were more than 50 years apart! But it is implied that Balijas and Komatis might have been allied in both the riots because they formed the `right-hand' division. But all this is immaterial. Since I am holding that the details of the riots are irrelevant to this article, none of these should be mentioned. If you think the riots should be covered, please state your case. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly mentioned the first riots occured and were instigated by Balija Naidus in 1652 against the beri chettiars which followed with involvement of other communites any ways I do COMPLETELY agree with you and are absolutely right in removing references to riots and have requested the same from you. Lets find references to trade guilds and place them in the article as I do understand such trade guilds and the competitive environment will be a good read on Wikipedia and of some value rather than riots and refences to other communites not pertaining to this article.--WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra

6. Also the references cited by you clearly mention Maharashtra and you have removed the same multiple times when I added them? what is the reason for the same? if you need I can show reference on your revision history where you have committed edit warring several times. Request you to please go through the references in more detail and not only pick selective bits of information. --WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't notice Maharashtra in the source earlier. No problem with including it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)] Thank you that there is agreement here and no worries on the oversight! --WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riots in general

8.I do agree competition between trade guilds is fine but not between communities or castes as well as riots and we can remove the article with references to Beri Chettiars and Balija Naidus and all the inciteful content on rioting and how the british were able to solve the disputes of their rioting subjects in India's colonial past! --WiseWik (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any mention of "trade guilds" in the source, but castes are prominently mentioned. So I don't understand this point. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC) h discussion on point 7 --WiseWik (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wealth is frequently computed in heads of cattle and in this the cow has a special status. The gomat is the man of wealth."[1] So, assuming the "Gomati → Komati" derivation, it seems that no fancy derivation via Jainism is necessary. In the Vedic language, Gomati would just mean wealthy people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Did check the book published by Thapar and it does find mention of Go-mat as man of Cow for the people of the Ganga Valley in mid first millennium BC. Komatis are found in Central and South India hence this title as Cow Man is not related to the article on Komati Community. It mentions unit of wealth measured in Cattle by the people of Ganga Valley in first millennium Before Christ and also existence of Buddhism and Jainism. Do you have a reference where I could further read into the book? The reference you provided only shows the words, Jainism, Buddhism and Kuru Kingdom all its and bits of information to better understand context here? -- WiseWik (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave here the precise wording of Romila Thapar: The gomat is the man of wealth. She is not saying "cattle-wealth." Rather she is saying that wealth was measured in terms of cows. The term was used even if cows were not at issue. See here for an example [8]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the reference and there is no reference to Komati community and South India since the Komatis are primarily present in south and central India rather the book speaks about people of the Ganges Valley in the first millennium before Christ. What has this got to do with the Gommata/Commity/Komti community of south and central India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWik (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also further the book has five pages with references to Jainism and 45 references to Buddhism and entirely about people of the Ganges valley Its also titled "From lineage to state: social formations in the mid-first millennium B.C. in the Ganga Valley" as far as Wikipedia is concerned Ganges Valley is in a completely different geographical region than south and Central India. Komati is a river in south Africa so the references you cited and trying to connect the dots is saying man came from africa hence all Indians are Africans it doesnt work that way? If you have references in that book regarding Komatis of south and central India please reference them. I didnt find any reference to Komati but 5 references of Jainism in the book. --WiseWik (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really concerned about the addition yesterday of the Beri Komati group. The source is appalling - look at the phrasing and spelling mistakes, eg: here, and note that the mention of the Beri Komati people is literally just their name in a list. It doesn't even say they are related to the Komati - that is just our assumption based on the name. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, actually it is published by Quillsink and specifically says that the views are those of the author only. Quillsink is a vanity press. I am removing it. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin section is needed Amarark001 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a caste has an origin? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, this user has been adding content that's not supported by his source. Can you please look into this. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users Sharkslayer87 and Nikh Nori especially and other editors. Is there any references cited which mention Telangana? Please show these references?? 223.231.159.164 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]