There has been much discussion on the origin of the Kayasth caste,
which now occupies a high social position owing to the ability and
industry of its members and their attainment of good positions in
the public services. All indications, however, point to the fact
that the caste has obtained within a comparatively recent period
a great rise in social status, and formerly ranked much lower than
it does now. Dr. Bhattacharya states: [425] "The Kayasths of Bengal
are described in some of the Hindu sacred books as Kshatriyas, but
the majority of the Kayasth clans do not wear the sacred thread, and
admit their status as Sudra also by the observance of mourning for
thirty days. But whether Kshatriya or Sudra, they belong to the upper
layer of Hindu society, and though the higher classes of Brahmans
neither perform their religious ceremonies nor enlist them among
their disciples, yet the gifts of the Kayasths are usually accepted
by the great Pandits of the country without hesitation." There is no
doubt that a hundred years ago the Kayasths of Bengal and Bihar were
commonly looked upon as Sudras. Dr. Buchanan, an excellent observer,
states this several times. In Bihar he says that the Kayasths are the
chief caste who are looked upon by all as pure Sudras and do not reject
the appellation. [426] And again that "Pandits in Gorakhpur insist that
Kayasths are mere Sudras, but on account of their influence included
among gentry (Ashraf). All who have been long settled in the district
live pure and endeavour to elevate themselves; but this has failed
of success as kindred from other countries who still drink liquor
and eat meat come and sit on the same mat with them." [427] Again
he calls the Kayasths the highest Sudras next to Vaidyas. [428] And
"In Bihar the penmen (Kayasthas) are placed next to the Kshatris and
by the Brahmans are considered as illegitimate, to whom the rank of
Sudras has been given, and in general they do not presume to be angry
at this decision, which in Bengal would be highly offensive. [429]
Colebrooke remarks of the caste: "Karana, from a Vaishya by a woman
of the Sudra class, is an attendant on princes or secretary. The
appellation of Kayastha is in general considered as synonymous
with Karana; and accordingly the Karana tribe commonly assumes the
name of Kayastha; but the Kayasthas of Bengal have pretensions to be
considered as true Sudras, which the Jatimala seems to authorise, for
the origin of the Kayastha is there mentioned before the subject of
mixed castes is introduced, immediately after describing the Gopa as
a true Sudra." [430] Similarly Colonel Dalton says: "I believe that
in the present day the Kayasths arrogate to themselves the position
of first among commoners, or first of the Sudras, but their origin
is involved in some mystery. Intelligent Kayasths make no pretension
to be other than Sudras." [431] In his Census Report of the United
Provinces Mr. R. Burn discusses the subject as follows: [432] "On
the authority of these Puranic accounts, and in view of the fact
that the Kayasths observe certain of the Sanskars in the same method
as is prescribed for Kshatriyas, the Pandits of several places have
given formal opinions that the Kayasths are Kshatriyas. On the other
hand, there is not the slightest doubt that the Kayasths are commonly
regarded either as a mixed caste, with some relationship to two if not
three of the twice-born castes, or as Sudras. This is openly stated
in some of the reports, and not a single Hindu who was not a Kayasth
of the many I have personally asked about the matter would admit
privately that the Kayasths are twice-born, and the same opinion
was expressed by Muhammadans, who were in a position to gauge the
ordinary ideas held by Hindus, and are entirely free from prejudice
in the matter. One of the most highly respected orthodox Brahmans in
the Provinces wrote to me confirming this opinion, and at the same
time asked that his name might not be published in connection with
it. The matter has been very minutely examined in a paper sent up
by a member of the Benares committee who came to the conclusion that
while the Kayasths have been declared to be Kshatriyas in the Puranas,
by Pandits, and in several judgments of subordinate courts, and to be
Sudras by Manu and various commentators on him, by public opinion,
and in a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, they are really of
Brahmanical origin. He holds that those who to-day follow literary
occupations are the descendants of Chitragupta by his Brahman and
Kshatriya wives, that the so-called Unaya Kayasths are descended from
Vaishya mothers, and the tailors and cobblers from Sudra mothers. It
is possible to trace to some extent points which have affected public
opinion on this question. The Kayasths themselves admit that in the
past their reputation as hard drinkers was not altogether unmerited,
but they deserve the highest credit for the improvements which have
been effected in this regard. There is also a widespread belief
that the existing general observance by Kayasths of the ceremonies
prescribed for the twice-born castes, especially in the matter of
wearing the sacred thread, is comparatively recent. It is almost
superfluous to add that notwithstanding the theoretical views held
as to their origin and position, Kayasths undoubtedly rank high in
the social scale. All European writers have borne testimony to their
excellence and success in many walks of life, and even before the
commencement of British power many Kayasths occupied high social
positions and enjoyed the confidence of their rulers."