Apart from some very common surnames like Tripathi, Dwivedi, Gowda, Reddy, etc. it's going to be very hard to learn to associate names with castes. Each state and each region has its own traits, which don't translate across that region. For example, my state, Karnataka, has a handful of regions of its own. I can sometimes tell that a person is from south coastal KA or north KA, but as for caste, I'd have no clue.

Here's a list of Members of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_17th_Lo... The ones with names like Yadav and Singh are pretty obvious. But scroll to southern states, and the exercise gets practically impossible.

> Each state and each region has its own traits

This is indeed the only way to go about the task. Go state by state and learn about names/surnames. You'll see a pattern emerging.

> Singh are pretty obvious

Among others, Singh is used by Rajputs, Yadavs, Brahmins. That is without even going into Sikhs of all castes.

> How can I learn more about which names belong to which class?

Any name that is overtly Sanskrit in origin and invokes some Hindu god(dess) is a tell-tale of upper-caste origin. Sometimes the name embeds the caste itself. This rule works across the North-South divide in India.

North Indian examples: Dwi/Tri/Chaturvedi, Bharadvaj, Mukherji, Chatterji, Bandhopadhyay, Bhattacharya

South Indian examples: Iyer, Iyengar, Rao, Murthy, Murali, Srinivasan, Vasudevan, etc.

Generalising such rules you either end up getting into tangled mess of argument similar to sibling thread or it'll be too generic to be of any use or worse.

So no, please don't do it by North/South India etc., You go state by state and learn about common upper class surnames. To pick a Maharashtra sized hole in your rule, how would you categorise Chitpavan brahmin's surnames? Godbole, Phadke, Godse etc., don't even trace their origin to Sanskrit.

This is so hilariously wrong. On multiple levels.

How about elaborating on what is wrong, instead of merely saying so?

Furthermore, are you claiming that a Bhattacharya or an Iyengar is not of an upper caste, or that their first/surnames are not explicitly Sanskrit in origin?

I don't claim to generalise—there are always exceptions to the rule.

Let's see:

- Iyengar is not of Sanskrit origin. On the other hand the unambiguously Dalit surname Chamar is.

- First names are dictated more by fashion than by caste. And the names of deities are used across castes. The idea that first names are markers of caste will sound patently absurd to anyone living in India.

- Rao and Murthy are used across castes. No South Indian will mistake them for caste markers.

> I don't claim to generalise

Really? Because "is a tell-tale of upper-caste origin" and "This rule works across the North-South divide in India" sound like generalizations to me.

Do you really think propagating these misconceptions is productive?

> - Iyengar is not of Sanskrit origin. On the other hand the unambiguously Dalit surname Chamar is.

You are cherry-picking examples from my list to prove a point.

Furthermore, the etymology of 'Iyengar' is contested, and possibly cognate to the Sanskrit 'ārya'.

Perhaps I should clarify: there are always exceptions to the rule. However, I resolutely assert that Sanskrit-derived first and last names are markers of upper-caste ancestry. Yes, there are people of lower-caste with Sanskrit-derived names, and there are people with Dravidian/tribal names from so-called higher castes. That said, the latter is a highly unlikely combination.

> You are cherry-picking examples from my list to prove a point.

I am pointing out that the generalizations you made don't even hold in the small examples that you came up with.

> I resolutely assert that Sanskrit-derived first and last names are markers of upper-caste ancestry.

and

> there are people of lower-caste with Sanskrit-derived names

These both can't be true.

> Dravidian/tribal names

I don't understand this bizzare conflation of Dravidian with tribal. What does tribal even mean in this context?