![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
hi, i wonder what will be the state of the nair population after the caste census analysis is undertaken?... any guesses? Vivwiki ( talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm!... I wonder whether it is only marriage with Ezhavas, because i do remember reading a book on inter-caste marriage in India(Mumbai specifically), where it was noted that after Brahmins, Nairs had maximum intercaste marriage (with Marathas, Pathare Prabhus(a Brahmin caste) and Christians. This was in the 60"s... I am sure intercaste marriage among nairs is much more frequent now...but to be optimistic , it is possible that children of mixed marriages are brought up as nairs!....emigration will usually bring down the state figures of nairs, but they could by and large maintain a good number outside the state....anyways it will be a bitter pill to swallow- lesser the nair population, means intercaste marriage with ezhavas etc has led to adopting the other caste, if population has increased especially with a low birth rate like you mentioned, then ther are plenty of "pseudo" nairs around....!anyway we just wait and watch till the census figures are out! Vivwiki ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Vivwiki ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) yes!...i am sure it is the respectablity of the title" nair" which these families wish to use, i dont think many of them, would like to avail the reservation available to them as being dalit/ obc.....as edgar thurston mentioned in his books castes and tribes of southern india... this process of "respectability "has been going on for years, people of many diverse occupations from the neigbouring states of karnataka and tamil nadu have assumed the title nair.... eg i have heard of the very weird sounding name' venkappa nair" from kasargod!... all the same in nair- christian intermmariages( and there are quite a few of them),,,i guess an equal number opt for christianity /bringing up the kids as nairs....this whole process of intercaste marriage is quite dynamic!
no... i dont think the NSS openly supports these groups... but there is nothing to suggest that they are virulently against them either!... by the way you just have to go though matrimonial columns....caste- nair, subsect- maniyani, vaniya etc... so on and so forth...part of the blame is due to a misinformation campaign( maybe campaign is too strong a word) for example in the people of india series.....by the anthropological survey of india , one author mentioned kumar kshatriya and vilkurup as coming under the " nair cluster of castes", this is quite to the contrary!finally such statements are used by these small communities to amalgamate with the larger, more influential community....i guess in north malabar , being a point of immigration from karnataka through kasargod, it is difficult to monitor all this...even the caste status of other castes in those parts is confusing.... my wife is a payyanur poduval and my father in law told me that in kannur- payyanur there are two types of poduvals- one who is a nair, and the other lot claims brahmin lineage( ardhabrahmanas), in south central kerala from where i come, poduval is ambalavasi! one tulu brahmin friend of ours in mangalore went so far as to say>>>."oh!in kerala ,, whoseover is not an ezhava is a nayar!" Vivwiki ( talk) 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
though bunts are closely related to nairs, i think they prefer their own identity, especially as tulu speakers..... it is always difficult to amalgamate a community en masse.....
Vivwiki (
talk)
17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Kalaripayattu was practised by the Ezhava sect --- Chekavars.It was not originally done by Nair community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.214.65 ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
dear all.....how to contact the NSS?... mainly the guys who are in charge of the publications? i tried emailing g s sudhakaran nair, but to no avail?... any help? 218.248.84.90 ( talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Vivwiki ( talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)thanks... mr mannadiar!
bad press about nairs and especially about sambandham has been going about for time immemorial now!certainly there is not even a whimper of protest or clarification from nair groups......sample this line from-Civil and corrupt Asia: images and text in the Itinerario and the ... - Page 28
E. van den Boogaart - 2003
- perhaps a figment of imagination!.... Vivwiki ( talk) 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is to point the veracity of statements in "THEORIES OF ORIGIN" regarding Parasurama and other migration theories. Source of the information is from the book "PRAACHEENA MALAYALAM" authored by SRI.CHATTAMPI SWAMIKAL and published in 1913.
In the conclusion section of the book, Sri.Chattampi Swamikal says as follows:
ഈ ഭൂമി വാസ്തവത്തില് മലയാളി നായന്മാരുടെ വകയാണെന്നും, നായന്മാര് ഉത്കൃഷ്ടകുലജാതന്മാരും നാടുവാഴികളുമാണെന്നും അവര് തങ്ങളുടെ ആര്ജ്ജവശീലവും ധര്മതത്പരതയും കൊണ്ട് സ്വദേശബഹിഷ്ക്രിതന്മാരും പാഷണ്ഡമതഗാമികളുമായ ബ്രാഹ്മണരുടെ വലയില് അകപ്പെട്ട് കാലാന്തരത്തില് കക്ഷി പിരിഞ്ഞിട്ട് ഇങ്ങനെ അകത്തും പുറത്തുമായി താഴ്മയില് കഴിഞ്ഞുപോരുകയാണെന്നുമാണ് ഈ പുസ്തകം സ്ഥാപിക്കാന് ഉദ്യമിക്കുന്നത്.
Translates as follows:
Objective of this book is to substantiate that the region(Kerala) genuinely belongs to Malayali Nairs, Nairs are rulers who are descendants of Elite Clan, and because of their excogitative and jurisprudent nature they are trammeled by a sort of deported and oscitant brahmins which gradually caused their political disassociation and subordinate social status.
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
CONTENTS(CHAPTERS) OF THE BOOK "PRAACHEENA MALAYALAM"
1. അവതാരിക (Introduction)
2. ദാനകാരണനിഷേധം (Denial of the reason of donation of land by Parashurama)
3. മലയാളബ്രാഹ്മണരെ പരശുരാമന് കൊണ്ടുവന്നിട്ടില്ല (Parashurama did not bring Malayalabrahmins)
4. പരശുരാമന് മലയാളഭൂമിയെ ദാനം ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല (Parashurama never donated the land of Kerala)
5. മലയാളഭൂമി ഭാര്ഗവനുള്ളതല്ല (The land of Kerala does not belong to Parashurama)
6. നായന്മാരുടെ സ്ഥാനമാനദാതാക്കള് ഭാര്ഗവനോ ബ്രാഹ്മണരോ അല്ല (Neither Parashurama nor Brahmins have any role in the supreme status of Nairs)
7. നായന്മാരുടെ ഔല്കൃഷ്ട്യവും മലയാള ഭൂമിക്കുള്ള അവരുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥാവകാശവും (Elite status of Nair Clan and their ownership over the land of Kerala)
8. നായന്മാരെപ്പറ്റി ചരിത്രകാലത്തില് വിദേശീയര്ക്കുണ്ടായിട്ടുള്ള അഭിപ്രായങ്ങള് (Impression about Nairs from foreigners in history)
9. ശൂദ്രശബ്ദം (The term Shoodra)
10.ചാതുര്വര്ണ്യം (Four divsions of social status)
11.ചാതുര്വര്ണ്യ ആഭാസവും ബ്രാഹ്മണമതവും (The four divisions fluff and Brahmin's makeup)
12.അനുബന്ധം (Appendix)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
The second part of the book "Praacheena Malayalam" published later proves that namboodiris are the people from nair clan itself, specifically who were not having responsibility over land or military administration and were ready to adhere to the vedic system wherein the majority of original stock of ancient Nairs were reluctant to adapt the vedic system in contrast with kaula and tantric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
The second sentence of the article says: "Before the British conquest in 1792, the Kerala region contained small feudal kingdoms." In real, there was no british lead event happened in Kerala in 1792, meanwhile Tippu Sultan attempted to attack Kerala and was forced to retreat from kerala, and subsequently he got executed by British in the same year. British managed to gain control over the Extreme north regions of Kerala which were under attack by Tippu. Also the territorial regions which were under the rule of Naduvazhis and Desavazhis do not represent feudal kingdoms, they were part of the "most ancient ruling system called Kulasangha Vazhcha (Kautilya has referred this as an efficient ruling system). But of course, the entire frame was facing disintegration from 7th century.
For defeating Tippu, British has made military treatise with Travancore. In 1792, Travancore was not able to provide the military support to British for defeating Tippu. According to the treatise, the above event made a payment due for British from Travancore, it was an one-time payment, but because of the incapable diplomacy, British managed to claim continuity to the payback. In 1930s C.P.Ramaswami Iyer found this and reverted to British governor for making the money resubmitted as it was confiscated out of the interest of treatise.
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
The origin of Nair clan as indigenous southern Naga clan has been discussed in detail in the last section of 'archive 14' with concrete evidences. Also the content which is added to the main Nair article-Theories of Origin contains Archeological and historical evidences as reference along with mythological excerpts. Therefore, the statements which are pointing a migration theory can be removed as they are only assumptions from historians. Statements regarding Parasurama's encounter also is discussed in detail in the 'archive 14' section 'Nairs and Parasuraman' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC) vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Please help ourselves - When search, use all the possibile spellings as nair, nayar, malabar-nairi, zamorin etc. Also the links which are provided are not with single purpose to establish about Nairs. It gives reference that there were very ancient inhabitation in kerala, there were serpent worship in kerala in ancient times, and migration is not the original stock of Nairs. vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
I may cordially invite you to prove that the serpent worshippers were not Nairs. vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Following is the sentence added in article with above mentioned links
"Archaeologically, excavations and studies have provided amble evidences to prove paleolithic inhabitation in Kerala region which date back about 3 lakh years"
and for proving this fact, the above mentioned references were given. Alleging that it is Original Research and the term 'Nair' is not present etc. is not going to prove there was some mal-intention. All antiquities in the world do not say archeological evidence talks about name of caste. It talks about the customs and usages. If serpent worship is present in the evidence, it is nairs who practiced them, they still use to practice the same. If it was an invasion, the invaders would have tried their best to propagate their religion and philosophy. It is evident: Arabian invasion tried this with power, Europian invasion still trying with strategy and tactics. An invader will never accept the defeated land's religion.
Why this fact is important here?
Because there is another version of historic theory that all the Hindu culture in India came from north. With these evidences it is proved that either whole Indian culture is equally old as south or Hindu culture spread from south. That is how our heritage consider East dimension is representing divine powers (DevaLoka) through sun and south direction represents ancestors (PithruLoka) irrespective of caste and clan. vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Following is a sentence from wikipedial vandalism article: You are trying to do this Mr. Chandra
Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful
First allegation came from you that the edit done is original research, then you tried to say reference is incompatible as the term 'Nair' is not present. Now aryan invasion theory is being pulled into the topic. Aryan invasion theory is not at all relevant here. The theory is scientifically proven wrong, authentic evidences you can see from discovery channel or youtube. I am afraid, you are biased and congenial towards European. Your affinity towards Italy, you are not a resident of India etc. also taken into consideration.
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://india.gov.in/knowindia/history_kerala_socio.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Vivwiki ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)hi.... This line " After the Saka or Indo-Scythians invaded India in the 2nd century BC, some Nagas mixed with the Scythians in North India. They adopted matriarchy, polyandry and other Scythian customs.[38]" requires to be deleted as the referred book i.e iyer's social history of dravidians does not contain any such references/ lines.( i have the book!).... if anybody has a difference of opinion they may please notify!.
Vivwiki ( talk) 12:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)good work!... that was very prompt!.. so i think the reference of "social history of dravidians- iyer" may be removed and the above references put instead.
I would like to invite your kind attention to the book written by Sri.Chattampi Swamikal named "Pracheena Malayalam." I request you to go through this book before committing edits according to the view points of historians. Also while I went for searching the origin of Scythians, they have more theories of origin than what Nairs are having. The strongly prevailing theory is that they came to Greek and Iranian land from the middle Asian region which includes India. Also, their chronological dating of theories are younger than that of dravidian archeology.
Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam."
The book is written in Malayalam - Book includes a lot of ancient vatteluthu inscriptions as reference which makes it difficult for an adept translation. Efforts are being put for making it available in English with the help of eminent historians in Thiruvananthapuram, but it would take little more time. The second part of this book also has been found in 2009 from the wife's house of Thachudaya Kaimal, Koodalmanikyam Temple(the only Bharatha temple in India), Irinjalakkuda.
Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam Part 2."
One more point would like to mention is that the names of Eight Great Serpents are as follows in the Bhagavatha purana
अनन्तं वासुकिं शेषं पद्मनाभं च कम्बलम् | शंखपालं धार्तराष्ट्रं तक्षकं कालियं तथा ||
The name Sarkota as 7th in the main article is the name of Scorpion(mentioned in Atharva Veda), that is not a Serpent. In the above verse, names are nine, as Anantha and Shesha are the same - they are called Ashtanagas (Eight great serpents). In Valmiki Ramayanam while Sugreeva describes southern regions to Hanuman, it is mentioned about Pathala, its capital, and Vasuki as the ruler of capital city (Kishkinda Kandam, 41st Sargam, 38th Slokam).
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Kshatriya: a member of the second of the four great Hindu caste. The traditionnal function of a Kshatriya is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime. From Sanskrit Kshatriya, from Kshatra 'rule, authority'. 86.218.62.158 ( talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
For refs concerning Nair-Kshatriya/Rulers/Warriors etc., see above & also the debate with user Sanam001. Talking about Nairs as Shudras is simply ridicoulous. Those who do that are either unskilled or have a biased opinion. 86.218.62.158 ( talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"If Group X labeled the Nair as Shudra, then that is historically significant and should be included." - We have already agreed to that. But Cartick wants to add a Sudra category, which is not possible, as Nair is not a true Sudra caste. Shannon1488 ( talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
this not a great option. but that is fine with me. but if the article has to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, both kshatriya and shudra cats should be include once we make a mention of shudra in the body. -- CarTick ( talk) 03:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It is really cheap to make unilateral changes to an article, when a group of people are actually discussing the issue. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ([[User talk:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar|ta
"Likewise a Nair could approach but not touch a Namburi." - It is already there. What more you want? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ( talk) 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral and accurate language would be something more like "X, Y, and Z social groups believe them to be Kshatriya (footnote), while A, B, and C groups consider them Shudra". Far more important than any ethereal "truth" as to their status is the issue of what others have called them, and what they have called themselves. The measure is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was following what was going here for the past few hours. I'd like to present my opinion about the two new changes in the article.
The article contains a quote allegedly from Barbosa that starts "Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs ..." This is a translation, obviously. I do not have a copy of the edition referred to in the footnotes. but do know that nothing similar appears in translations of the Barbosa work which I have seen. Please can someone scan the relevant page of the cited source & email it to me for verification. If this cannot be done within a reasonable time then I will probably remove the quote because, as I say, it does not match any version which I have seen.
Of course, it may be a translator's note. This is fine, except the introduction to the quote would need to be changed. Either way, I would like to see the relevant page please. - Sitush ( talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
I have just removed the entire section entitled Connection with the Bunts of Tulu Nulu (see this diff).
I initially just fixed obvious errors in a quote, then noted that 50% of the quote was not in fact in the source being quoted. Then noted that another citation only confirmed one sentence rather than a paragraph, that a further citation made no mention of the Bunts ... and so on. Since much of the content was in any case uncited, and quite a bit of it appeared to be original research and synthesis, my conclusion was that this must go for now. I think that it may originally have had some minor purpose and has grown as a consequence of some wild POV-pushing & (probably) more than a few re-writes.
If someone wants to recreate it then that is fine but please do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Sitush ( talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
the word in bold in the first sentence of the lead has two references: one i can not access and the one i can access has the following sentence. "It might perhaps be deduced from the inscription No. IV., that Ushavadata succeeded his father-in-law; for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid Kshatriya (Nairs) ruler;...." That sentence was converted by WP:Original research of the editors from here into Malayala Kshatriya. Google books search of "Malayala Kshatriya" brings out 7 results; none of them says that Nairs are Malayala Kshatriyas. In fact, this book says "In the same way, in Kerala, Malayala Kshatriya chiefs took Nayar wives,..." google scholar search come with one result which is an article based on wikipedia. Thus, the bold sentence with scanty or no evidence in the opening sentence needs to be removed. please feel free to present your evidences and discuss here first if you want to put the word back. -- CarTick ( talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I request all editors except Sitush to refrain from editing the article. Cartick and MatthewVanitas have repeatedly shown disrespect to fellow editors by making one sided edits, even while the discussion was going on. Since Sitush is regarded as neutral by everyone here, let him make the edits if necessary. Shannon1488 ( talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to listen anything we are arguing here? We have posted a large number of references and none of them has been even considered. Our simple questions are not being answered yet. If your view points are the same as that of Cartick, then please make yourself clear here. We have wasted a lot our time trying to put forward our arguments. And it seems none of our posts have even been read by you people. If you agree with Cartick, then there is no use of an argument here. Why we should waste our time? But I am quite sure that you will repent later for supporting a caste fanatic who attacked another community because of jealousy. Shannon1488 ( talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: User:Shannon1488/Sandbox. Shannon1488 ( talk) 16:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
the article is at almost 100% where Cartick wanted it -- the issue is that "where he wanted it" is not at some far end of the spectrum. The two sides are not "definitely Kshatriya" or "definitely Shudra". The point some have been pushing is that the word "Shudra" should appear nowhere in the article, and the word Kshatriya prominent. CarTick's argument has been that since both terms are used in academic/reliable sources, both terms should be used, and any usage of either must be clearly cited (the the removal of Malayalam Kshatriya as not supported by RSs). I fail to see how noting the complexity of the issue makes one side "lose" the argument. Nobody is trying to purge properly cited and contextualised" info noting that the Nair served a military/aristocratic role in many cases, were sometimes described as "Kshatriya" or noted as being a uniquely Dravidian parallel evolution to a similar role. I think the article is moving towards the "middle" of NPOV, and I fail to see how this is a negative trend. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Definition of Kshatriya from Encyclopeadia Britannica:
[2] "The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers." (This detail is very important).
Nair were originally the rulers & martial nobility:
[3] and please see the other refs given.
Though nairs were Kshatriya (rulers, warriors) by occupation, they were considered as Shudra by some of Brahmins (especially Keralla Brahmins), see refs given, i will use one of them.
Rajkris (
talk)
20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone get hold of pages 20-24 of Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair's Kerala State Gazetteer. Volume 2, Part 1 and email it to me, please? Page 22 is the most important one, but I would rather read around it a little. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just read the excellent Fuller source provided by Robbie.Smit, "The internal structure of the Nayar caste". There is far more to be had from this than just some petty point-scoring about kshatriya and it again reinforces my belief that people should read around something that they Google etc rather than just grab a bullet point.
Anyway, Fuller mentions that there were significant differences between the Nairs in the northern and southern regions of what is now Kerala, and that information on the northern Nairs is scanty. This could go some way to explaining some of the contentious points which have been raised here time and again, although I am aware that caste articles in general attract blinkered POV warriors etc even when the information is staring them in the face.
CarTick, you recently added "She admits her knowledge of Travancore region is scanty" in reference to Gough. I am not sure that this is the best phrasing in the world given what Fuller says, but I haven't yet got access Gough. Can you check, please, and perhaps remove the "her" from the sentence if that is appropriate. Leaving it in if it is not appropriate tends to make her appear to be somewhat unreliable (which I know from previous readings, is not the case). - Sitush ( talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nayar marriage is of interest for three main reasons. The first of these is the "definition of
marriage"-there were two ceremonies (the talikettukalyanam and sambandham rite1), rather than one, which could be called "marriage." The second is polyandry, for which the Nayars have been controversial and exemplary from the time of McLennan (1970[1865]) to the present (see, for example, Ramanathan 1979). The third, of particular concern to South Asianists, is inter-varna hypergamy: a custom rarely practiced in the rest of the subcontinent, although allowable
in Hindu scriptures (Manu 1969:402ff.; Tambiah 1973).
do you want me to send you a copy? -- CarTick ( talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
please see this reference. it classifies Nairs into several groups. i am not sure if the reference is reliable.
if it is reliable, it raises the question whether all nairs were in the military and formed the ruling class? -- CarTick ( talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not a Nair and have never edited this page before. But seeing the recent version of the article, all I can say is that it is not balanced and is highly insulting to the Nair community. It would be a good idea to get someone from Kerala (non-Nairs) to give their views on this. Riyaz.Pookoya ( talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nairs are very well known for practising polyandry in the past. i had once attempted to add some information about this and couldnt get anything in except the link Polyandry in India. A simple [ google book search] and google scholar search brings out multiple number of results. due to the abundance of sources that discuss about nair polyandry, i would suggest we add a paragraph about it in the article body (atleast a few sentences) and mention in the lead as well. -- CarTick ( talk) 03:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. By nullifying the consensus (reached after the Admin Innervation in Oct 13, 2010) you are showing your true colors. We asked you first whether you are going to listen to any of our viewpoints. We asked this because many of us work for a living unlike Dalits like Cartick who live off the money which government gives to him. I work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week and whatever contributions I made to Wikipedia was from my spare time. If I knew you would ignore all of our viewpoints, I'd have stopped this the first day itself. And don't forget to start the Polyandry among Nairs yourself. At least you can show Cartick that you are also capable of taking the lead in insulting the Nair community, rather than playing second fiddle. I congratulate you for your shrewdness. You never showed off your affection towards Cartick, and this made some of us believe that you may be neutral. And I congratulate Cartick for his hard work. Even earlier he tried on more than 10 occasions to destroy this article. After 18 months of hard work, it is paying off finally. Like Napoleon Bonaparte said:"There is nothing called impossible in my dictionary". But I don't have much to say about Matthew Vannitas. He has neither the skill nor the talent to do something like this, if he is alone. I couldn't find any positive qualities in him. This is my final day in Wikipedia and I am never going to visit again until all three of you die. Since other users like Shannon has already quit because of your bullying and harassment, I think now your triad is free to add whatever you wish to add on this article and other articles which are related to Nairs. And finally, one small request to you. If you are banning me, give me 5 mins. I want one final post in the ANI thread which I've started. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
oh. sorry to hear about that. hope it is a manageable problem. thanks for the compliment. i still wanna add some information about how the practice came into existence and why it disappeared, i am looking for an academic consensus on this. we will see. i guess the biggest problem is availability of resources and people being unable to understand and appreciate WP:NPOV policy in its right spirit. -- CarTick ( talk) 12:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please can someone let me know the relevant page number(s) in this old book by Shungoonny where it refers to the Kula-Sangha-Vazhcha ruling system. I cannot spot it but it may be a transliteration issue. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Robbie.Smith has just posted on my talk page that:
Of the neutral sources, atleast 5 supports it (Logan, Gough, Fuller, Panikkar & Thurston) and only one opposes it. And you still changed it to "Some" commentators. This is the exact quote: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions" Robbie.Smit ( talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am moving it here. My response is:
Some commentators have concluded that the Keralite kshatriyas were "super-eminent" subdivisions of the Nairs is quite confusing to me. does it mean there were other subdivisions and what about them? it lacks context without that information. -- CarTick ( talk) 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
i see the note you added about "shortage of women", which is interesting. but, what strikes me as even more interesting is that all the Brahmin kids, not being allowed to marry with brahmins but only with nairs and the kids becoming nairs, must have impacted the brahmin population. -- CarTick ( talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Urmi-Payattu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
the summary in the lead about kshatriya/shurda can be contextualised with various subcastes and their professions. -- CarTick ( talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't go too mad using Panikkar. The writings of a caste member whom we know had an axe to grind and did his stuff nearly 100 years ago do not really make the grade. Handy for some points, but not to base entire sections on. IMO. - Sitush ( talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
this article started by me — which was later modified by POV warriors to fit their message — need some reworking and summary of it belongs to this article as well. -- CarTick ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Superstitious beliefs" sounds a bit subjective, and a bit demeaning. Is that truly the standard word for this type of section, or can we maybe find something a bit more neutral? Or is it that "superstitious" just sounds more negative in my dialect of English, but is more neutral in Indian or British English? Just wanting to avoid any appearance of "picking on" the Nair by making their cultural beliefs sound silly of backward, as opposed to just interesting views of the paranormal. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
for cicisbeism (e.g. Gait in Census 1911, India: 239), Chandu Menon (G. O. M. 1891, Encl. C:10). this is all i could get; i cant access the bibliography section of the book. the book says "few writers" and then refer to only one reference, therefore it may not be a bad idea to remove the sentence. -- CarTick ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
i am not complaining we are making the mistake but we should be careful not to confuse the readers with the past and present. most of what is in the article is about the past, which is the case with most of the indian castes. the present status of most of the indian castes is pretty boring from an academical standpoint; the unique practices (like polyandry) that some castes were known for have mostly disappeared. -- CarTick ( talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
see this interesting conversation i had with a "new" user here. -- CarTick ( talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The list of references provided should deem it fit for this cartick to consider finding a better place or even, a better job. Rather than on the subject, which is very clear and well referenced and argued by Chandrakantha, this page should be framed and put up for display for future editors to refrain from assuming good faith in cartick's edits. What is he trying to say with his new section, recruitment? I wouldn't find it surprising when the stream of IPs do turn up, for personal motives of such editors should be made public and be dealt with appropriate coverage in all sources of media. One would find it wise enough to ignore his edits/ interruptions summarily. Rather than taking this as a personal attack, cartick, consider this as my earnest advice for your concern. Your interruption has resulted in this page ending up in total mess, making no sense. Such a high importance page for India bites the dust! I should ask, aren't there good volunteers in the India project page to take over this page? Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Suresh might take his own time. There should be no problem for the cart user with his resuming his contributions later WP:CIRCUS. Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Robbie.Smit has for some weeks insisted on adding original research regarding the status of the royal lineages, using Srinivas as his evidence. He has misread Srinivas, whose views (including about the varna system in the area) are already documented at Nair#Subgroups & now include a citation to the same exact source that he referred to. Should he be reverted one more time, and then revert back himself, then he'll be on a block. I have warned him about this. - Sitush ( talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to argue anything to your gang of three. It is a waste of time. Your only aim seems to be to paint Nairs as Sudra, removing all the references we have put saying any sort of silly excuse. Let me see if someone neutral comes here. Don't threaten me with blocks. Because you operate in a gang of three, you can easily intimidate users like me and win edit wars. I hope admins will notice this. Robbie.Smit ( talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The article says that every Nair family "will have a serpent grove". I find this hard to believe and think that it may be a grammatical error, being intended to refer to the historic tharavadu communal units of extended family which no longer exist. So, "would have had a serpent grove". Can someone confirm this statement, and indeed supply the citations requested for many other assertions regarding serpent worship etc. If not then I'll delete it for now - it can always be added back if/when something does turn up. - Sitush ( talk) 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Nairs are known as the Nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descent. The serpent is worshipped as guardian of the clan among Nair families. Every tharavadu and/or major family will have a serpent grove in the compound/estate of the family. In present days, almost 90% of the temples in Kerala have serpent deities worshipped inside.[citation needed]
According to Hindu mythology, Nairs are the descendants of Serpent Anantha and Vasuki. Nagas are described as the sons of Kadru and Surasa who were the wives of Kashyapa. Kadrujas migrated to the Southern part of the Indian subcontinent and Surasajas remained in the North.[citation needed]
This book is a good ref, i will add it: [6]please read pages 303 to 312; for instance this: "Nayar chiefs and Nayar soldiers are first mentioned in three copperplate inscriptions, tentatively dated late seventh, mid-eighth, and early ninth centuries.... All these districts were famous Nayar chiefdoms in the later periods and persisted until the eighteenth century. The plates suggest that Nayar chiefs with private armies had emerged as vassals of the Perumals at least by the ninth century. By the mid-thirteenth century, at the latest, the greater Nayar chiefs had become independant small kings,..." page 303). Thank you. Rajkris ( talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
it may fit the definition but we, wikipedia editors trying to define it, is original research. text book case. -- CarTick ( talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link I was searching for the last 10 mins. The Nayars alone had in former times the right to bear arms and every Nayar youth left his family to join a local military and gymnastic school where he was for several years instructed in the use of sword, bow and lance. - Habitat, Economy and Society.
Your blatant misinterpretation of the sources is not surprising, as you are also threatening other editors with fake warnings and wiki policies. You want to paint that "some" Nairs "once" fought battle for "someone". The traditional duty of the Nair caste was fighting (if you know anything about caste system, then every caste in India has some traditional occupation). In Kerala, Nairs were the only ones recruited as soldiers, no other caste members had the right to be in the army. Out of the 160+ kings, almost all of them, except for three Brahmins were Nairs. Also your statement - "ownership of cattle was the most common reason for fighting back then, but the book in question doesn't mention that" shows extreme bias. I'd like to ask from where you get this idea. You are getting more and more shameless in showing off your bias. If you read Travancore Manual, the details and reasons for the battles are given there. Well, I had lost hope in you earlier also, and I'd request other editors take up the matter in ANI if they don't want to turn this page to some third rate hate-speech and propaganda filled mesh. Shannon1488 ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
First off, there is no "organised set" of people here; you're referring to several of us as an "organised set" simply because we all three are applying WP standards, which is the only real commonality we have. We don't accuse everyone disagreeing with us as being some conspiracy, so please extend the same courtesy. Additionally, your use of the word "defame" is telling; so covering an extensively-documented practice is "defaming" simply because you don't like it being talked about? And your idea of restoring balance is to cherry-pick references to build up the best possible image of a group, including pretty clear synthesis/OR making logical leaps not supported by reliable references? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 13:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How do you propose to "save" this article, at whatever point Sitush falls off the planet? Might I surmise that to "save" this article you intend to remove large portions of fully-cited text (particularly those that you feel reflect negatively on the Nair, or which do not look "proper" to modern morals), and to introduce "everybody knows this" text which you feel require no citation, and also happen to illustrate how outstanding and special the Nair are, and require no citation? If your intent differs from this, I'd be very curious to hear it. In all seriousness, if you want to start working on a draft of a post-Sitush Nair article on your userspace, I for one would be interested in seeing how your interpretation of the Nair issue differs. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
hi, i wonder what will be the state of the nair population after the caste census analysis is undertaken?... any guesses? Vivwiki ( talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm!... I wonder whether it is only marriage with Ezhavas, because i do remember reading a book on inter-caste marriage in India(Mumbai specifically), where it was noted that after Brahmins, Nairs had maximum intercaste marriage (with Marathas, Pathare Prabhus(a Brahmin caste) and Christians. This was in the 60"s... I am sure intercaste marriage among nairs is much more frequent now...but to be optimistic , it is possible that children of mixed marriages are brought up as nairs!....emigration will usually bring down the state figures of nairs, but they could by and large maintain a good number outside the state....anyways it will be a bitter pill to swallow- lesser the nair population, means intercaste marriage with ezhavas etc has led to adopting the other caste, if population has increased especially with a low birth rate like you mentioned, then ther are plenty of "pseudo" nairs around....!anyway we just wait and watch till the census figures are out! Vivwiki ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Vivwiki ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) yes!...i am sure it is the respectablity of the title" nair" which these families wish to use, i dont think many of them, would like to avail the reservation available to them as being dalit/ obc.....as edgar thurston mentioned in his books castes and tribes of southern india... this process of "respectability "has been going on for years, people of many diverse occupations from the neigbouring states of karnataka and tamil nadu have assumed the title nair.... eg i have heard of the very weird sounding name' venkappa nair" from kasargod!... all the same in nair- christian intermmariages( and there are quite a few of them),,,i guess an equal number opt for christianity /bringing up the kids as nairs....this whole process of intercaste marriage is quite dynamic!
no... i dont think the NSS openly supports these groups... but there is nothing to suggest that they are virulently against them either!... by the way you just have to go though matrimonial columns....caste- nair, subsect- maniyani, vaniya etc... so on and so forth...part of the blame is due to a misinformation campaign( maybe campaign is too strong a word) for example in the people of india series.....by the anthropological survey of india , one author mentioned kumar kshatriya and vilkurup as coming under the " nair cluster of castes", this is quite to the contrary!finally such statements are used by these small communities to amalgamate with the larger, more influential community....i guess in north malabar , being a point of immigration from karnataka through kasargod, it is difficult to monitor all this...even the caste status of other castes in those parts is confusing.... my wife is a payyanur poduval and my father in law told me that in kannur- payyanur there are two types of poduvals- one who is a nair, and the other lot claims brahmin lineage( ardhabrahmanas), in south central kerala from where i come, poduval is ambalavasi! one tulu brahmin friend of ours in mangalore went so far as to say>>>."oh!in kerala ,, whoseover is not an ezhava is a nayar!" Vivwiki ( talk) 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
though bunts are closely related to nairs, i think they prefer their own identity, especially as tulu speakers..... it is always difficult to amalgamate a community en masse.....
Vivwiki (
talk)
17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Kalaripayattu was practised by the Ezhava sect --- Chekavars.It was not originally done by Nair community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.214.65 ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
dear all.....how to contact the NSS?... mainly the guys who are in charge of the publications? i tried emailing g s sudhakaran nair, but to no avail?... any help? 218.248.84.90 ( talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Vivwiki ( talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)thanks... mr mannadiar!
bad press about nairs and especially about sambandham has been going about for time immemorial now!certainly there is not even a whimper of protest or clarification from nair groups......sample this line from-Civil and corrupt Asia: images and text in the Itinerario and the ... - Page 28
E. van den Boogaart - 2003
- perhaps a figment of imagination!.... Vivwiki ( talk) 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is to point the veracity of statements in "THEORIES OF ORIGIN" regarding Parasurama and other migration theories. Source of the information is from the book "PRAACHEENA MALAYALAM" authored by SRI.CHATTAMPI SWAMIKAL and published in 1913.
In the conclusion section of the book, Sri.Chattampi Swamikal says as follows:
ഈ ഭൂമി വാസ്തവത്തില് മലയാളി നായന്മാരുടെ വകയാണെന്നും, നായന്മാര് ഉത്കൃഷ്ടകുലജാതന്മാരും നാടുവാഴികളുമാണെന്നും അവര് തങ്ങളുടെ ആര്ജ്ജവശീലവും ധര്മതത്പരതയും കൊണ്ട് സ്വദേശബഹിഷ്ക്രിതന്മാരും പാഷണ്ഡമതഗാമികളുമായ ബ്രാഹ്മണരുടെ വലയില് അകപ്പെട്ട് കാലാന്തരത്തില് കക്ഷി പിരിഞ്ഞിട്ട് ഇങ്ങനെ അകത്തും പുറത്തുമായി താഴ്മയില് കഴിഞ്ഞുപോരുകയാണെന്നുമാണ് ഈ പുസ്തകം സ്ഥാപിക്കാന് ഉദ്യമിക്കുന്നത്.
Translates as follows:
Objective of this book is to substantiate that the region(Kerala) genuinely belongs to Malayali Nairs, Nairs are rulers who are descendants of Elite Clan, and because of their excogitative and jurisprudent nature they are trammeled by a sort of deported and oscitant brahmins which gradually caused their political disassociation and subordinate social status.
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
CONTENTS(CHAPTERS) OF THE BOOK "PRAACHEENA MALAYALAM"
1. അവതാരിക (Introduction)
2. ദാനകാരണനിഷേധം (Denial of the reason of donation of land by Parashurama)
3. മലയാളബ്രാഹ്മണരെ പരശുരാമന് കൊണ്ടുവന്നിട്ടില്ല (Parashurama did not bring Malayalabrahmins)
4. പരശുരാമന് മലയാളഭൂമിയെ ദാനം ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല (Parashurama never donated the land of Kerala)
5. മലയാളഭൂമി ഭാര്ഗവനുള്ളതല്ല (The land of Kerala does not belong to Parashurama)
6. നായന്മാരുടെ സ്ഥാനമാനദാതാക്കള് ഭാര്ഗവനോ ബ്രാഹ്മണരോ അല്ല (Neither Parashurama nor Brahmins have any role in the supreme status of Nairs)
7. നായന്മാരുടെ ഔല്കൃഷ്ട്യവും മലയാള ഭൂമിക്കുള്ള അവരുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥാവകാശവും (Elite status of Nair Clan and their ownership over the land of Kerala)
8. നായന്മാരെപ്പറ്റി ചരിത്രകാലത്തില് വിദേശീയര്ക്കുണ്ടായിട്ടുള്ള അഭിപ്രായങ്ങള് (Impression about Nairs from foreigners in history)
9. ശൂദ്രശബ്ദം (The term Shoodra)
10.ചാതുര്വര്ണ്യം (Four divsions of social status)
11.ചാതുര്വര്ണ്യ ആഭാസവും ബ്രാഹ്മണമതവും (The four divisions fluff and Brahmin's makeup)
12.അനുബന്ധം (Appendix)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
The second part of the book "Praacheena Malayalam" published later proves that namboodiris are the people from nair clan itself, specifically who were not having responsibility over land or military administration and were ready to adhere to the vedic system wherein the majority of original stock of ancient Nairs were reluctant to adapt the vedic system in contrast with kaula and tantric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
The second sentence of the article says: "Before the British conquest in 1792, the Kerala region contained small feudal kingdoms." In real, there was no british lead event happened in Kerala in 1792, meanwhile Tippu Sultan attempted to attack Kerala and was forced to retreat from kerala, and subsequently he got executed by British in the same year. British managed to gain control over the Extreme north regions of Kerala which were under attack by Tippu. Also the territorial regions which were under the rule of Naduvazhis and Desavazhis do not represent feudal kingdoms, they were part of the "most ancient ruling system called Kulasangha Vazhcha (Kautilya has referred this as an efficient ruling system). But of course, the entire frame was facing disintegration from 7th century.
For defeating Tippu, British has made military treatise with Travancore. In 1792, Travancore was not able to provide the military support to British for defeating Tippu. According to the treatise, the above event made a payment due for British from Travancore, it was an one-time payment, but because of the incapable diplomacy, British managed to claim continuity to the payback. In 1930s C.P.Ramaswami Iyer found this and reverted to British governor for making the money resubmitted as it was confiscated out of the interest of treatise.
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
The origin of Nair clan as indigenous southern Naga clan has been discussed in detail in the last section of 'archive 14' with concrete evidences. Also the content which is added to the main Nair article-Theories of Origin contains Archeological and historical evidences as reference along with mythological excerpts. Therefore, the statements which are pointing a migration theory can be removed as they are only assumptions from historians. Statements regarding Parasurama's encounter also is discussed in detail in the 'archive 14' section 'Nairs and Parasuraman' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC) vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Please help ourselves - When search, use all the possibile spellings as nair, nayar, malabar-nairi, zamorin etc. Also the links which are provided are not with single purpose to establish about Nairs. It gives reference that there were very ancient inhabitation in kerala, there were serpent worship in kerala in ancient times, and migration is not the original stock of Nairs. vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
I may cordially invite you to prove that the serpent worshippers were not Nairs. vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Following is the sentence added in article with above mentioned links
"Archaeologically, excavations and studies have provided amble evidences to prove paleolithic inhabitation in Kerala region which date back about 3 lakh years"
and for proving this fact, the above mentioned references were given. Alleging that it is Original Research and the term 'Nair' is not present etc. is not going to prove there was some mal-intention. All antiquities in the world do not say archeological evidence talks about name of caste. It talks about the customs and usages. If serpent worship is present in the evidence, it is nairs who practiced them, they still use to practice the same. If it was an invasion, the invaders would have tried their best to propagate their religion and philosophy. It is evident: Arabian invasion tried this with power, Europian invasion still trying with strategy and tactics. An invader will never accept the defeated land's religion.
Why this fact is important here?
Because there is another version of historic theory that all the Hindu culture in India came from north. With these evidences it is proved that either whole Indian culture is equally old as south or Hindu culture spread from south. That is how our heritage consider East dimension is representing divine powers (DevaLoka) through sun and south direction represents ancestors (PithruLoka) irrespective of caste and clan. vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Following is a sentence from wikipedial vandalism article: You are trying to do this Mr. Chandra
Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful
First allegation came from you that the edit done is original research, then you tried to say reference is incompatible as the term 'Nair' is not present. Now aryan invasion theory is being pulled into the topic. Aryan invasion theory is not at all relevant here. The theory is scientifically proven wrong, authentic evidences you can see from discovery channel or youtube. I am afraid, you are biased and congenial towards European. Your affinity towards Italy, you are not a resident of India etc. also taken into consideration.
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://india.gov.in/knowindia/history_kerala_socio.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Vivwiki ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)hi.... This line " After the Saka or Indo-Scythians invaded India in the 2nd century BC, some Nagas mixed with the Scythians in North India. They adopted matriarchy, polyandry and other Scythian customs.[38]" requires to be deleted as the referred book i.e iyer's social history of dravidians does not contain any such references/ lines.( i have the book!).... if anybody has a difference of opinion they may please notify!.
Vivwiki ( talk) 12:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)good work!... that was very prompt!.. so i think the reference of "social history of dravidians- iyer" may be removed and the above references put instead.
I would like to invite your kind attention to the book written by Sri.Chattampi Swamikal named "Pracheena Malayalam." I request you to go through this book before committing edits according to the view points of historians. Also while I went for searching the origin of Scythians, they have more theories of origin than what Nairs are having. The strongly prevailing theory is that they came to Greek and Iranian land from the middle Asian region which includes India. Also, their chronological dating of theories are younger than that of dravidian archeology.
Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam."
The book is written in Malayalam - Book includes a lot of ancient vatteluthu inscriptions as reference which makes it difficult for an adept translation. Efforts are being put for making it available in English with the help of eminent historians in Thiruvananthapuram, but it would take little more time. The second part of this book also has been found in 2009 from the wife's house of Thachudaya Kaimal, Koodalmanikyam Temple(the only Bharatha temple in India), Irinjalakkuda.
Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam Part 2."
One more point would like to mention is that the names of Eight Great Serpents are as follows in the Bhagavatha purana
अनन्तं वासुकिं शेषं पद्मनाभं च कम्बलम् | शंखपालं धार्तराष्ट्रं तक्षकं कालियं तथा ||
The name Sarkota as 7th in the main article is the name of Scorpion(mentioned in Atharva Veda), that is not a Serpent. In the above verse, names are nine, as Anantha and Shesha are the same - they are called Ashtanagas (Eight great serpents). In Valmiki Ramayanam while Sugreeva describes southern regions to Hanuman, it is mentioned about Pathala, its capital, and Vasuki as the ruler of capital city (Kishkinda Kandam, 41st Sargam, 38th Slokam).
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
Kshatriya: a member of the second of the four great Hindu caste. The traditionnal function of a Kshatriya is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime. From Sanskrit Kshatriya, from Kshatra 'rule, authority'. 86.218.62.158 ( talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
For refs concerning Nair-Kshatriya/Rulers/Warriors etc., see above & also the debate with user Sanam001. Talking about Nairs as Shudras is simply ridicoulous. Those who do that are either unskilled or have a biased opinion. 86.218.62.158 ( talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"If Group X labeled the Nair as Shudra, then that is historically significant and should be included." - We have already agreed to that. But Cartick wants to add a Sudra category, which is not possible, as Nair is not a true Sudra caste. Shannon1488 ( talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
this not a great option. but that is fine with me. but if the article has to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, both kshatriya and shudra cats should be include once we make a mention of shudra in the body. -- CarTick ( talk) 03:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It is really cheap to make unilateral changes to an article, when a group of people are actually discussing the issue. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ([[User talk:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar|ta
"Likewise a Nair could approach but not touch a Namburi." - It is already there. What more you want? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ( talk) 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral and accurate language would be something more like "X, Y, and Z social groups believe them to be Kshatriya (footnote), while A, B, and C groups consider them Shudra". Far more important than any ethereal "truth" as to their status is the issue of what others have called them, and what they have called themselves. The measure is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was following what was going here for the past few hours. I'd like to present my opinion about the two new changes in the article.
The article contains a quote allegedly from Barbosa that starts "Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs ..." This is a translation, obviously. I do not have a copy of the edition referred to in the footnotes. but do know that nothing similar appears in translations of the Barbosa work which I have seen. Please can someone scan the relevant page of the cited source & email it to me for verification. If this cannot be done within a reasonable time then I will probably remove the quote because, as I say, it does not match any version which I have seen.
Of course, it may be a translator's note. This is fine, except the introduction to the quote would need to be changed. Either way, I would like to see the relevant page please. - Sitush ( talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
vekramaditya ( talk · contribs)
I have just removed the entire section entitled Connection with the Bunts of Tulu Nulu (see this diff).
I initially just fixed obvious errors in a quote, then noted that 50% of the quote was not in fact in the source being quoted. Then noted that another citation only confirmed one sentence rather than a paragraph, that a further citation made no mention of the Bunts ... and so on. Since much of the content was in any case uncited, and quite a bit of it appeared to be original research and synthesis, my conclusion was that this must go for now. I think that it may originally have had some minor purpose and has grown as a consequence of some wild POV-pushing & (probably) more than a few re-writes.
If someone wants to recreate it then that is fine but please do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Sitush ( talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
the word in bold in the first sentence of the lead has two references: one i can not access and the one i can access has the following sentence. "It might perhaps be deduced from the inscription No. IV., that Ushavadata succeeded his father-in-law; for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid Kshatriya (Nairs) ruler;...." That sentence was converted by WP:Original research of the editors from here into Malayala Kshatriya. Google books search of "Malayala Kshatriya" brings out 7 results; none of them says that Nairs are Malayala Kshatriyas. In fact, this book says "In the same way, in Kerala, Malayala Kshatriya chiefs took Nayar wives,..." google scholar search come with one result which is an article based on wikipedia. Thus, the bold sentence with scanty or no evidence in the opening sentence needs to be removed. please feel free to present your evidences and discuss here first if you want to put the word back. -- CarTick ( talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I request all editors except Sitush to refrain from editing the article. Cartick and MatthewVanitas have repeatedly shown disrespect to fellow editors by making one sided edits, even while the discussion was going on. Since Sitush is regarded as neutral by everyone here, let him make the edits if necessary. Shannon1488 ( talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to listen anything we are arguing here? We have posted a large number of references and none of them has been even considered. Our simple questions are not being answered yet. If your view points are the same as that of Cartick, then please make yourself clear here. We have wasted a lot our time trying to put forward our arguments. And it seems none of our posts have even been read by you people. If you agree with Cartick, then there is no use of an argument here. Why we should waste our time? But I am quite sure that you will repent later for supporting a caste fanatic who attacked another community because of jealousy. Shannon1488 ( talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: User:Shannon1488/Sandbox. Shannon1488 ( talk) 16:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
the article is at almost 100% where Cartick wanted it -- the issue is that "where he wanted it" is not at some far end of the spectrum. The two sides are not "definitely Kshatriya" or "definitely Shudra". The point some have been pushing is that the word "Shudra" should appear nowhere in the article, and the word Kshatriya prominent. CarTick's argument has been that since both terms are used in academic/reliable sources, both terms should be used, and any usage of either must be clearly cited (the the removal of Malayalam Kshatriya as not supported by RSs). I fail to see how noting the complexity of the issue makes one side "lose" the argument. Nobody is trying to purge properly cited and contextualised" info noting that the Nair served a military/aristocratic role in many cases, were sometimes described as "Kshatriya" or noted as being a uniquely Dravidian parallel evolution to a similar role. I think the article is moving towards the "middle" of NPOV, and I fail to see how this is a negative trend. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Definition of Kshatriya from Encyclopeadia Britannica:
[2] "The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers." (This detail is very important).
Nair were originally the rulers & martial nobility:
[3] and please see the other refs given.
Though nairs were Kshatriya (rulers, warriors) by occupation, they were considered as Shudra by some of Brahmins (especially Keralla Brahmins), see refs given, i will use one of them.
Rajkris (
talk)
20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone get hold of pages 20-24 of Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair's Kerala State Gazetteer. Volume 2, Part 1 and email it to me, please? Page 22 is the most important one, but I would rather read around it a little. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just read the excellent Fuller source provided by Robbie.Smit, "The internal structure of the Nayar caste". There is far more to be had from this than just some petty point-scoring about kshatriya and it again reinforces my belief that people should read around something that they Google etc rather than just grab a bullet point.
Anyway, Fuller mentions that there were significant differences between the Nairs in the northern and southern regions of what is now Kerala, and that information on the northern Nairs is scanty. This could go some way to explaining some of the contentious points which have been raised here time and again, although I am aware that caste articles in general attract blinkered POV warriors etc even when the information is staring them in the face.
CarTick, you recently added "She admits her knowledge of Travancore region is scanty" in reference to Gough. I am not sure that this is the best phrasing in the world given what Fuller says, but I haven't yet got access Gough. Can you check, please, and perhaps remove the "her" from the sentence if that is appropriate. Leaving it in if it is not appropriate tends to make her appear to be somewhat unreliable (which I know from previous readings, is not the case). - Sitush ( talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nayar marriage is of interest for three main reasons. The first of these is the "definition of
marriage"-there were two ceremonies (the talikettukalyanam and sambandham rite1), rather than one, which could be called "marriage." The second is polyandry, for which the Nayars have been controversial and exemplary from the time of McLennan (1970[1865]) to the present (see, for example, Ramanathan 1979). The third, of particular concern to South Asianists, is inter-varna hypergamy: a custom rarely practiced in the rest of the subcontinent, although allowable
in Hindu scriptures (Manu 1969:402ff.; Tambiah 1973).
do you want me to send you a copy? -- CarTick ( talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
please see this reference. it classifies Nairs into several groups. i am not sure if the reference is reliable.
if it is reliable, it raises the question whether all nairs were in the military and formed the ruling class? -- CarTick ( talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not a Nair and have never edited this page before. But seeing the recent version of the article, all I can say is that it is not balanced and is highly insulting to the Nair community. It would be a good idea to get someone from Kerala (non-Nairs) to give their views on this. Riyaz.Pookoya ( talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nairs are very well known for practising polyandry in the past. i had once attempted to add some information about this and couldnt get anything in except the link Polyandry in India. A simple [ google book search] and google scholar search brings out multiple number of results. due to the abundance of sources that discuss about nair polyandry, i would suggest we add a paragraph about it in the article body (atleast a few sentences) and mention in the lead as well. -- CarTick ( talk) 03:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. By nullifying the consensus (reached after the Admin Innervation in Oct 13, 2010) you are showing your true colors. We asked you first whether you are going to listen to any of our viewpoints. We asked this because many of us work for a living unlike Dalits like Cartick who live off the money which government gives to him. I work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week and whatever contributions I made to Wikipedia was from my spare time. If I knew you would ignore all of our viewpoints, I'd have stopped this the first day itself. And don't forget to start the Polyandry among Nairs yourself. At least you can show Cartick that you are also capable of taking the lead in insulting the Nair community, rather than playing second fiddle. I congratulate you for your shrewdness. You never showed off your affection towards Cartick, and this made some of us believe that you may be neutral. And I congratulate Cartick for his hard work. Even earlier he tried on more than 10 occasions to destroy this article. After 18 months of hard work, it is paying off finally. Like Napoleon Bonaparte said:"There is nothing called impossible in my dictionary". But I don't have much to say about Matthew Vannitas. He has neither the skill nor the talent to do something like this, if he is alone. I couldn't find any positive qualities in him. This is my final day in Wikipedia and I am never going to visit again until all three of you die. Since other users like Shannon has already quit because of your bullying and harassment, I think now your triad is free to add whatever you wish to add on this article and other articles which are related to Nairs. And finally, one small request to you. If you are banning me, give me 5 mins. I want one final post in the ANI thread which I've started. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
oh. sorry to hear about that. hope it is a manageable problem. thanks for the compliment. i still wanna add some information about how the practice came into existence and why it disappeared, i am looking for an academic consensus on this. we will see. i guess the biggest problem is availability of resources and people being unable to understand and appreciate WP:NPOV policy in its right spirit. -- CarTick ( talk) 12:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please can someone let me know the relevant page number(s) in this old book by Shungoonny where it refers to the Kula-Sangha-Vazhcha ruling system. I cannot spot it but it may be a transliteration issue. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Robbie.Smith has just posted on my talk page that:
Of the neutral sources, atleast 5 supports it (Logan, Gough, Fuller, Panikkar & Thurston) and only one opposes it. And you still changed it to "Some" commentators. This is the exact quote: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions" Robbie.Smit ( talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am moving it here. My response is:
Some commentators have concluded that the Keralite kshatriyas were "super-eminent" subdivisions of the Nairs is quite confusing to me. does it mean there were other subdivisions and what about them? it lacks context without that information. -- CarTick ( talk) 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
i see the note you added about "shortage of women", which is interesting. but, what strikes me as even more interesting is that all the Brahmin kids, not being allowed to marry with brahmins but only with nairs and the kids becoming nairs, must have impacted the brahmin population. -- CarTick ( talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Urmi-Payattu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
the summary in the lead about kshatriya/shurda can be contextualised with various subcastes and their professions. -- CarTick ( talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't go too mad using Panikkar. The writings of a caste member whom we know had an axe to grind and did his stuff nearly 100 years ago do not really make the grade. Handy for some points, but not to base entire sections on. IMO. - Sitush ( talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
this article started by me — which was later modified by POV warriors to fit their message — need some reworking and summary of it belongs to this article as well. -- CarTick ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Superstitious beliefs" sounds a bit subjective, and a bit demeaning. Is that truly the standard word for this type of section, or can we maybe find something a bit more neutral? Or is it that "superstitious" just sounds more negative in my dialect of English, but is more neutral in Indian or British English? Just wanting to avoid any appearance of "picking on" the Nair by making their cultural beliefs sound silly of backward, as opposed to just interesting views of the paranormal. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
for cicisbeism (e.g. Gait in Census 1911, India: 239), Chandu Menon (G. O. M. 1891, Encl. C:10). this is all i could get; i cant access the bibliography section of the book. the book says "few writers" and then refer to only one reference, therefore it may not be a bad idea to remove the sentence. -- CarTick ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
i am not complaining we are making the mistake but we should be careful not to confuse the readers with the past and present. most of what is in the article is about the past, which is the case with most of the indian castes. the present status of most of the indian castes is pretty boring from an academical standpoint; the unique practices (like polyandry) that some castes were known for have mostly disappeared. -- CarTick ( talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
see this interesting conversation i had with a "new" user here. -- CarTick ( talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The list of references provided should deem it fit for this cartick to consider finding a better place or even, a better job. Rather than on the subject, which is very clear and well referenced and argued by Chandrakantha, this page should be framed and put up for display for future editors to refrain from assuming good faith in cartick's edits. What is he trying to say with his new section, recruitment? I wouldn't find it surprising when the stream of IPs do turn up, for personal motives of such editors should be made public and be dealt with appropriate coverage in all sources of media. One would find it wise enough to ignore his edits/ interruptions summarily. Rather than taking this as a personal attack, cartick, consider this as my earnest advice for your concern. Your interruption has resulted in this page ending up in total mess, making no sense. Such a high importance page for India bites the dust! I should ask, aren't there good volunteers in the India project page to take over this page? Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Suresh might take his own time. There should be no problem for the cart user with his resuming his contributions later WP:CIRCUS. Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Robbie.Smit has for some weeks insisted on adding original research regarding the status of the royal lineages, using Srinivas as his evidence. He has misread Srinivas, whose views (including about the varna system in the area) are already documented at Nair#Subgroups & now include a citation to the same exact source that he referred to. Should he be reverted one more time, and then revert back himself, then he'll be on a block. I have warned him about this. - Sitush ( talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to argue anything to your gang of three. It is a waste of time. Your only aim seems to be to paint Nairs as Sudra, removing all the references we have put saying any sort of silly excuse. Let me see if someone neutral comes here. Don't threaten me with blocks. Because you operate in a gang of three, you can easily intimidate users like me and win edit wars. I hope admins will notice this. Robbie.Smit ( talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The article says that every Nair family "will have a serpent grove". I find this hard to believe and think that it may be a grammatical error, being intended to refer to the historic tharavadu communal units of extended family which no longer exist. So, "would have had a serpent grove". Can someone confirm this statement, and indeed supply the citations requested for many other assertions regarding serpent worship etc. If not then I'll delete it for now - it can always be added back if/when something does turn up. - Sitush ( talk) 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Nairs are known as the Nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descent. The serpent is worshipped as guardian of the clan among Nair families. Every tharavadu and/or major family will have a serpent grove in the compound/estate of the family. In present days, almost 90% of the temples in Kerala have serpent deities worshipped inside.[citation needed]
According to Hindu mythology, Nairs are the descendants of Serpent Anantha and Vasuki. Nagas are described as the sons of Kadru and Surasa who were the wives of Kashyapa. Kadrujas migrated to the Southern part of the Indian subcontinent and Surasajas remained in the North.[citation needed]
This book is a good ref, i will add it: [6]please read pages 303 to 312; for instance this: "Nayar chiefs and Nayar soldiers are first mentioned in three copperplate inscriptions, tentatively dated late seventh, mid-eighth, and early ninth centuries.... All these districts were famous Nayar chiefdoms in the later periods and persisted until the eighteenth century. The plates suggest that Nayar chiefs with private armies had emerged as vassals of the Perumals at least by the ninth century. By the mid-thirteenth century, at the latest, the greater Nayar chiefs had become independant small kings,..." page 303). Thank you. Rajkris ( talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
it may fit the definition but we, wikipedia editors trying to define it, is original research. text book case. -- CarTick ( talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link I was searching for the last 10 mins. The Nayars alone had in former times the right to bear arms and every Nayar youth left his family to join a local military and gymnastic school where he was for several years instructed in the use of sword, bow and lance. - Habitat, Economy and Society.
Your blatant misinterpretation of the sources is not surprising, as you are also threatening other editors with fake warnings and wiki policies. You want to paint that "some" Nairs "once" fought battle for "someone". The traditional duty of the Nair caste was fighting (if you know anything about caste system, then every caste in India has some traditional occupation). In Kerala, Nairs were the only ones recruited as soldiers, no other caste members had the right to be in the army. Out of the 160+ kings, almost all of them, except for three Brahmins were Nairs. Also your statement - "ownership of cattle was the most common reason for fighting back then, but the book in question doesn't mention that" shows extreme bias. I'd like to ask from where you get this idea. You are getting more and more shameless in showing off your bias. If you read Travancore Manual, the details and reasons for the battles are given there. Well, I had lost hope in you earlier also, and I'd request other editors take up the matter in ANI if they don't want to turn this page to some third rate hate-speech and propaganda filled mesh. Shannon1488 ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
First off, there is no "organised set" of people here; you're referring to several of us as an "organised set" simply because we all three are applying WP standards, which is the only real commonality we have. We don't accuse everyone disagreeing with us as being some conspiracy, so please extend the same courtesy. Additionally, your use of the word "defame" is telling; so covering an extensively-documented practice is "defaming" simply because you don't like it being talked about? And your idea of restoring balance is to cherry-pick references to build up the best possible image of a group, including pretty clear synthesis/OR making logical leaps not supported by reliable references? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 13:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How do you propose to "save" this article, at whatever point Sitush falls off the planet? Might I surmise that to "save" this article you intend to remove large portions of fully-cited text (particularly those that you feel reflect negatively on the Nair, or which do not look "proper" to modern morals), and to introduce "everybody knows this" text which you feel require no citation, and also happen to illustrate how outstanding and special the Nair are, and require no citation? If your intent differs from this, I'd be very curious to hear it. In all seriousness, if you want to start working on a draft of a post-Sitush Nair article on your userspace, I for one would be interested in seeing how your interpretation of the Nair issue differs. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)