Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Personal attacks using profane language and racist comments against me by Venki123

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) abuses and threatens me in various ways if I don't share his POV. His usual method of intimidation is by using a mixture of profane words and racist attacks by explicitly referring to my skin color when he absolutely has no idea of my physical traits.

1. [2], ".. this group's ancestors were convinced about the superiority of the brahmins and thought getting white skin was more important.."

2. [3], "..that women of his group were used as concubines by the brahmins in the temples as his ancestors were convinced about the superiority of the brahmins and thought getting white skin was more important than being cuckolded. He also follows the same thought praising the superiority of Brahmins.."

3. [4], "..Reposting for TMSV Propaganda editor User:mudaliar.."

4. Slandering across multiple unrelated articles without any proofs: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

5. [27]: "..you are worth less than shit you bastard of brahmin.."

6. slanders me without reason when talking to Admin Durova ( talk · contribs): [28]: "..Regarding article Mudaliar this rogue editor vandal:Mudaliar.."

7. slanders me while talking to admin Dina ( talk · contribs): [29]: "..I personally think he is mentally unstable and suffers from some psychological wounds from his childhood.."

8. once gain makes racial attacks regarding my skin color while talking to Dina ( talk · contribs): [30], [31]: "..his ancestors were convinced about the superiority of the brahmins and thought getting white skin was more important than being cuckolded. He also follows the same thought praising the superiority .."

Mudaliar 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Attacks against the community/ other editors and intimidation using profane words

1. Venki123 ( talk · contribs) intimidates other editors by using a mixture of profane language and starts abusing the community as a whole if other editors share a different POV. [32], "..TMSV Propaganda editors Read this..First of all, everybody in Tamilnadu knows that TMSV Mudaliar had close association with Brahmins and sent their wives as concubines to Brahmins and many of you are possibly bastard children of Brahmins.."

2. Intimidation and racist attacks across articles.. [33]

3. Slandering and abusing multiple editors on the talk pages across unrelated articles without any proofs under the false pretext of RFC: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

4. Clear proof where Venki123 ( talk · contribs) intimidates another editor when the other editor does not seem to share the same POV as Venki123 ( talk · contribs). Note the subject line. [56], "..Share your opinion about KKV, TMV and TMSV because I am still willing to consider you as an individual and not just a bastard of brahmin.."

5. racial attack on the community without any proofs in Mudaliar article page: [57], ".. this group's ancestors were convinced about the superiority of the brahmins and thought getting white skin was more important .."

Mudaliar 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Vandalism and other Disruptive Behavior by Venki123

1. [58]: has blanked entire talk page and posts of other editors and replaced it with a couple of lines of his own.

2. [59]: has been blocked multiple times for constantly edit warring on various articles.

3. [60], [61], [62], blanking and deleting the posts of other editors and research papers, proofs and evidences from talk page.

4. [63], [64] deleting randomly from article page

Academic References to prove that Mudaliar is the surname of Tondaimandala Vellala

Claim: Mudaliar is a title and originally the surname of Tondaimandala Vellalars, a caste/ clan in South India. Its a feudal title like Baron, Count etc., Mudaliyar is synonymous with the land owning gentry and feudal caste of Tondaimandala Vellalas as you will see below. There are ample proofs for this assertion. I have given a few below. Note that the research has been done by authors from the US, UK, India etc. Tondaimandala Vellala includes many subcastes but that is not the issue here.

The Mudaliar article page clearly says that Mudaliar is the title and surname of "Tondaimandala Vellalars" which is exactly what the following references clearly prove.

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is attempting to create a question of ambiguity and divert this discussion by saying that Tondaimandala Vellala exclusively refers to Kondaikatti Vellala which is clearly incorrect as there are a number of subcastes within the caste Tondaimandala Vellalars. But this is not the issue here. Other castes like Kaikolar etc., who are officially classified as a backward caste by Government of India [65], [66] have started using the Mudaliyar surname for the sake of social upliftment in the society. This process in the Indian society is called Sanskritisation. This is analogous to European commoners adding Baron/ Duke/ Viscount etc. to their names and claiming to be of aristocratic birth. The Kaikolar/ Sengunthar have been officially classified as a backward caste for the low status in the Indian society. For example see how this non profit organisation clearly lists the Kaikolar as "Unreached people of South Asia" [67]. I have given ample academic reference below to prove the identity and status of Kaikolar/ Sengunthar group.

References

1)Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895., By Eugene F. Irschick, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994., direct web reference: [68] Quoted from book: "Mudali is the shortened form of "Mudaliyar", the surname of all Tondaimandala vellalas. "Mudaliyār"—a term that literally meant a person of first rank."

2)Spectres of Agrarian Territory in Southern India By David Ludden, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 233-257 (2002) [69] (free link)might work: [70]: Quoted from source: "A basic similarity is however symbolized in the specialization of central Tambraparni settlements. Tirunelveli was a temple town, endowed with rich Brahman agraharam communities, and a capital ruled by Pandya Vellala and Tondaimandalam Vellala elites under the Nayakas...Tondaimandalam Vellalas (Mudaliyars) and Brahmans were central figures in wide commercial networks of textile trades, primary product markets, and taxation.": Note the way the article refers to Tondaimandala Vellalas as Mudaliyars and uses the term "Mudaliyar" interchangeably with the Tondaimandala Vellala.

3)Order and Disorder in Colonial South India By Eugene F. Irschick, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1989), pp. 459-492, [71]

4)Castes & Tribes of South India - ET.Thurston, VII 361, [72]. Edgar Thurston was a British Officer in Colonial India and was the curator of the Indian Museum of History, Madras, India for a long time after Indian Independence.

5) Vellalas By by Dr.Kanam Sankara Pillai: [73]: Quoted from article: .."Mudaliars and Reddiars of Thontaimantalam (Chengalpet & North Arcot Dists)....The first layer consists of Saiva Vellalars (Saiva Mudaliars and Pillais). They are vegetarian, literate and sophisticated like Brahmins except priestly duties but also were major landowners, feudal lords and powerful like Rajputs or Thakurs of Northern India.."

6) Lionel Place, 1799 Report, para. 59. “Mudali” is the shortened form of “Mudaliyar,” the surname of all Tondaimandala vellalas. This is quoted from Lionel Place's (an English Officer and Gentleman in the Colonial India) report to the British East India Company This literature is from 1799. Also quoted in: [74]

7)Urban is as Urban Does: The Tirunelveli Kattabomman District c. 1823 By David Ludden, University of Pennsylvania, [75] : Quoted from source:"But migrations in the post‑medie­val period brought Smarta Telugus into the region in political alliance and residential association with immigrant Vellalas --Tondaimandalam Mudaliars"

Mudaliar 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Clear proof that there were subcastes in Tondaimandala Vellalars

1. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895., By Eugene F. Irschick, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994., direct web reference: [76]

Quoted from book:Another essential aspect of the project was the recognition that members of the Tondaimandala vellala subcastes considered themselves to be the original agricultural settlers of the area.

The above quote clearly proves that there were other subcastes within Tondaimandala Vellalars apart from Kondaikatti Vellalars.

2. The author clearly uses both terms Tondaimandala Vellalars and Kondaikatti Vellalar for just this very reason because there were subcastes within Tondaimandala Vellalars and the Kondaikatti Vellalars were just another subcaste of the Tondaimandala Vellalars.

Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895., By Eugene F. Irschick, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994., direct web reference: [77] Quoted from book: "Mudali is the shortened form of "Mudaliyar", the surname of all Tondaimandala vellalas. "Mudaliyār"—a term that literally meant a person of first rank."

Mudaliar 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Academic References to prove the Identity of Kaikolars and that Kaikolar Devadasis are an offshoot of the former

The Kaikolars also called as Sengunthar, are a large Tamil and Telugu caste of weavers in the states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh in southern India. They are originally weavers and were soldiers during the Chola empire. They consider the different parts of the loom to represent various gods and sages. Traditionally, atleast one girl in every family was dedicated to temple service and becomes a Devadasi(meaning female servant of god). In the temple, the girl is considered married to the temple deity but in practice becomes a prostitute, especially to the Brahmans and she learns traditional music and dancing. This is the description of the Kaikolars and has been accepted by various authors and historians after much research. I once again furnish academic references below. This is not defamatory. This is the status of Kaikolar in the past and present.

References

1)Asia in the Making of Europe: A Century of Advance. Book 2, South Asia - Page 1032 by Donald F Lach, Edwin J Van Kley - History - 1998 - 662 pages [78]: Clearly describes the status of Kaikolars.

2)Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, 417-444 (1985) [79]: This research article explains the blood relation between the Devadasis and the Kaikolar. Quoted from article:(Devadasis (dancing girls who have very close kinship ties with the Kaikolar))

3) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [80]: Text Quoted from article: At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king.

4)Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [81]: This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)

5)The Erotic Sculptures of India Y. Krishan Artibus Asiae, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1972), pp. 331-343 (proves that kaikolan musicians = devadasis) [82]

6)Some Enquiries into the Condition of Weavers in Medieval South India, Indian Historical Review, Vol. VI, Nos. 1 and 2

7)Contending identities: Sacred prostitution and reform in colonial South India Priyadarshini Vijaisri A1, A1 Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Issue: Volume 28, Number 3 / December 2005 Pages: 387 - 411 [83]. If you cannot access previous link, then just go here [84] and follow one of the links. This research article talks in much detail about how women from the Sengunthar/ Kaikolar caste go into prostitution in temples.

8)Another reference book Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God. Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu by Leslie C. Orr, [85]

9)South Asia Unreached People Groups: [86]:This is a non-profit world renknown organisation recognised by many countries. The following is the description used - The KAIKOLAR people are a caste of weavers 1.5 million strong in southern India... That daughter is considered married to the temple deity—often the Hindu destroyer god Shiva. In practice, the daughter becomes a temple prostitute.

10)Global India Missions: [87]: The following description is used - The Kaikolan are a large Tamil and Telugu caste of weavers....Traditionally, one girl in every family was set apart to be dedicated to temple service and becomes a Devadasi(meaning female servant of god). In the temple, the girl is considered married to the temple deity but in practice becomes a prostitute, especially to the Brahmans and she learns traditional music and dancing.

11) Book: Of Property and Propriety: The Role of Gender and Class in Imperialism and Nationalism - Page 178 by Bannerji, Himani, Mojab, Shahrzad, Whitehead, Judith [88] Again, the google link provides a limited preview. This books also talks in great length about the Kaikolar Devadasis and the Brahmin men.

12) Madras Gazetteer recognized by the Government of India: providing google link. follow link for full book. [89], [90]

Mudaliar 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Karikala Cholan is a socket puppet of Venki123

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) keeps claiming that Karikala_Cholan ( talk · contribs) is my socket puppet. The latter is not my socket puppet. In fact even the Check user report clearly states that Karikala_Cholan ( talk · contribs) comes through an open proxy and it does not say that it is my socket puppet. It is definitely Venki123 trying to portray me in bad light by assuming the role of a new user and similar contributions to mine. Mudaliar 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

More Proofs: Kaikolar Devadasis are an offshoot of Kaikolar weavers who were soldiers during Chola Empire

The Kaikolars who have dedicated girls as devadasis have been described in the above academic references as weavers who were militarised during the Chola empire and are known as the Kaikolars of "Terinja-Kaikolar-Padai" (meaning: "known soldiers" or personal bodyguards). The name of some of the articles itself clearly say that it is about Weavers and they are described in great detail. So there is no question of ambiguity regarding their identity. Moreover the issue here is how some Kaikolar women were indeed dedicated as Devadasis, that is, the issue is about how Kaikolars Devadasis originated from the Kaikolar/ Sengunthar caste and not about how Devadasis from various castes are collectively known at present. Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is once again attempting to confuse the argument at hand. Further, some articles go further to state that some Kaikolar Devadasis also returned and married regular Kaikolars.

Note: I am providing google links to prove that I am not fabricating anything. Follow the google link to the article page.

Proof1: Donors, Devotees, and the Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu - Page 158 by Leslie C. Orr - 2000 - 305 pages [91]

Quoted from book:Kaikolar girls were dedicated as devadasis, ..and the children of temple women occasionally married Kaikkolars

Proof2: Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [92]

Google link to show that description "terinja-kaikolar" occurs: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terinja+was+the+term+bodyguards+kaikkola

Proof3: Some Enquiries into the Condition of Weavers in Medieval South India, Indian Historical Review, Vol. VI, Nos. 1 and 2

Proof4: 3. Book: Of Property and Propriety: The Role of Gender and Class in Imperialism and Nationalism - Page 178 by Bannerji, Himani, Mojab, Shahrzad, Whitehead, Judith

http://books.google.com/books?q=devadasi+dedication+kaikkolar+devadasis

Again, the google link provides a limited preview. This books also talks in great length about the Kaikolar Devadasis and the Brahmin men Mudaliar 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal of Claims made by Venki123

Gross manipulation and mis-interpretation of term Mudali by Venki123

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) has given references in the form of inscriptions like [93], [94], [95] and states that Kaikolars used the title Mudali.

For example he has quoted below:

The following shows the proof for Kaikkola-Mudali during Chola rule during 1163-1178 AD. In, Ranganathasvamy Temple, Srirangam on the IV Prakara, opposite the udaiyavar-sannidhi, the following inscriptions exist. See the inscription via this reference. [96]

Records an oath of fealty taken by Nayan alias Alagiya Manavala Maryan, a Kaikkola-Mudali of Tiruvarangam, to serve unto death, as a velaikkaran of Virrirundan Seman alias Akalanka Nadalvan. This Virrirundan Seman is a chief of the chola army during the reign of RajadhiRaja Chola II.

One can easliy see the context in which the the term Mudali is used. It is neither the person's surname nor his title. It is just the name of a position held by this person. For example: if a person called Tom Jones was a Manager in some organisation then do you mean to say that the son of Tom Jones, say Henry will be known as "Henry Manager"? This is the exact argument of Venki123 ( talk · contribs) and its clearly not true. Moreover Venki123 ( talk · contribs) [97] goes on to claim that it is hereditary. So according to his argument all descendants of Tom Jones would have the hereditary right to be called "X Manager". This is absolutely ridiculous. How can the name of a position(read Mudali) held by a person be hereditary and further used as a surname? Mudaliar 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Bogus claim by Venki123: Usage of "Mudali" as a hereditary surname by Kaikolars during Pallava and Chola rule 10 centuries ago

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is lying blatantly: He has said below [98]that Mudali was used as a hereditary surname by the Kaikolar during the Pallava and Chola rule 10 centuries ago. Where is the evidence? None of the persons whom Venki123 ( talk · contribs) quotes as Kaikolar during the "Pallava" and "Chola" rule [99], [100] have "Mudali" as the surname. Please quote the references and the full name of the Kaikolar persons from Pallava and Chola rule so that we can all see. Mudaliar 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Bogus claim by Venki123: "Thaninayaka Mudali is neither Mudali nor Vellala"

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) claims below [101] that Thaninayaka Mudaliyar is a Nayaka and neither Mudaliyar nor Vellala. This is so not true as you can see from the proof below where it explicitly states Thaninayaka Mudaliar as a Vellala and with Mudaliyar as surname.

Proof: The Tamils in Early Ceylon By C. Sivaratnam, http://books.google.com/books?vid=0PrqSaY8TV9DtgCG9v&id=hlocAAAAMAAJ&q=vellala+mudali&dq=vellala+mudali&pgis=1

This explicity states that ..a Nayanar is a twelfth descendant of Thaninayaka Mudaliyar, a rich Saiva Vellala who emigrated to Ceylon...

Bogus claim by Venki123:"Mudali title never originated as the title of any particular group"

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) claims below [102] that Mudali was never the title of any particular group. This is completely bogus as we can see from his own reference(and from the very same page) that Mudaliyar is the name of an agricultural caste/ clan/ tribe:Reference=Religion and Public Culture: encounters and identities in modern South India By John Jeya Paul, Keith Edward Yandell, [103]

This is the original Mudaliyar caste/ clan/ tribe of Tondaimandalam to which all Tondaimandala Vellalars trace their feudal lineage, by using the word Mudali as their surname (numerous references given above to prove that surname of all Tondaimandala Vellalars is Mudali, a shortened form of Mudaliyar reference given above).

Clear proof that there were subcastes in Tondaimandala Vellalars

Venki claims that there are no subcastes within Tondaimandala Vellala. The following reference clealry prove that there were subcastes within Tondaimandala Vellala.

1. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895., By Eugene F. Irschick, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994., direct web reference: [104]

Quoted from book:Another essential aspect of the project was the recognition that members of the Tondaimandala vellala subcastes considered themselves to be the original agricultural settlers of the area.

The above quote clearly proves that there were other subcastes within Tondaimandala Vellalars apart from Kondaikatti Vellalars.

2. The author clearly uses both terms Tondaimandala Vellalars and Kondaikatti Vellalar for just this very reason because there were subcastes within Tondaimandala Vellalars and the Kondaikatti Vellalars were just another subcaste of the Tondaimandala Vellalars.

Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895., By Eugene F. Irschick, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994., direct web reference: [105] Quoted from book: "Mudali is the shortened form of "Mudaliyar", the surname of all Tondaimandala vellalas. "Mudaliyār"—a term that literally meant a person of first rank." Mudaliar 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Poor quality of references given by Venki123

References in the form of inscriptions like [106], [107], etc., given by Venki123 ( talk · contribs) are poor references.

For example quoted from the very same website [108]:

No. 123 (A.R. No. 94 of 1934-35). Vriddhachalam, Vriddhachalam Taluk, South Arcot District. "On the west wall of the mandapa in front of the central shrine in the Vriddhagirisvara temple. The date of the record, according to the astronomical details given, was either A.D. 1240, Jan. 11, Wednesday, or A.D. 1251, January 11, Wednesday. In both cases the nakshtra was Makha, not Punarpusam as quoted in the inscription. Since the donor is stated to have been a mudali of Alagiyasiyan Kopperujinga, the date of the inscription was probably A.D. 1240."

--The person transcribing the supposed inscription is disputing the date of the inscription and is also claiming that it was a different date based on indian astrology. Moreover in the end the transcriber also goes on to claim that the date of inscription is actually a different date by associating it with the name in the inscription. How can you arrive at the date of the inscription using the name ? The transcriber clearly assumes that the name of a person is unique which is clearly wrong. Moreover dating an inscription through an astrology is even ridiculous. I could also carve my name out in the same place with an associated date of 900 AD and claim it's a valid inscription. Mudaliar 04:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Kaikolar Devadasis are an offshoot of Kaikolars

The Kaikolar Devadasis clearly are an offshoot of the Kaikolar caste. The issue here is regarding the way some Kaikolars were dedicated as Devadasis. This is clearly proven by the various references I have mentioned above regarding the Kaikolars. Mudaliar 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

No ambiguity in name Kaikolar

The Kaikolars who have dedicated girls as devadasis have been described in the above academic references as weavers who were militarised during the Chola empire and are known as the Kaikolars of "Terinja-Kaikolar-Padai" (meaning: "known soldiers" or personal bodyguards). The name of some of the articles itself clearly say that it is about Weavers and they are described in great detail. So there is no question of ambiguity regarding their identity. Further, some articles go further to state that some Kaikolar Devadasis also returned and married regular Kaikolars. Mudaliar 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Bogus claims by Venki123 regarding two Kaikolar castes

Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is totally lying by stating that there were 2 Kaikolar castes. This is absolutely false. Anybody who reads through the following academic reference will realise that this claim by Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is false.

1. Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [109]: Text Quoted from article: At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king.

2)Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [110]: This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)

Mudaliar 04:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Venky deleted my referenced work on History of Mudaliars in Jaffna and added information on his own whim. [ [111]].

It is interesting that he neither cites any reference not gives a reason for deleting my referenced insertion. He further states Vellalar history refers to works written by Western Historians or after the arrival of the Western Powers.[ [112]] .

Another anonymous user who could be someone sharing user:venky's view then goes on to make bold claims about Nallur Kandaswamy Temple and the rights of Kaikolar there.[ [113]]

He is totally wrong on all counts.

Facts About Nallur Kandaswamy Temple

The present day Nallur Kandaswamy Temple was built by Subba Iyer (a brahmin) and Maapana Mudaliar (a vellalar) in 1749.[ [114]] This wikipedia quotes from Dr. Kunarasa of Jaffna University as link below shows.

Here is another link of the Nallur Temple History. [115] .

Other than the traditional role of the Brahmins, the entire administrative resposibility rests with the Hereditary Vellalar family only. [116]. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of any Kaikolar role in the Temple.

The role of the Chief Priest in the Flag Hosting Ceremony is given here. [117]

Usage of Mudali Surname and History of Jaffna

The History of Jaffna by Prof. S. Pathmanathan of Jaffna University has dealth with the Kingdom and History of Jaffna. His research work extensively dealt with the kingdom of jaffna and the migration from Thondaimandalam. It is after considerable research that the conclusion was reached that the Chieftains and their history can be considered authentic. [118]

Prof. S. Arasaratnam another internationally renowned scholar of Jaffna history has also extensive researched the same subject and sources. [119] [120].

The surname Mudali is visible amongst the Chiefs of Thondai Nadu, Kanchi and Seyyur (Areas known as Thondaimandalam). There is wide acceptance amongst Professors of Jaffna History on the list and background of the early migrants. [121]

Unanimity amongst the names of the Chiefs

The names and background ot he chiefs are in the bottom of this page. Thaninayaka Mudali and Mannodu Konda Mudali are again visible. [122]

The names of the Chieftains are widely agreed upon by all scholars. Hence, there is no ambiguity as far as the names/surnames and their place of origin go.

The above works by historians of Jaffna estimate the migration of Vellalar Chiefs to have taken place with the formation of the Arya Charkavarthy Kingdom during the 13th Century.

Context of Usage here: Here the Mudali is their clan surname or tribe surname denoting their feudal lineage. Thondaimandalam Vellalars used Mudali as a surname or tribal affliation rather than as officer of state which other castes did. This is a very important point.

Revert Edits

Finally now he claimes he never claimed to be Kings. [123] Can he explain this edit.. the bottom page where he deletes my stuff and adds fancy stuff about some King of Nallur.

Context of Usage

These inscriptions clearly come with the explanation that mudali denotes officer (their position). User:Venky is plainly misrepresenting the inscriptions and using them out of context. I would like to know where it denotes hereditary. Absolutely nothing in the inscription to suggest a surname or hereditary usage.

Inscriptions Interpretations

Very clearly the inscription does not denote Mudali as a hereditary tribe. The issue at stake is hereditary surname/title not OFFICER of STATE.

The word ‘Perumalpillai’ is used as a proper name and it should not be split up to mean ‘the son of Perumal.’ If this meaning was really intended we should expect some such phrase as nam-maganar or devar-maganar. Another objection to this view is that Sola-Kon hailed from Arasur, whereas Kopperunjinga belonged to Kudal. Moreover Sola-Kon is nowhere called Alappirandan, Kadava or Pallava, but is, on the other hand, definitely referred to as devar-mudali, i.e., an officer of the chief, and in some cases merely by the term Pillai

This is one of the inscriptions user:venky posted. The same character is reffered to as devar-mudali and pillai. What are we to assume from this. These inscriptions are totally taken out of context by User:Venky simply to confuse the discussion.

Thevar = Lord (also caste name) Mudali = First/Chief (also caste name) Pillai = son (also caste name)

One indiviual is reffered to by 3 differenct caste/community names here. Reading this one can imply Perumalpillai is a hereditary devar, mudali and pillai. To claim the existence of a word in an inscription and claim it is their hereditary title is very imaginative. The context of usage is important here.

An example of a TMSV

To be a surname or hereditary title, it has to be used by the same family/clan for generations. Not be given as a officer of state like the inscriptions clearly show.

A simple example below.

Now in the 13th Century a Vellala Chief from Seyyur is called Thaninayaka Mudali he migrates to Jaffna and he is still called Thaninaya Mudali. [124] 11 generations later, his descendant is called Karthigama Mudali according to Dutch records.His son is Muthali Nainar of Muthali Valavu. [125] That is 3 Kingdoms, 4 centuries, same Family/Clan have a heridatary usage of Mudali surname/title and he is a vellalar from Thondaimandalam. [126] [127]

[128]

Unlike India it is customary for Chiefs and their families to have "Kalvettu" or family trees tracing right up to their place of origin and background in India. Certain families from Thondaimandalam claim to be the Mudali tribe/clan as can been seen from the above sources.

Some Clarifications

Asian Royal Genealogy

First of all let me make it clear to newcomers. In Asia it is not uncommon for Royal Families to claim the concept of God-King. Examples

Japan – First King is son of the Sun Goddess Thailand – Thai King is styled Lord Rama (as in God Rama) India – Kshatriya Clans claim descent from Sun and Moon (from Gods Krishna or Rama). Sri Lanka – Sinhalese claim to be the son of a Lion (like the Romans in Italy). Cambodia – Angkor Wat (most famous example of God King, Vishnu as King).

Almost every Asian Royal Works starts with these myths, not dissimilar to the Roman and Greek myths. That does not mean Rome did not exist or Greece had no Kingdom.

Historians are trained to weed out discrepancies and myths (including time frame) when they publish their works. That is why they make qualified remarks. My quotations are from qualified scholars only.

But we can safely conclude that Thaninayaka Mudali is a figure from the 13-14th century based on few observations. His 11th decendant was living during the Dutch Period. The Family tree it self goes in the same period as the early Arya Chakravarthy's. All existing works, the Royal Texts, Dutch Records and Family Tree records all tally to make him a 13th century figure.

interesting inscriptions

Thaninayaka Mudali clan claims the tradition of being local rulers/chieftains during Chola and Pallava time prior to their migration. A chaturvedimangalam is only named after Kings, local rulers or very consdierably influential clans. [129]

Not relevant to this discussion.

Inscription Interpretation is totally wrong

User:Venky can help us because he can see things noone else can. There is only a mention of Kulothunga Chola Thaninayaga Chaturveidmandalam and the period as that of Kulothunga the 3rd.

No mention about the individual Thaninayaka there. But for User:venky the inscription states that Thani-nayaka reports to Hoysalya Kings. I totally missed that part of the inscription???

Besides, Hoysalya Kings are Kannada and not Telugu. There is no record of Nayaks in Tamil Nadu during Kulotunga Chola's time (there were telugu Cholas but definitely not Nayaks who came with the Vijayanagar Kings. Vijayanagar itself was formed only in 1336. This inscription is before 1218. Definitely Thaninayaka is not a Nayak. There was no formally accepted Nayakker presence during the period of inscription.

Nayaga(m) is one of the most common vellala names. eg, Marutha nayagam, Selva nayagam, Soundara nayagam, Thani nayagam. When writing formally the m is sometimes silent. In tamil there is no difference between Ka and Ga. Thaninayaka or Thaninayaga or Thaninayagam is definitely Tamil.

Whether it is relevant or not, it is baffling how User:Venky comes up with inscription intepretations.

Thaninayaka Chaturvedimangalam not relevant but ...???

Although it is not relevant totally in this discussion. User:Venky's responses and how he plays with words it relevant here. He tried to make out Thaninayaka was a telugu Nayakker. It was pointed out to him that telugu nayakkers came with the Vijayanagar Kings and were not there during the KT Chola era.

Then he said he tried to connect it with a Hoysalya (Kannada) Dandanayaka. once it was pointed out to him that Dandanayaka was not a Nayakkar but rather meant General or Commander in Chief, he has rightly said this is not relevant to the discussion.

It just shows that any substance that he feels is against his view becomes either irrelevant or he gives it a twist to suit him.

Final Remarks

The references I have quoted with regard to migration from Thondaimandalam into Jaffna are available from:

1) The History of Jaffna by Prof. S. Pathmanathan (Head of History Department, Jaffna Unviersity 1978 Publication). [130]

2) Tamils in Early Ceylon by C. Sivaratnam (1968 Publication)

To brush their work off implies that User:Venky is either not serious with this arbitration or feels anything not satisfactory to him can not serve as evidence. If you can not quote from the work of the Head of History Department, University of Jaffna, who should you quote from?

Secondly, he spends almost all of his time about KKV/TMV/TMSV and the intricacies of the various Thondai Mandala Vellala Subcastes. This is plainly a diversionary tactic. The published works clearly state the existence of subcastes and Mudaliyar being a common surname. The Mudaliar Page now has both versions.

Finally, the context of usage is the key here. Vellalars have used it as a surname/hereditary title. From what I have seen, for other castes it denotes an officer. This is a subtle yet key difference.

Same Question – Simple One

What we need is a quote stating surname or hereditary title. Not Officer. The given inscriptions clearly denote officer (see qualifying remark there itself).

Disclaimer

My intention in this discussion is purely academic. As the early migration into Jaffna during the 13th century took place from Thondaimandalam. Many Jaffna families have history as records, ola leaves, poetry and tradition.

I have looked at Talk:Devadasi and the problem is that these two are arguing over a pointless caste based issue. The Behnam ( talk · contribs) notified me of this situation, I took a look and still do not get the gists of their arguments. Baka man 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Conventions Used

Here I am using the short notation TMSV for Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala.

For Tondai-Mandala-Vellala I am using TMV as shortcut. The Tondai-Mandala-Vellala were also called as Kondai-Katti-Vellala in which case KKV is used.

TMSV is not the same as TMV. They are two distinct groups.

Steps taken by me Venki123 to resolve the issue in a scholarly manner

I have taken the following steps necessary to resolve the issue in a scholarly manner

• Regular discussion
• RFC
• Dispute Resolution Survey
• Mediation
• Arbitration

All of these steps were taken by me voluntarily over the past 4 months to resolve the outstanding issues. However I did not receive any positive scholarly replies from the opposite side which primarily consists of User:Mudaliar and his sockpuppets.

Summary of Evidences

The evidences here are classified to prove the major points of my arguments in the debate.

• Personal attacks by User:Mudaliar

• TMV/KKV is a distinct group from TMSV
• TMV are the original settlers of Tondai-Nadu i.e. Tondai region
• TMSV is never mentioned in any inscription or book given by User:Mudaliar as his proof.

• Modern Kaikolar have nothing to do with the devadasis.
• Isai-Vellala is the group from which some devadasis claim their origin.
• Kaikola musicians and dancing women form a separate caste even though they have similar name to the Kaikola soldiers.

• Mudali title never originated as the title of any particular group. It was used either as headman or officer before various caste groups started using them as hereditary titles.
• Kaikola soldiers were using the Mudali title ten centuries ago, so there is no need to use it for social advancement as part of sanskritization. They were using it only because they were the top soldiers in the chola army. Mudali is a tamil word and denotes respect and high status only in Tamilnadu and not anywhere else in India. Tamilnadu is the root of the dravidian civilization which was against the Aryan/Sanskritic civilization.

• Rebuttal of various claims of the opposite side.

Personal attacks using profane language and racist comments against me by User:Mudaliar and his sockpuppets

User:mudaliar personally attacked me at countless occasions. Here is a list of few of his peronsal attacks.

• He calls me Devadiya - a derogatory term in the modern Tamil language meaning prostitute as shown in this link.

[131]

• He calls me "sleazy piece of shit." as shown here. [132]

• He calls the entire group of Kaikolars as "the scum of south India" as shown in the link.

[133]

• Using his sock puppet Karikala_Cholan he has adopted the role of an uneducated layperson from Tamilnadu and has attacked me and the Kaikolar group in the tamil language of the worst kind. See [134]. This login was blocked by the admins. How an uneducated lay person could login to internet and find wikipedia and all these specific articles and use this kind of profanity is the question and all this with an anoymous website.

• In the name of RFC, he posts to the following talk pages, slanderous statements about Kaikolar. It is the same text again and again in all these talk pages of various Indian castes. Obviously his motive is not scholarly discussion but slandering Kaikolar.

[135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] and about 15 other such pages. Please see his contributions on February 9 2007.

Proof that User:Mudaliar himself claimed that Tondai-Mandala-Vellala is a group distinct from Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala

The following link shows that User:Mudaliar himself differentiates between Tondai-Mandala-Vellala as a group distinct from Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala group even though they have very similar names. [143]

The following link also shows that User:Mudaliar differentiates between Tondai-Mandala-Vellala and Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala. Tondai-Mandala-Vellala alias Kondai-Katti-Vellala are Telugus according to him. Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala however are pure Tamilians according to him. [144]

Proof that User:Mudaliar himself claimed how his group TMSV changed their names

According to User:Mudaliar , the TMSV group first added the epithet "saiva" to separate themselves from other vellalas. They then added the epithet "Tondai-Mandala" to separate themselves from other saiva-vellalas. Ofcourse he does not state when they did these changes. It must be noted that for saiva-vellalas the epithet "saiva" is more important than any other epithets. So TMSV could never be confused with TMV which does not use the word "saiva" in their names. See the following link of his edit.

[145]

This is the process of sanskritization which TMSV group has been following. Initially TMSV group was a simple farmer and slowly by copying the sankritic/aryan civilization they positioned themselves as superior, while at the same time accepting that they are inferior to Brahmins.

Now he claims that Sengunthar are using Mudali title for social upliftment.

Proof that User:Mudaliar himself claims that the author Lionel Place was wrong

In the following link, User:Mudaliar himself claims that the author Lionel Place who forms the very foundation of all his arguments and references is wrong.

Lionel Place states that Tondai-Mandala-Vellala alias Kondai-Katti-Vellala are the original settlers of the Tondai-nadu (i.e., Tondai country).

However User:Mudaliar states that "The author is grouping all Vellalas in Tondaimandalam into one group as Tondaimandala Vellalas which is wrong". [146]

So User:Mudaliar agrees that there are two distinct groups called Tondai-Mandala-Vellala and Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala. However when I tried to point out to him that he is using the references of Tondai-Mandala-Vellala, he goes berserk and starts attacking the Kaikolar. Whenver I try to create a new heading for Tondai-Mandala-Vellala he deletes them. This is how the whole issue came into being.

How can a respected author and a government employee of the British Government be correct about everything except the name of the group he is talking about? Is Lionel Place lying so that he can glorify Tondai-Mandala-Vellala?

This is the crux of the whole issue and where it started.

Please also note that Tondai-Mandala-Vellala is also called as Kondai-Katti-Vellala.

Proofs about Tondai-Mandala-Vellalas alias Kondai-Katti-Vellala (TMV/KKV)

Proof that Tondai-Mandala-Vellalas used Mudali the shortened form of Mudaliyar in 1799 AD but without any exclusive rights or claim of first usage

According to the book Dialogue and History, Constructing South India, 1795–1895 by Eugene F. Irschick published in 1994, the author in his reference states,

Place, 1799 Report, para. 59. “Mudali” is the shortened form of “Mudaliyar,” the surname of all Tondaimandala vellalas.

However Place never claims that the title Mudali was first used by the Tondai-Mandala-Vellalas.

Nowhere has Place claimed that Mudali title was first used by KKV. Only that the KKV were using mudali title at his time.

User:WeldingVeerasamy is lying that I accepted that TMV/KKV were the first to use Mudali title. I have seen no proof for the claim that TMV/KKV were the first to use Mudali title.

Proof that Kondai-katti-vellala (KKV) went by the name Tondai-Mandala-Vellalas (TMV) as early as 1799 AD

According to the book Dialogue and History, Constructing South India, 1795–1895 by Eugene F. Irschick published in 1994, the author in the section "Analyzing the "Insurrection"" states that

"... Tondaimandala or Kondaikatti vellala surnames ..." In this the author referring to Place, 1799 Report, clearly shows that TMV and KKV are one and the same group.

Proof that Kondai-katti-vellala (KKV) were agriculturalists as claimed by them in 1786 AD

The following is the exact text from the Eugene Irshick Book.

In 1786, the Board of Revenue was presented with a petition by some “Kondakutty Vellarahs” from Kuvam and Mappedu in what is today the Tiruvallur taluk, saying that “in very old times this country being a wilderness, Tondamon the famous monarch, after whose name this part of the world still goes viz. Tondamandalam, sending for the inhabitants from the kingdom of Sera [ Chola ] promised them that if they would cut down the woods, turn them into fields and cultivate the country each at his disposal, and give him one sixth part of the product, he would let them have the remaining 5 parts and the rights of settling and mortgaging their property of lands and thus they having brought about the business, such rights were accordingly conferred upon them. Many centuries after the days of the said monarch, the different rulers of the country being of cruel disposition curtailed the inhabitants’ shares and put in practice many injustice[s] over them yet none of them ever think of so encroaching upon the usurping the inhabitants with their inheritance.…[The petitioners continued that the Nawab,] tho’ capable of doing any injustice over the inhabitants at his disposal, yet he being bound by the cord of justice, was obliged to take grounds he lately wanted from the inheritors of Chennappa Naicker’s Coopam not by violence but by their general consents and by paying them money for it.” The petition was an attempt to head off the takeover of property by the Company after the war of 1780 in the villages of Kottur, Mappedu, and Kuvum in order to regrant the land to a group of Christians under a Jesuit missionary named Padre Manente, who was part of the Mission du Carnate.

[147]

Proof that TMV/KKV were the original settlers of Tondai Region by King Adontai Chola

According to the book Religion and Public Culture: encounters and identities in modern South India By John Jeya Paul, Keith Edward Yandell refer to the MacKenzie manuscripts a collection of old manuscripts about India.

In this book, on page 240-241, it is said that king Adontai chola settled the KKV over Tondai region and 10 chiefs from KKV ruled over this region.

Here it is easy to see that the chola king Adontai is nothing but the letter 'A' prefixed before the Tondai word, i.e. the Tondai-man king.

[148]

So it is the KKV/TMV who are the feudal lords and not TMSV. KKV/TMV were settled by King Adontai chola and not King Karikala chola.

Proof that KKV is same as TMV and TMV refers only to KKV and not others by Eugene Irschick

From the same author Eugene Irschick in the article Order and Disorder in Colonial South India, the author writes

Moreover, a group of peasant subcastes called the Kondaikatti or Tondaimandala Vellalas considered that they were the original agricultural settlers in the ...

[149]

I dont suppose that the opposite side is going to argue that there are sub-castes in the Kondai-Katti Vellala.

It is clear that Eugene Irschick considers that TMV and KKV as identical and TMV refers only to KKV and not any other Vellala groups.

No occurence of Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala group in the book by Eugene F. Irschick

There is no occurence of Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala group in the book by Eugene F. Irschick. The book talks only about Kondai-katti-vellala (KKV) who also went by the name Tondai-Mandala-Vellalas (TMV).

Proofs about Kaikolar and Devadasi

Proof that Kaikolan musicians and devadasis are separate from Kaikolan soldiers and weavers

The seminal book Castes And Tribes Of Southern India By Edgar Thurston, K. Rangachari which forms the core reference for the many later books connecting Kaikolan and devadasis was published first in 1909.

In this book, the authors Edgar Thurston, K. Rangachari note on Page 39 the following quote from the book Journey through Mysore, Malabar and Canara by Francis Hamilton Buchanan Francis_Hamilton-Buchanan, written in 1807. See Google Books link. [150]

They say,

Writing a century ago (1807) concerning the Kaikolan devadasis, Buchanan says that "these dancing women and their musicians now form a separate kind of caste;..."

So we can see that even in 1807 A.D, Kaikolan devadasis formed a separate kind of caste from the Kaikolan soldiers and weavers. This is a clear proof that Buchanan a foreigner to the Indian nation, has observed that Kaikolan devadasis form a separate caste as early as 1807 even though they have the similar sounding name.

Proof about Kaikolar word origin and meaning - etymology

To study the etymology of the word Kaikolar, kai meant hand and Kol simply meant stick in Tamil.

Defintion from university of chicago website - http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ via link

[151]

kol (p. 315) [ kōl ] , s. a rod or stick in general, tati; 2. sceptre, government, cengkol; 3. a pencil used for blackening the eyelids; 4. a measuring rod or pole, alavukol; 5. a staff to lean upon, unyukol; 6. balance scales, tulakkol, Libra of the Zodiac; 7. a horse whip, cavukku; 8. a branch of a tree, kompu; 9. an arrow, ampu; 10. a spear, itti; 11. roundness, tiratci; 12. ploughshare, kozu; 13. lute string, yaznarampu.

In the case of Sengunthar they go by the name Kaikolar (kai=hand kol=spear or sceptre) as they were warriors during ancient Chola period. Similarly it is used by isai (isai=music in tamil) Vellala (meant farmer or producer; in this case producer of music) to mean (kai=hand kol=lute string).

So the word Kaikolar has two separete meanings, one as soldiers and the other as musicians.

Proof that the origin of Devadasis was from Isai Vellalar

The origin of Devadasis was from Isai Vellalar as seen in this article [152]. Narthaki is a well known website of the patrons of the dance form Bharathanatyam. The article is by a renowned author.

See this newspaper page from a renowned national newspaper Deccan herald. [153].

No modern article refers to any connection between Devadasis and Kaikolar. Articles referring to Kaikolar and Devadasis are referring only to the historical data when Isai-Vellala went by the name of Kaikolar as holders of musical instrument.

Proof that the Isai Vellalar used the title Pillai and not Mudali

In ancient times, the surname was used to differentiate different castes. The following article clearly shows that Isai Vellalar used the title Pillai and not Mudali.

According to this article [154],

Nadaswaram geniuses (Karukkurichi Arunachalam, Tiruvaduturai Rajaratnam Pillai and others) and all Nattuvanar legends Kittappa Pillai, Ramaiya Pillai, Meenakshisundaram Pillai were Isai Vellaalars. But Nattuvangam and Nadaswaram were exclusive domains of Isai Vellaalars.

Clearly Isai Vellaalars used the title Pillai only.

Proof that Isai-Vellalar and Sengunthar are distinct from Government of India gazzette publications

See this link given by the Government of India [155] where Number:75 Isai-Vellalar (spelled as Isai-Vallalar) are also called as Melakkarar (meaning Drummer in Tamil). See on the same page Number:88 Sengunthar are called as Kaikolar (4 variations).

Look at Number 67 where there are 3 names for the caste Nadar. Similarly see numbers 95 and 97. Multiple names for the same caste is quite common in Tamilnadu. No caste is trying to hide anything by using multiple names.

See the same for Tamilnadu [156]

See where IsaiVellalar are classifed as Most-backward-Class [157] separately from Kaikolar who are classfied as Backward-Class [158]. These are classifications done by the Government of India for providing reservation in jobs. This is similar to affirmative action in USA.

As you can see Isai-Vellalar is never confused with Kaikolar in any government publication. The modern name Kaikolar only refers to Sengunthar and never to the Isai-Vellalar. It is the Isai-Vellalar who are the source of devadasi tradition even though they went by the name of Kaikolar in ancient times.

Need to merge 4 articles - Proof that the modern usage for Kaikolar and Sengunthar are same from Government of India gazzette publications

From the Government of India gazzette publications, it is clear that Kaikolar and Sengunthar are same and there is no need for four articles Kaikolar, Sengunthar, Kaikolan and Sengundhar. These could be merged into one article and no new variations of the spellings are needed.

The proofs are [159]; [160]; [161].

Proofs about the usage of the word Mudali and its usage by Kaikolar

Proof that Kaikolars used Mudali as surname along with Vellalas

In the book, Constructing the Colonial Encounter: Right and Left Hand Castes in Early Colonial South India By Niels Brimnes, page 257,

Mudali is defined as - literally first man, Appellation used by the vellalas in the northern part of the tamil country. Also used by the Kaikolans.

See the Google Book search reference [162]

The author does not state which Vellalas whether KKV/TMV or TMSV.

Proof that Mudali title was used by various groups including Kaikolas

According to Census of India, 1901 By India Census Commissioner, Sir Herbert Hope Risley

Caste titles and names are, however, of recent origin and little can be inferred from them, whatever their meaning may be shown to be. Brahmans, for example, appear to have borne the titles of ' Pillai' and 'Mudali', which are now only used by Sudras, the Nayak kings, on the other hand called themselves ' Aiyar', which is now exclusively the title of Saivitie Brahmans. To this day, the cultivating Vellalas, the weaving Kaikolas, and the semi-civilized hill-tribe of Jatapus, use equally the title of 'Mudali', and the ...

See the Google book links [163]

Usage of the word Mudali as officer ten centuries ago

The word Mudali has been used to mean either headman or officer during the Chola and Pallava rule, ten centuries ago. Here are the proofs which show the inscription made on the temples built by these Kings ten centuries ago. These are the online version of the Archealogical Survey of India papers translated about 75 years ago by respected historians.

• No.251: The present inscription states that the pillar (tirunilaikal) on which it is engraved was the gift of Perumalpillai alias Solakonar, an officer (mudali) of Avanialappirandan Kopperunjinga, on behalf of his master.

• No. 254.(A. R. No. 543 of 1920).Kattumannarkoyil, Chidambaram Taluk, South Arcot District.

On the north wall of the central shrine in the Viranarayanasvamin temple. This damaged inscription registers the kadaiyidu granted by the officer (mudaliyar) Iladattaraiyar under the following circumstances:

[164]

• Note 74: Sola-Kon is nowhere called Alappirandan, Kadava or Pallava, but is, on the other hand, definitely referred to as devar-mudali, i.e., an officer of the chief.

[165]

Proof from C.Sivaratnam that Mudaliyar is an official designation

According to C.Sivaratnam in his book Concise History of Ceylon, 1961 p 44.

Titles such as 'Illangakkon', 'Tennakon' and 'Perumal', as well as official designations such as 'Mudaliyar' and 'Aracci' are pure Tamil words.

[ [166]]

This is a very important observation about the word Mudaliyar from a Tamil scholar whose books are used as references by the opposite side for their arguments.

Usage of the word Mudali as hereditary surname

The word Mudali has been used as surname of various groups. Based on clear evidence, both inscriptions and literary, Kaikkolar were using Mudali as hereditary surname during Chola and Pallava rule ten centuries ago.

The article Mudaliar states that it was used by Tondai-Mandala-Vellalas only and that other groups started using them for sanskritization.

So far there are no proofs that TMSV used Mudali title. There are clear proofs for KKV/TMV using Mudali title.

Proof that Kaikolar used the Mudali title ten centuries ago during Chola dynasty rule

The following shows the proof for Kaikkola-Mudali during Chola rule during 1163-1178 AD. In, Ranganathasvamy Temple, Srirangam on the IV Prakara, opposite the udaiyavar-sannidhi, the following inscriptions exist. See the inscription via this reference. [167]

Records an oath of fealty taken by Nayan alias Alagiya Manavala Maryan, a Kaikkola-Mudali of Tiruvarangam, to serve unto death, as a velaikkaran of Virrirundan Seman alias Akalanka Nadalvan. This Virrirundan Seman is a chief of the chola army during the reign of RajadhiRaja Chola II.

Proof that Kaikolar used the Mudali title nine centuries ago during Pallava dynasty rule

In Tiruvennainallur, Tirukkoyilur Taluk, South Arcot District, on the East wall of the mandapa in the front of the central shrine in the Vaikuntha-Perumal temple exists the following inscription. See the inscription via this reference. [168]

In this inscription, dated in the 8th year, Kopperujingadeva is given the surname Alagiyasiyan. It records a gift of 5 cows by Tirumalaiy-Alagiyan alias Vira[gal*] virap-Pallavaraiyan[26], a Kaikkola-mudali of Tiruvennainallur for supplying daily milk by the measure ‘Arumolideva-nali’ to the god Vaikunda (Vaikuntha) [p-Perumal]. This donor figures in A.D. 1237[27] and his death is referred to in No. 189 below. From the title Alagiyasiyan given to the chief, he may be identified with the elder Kopperunjinga.

Proof of the various regiments of Kaikolar in the chola army

Kaikolar formed over 20 different regiments during the Chola rule. Some of the regiments are as follows:

Singalantaka-terinda-Kaikkolar (a regiment named after Singalantaka i.e. Parntaka I)

Virasola-terinja-Kaikkolar

Kodandarama-terinja-Kaikkolar

Danatonga-terinja-Kaikkolar

Parantaka-terinia-Kaikkolar

Muttavalperra-Kaikkolar - (meaning the "recipient of the pearl ornamented sword" in Tamil)

Samarakesarit-terinja-Kaikkolar

Vikramasingat-terinja-Kaikkolar

Adityapanma-terinda-Kaikkolar

Karikala-Chola-terinja-Kaikkolar

Arumolideva-terinja Kaikkolar

Parttivasekarat-terinja-Kaikkolar

Gangadaditta-terinja-Kaikkola

Madurantaka-terinja-Kaikkolar

Pirantaka-terinja-Kaikkolar

www.whatisindia.com[ [169]]

Proof of various historical types of Mudalis based on inscriptions only

Various castes using the "Mudaliar" title in historic times obtained only from inscriptions These are the list of mudalis which were prevalent during the royal times of tamilnadu before the arrival of Muslim and British invaders. Mudali means officer in a temple or leader in general. There were generic mudalis who could be of any caste even Brahmins. All these occurences happen 10 centuries ago.

Kaikola-mudali

agambadik-kottu-mudali

samanta-mudali

agambadittana-mudali

Kelvi-mudali

agambadi-mudali

Of these agambadi-mudali, agambadittana-mudali and agambadik-kottu-mudali have merged into a single group Agamudayar as shown in the article Mudaliar after ten centuries.

As can be seen there is not a single occurence of a vellala-mudali of any kind.

www.whatisindia.com[ [170]]

Rebuttal of various claims by the opposite side

No claims were made by me Venki123 about Kaikolar being Kings or related to Buddha

I never made any claims Kaikolar being Kings either in India or Sri Lanka. Similarly I'm not claiming Buddha was related to Kaikolar. That is a different user based on his IP address as the admins must know. I am not even arguing about that.

I am from the state of Tamilnadu in India. I have no clue about Kaikolars in Sri Lanka. The edit User:WeldingVeerasamy refers to was done by me when I reverted to an earlier version of the article which had those changes along with mine.

Here is edit when it was added the first time [171] by IP address 203.101.45.171.

User:WeldingVeerasamy should stop jumping to conclusions and blaming me for everything.

Multiple groups of Tondai-Mandala-Vellala - List and Proof needed

If there are multiple groups of Tondai-Mandala-Vellala, can we get a list of all of them? And if there are multiple groups and the opposite side is knowledgable about them why not add them to the article Mudaliar. After all according to them, all groups of Tondai-Mandala-Vellala use Mudaliar title and so must be listed in the same article.

Here is the edit reversion made by User:Mudaliar after I added the KKV group to the Mudaliar article. [172] Ofcourse he has done this kind of reversion countless times during these four months.

There are only two groups as far as I know.

• Tondai-Mandala-Vellala alias Kondai-Katti-Vellala

• Tondai-Mandala-Saiva-Vellala

Proof that KKV is same as TMV by Eugene Irschick

From the same author Eugene Irschick in the article Order and Disorder in Colonial South India, the author writes

Moreover, a group of peasant subcastes called the Kondaikatti or Tondaimandala Vellalas considered that they were the original agricultural settlers in the ...

[173]

I dont suppose that the opposite side is going to argue that there are sub-castes in the Kondai-Katti Vellala.

Absense of Vellala Mudali in any inscription - Occam's Razor

If there are no inscriptions mentioning Vellala and Mudali together, by Occam's Razor logic, the simplest explanation is that there were no Vellalas using Mudali title. If there are no inscriptions connecting Queen Elizabeth and Mudali title, then obviously Queen Elizabeth never used Mudali title.

Monuments and Inscriptions mean everything in Indian History

Unlike the Chinese civilization, Indian civilization and the kings never kept any kind of official records or history. All that is remaining are the monuments and temples built by them and the inscriptions written on them.

Without inscriptions, India would have forgotten all about the Emperor Asoka and the great kings of the various regions of India. India had already forgotten about the great Indus Valley Civilization Indus_Valley_Civilization for over 2000 years until it was discovered by the British archealogists in the 1920s.

To disregard the inscriptions means to disregard the entire Indian civilization. To ignore and invalidate inscriptions that do not support your opinions, means you are a propagandist not a scholar.

Poor quality of SriLankan Proofs such as VaiyaPadal KailayaMalai etc.

A cursory glance through the books VaiyaPadal shows that it is more like an fictionary mythical epic rather than an accurate historical document.

The reason is as follows:

The VaiyaPadal books states that the first king of Sri Lanka is Ravana. Ravana was killed by Rama and Rama installed Ravana's brother Vibhisana as king .

Now there are no proofs for either Rama who is venerated as a God in India or for the entire epic Ramayana or Mahabharatha.

How can a scholar with a scientific approach consider the VaiyaPadal as an authentic historical document when it states such myths about Rama and Ravana as facts? Not only that the book gives a date of around first century B.C. for this king.

Here is the exact translated text from this book. The ‘Vaiyäpãdal’ begins with an account of the end of Rãvana, and the crowning of Vibhisana by Rãma as the King of Ceylon. Its verse 12 narrates how the sandy stretches of the northern coastal belt of Lanka were developed into a fertile and productive Kingdom by a ‘Yãl’ player, who performed in the presence of Vibhisna. The next stanza goes on to relate how a King from India, who was the son of a cousin of Dasarata, was invited to rule over this land. The period of his rule is said to be 3000 of the Kaliyuga, corresponding to 101 B.C.

Dasarata is the father of God Rama.

Here is the link of the scholarly discussion of this book done in 1966 AD with the text above. [174]

This book was obviously written to satisfy the egos of the local people who were rulers at that time. This book was written so that they can claim that they descended from great mythological figures such as Rama, Dasaratha and others.

Historical Conclusions from Poor quality of SriLankan Proofs

In reply to User:WeldingVeerasamy, it is true that Tamils existed in Sri Lanka during the time the books were written i.e., around 1600 AD. I am not denying that Tamils existed at that time in Sri Lanka. Nobody is denying that Greeks existed during the time that the books Illiad and Odyssey were written sometime before fifth century BC.

I am only stating that most of the stories in those epics such as Zeus, Mount Olympus are all myths not facts. Similary most of the stories about Rama and Ravana are also myths to increase the divinity of those who were responsible for writing those stories.

So what we can conclude from the Poor quality SriLankan Proofs is that there were Mudalis in Sri Lanka around 1600 AD who claimed they were from Tondai-Mandala. As regards to whether they were TMSV or KKV, if there are proofs for that then we can study that. Otherwise we cannot definitely conclude whether they are TMSV or KKV.

Tani Nayaka reference is a Nayaka and neither Vellala nor Mudali

These inscriptions are interesting because, the words Tani and Nayaka clearly show that this Tani Nayaka was probably a Nayaka (a Telugu and not a Tamil) reporting to the Hoysala king with whom Kulotunga Chola III had marriage relations.

Throughout Tamilnadu there are so many towns and villages which end in Nayakan-ur i.e. town of Nayaka. Eg/- BodiNayakanur

Now Tani-Nayaka looks very much like a Telugu name as only Telugus have Nayaka surname. No Tamils have Nayaka surname.

Anyway the Tani-Nayaka appears without a Vellala or Mudali, so it is of no use in our discussion.

Proof that Nayaka title was used during Hoysala empire

Hoysala empire and its relationship with Chola and Pandya empire from around 1100 AD is shown in the Wikipedia article Hoysala_Empire. Dandanayaka was the name of army chiefs of Hoysala empire. So Nayaka does not mean it is exclusively Telugu origin. It was also used by Hoysalas.

Simple Questions

The simple questions are:

• Are there proofs before 1800 AD for the existence of TMSV with Mudali title?

• If there are more subcastes of Tondai Mandala Vellala, give a list of them and state why the proof about KKV was deleted?

• Are there any inscriptions written by the so called feudal lords TMSV with their Mudali title?

• Since there were so many castes using Mudali title during Chola and Pallava rule and TMSV is not one of them, on what basis are you claiming that TMSV where the first to use the title? Dont argue that It is because I told you so.

• Finally when noted authors such as Thurston and Francis_Buchanan-Hamilton are claiming that the Kaikolan devadasis form a separate caste as early as 1807 AD, and all modern articles are stating that Isai-Vellala are the caste from which devadasis claim their ancestry, why are you repeating that Sengunthars and Isai Vellalas are the same caste?

• The Sengunthar and all the other castes such as Gounder, Vanniar, Nadar, chettiar, Brahmins have not falsely created a fictionary tale of ancestry, but they all have been using their surnames for many centuries. Not a single one of these castes felt the need to create false ancestor documents except TMSV. It implies that TMSV is the one who has false ancestry like the propagandists who claim that Indus Valley Civilization is a sanskritic civilization.

User:Mudaliar and his arguments and proofs style

User:Mudaliar and his arguments and proofs are so ridiculous and it is still the same: "It is because I told you so."

Mudaliyar is not equivalent to Vellalas

In the book Religion and Public Culture: encounters and identities in modern South India By John Jeya Paul, Keith Edward Yandell, the authors state Mudaliyars and Vellalas [both agricultural castes]. From this we can understand that there were Mudaliyars who were not Vellalas but at the same time did farming. If Mudaliyars were to refer to Vellalas alone, the authors would have stated Mudaliyars or Vellalas. Obviously authors did not state Mudaliyars or Vellalas.

Tani-nayaka Chaturvedi mangalam is irrelevant to the discussion as accepted by the User:weldingVeerasamy

As far as Tani-nayaka Chaturvedi mangalam goes, there is no reference to either Tondai mandala saiva Vellala or Mudaliar. It is like saying that William the Conqueror is the same as a thief William based only on their first names. Tani-nayaka according to the opposite side is the first name. According to me it is a name followed by surname nayaka. But in either case there is no Vellala or Mudali in that proof. So it is useless to bring that up and arguing about that.

All articles, Users 203.101.45.171 and WeldingVeerasamy

Currently I am refraining from editing the artile Mudaliar, Devadasi and all articles Sengunthar, Sengundhar, Kaikolar, Kaikolan.

Looks like the user User:203.101.45.171 is once again active and he may be able to shed more light on the Vellala of Srilanka and all other articles related to SriLanka.

As far as the complaints of User:WeldingVeerasamy, I dont want to make it a personal issue. I suggest he discuss with User:203.101.45.171 about the Sri Lanka related proofs. Currently this user seems to be blocked again, so could the admins please bring that user into the arbitration discussion. I placed a notice on his talk page but this user seems to have missed it. So I have placed it again.

Proof from C.Sivaratnam that Mudaliyar is an official designation

According to C.Sivaratnam in his book Concise History of Ceylon, 1961 p 44.

Titles such as 'Illangakkon', 'Tennakon' and 'Perumal', as well as official designations such as 'Mudaliyar' and 'Aracci' are pure Tamil words.

[ [175]]

Another interesting observation.

There were no Vellalas in Tondai Mandalam before Atondai chakravarti brought the TMV/KKV

In the book, Religion and Public Culture: encounters and identities in modern South India the authors John Jeya Paul, Keith Edward Yandell state the following: [176]

Tondaimandalam was a wild forest inhabited by Vedars, a savage people. Then Kurumbars of the Karnataka country spread over the Dravida country up to Tondaimandalam and set up their rule.

Again the authors state, "They were annihilated by Adondai Cola of Tanjore ..."

Here "They" refers to Kurumbars who were annihilated by Adondai Cola.

Nowhere is it mentioned that Saiva Vellala were settled there by Karikala Chola before the TMV/KKV were brought in by Adondai Chakravarti.

So to accept that TMSV were settled by King Karikala chola, solid proof is needed.

Nayanar refers to Vellalas descended from Jains- From Thurston Book

According to Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurston, K. Rangachari - 1909 in Page 413, Nayanar, or Nainar, has been recorded as a section of Vellalas, who are thought to be descended from Jains who were converted to Hinduism.

So if according to User:WeldingVeerasamy in the talk page, Nayanar refers to TMSV. Further this means that TMSV itself could have descended from Jains and be not even native Tamilians.

Concluding arguments

All the claims made by opposite side have now been proved wrong. These are the the claims proven by me.

• Mudali started as a title only and was used by many groups as per inscriptions shown. Mudali means officer. Mudali became surname only later however period is unknown. All groups which were using Mudali title, started using them as surname.

• There is no order or date when each group started using Mudali title as surname. So no group can claim that they were the first to use the title as surname.

• There are differences in the position and occupation of different groups that use Mudali title and surname. Some of them have dropped these titles and adopted different titles.

• KKV/TMV were the original settlers of Tondai-Mandalam. They were not the first to use Mudali title. Since all Vellalars of Tondai-mandalam use Mudali title and there are two distinct groups TMV/KKV and TMSV, the Mudali cannot refer to a single group. It was used as a title for many groups.

• TMV/KKV need a separate section in the Mudaliar article.

• There are no proofs for any Tondai-mandala Saiva Vellala in any inscription in India. So TMSV should stop referring to the Irschick articles and books because Irschick never discusses TMSV.

• The Vaiyapadal proof is a work of fiction written for the glorification of the local leaders in Sri Lanka due to the representation of so many fictional characters as facts. So it cannot be considered an scholarly work.

• The earliest use of Mudali title in 10th century and 11th century was to refer to an officer. Kaikkolas were using this title from the period of Chola and Pallava kingdoms. Clear proofs of inscriptions translated by the Archealogical Survey of India have been given. There are also other groups as shown in my evidence list.

• The 4 articles Sengundhar, Kaikolan, Sengunthar and Kaikolar are one and the same and need to be merged.

• Current group called Sengunthar or Kaikolar have nothing to do with devadasi tradition. That group is called Isai-Vellalar. So let's clean up the devadasi and all other articles.

So, let's bring this arbitration to a close if there are no other solid proofs.

My Edit History, dispute resolution attempts and good behavior

As I said before, from the time since this arbitration process has started, I have refrained from editing any of the involved articles. I am planning to wait until this arbitration is completed. Since arbitration is the final step, the result of the arbitration should be final and binding and there is no need to argue further.

Even though User:Dina has mentioned some of my negative activities, she has not mentioned all the positive steps I took to solve this dispute resolution in a scholarly manner. These steps were taken after her advice too.

I have initiated the following steps over a period of months:

• RFC
• Dispute Resolution Survey
• Mediation
• Arbitration.

So I don't see why I should be removed from editing these articles. If my arguments and proofs are sound, then the articles should reflect the correct version backed by facts instead of propaganda and slander. That is my humble opinion and request.

Request to Arbitrators - Possible solution

Hi Arbitrators,

I'd like to thank you first for taking the time to go through this arbitration procedure. Personally I think the arbitration procedure has to be brought to closure.

The reasons are

• Leaving the articles as they are; Future editors, sockpuppets could start the same game again.
• All the hard work put in by the current editors will be useless unless the arbitration reaches closure.
• If other editors do this game again, the same ruckus will be created with dispute resolution, RFC, mediation and arbitration.

Please see the article Gounder which went through a similar phase and was finally resolved with a page linking to pages of the different groups.

Finally in the spirit of Wikipedia, articles should not used for propaganda. The articles should only reflect truth and should NOT contain lies and false references.

More Proofs coming

Both sides of this dispute reproach each other with bitter recriminations where self-examination would be more appropriate. They posted several appeals for assistance to my user talk page. I have no comment on the merits of the content dispute, but the debate has descended to childish levels:

• Mudaliar (30 March 2007): looks like somebody's crying, hehe. [177]
• Venki (30 March 2007): Simple truth - No proofs no edits - Liar Liar Pants on Fire. [178]

On March 31 I semiprotected the article talk page [179] and asked the participants to refactor inappropriate comments and participate in the page's formal mediation request, cautioning them that arbitration and topic banning were feasible consequences if problems continued. [180] A new edit war promptly broke out over the placement of threads on the talk page, during which my advice was not only ignored but deleted. I reposted the next day (not that it did any good). [181]

In my opinion neither editor is capable of encyclopedic collaboration at this article. Durova ^Charge! 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I think the length and hairsplitting of this evidence page is probably the best evidence of how both parties have handled themselves in this dispute. I originally tried to deal with it somewhat (in spite of frankly, having very little understanding of the context of the dispute.) this winter. There was a massive amount of complaining and bickering on my talk page in January & February that I eventually just started to ignore (as any advice I gave about mediation & process was being ignored.) I did block Venki123 for blatant WP:3RR. I also gave the following constructive criticism to both editors after briefly protecting the article. Mudalier basically admitted to sock puppetry on my talk page (it was obvious anyway) and I blocked at least one of his socks [182] None of what I did seemed to have any effect, and I grew weary of all the messages on my talk page and my email. The two editors subsequently went on to draw other editors into the dispute, and I expect those editors have grown weary of it as well. It felt to me that any attempt to get these two to act like adults only resulted in another round of them bickering and pressing their case via talk page & email. I suspect the only solution is to ban both editors from editing on this topic. Both have been civil enough to me in all our dealings, on and off wiki, but neither seems to accept that, well, they just need to cut it out. All either editor seems to do is edit war on about 3 articles and then spend the rest of the time complaining about the other, and making accusations. Dina 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply