Talk:Reddy

Shudra cites

(largely copying this over from Talk:Kamma (caste):

To get consensus, presenting here a few academic references which note the Shudra status of the Reddy:

• and the Sale or weaver caste show a higher rate of literacy than all the 'upper Shudras' (Kamma, Velama, Reddi, etc[1]
• In Andhra, the Shudra higher castes Kamma and Reddi turned out to be the dominant landlord castes. In scuttling land reforms benefitting the downtrodden or committing atrocities, these Shudra Castes are nonetheless akin...[2]
• According to local Hindu caste hierarchy Brahman is regarded as superior caste followed by the Kshatria, Vysya, and Sudra. Reddy,Kapu,Kamma, Yadava, Balija & velama in the present study come under Sudra...[3]
• The tenant-cultivators in the zamindari and ryotwari areas also belonged to the Sudra varna which included peasant castes as well as artisan castes, viz., the Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, Raju, Telaga, Balija, Saale (weaver), Chakali (washerman[4]
• The second group consisted of the four dominant upper sudra castes of Andhra Pradesh viz., Kamma, Reddy, Kapu and Patnaik[5]
• The agricultural castes of the Telegu country are the following :— L Telega. 4. Reddi Varu. 2. Vellama Varu. 5. Kapu. 3. Kamma Varu. 6. Nagas. These are all high caste Sudras. They enlist in the army as common soldiers.[6]

Given the great frequency with which Reddy (like the Kamma) are referred to as Shudra in these works, academic and political, ranging from very recent to a century old, by authors foreign and Indian, why should we not make note of their Shudra status in the article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Most definetely Shudra status it can be added to both the articles - Reddy and Kamma. Because it has valid cites. In the same way warrior status should also be added with -- > valid cites. Reddy and Kamma for all practical purposes are "sibling" castes i.e both castes have pretty much the same vital statistics. Both these agrarian castes have had martial links and the Reddys arguably more martial, but then I would be accused of being prejudiced. It is just my opinion. And I only wish that same rules should apply to all articles. that is my only request and motive.thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Link to Kshatriya status of Reddys here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, are you serious? The snippet (and that's all we can see) appears to say that after the Reddies became powerful, genealogies were made up for them, as is common with other Kshatriya claimants. Is that the absolute only way to read it? No, however I think you're reading of it as "definitely Kshatriya" is more of a stretch than mine of "had to make up a Kshatriya past", and given that it's Snippet view only and a 1938 governmental document (not an academic one) just weakens the case further. If it were a government document that said "we of the Raj classify Reddies as Kshatriya" that would be something worth noting (not as conclusive, but as historiography), but the quote doesn't even have that. Can you please at least attempt to justify the quotes you provide, as above? Or are you literally just trying to stall for time by providing unusable quotes? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have completely missed the fluid caste system part here.

Another link here that is even more clear. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion

I am voting in favor of removal of "Varna" content from the related castes Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, velama articles. The reasons why I have come to this conclusion is the following:

1. This was forced upon us in this article to add "Shudras". I am disputing why it should be there. We have never CLAIMED Kshatriya status in the lede. We are not subscribing to the Kshatriya varna and never claimed "dvija" status.

Please look at the following links, and as you know in south india the varna concept is forced upon and is a contentious issue.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7RW6MrAiJ-0C&pg=PA176&dq=reddi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=OB0rTpHGDM_qrQeOkvixDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6wEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=reddi%20kshatriyas&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=GhQrTu_ZOcnhrAfsg4iyDQ&ct=book-thumbnail&id=nG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=reddys+in+south+indian+caste+system&q=reddys#search_anchor

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=lRgtTr75C8rorQfd7qz2Dw&ct=book-thumbnail&id=AOU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=reddy+sat-sudra&q=wily#search_anchor

Page 93 in this link - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aX-ZAEit4fgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Caste+and+democratic+politics+in+India+By+Ghanshyam+Shah&hl=en&ei=ngATTuq8OpDNrQeSg7CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=reddys%20kshatriyas&f=false

It says - The Reddys, Nairs and Marathas were never backward. They are the Kshatriyas , Vaisyas of the north with the difference that religion did not sanctify these castes.meaning in the Aryan Brahmanical varna they are listed as upper shudras. But that was never accepted by Reddys.

There are accounts of "wily" Aryan Brahmins who just waltzed in and saw these prosperous and dominant castes and started to demean them by craftily creating a section called upper shudras. I am not disputing that in the Brahmanical system, reddys, kammas are upper shudras, i am just saying that "Varna" issues are contentious and highly debatable topic. So it is unfair to put up something so contentious up there especially when we are not claiming that we are Kshatriyas or brahmins or dvijas. The intention is that we just do not want to enter the GREY area and the highly contentious topic of Varna Foodie 377 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I love your arguments and sources but come to a very different conclusion: it is precisely because these issues are complex and gray that we need to cover them. And not cover them with 3-4 words in an infobox (I'm coming to agree with Sitush that infoboxes are not only unhelpful but damaging here, see WP:Disinfoboxes), but cover them in the body of the article with a good summary of just how complex they are. You note varna was "forced" on South India, and I agree that appears to be the case, but that's even more reason to discuss the forced-ness, not just handwave it away as "forced" and thus somehow not significant. It may well be the case that much of South India will have to start any caste/varna mention with "it's complicated..." and follow up further down the page, as I did on Kayastha, but I think this controversy, rather than showing we should "leave it be" shows that these are "open wounds" or significant modern notability that need to be described. Though the goal of Wikipedia is not to Right Great Wrongs, I would submit for anyone concerned that people will be hurt by dredging up varna issues: people are already being hurt by the follow-on effects of varna issues, and being open about complex varna history is one way to keep this issues transparent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok what are your proposals? Because its just inane to just edit-war. How do you think we can better achieve a fair and balanced take on Varna in these articles.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I created a section for this at WPINDIA. Please continue discussion there. Foodie 377 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Foodie 377 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

All Subcastes of Reddies come under OC

All the Reddies come under Forward Caste(OC) and no one in the presnt days is bothered about their Sub castes. Reddies are uniting themselves. Even though there are several subcastes of reddies, every Reddy is marrying other Reddy irrespective of their Subcaste. And a kind information to all who discuss on subcastes of Reddies is to avoid the division among us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaktiswaroopreddy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, interesting point; do you have any WP:Reliable sources (media articles, academic works, etc) to back up these assertions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

Sorry if the removal upset you, Foodie 377. Adding citation needed tags is never a requirement; information which is unsourced and not "obvious" can be removed immediately. Did it have to be removed? No, a citation needed tag would also have been an acceptable choice. But once 2 (and now 3) separate editors consider the information to be questionable (personally, I think any claim that a particular group lives in a wide-ranging number of different places is always questionable), it's now up to the person who wants it in the article to find a citation to verify it. Furthermore, even if you found such a citation, you would need to put that info in the body; the lead should not tease with a point like "they're found in this country and this country" without giving some info in the background to explain why this is (and, of course, verify it). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Irish Reddy

I think it should be mentioned somewhere that the name Reddy is also an Irish surname that is completely unrelated Eggilicious (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)