Talk:Nair/Archive 3

Edit warring (regarding Nairs as Sudras)

I have protected this page until the disputes are resolved. Edit warring is unhealthy for a collaborative environment like wikipedia. Involved parties are requested to discuss the issues below and arrive at a consensus at the earliest.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Deepu. Maybe now, I can get people who are simply reverting this article to discuss their changes. There is no doubt that Nairs were a martial and ruling class. As feudal lords, the occupied an elite stratum of society. However, this does not preclude them being classified as Sudras. But pointing this fact out in this encyclopedic article bruises more than a few egos. My reasons for classifying Nairs as Sudras as are follows:

• From O. Chandumenon's Indulekha (in the Foreword): "...Meanwhile, changes taking place in agriculture (increasingly tuned to export and the money economy) and land ownership/tenure had increased the wealth and standing of the Nairs (a martial group, Sudra by caste [emphasis mine]) in relation to that of the Nambuthiris...". O. Chandumenon was a Nair, and his book Indulekha is pretty good reflection of the society of the time. He explicitly states Nairs to be Sudras.

• Namboothiris themselves classified Nairs as the "Pure Sudras of Malayala". They were considered an honoured caste, but Sudra nonetheless. In addition, children born out of a Sambandham relation between a Namboothiri man and a Nair woman, belonged to the Nair woman's family (according to marumakkathayam). This led to situations where, for example, a Nair son could not eat with his Namboothiri father (his touch would be polluting) and a Namboothiri man would not be able to eat food prepared by his Nair wife. Someone may point out that the very basis of Sambandham is physical contact, which would seem to contradict the "untouchability", but for that particular case the rule was relaxed for obvious reasons.
• Nairs do not wear the sacred thread. If they were Kshatriya (or even Vaishya), this would not be the case. Of course there are myths of Nairs removing their thread to escape Parasurama's wrath. The myth may be based in fact, or it may just be attempted political legitimization using religion. We simply do not know.

Ego has no place here. This is place for reporting fact. As a Nair myself, I don't have a problem with this. And if you really want to get philosophical, even the Dharmashastras say that caste is not just determined by birth, but by action in life. So what does it really matter? --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്) 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

O. Chandumenon was a novelist, not a historian. Using Indulekha as a historical source cannot be accepted. --125.22.57.67 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

His letter to the Malabar Marriage Commission is an excellent source. Furthermore, his novel was for two purposes. The first being to create a nice and readable Malayalam novel, and the second, more oblique one was to show his opposition to the Marriage act. His novel is very historically accurate. Furthermore, the Foreword is based on fact, and not part of the actual story. --vi5in^[talk] 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey i know for a fact that there is a caste that we held below the Nairs called Vellalas and they are stated in historic documents of Travancore as Vaisyas...the same documents state their inferiority to the Nairs who were Sudras....i guess the term Sat Sudra as used among the Bunts, Reddys etc would be suitable for the Nairs/// Manu

Manu, others - Why are you so keen in classifying Nair into one of the four varnas? I think you should get rid of this classification. You cannot generalize Nair (or any other caste) into a particular Varna(Read Manusmriti). Somebody called you Sudra in the past to have supremacy on you. That doesn't mean you have to carry it along. Come out of narrow mindedness. I also noticed another article "caste system of kerala". I don't understand the intention behind creating this article. It's not a good sign anyway. Pallathottath

Well, I have no problem against removing the caste infobox. But even if we removed that and then went in and said that Nairs are Sudras, we would come back to the same problem. That being, people have a problem with it. We cannot say that Nairs are Kshatriyas; that much is certain. It is a fact however, that Nairs were called Sudras. Like someone here said, they really don't "fit-in" to the varna system. So maybe Nairs are neither. However, we need to mention all these facts. I suggest a compromise. We can remove the caste infobox. After that, how about saying something like "Though the Nairs were a martial class, and many were feudal lords, they were still considered Sudras (Pure Sudras of Malayala) by the Namboothiris." --vi5in^[talk] 08:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Though the Nairs were a martial class, and many were feudal lords, they were considered Sudras (Pure Sudras of Malayala) by some Namboothiris." --125.22.57.67 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything except for the "some Namboothiris" part. I believe as a class, Namboothiris believed Nairs were Sudras. --vi5in^[talk] 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that namboothiris as a class considered Nairs as sudras would be a sweeping generalization. We know that some namboothiris had no problem with entering into quasi-marital relationships with Nair women. We have to devise some way of qualifying the statement. Also, I reiterate that the infobox needs to go. --125.22.56.87 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a generalization. Nairs were considered untouchable for Namboothiris. However, this rule was waived for rather obvious reasons in the case of a Sambandham. This is made more evident by the fact that the children from such a union could not eat with their Namboothiri father. Also, the Namboothiri could not eat food prepared by his Nair wife. Ok, so can I assume that the consensus is on removing the infobox and adding the sentence I suggested, to the article? --vi5in^[talk] 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vivin, we could go on and on about this. It's not your or my fault - it's the fault of the ridiculous caste system, which does not make sense to most rational people. Since you can justly claim to be the father of this article, I have no problem letting you have your way on that particular sentence, but kindly remove that infobox. Thanks. --125.22.48.215 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be the "father" of this article. It is true that I did do the initial (major) write-up, but a number of people have contributed to it. It is true, however, that I do take an interest in this article. In addition to removing the infobox, I would like to hear your opinion on the sentence I suggested. --vi5in^[talk] 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is everyone so obsessed with the caste infobox? Wikipedia pages of Ezhava, Namboothiri, Pulayar, Paraiyar or Nadar do not contain the infobox. Then why include it for the Nair caste only? The infobox is the major source of all the rancor. Let's get rid of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.17.127.57 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Comment/Request: It would certainly add more meaning to the discussion if the anonymous users involved would please take a few minutes to register a username here.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment expressed. I don't use a user name to sign my comments primarily because of privacy concerns. If a comment is judged purely by its content, it does not really matter whether the person making it is doing it with a user name or doing it anonymously. Perhaps, that is why Wikipedia allows anonymous posting in the first place. --125.22.56.87 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually using a username on wikipedia guarantees anonymity rather than having an IP (which can be traced). Also you don't have to use your real name, a nickname will suffice. If you are so interested in this subject, it would be nice if you were also an active member of the wikipedia community. --vi5in^[talk] 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the pain to explain this to me. However, I wouldn't worry too much about my IP address getting shown. After all, I'm not in Iran or China, and it is not government persecution that I'm worried about. From my IP address, you may be able to discern which ISP I use, or which city I'm from - that's okay with me. My IP address changes every time I log off the Internet. During that time the same IP address might have been allotted by the ISP to another user. On the other hand, if I use a common nickname across Wikipedia, it is possible for other users to see which all articles I'm contributing to in Wikipedia. Knowing which all articles I contribute to in Wikipedia will give away my interests, ideology and a good deal of other things about me that I wouldn't want to disclose. For example, despite me not being a particularly bright person, I would be able to guess within 10 minutes, from his contributions, that Deepujoseph is a native of Kochi, lives/lived in Canada (more likely) or USA (less likely), is a catholic, knows his Bible and is very religious, exhibits extraordinary interest in the Hindu caste system, wires money home, has watched the movie 'Letters from Iwo Jima', and has studied in Toc-H school (and is proud of it). Maybe I'm wrong on all counts there - but that is my perception of that user, and this perception is at the back of my mind every time I judge an action he undertakes on Wikipedia, and particularly this page. I don't want this to happen with me. You might argue then, that I should go for multiple user names and use these different user names for posting on different pages. But realistically speaking, how many people would go to all that trouble? So, you're welcome to view my IP address. --125.22.48.215 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of going off-topic, Wikipedia tries to foster a community spirit. I guess you may want to remain exceptionally anonymous as you don't even want people to know what articles you have contributed to. That is fine, but also know that here on wikipedia, people without usernames aren't taken as seriously. You may have that going against you no matter how good your intentions. I personally won't judge anyone based on the articles they contribute to, or edit. Deepu doesn't try to hide where he is from, or who he is. Neither do I. If I really wanted to, I could hide myself very well. I have the technological know-how. Secondly, at the risk of sounding pedantic too, a simple query to the ISP is enough to find out who exactly you are :). It is much harder with a username. --vi5in^[talk] 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind anyone finding out my identity, and I'm not stupid enough not to understand the ramifications of my IP address being posted. And yes, I too have the technological know-how to hide myself. As I said, it's not government persecution that I'm worried about. It's just that I don't want to be analyzed and have people drawing less than half-true conclusions about me, based on my contributions. I haven't said anything in this article that I would want to hide. But this strategy of not using a user name is one that I have evolved after two years of being active on Wikipedia, and one that I prefer to be following as a general principle. So it's just that I'm making no exceptions for this article. As far as being taken seriously is concerned, I rest assured that the content of my suggestions will do the trick for me, as my Wikipedia experience has taught me. --125.22.51.68 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting analysis about me, 125.22.48.215. However I wish half of that was true. :-)

Deepu, 125.22.48.215 is already someone else :-) --125.22.51.68 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, let us not deviate further from the topic. Please discuss the changes to the article as required and arrive at a consensus. It is not wishful for an article to be fully protected for so long.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought a consensus has been already been reached. Vivin's sentence stays, and the infobox goes. Any objections? --125.22.51.68 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So I take it we are all in agreement? Mr. Anonymous, I didn't mean to sound arrogant, I was just pointing something out! (Guess Who!) --85.154.9.56 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nairs are neither Sudras or Kshatriyas. They are not an Aryan race, hence doesn't belong to any varna system. They were dravidian warriors. They were rulers and warriors of Kerala during pre-brahmin era.Hence the information which states Nairs as 'Sudra' is misleading. The hindu varna system in Kerala itself is different from that of the other vedic brahmin oriented places of India. For eg. The very word 'Nair' was synonimous to 'Warrior' in ancient Kerala. Sudras were never treated as 'warriors' any where in ancient India. If Nairs are treated as Sudras, How the other castes (most of which are below Nairs) in Kerala will be classified. As per the varna system 'Sudras' belong to the bottom most section of the society. So please remove the misleading the info status box from the page to do justice to this community portal. --59.92.133.39

like to associate with "lower" castes. That is why these Nayars tend to marry amongst themselves rather than with "Kiriyathil Nayars". Today, all of this is just dead history, and should not make a difference with anything. Vivin is right, man is judged by his actions, not by his birth. Kshatriyan 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kshatriyan, do you have any references for the "Kshatriya Dharma" information? --vi5in^[talk] 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is most hilarious...read historic books mr 'konthunni' . Why dont you try the keralahistory.ac.in website where in one of the online books it is clearly mentioned that Namboodiris had Sambandhams with ladies of aristocratic families so that they could gain a say in the regional or national politics and the nairs on their side, being non aryans as far as race is concerned was to purify their furture generations. Your suggestion that they were maid servants etc is plain stupid..all my ancestresses have had Sambandhams with Namboodiris and they were most certainly not servants of anybody...it seems you are new to this page...anyways what exactly is the point of argument with vivin here??? and by the way all the ettuveetil women were not sold to fishermen...yeah i think three of them were executed and sold as slaves etc but the remaining were pardoned and their families still exist..Narayana guru studied in the school started by the Pillai of Chempazhanty...and the wife of the Travancore Rajah wasnt called an Amachi....she was known as the Panapillai Amma or Panapilla Rani...Thampi houses were known as Ammaveedus...the descendants of the non ruling princes were called Valiathans and Unnithans..their womenfolk were Kunjammas ...and the Namboodiris dicatated caste rules in Kerala and according to them Nairs were Sudras...but whts the big deal??? we all know our heritage and so many other castes like Bunts, Marathas, Jats etc are branded Sudras as well...y the big fuss and controversy in Kerala regarding the Nairs??? but as vivin said the fact is that the Nairs, though powerful, were called Sudras though not really at that level....neways...Manu

(Excerpts from Dr.S.Omana's doctrol thesis honoured by the University of Kerala) Until recently Malayali Brahmins practiced the most heinous sociological crime of keeping women of a certain section of the Hindu community as concubines, without having the obligation of a responsible husband or father. As Travancore, Cochin and Malabar were under theocratic rule for a long time, these Nambudiris managed to keep the Rajas of these states in a socio-political hypnosis and got large areas of land and temples under their undisputed hegemony. They used the land and the favor of the Rajas to give a social acceptance to their illegitimate relationships which were known as sambandham.

Certain powerful Nair chiefs were 'baptized' by the Brahmins with a hocus-pocus ritual of making them 'Raja-designate' to be symbolically born out of a golden cow. The priest's fee was the golden cow. Thus the Kshatriyas of Kerala are homemade products. Nairs were a martial class. They had gymnasiums conducted by Kurups, where they taught martial arts.

The Varmas must be the Nair converted Kshatriyas she is taking about Panikkar

Who is this Dr.Omana?(Dr Darling).(There's a famous short story "Darling" by Anton Checkhov with this title!) Let's have more details. Who was her guide? What's her caste? What's the guide's caste? Where did the guide receive his doctorate from?What are the source materials that she was quoting from? And what are the sources of these sources? Who authored these? What exactly did Dr.Omana mean by the term "concubines"? What did she mean by "sociological" crime? How does the practice become a heinous crime if both the partners (i.e. the male and the female; in this case, Nambuthiri man and Nair woman) consent to the relationship whatsoever? Has Dr.Darling considered the case when the female's affluent enough and therefore is not in need of any assistance from her Nambuthiri consort? Has Dr.Omana considered the possibility that the women might have been charmed by her prospective lover and did n't really care whether he left her to her own devices sooner or later. (All life's transient, after all!) Theocratic rule means rule by the theologians or the priests. Is it true that Travancore, Malabar anf Cochin were ever ruled by priests? Can Dr. Omana tell us about at least one theologian who was in power?What does Omana ( for I have now my reservations about the appropriateness of the prefix "Dr.")mean by the compound and phrase socio-political hypnosis? Does she expect us to indulge in guess work? ... It would be preposterous to continue like this, questioning the veracity of the assumptions made in an apparently mediocre "Ph.D" thesis- at least that's what the extract suggests- and rush to "original " deductions. Please bring in something much more authentic, that's worth expending our time and resources on. I too shall try, though the endgame seems to have been predetermined. That endgame leaves all the players as "Savarna Sudras"!!!!Palattu Koman 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes its common knowledge that the Varmas are the above mentioned Kshatriyas... Manu

Rather arrogant to dismiss a PhD. If her views have been honoured by the Kerala University, I would assume they have a much larger set of people who are knowledgeable enough to understand her hypothesis and who have seen fit to grant her a doctorate. I guess nothing's good enough if it doesn't agree with a certain viewpoint. --vi5in^[talk] 10:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

some research work

Have a look and see where Nair history fits in...

Caste movements and erosion of traditional order

"The first step in the weakening of the state's traditional caste-based social system came under the colonial system. Challenges to the stability of the old system also came from within the caste structure. The emergence of caste movements led to the mobilization of low castes. Such movements could first be seen in the religious field; they later spread their claims to greater access to social status and polical power. Social, historical, and cultural factors encouraged the emergence not only of caste movements among different Hindu communities - like the low caste Ezhavas or high-middle caste Nairs- but also the mobilization of such non-Hindu communities as Christians and Muslims"

"In contrast, the position that Nair people held in the caste system did not require an attack on the religious system. However the Nair movement's attempt to break their historical dependence on the Namboodiris-Brahmin caste- united them to the liberal mainstream. The movement sought to promote greater equality among different communities. It also attempted to change the rules that governed its internal organization- the matrilineal system- that prevented it from taking advantage of new economic opportunities"

"The original political strategy of the Ezhavas and Nair movements to make a collective submission of the so-called Malayali Memorial to Travancore state authorities in 1891 called for equal access for all communities to public jobs, positions dominated by Tamil Brahmins"

Reference:

State and Society Relationships in India: Explaining the Kerala Experience Gemma Cairo Asian Survey, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Jul. - Aug., 2001), pp. 669-692. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-4687%28200107%2F08%2941%3A4%3C669%3ASASRII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K --Aca123 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's some really good information that should be added to the article. But I'm not exactly sure where. A new section perhaps? --vi5in^[talk] 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

some more research

Read on...

In a Malayalam text entitled the Jatinirnayam, which, as Iyer(1912:15) explained, is a "work of some authority, which gives an account of Malayali castes,"

eighteen Nayar subdivisions are listed (with their traditional occupations) in order of rank:

(1) Kiriyam; (2) Iiiam; (3) Svarupam ; (4) Padamangalam; (5) Tamil Padam; (6) Itasseri (herdsmen); (7) Maran (drummers); (8) Chempukotti (coppersmiths); (9) Otattu(tilemakers); (10) Pallicchan(palanquin-bearers); (11) Matavan or Puliyath (servants to Brahmans and Ambalavasis); (12) Kalamkotti or Anduran (potters); (13) Vattakkatan or Chakkala(oilmongers); (14) Asthikkuracchi or Chitikan (funeral priests); (15) Chetti (traders); (16) Chaliyan (weavers) (17) Veluttetan (washermen); (18) Vilakkitittalavan (barbers)

(K.P.P Menon 1933:192-195)."

"Only Nayars from the highest subdivison are said to have been solders. Kiriyam ranks highest throughout Kerala, although (except in the far north) there are few Kiriyam Nayars in Tranvancore"

"This stucture is an interesting feature, for it embodies, so to speak a caste system within a caste system, subdivisions mirror all the main caste categories: high-status aristocrats,military and landed; artisans and servants; and untouchables."

"this process of status raising occured predominantly among the highest-ranking and most powerful or wealthy Nayars. 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 subdivisons. (such a view was not, of course, shared by the authors of publications sponsored by the royal goverments of Tranvancore and Cochin.)"

"Arguing that only as a united community could Nayars form a powerful political force in the state, the N.S.S has always compaigned for the abolition of subdivisons among the Nayars. It has not only encouraged intermarriage between subdivisions, but has asked Nayars to refuse to reveal their subdivision membership to census enumerators"

"To return to the question of what the Nayar caste is (or was)" its is a large, named social group (or, perhaps preferably, category) with a stable status, visa-a-vis other castes in Kerala. It is not, however, a solidary group, and, the efforts of the N.S.S. notwithstanding, it is never likely to become one"

Reference:

The Internal Structure of the Nayar Caste C. J. Fuller Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 31, No. 4. (Winter, 1975), pp. 283-312. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-7710%28197524%2931%3A4%3C283%3ATISOTN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 --Aca123 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That was indeed commendable work.A contribution like this adds quality and imparts a professional touch to the discussions.I am puzzled, however, on this statement about Kiriyathu nairs. I have resided in Southern Travancore long enough to notice that "Kiriyathu" nairs are derisively referred to as "Karicha" ("Karichakal"),for whatever reason, and the aristocrats of these parts would n't give their daughter's hand in marriage to a "Karicha".

Also,the military traditions of South Travancore Nairs are too well known for further elaboration here, not to mention the formidable "Ettuveettil Pillamar" who strived to do away with the Travancore Royalty or valiant generals like Eravikutty Pillai Padathalavan and Veluthampi Dalawa.(The former won the first ever victory of a native State over a Colonial power, viz the victory of Travancore in the Battle of Kulachal(1670?)in which the Dutch army was trounced and their General De Lennoy was captured as prisoner; and the latter led one of the earliest known uprisings against British hegemony.)

The Nair armies of Travancore had subjugated almost every other principality in Kerala, and, to quote a contributor to these pages, "extended suzerainty of the tiny Travancore state till North Parur, brought the Scions of Kochi Royal Family to their knees, and made the Zamorin of Kozhikode hasten to sign a truce". So? Who formed the Nair armies of Travancore, if Kiriyathu alone were the martial group elsewhere?

As far as I have gathered, the soldiers were recruited from dedicated families known as "Padanair Veedu" spread out all over South Travancore(Interestingly, there are "Padanair Veedukal" in our extreme north too.For instance, the late poet P.Kunhiraman Nair belonged to one of these.Possibly, the borders -with Tamilnadu and Karnataka- had a genuine need for martial tribes to repel cultural incursions!)

To return to the point, Nairs from the Padanair Veedu were not Kiriyathu.Therefore, I am not certain whether C J Fuller's classification encompasses truly the Nairs of the southern Travancore.

In either case, ."Nair" is much more than a mere caste or social group. An attempt to constrain the Nairs into the Rigid Varna System would be ludicrous.That ,at least,has been my refrain throughout these discussions Palattu Koman 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research should augment rather than complement the reference material, since it's imporant that the basic processes of history are identified.No wonder one sets store by the studied observations on the "paranormal" from a scholar of immense erudition like Arnold Toynbee, for example, rather than the hasty conclusions of Velayudhan Panikkassery ( who argued that "Menons" originated from Ezhava/Thiyya) Palattu Koman 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aca123, thank you very much for all this research that you are doing. A while ago I had a section in this article called "Kshatriyas or Sudras?". Although I didn't realize it at the time, it qualified as Original Research since I was basically stating my observations. I think we might be able to add something like that in this article now - basically identifying the Nairs as an ethnic group rather than a caste (i.e., one according to the Varna system). Since we have references, it wouldn't be original research. --vi5in^[talk] 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly the Travancore State Manual mentions that the Kiriyam Nairs belong only to Malabar and Cochin...The book also mentions particlularly that the Nairs are broadly classed into two groups (1) the Genuine Nairs (2) the inferior Nairs...the Kiriyam, Illam, Swarupam, Tamil Padam and Padamangalam (the last two are said to be Tamil migrants and were temple servants mainly...the Devdasis of the Padmanabhapuram temple were Tamil Padam ladies) were the genuine Nairs while the remaining were the inferior Nairs...and it mentions that Nairs from all the groups were taken as soldiers...i think the malabar manual also mentions the same. And the Jati Nirnyanam (though i havent got a copy there are a few parts of the book in the TSM) states "18 Sudras" and you will notice that Marans were, till abt 2 centuries ago, not considered Nairs...likewise the so called inferior Nairs were also addressed always by the caste name and never by the name of Nair...and before people fire away at me, im not saying all this...this is what my book mentions. Thanks Manu

Clarifcation on status of Nairs

Aca123 has provided some rather interesting information. Instead of showing the different types of Nairs ("inferior" or "superior" as the TSM alleges) I think we should focus on what facts we have:

1. Kerala was a classless society until the arrival of the Namboothiris. There was a loose hierarchical system with the Cheras/Nair chieftans at the top. ¹. We also know that Nairs (or some sort of similar community) were in Kerala before the arrival of the Namboothiris. I gave a quote from the Mahabharata earlier in this talk page where Karnan states his contempt for a certain group of people from the south, where the wealth of a man goes to his sister's children and not his own. So some sort of Marumakkathaayam system existed at least at the time of the writing of the Mahabharata. So we can establish that a) Kerala didn't really have a rigid caste system as per the varna system and b) Nairs (or some sort of similar community) were in Kerala before the Namboothiris arrived.
2. Before the arrival of Namboothiris, Kerala also appeared to be following Buddhism or Jainism. The Namboothiris engaged the Buddhists in debate and apparently defeated them, brining Hinduism to the land. Furthermore, people like Sankaracharya helped spread Hinduism as well. It also appears that during this time, the Namboothiris established themselves as the uppermost caste. Exactly how is not clear, but Dr. Zacharias Thundy draws parallels between the Catholic Church in Rome and the Namboothiris in Kerala ². One problem I see is that Dr. Zacharias Thundy says that Marumakkathayam came into existence after the Chera-Chola war. The is cited in the article as well. That's a problem because the Mahabharata (dated earlier) describes a similar culture. So maybe we need to do more research on that end. However as a group, I can't find any references (online) to Nairs as a group until the Chera-Chola war in the 11th century.
3. Now that the Namboothiris are in power, they established a rather rigid caste system rather dissimilar from the varna system in the rest of India. They were Brahmins, but everyone else were Sudras. However, certain Chera-Nair chieftains were "promoted" to Kshatriyas through the Hiranyagarbha Kriya ceremony ³.

So I guess, the main things we need to do are:

1. Properly present the origin of Nairs. Including stating the fact of the exitence of a Marumakkathaayam culture during the time of the writing of the Mahabharata
2. Describe he unusual caste-structure in Kerala. Here, Nairs, though warriors and chieftains (performing Kshatriya-like) were still considered to be Sudras although some of them were "promoted" to Kshatriyas.

I think by stating all these facts the position will become much clearer. I'm not looking at this as a form of appeasement or consensus, but basically providing more information on a concept. I think we can do this with the references I have provided and the info provided by Aca123, without it being original research. Please let me know what you guys think. Also, when responding to this post, please indent your responses appropriately with the use of a colon. One colon will indent one level, two colons two levels and so on. It would make the discussion much easier to follow. --vi5in^[talk] 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with Vivin and what i gathered is similar to the above mentioned points...but i want to bring to your notice that the Mahabharata also mentions that people from Kerala participated in the war against the Pandavas...im not sure if the marumakathayam reference is with regard to the same people...and somehow i dont remember where i read it...ill try to find it though...also go through the last quote i added in the article...im hearing it for the first time but read it in a book...thanks Manu

Hey i found a reference on wiki itself..in Kerala Kingdom...the armies from Kerala are compared with the Chinas, Hunas and are generally called Mlecchas...the same article mentions tht Karna found the Keralas despicable coz of their inheritance....but doesnt mention them particularly...jus tht he found all marumakathayees bad...the palakamatom family website 1 says that a malayali chief participated...known as Perumchottudian..Mooshika Vamsam Kavyam states that the Haihaya Kings (aryans) reached PPayannur etc in the 5th century...aryanisation?? Brahmins r sposed to have come in at the same time too..Manu

Sources of Information

Web publishing

The development of the WWW as a source of information is much talked about and has certainly revolutionised the way researchers look for information.

The unique freedom to publish anything in this environment means caution needs to be exercised to ensure that any information is judged in terms of its “fit for purpose”.

I think my references has been very reliable and I would like to see others do that as well.

Here are some tips ...

Finding Reliable or credible information online

1) Sponsorship Identifying the site sponsor is important as this helps to establish the site as respected and dependable. If the site lists its advisory members or consultants, then this will give you further insight on the credibility of information published on the site. The web address can also provide additional information about the nature of the site and the sponsor's intent. Example: A government site typically has .gov or .org in the address.

2. Factual information Information should be presented in a clear manner. It should be factual (not opinion) and capable of being verified from a primary information source such as the professional literature, abstracts, or links to other Web pages.

Information represented as an opinion should be clearly stated and the source should be identified as a qualified professional or organization.

3. Audience The Website should clearly state what the information is intended for.

--Aca123 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Aca123. I'll go through the sites I've posted and see if they seem reliable enough. Shame on me for not even considering that :). Anyway, what do you think of the points I have presented? Do you have any books or papers that would support the points I have shown? --vi5in^[talk] 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The following could be of interest: janmanajayathe shudra:samskarena dwijothama: ("YATHI DHARMA SAMGRAHAM", page 23)Roughly translated, everyone is born as sudra, but attains one of the three varnas in accordance with his "karma" (work, effort, occupation)Also, "hiranya garbha danam" is one of the sixteen (shodasha) dana, performed by the "world" conquering emperor (raja of rajas or maharaja). These are "hiranyagarbha danam", "thula purusha danam", "brahmandakadaha danam","kalpakavrikshadanam","go sahasra danam", "swarna kamadhenu danam", "hiranyaswaradha dananm","hema hasthi ratha danam","panchalangala danam","bhoomidanam", "visvachakradanam","kalpakalata danam","sapta sagara danam","manidhenu danam", "maha bhootha kadaha danam"The purpose of "Hiranyagarbhadanam" is to transform a "Sudra" to "Kshatriya".Anizham Thirunal Marthanda Varma performed "Hiranyagarbhadanam" , before assuming office as the Maharaja of Travancore! Of the 2,00,000 "kazhanchu" of Gold required to make the "golden cow", the Dutch were asked to supply 10,000. (Varma's messengers conveyed this to, Van Inhough, the Dutch Governor of Ceylon at Thengapattinam on the 25th February 1739)(Ref: "Kulasekhara Perumals of Travancore" by Mark De Lennoy,Research School Cnws, Leiden, The Netherlands)So, was he a sudra before that?Palattu Koman 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a little weird....they are born to Kshatriya moms n dads yet like Christians they need hiranyagarbha....i guess its like baptism...ur parents r christians yet u rnt n so need baptism n commns to bcum a christian...likewise Manu

I am afraid it was much more than baptism. Not everyone had to do it.Was such indulgence a ploy to impress someone? The europeans? It was perhaps necessaruy that these latter were convinced of the sacred nature of monarchy and the fact of their being distinguished from the general milieu. The purity of "race" (which race?)was apparently of immense significance, when questions of legacy to the throne were settled. This was more so in the case of "Thripapur Swarupam" or Travancore.Aswathy Thirunal Ramavarma (also known as Dharmaraja) who passed away in the year 1797, had four Nair wives from the "Ammaveedu" (s) in Arumana, Thiruvattar, Nagercoil and Vadassery and numerous offsprings. However, none of these could be his successor. (In either case these people might have been too busy displaying the pomp and glory of their semi-royal origins, conveniently ignoring the subtleties of discrimination meted out by their paternal relations, who would n't even acknowledge them properly!)Instead,an imbecile called Balarama Varma,heir to the deceased monarch solely by virtue of his being the latter's nephew,was installed on the throne, heralding a catastrophic era in the history of Travancore.After Balan's premature death on the 7th November 1810- he was barely 26 years old-there was a war of succession between princelings adopted from the Kolathiri Royal family!Ironically,these worthies had sought refuge in Travancore during the campaigns of Tipu Sultan, and the onerous task of ruling Travencore was being proffered to them, since the palace did n't have a heir proper!. The protege of Colonel Munro,the British Resident, was confirmed ultimately by the Governor General, and the rivals were exiled. The important point here,is the stress on the lineage,family;on the purity of race.It might be interesting,therefore,to consider this premise: "The demarcating line between the Nair warlords who had a right to power, and the royal families that mushroomed all over Kerala, should be traced back to the early days of Aryan influx" Palattu Koman 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we r forgetting that the system was matriarchal then...i guess it just doesnt occur to people in a matriarchal system that they could be heirs to their fathers....so u cant really ask y the ammaveedus didnt claim succession....and i doubt if hiranygarbha was to impress the british....its sposed to have been there since the chera times....likewise i believe it was just a public show to prove that they WERE kshatriyas properly...likewise i guess the maharajahs kids were happy with thampi status....gave them a status equal to the kings, noticeable in their name itself which means 'brother' (to the kings ie) and rights like no need for special permission to meet the monarch, no need to bow down, no need to use inferior terms while talking, use of palakks, accepted relations (swathi thirunal called iryaman thampi as mamman....i gues it shows tht the thampis were considered relations)...all this cudve made them quite content...anyhow we cant judge the practices of the matriarchal days sitting here in a patriarchal society....so i guess the question as to why the children never claimed the throne etc should be left out...and hiranyagarbha was practised by travancore n cochin if im not mistaken while the zamorin needed only blessings of the azvanchery thampuran...and does anyone know if the subordinate kshatriya families, like mavelikara royal family etc had hiranyagarbha? or was it only for the monarch?? Manu

As far as the premise goes, are you trying to say that the Kshatriyas came into existence because of the influx of Namboothiris? That makes sense. But I'm not so sure about speculating the motive of the people to become Kshatriyas. The very basic motive is to provide legitimacy to their claims as Kings, but that's about it. --vi5in^[talk] 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was, men of proven military ability and organizational skills ( Veluthampi Dalawa,Iravi Kutty Pillai Padathalavan and many others) were kept at bay, while responsibilities were thrust on lesser men (refugees from Malabar etc) just because the former did n't qualify as Kshatriya. I did n't say that the Raja's offspring by his Nair consorts should have had a claim on the throne.

Also Nambuthiris are the priest class that emerged after the Aryan influx. The priests in any social order need not be, and are not, in this case,of a homogeneous race. As EMS Nambuthiripadu himself has conceded , Nambuthiris are of Arya-Dravida origin.(His dark, dimunitive figure- a far cry from (Boris Becker, for example?!!) the tall,blonde,blue eyed, golden haired Teuton- adds credence to the contention!).So, I doubt whether the "arrival of Aryans" can be equated with the "arrival of Nambuthiris".Palattu Koman 10:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup i guess your rite...legitimacy as Kshatriyas was the aim i guess...rite Manu

The emphasis on "kshatriyahood" among the Rajas of Kerala contrasts with the irony that these men were essentially cowards who hid behind the lances, swords and shields of the Nairs.

Rana Sanga of Mewar rode out to confront the advancing armies of Babur; Prithvi Raj Chauhan led his men to the battle field to face the awesome platoons of Afghan Marauders that followed Muhammed Ghori into Punjab.Rajputs were fighters to the core, and deserved the acolyte "Kshatria Warrior" every way. Did these heroes draw a comparison with the coward Kings of Kerala?

Barring Anizham Thirunal Marthanda Varma ( who was more of a consummate assassin than a warrior) none of the successive "Royal Sages" of Travancore saw action on the battle field.

His Highness Balarama Varma cowered inside the fort surrounded by Nair rebels that clamoured for his blood(November 1804).It was left to the British -assisted by armed contingents of Ezhavas, Christians and Fishermen that descended on the capital in droves and joined hands with the royalists - to persuade the rebels to raise siege.The leader of the Nair rebels, Subedar Krishna Pillai, was put to death by Veluthampi Dalawa who ordered the former to be trampled by an elephant.) (See "Ananthapuri Noottandukaliloode" pp 90-92 by K Shivashankaran Nair)

In addition, most of the later kings of Travancore had the dubious distinction of being the progeny of the Kolathiri Royal family that fled North Malabar during Tipu's campaigns.Even the Zamorin of Calicut had sought refuge in Travancore during these turbulent times.

The Zamorin ("Samuthirippadu") who arrived at Thirunavaya every twelve years for Mamanakam-to face the challenge of the Nair "Chaver" (suicidal squads) despatched by the Valluva Konathiri (Samantha of Vettathunadu / Valluvanadu)- was amply protected by his own Nair soldiers (led by Mangattachan?).The "Chaver" were systematically put to the sword by their counterparts as they advanced recklessly on to the Nilapadu Thara where the Samuthiri sat on his throne, ensconced in the protection of his henchmen. The risk to his life was zero.It was just another stage managed ritual of "Kshatriya valour".

The Raja of Pazhassi-or Pazhassi Raja,as he was affectionately referred to- who fought the British tooth and nail,was an exception.He was betrayed by the treacherous Ezhava and Christian informers of the British(christian migration from Travancore to Vayanadu commenced then). Pazhassi Raja stands out truly among Kerala's "Kshatriya" of questionable credentials.

Thus, in the Kerala context, the role profiles of the ruling Royales and their Nair Armed Forces did not exactly fit into the strait-jackets of Varnasrama.

Palattu Koman 07:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from editorializing and making blanket statements like "these men were essentially cowards who hid behind the lances, swords and shields of the Nairs". It's irrelevant, POV, and doesn't help the article. What we're here to do is clarify the ethnic status of Nairs. What I'm looking for is more references that I can use to support the points I made initially. --vi5in^[talk] 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ascertaining the ethnicity of Nairs cannot do without a careful scrutiny of their relative status vis a vis the other sections of society, in the light of historical facts.The conclusions following such analysis may not testify to the significance that you seem to attach to what Nambuthiri called the Nair etc.Also, I am off the article for quite some time now, in deference to the wishes of certain fellow editors who would rather discuss the proposed edits (and their background!) here.It goes without saying that one would certinly desist from use of the word "cowards" in an encyclopaedia article, while I find nothing wrong in discussing the concept here.

I shall of course be supplementing the text that I plan to add- i.e if i get the time-with References of the highest authenticity. Palattu Koman 05:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The only way to accurately describe Nair ethnicity in a social context is to describe their relation to other castes. Koman, when you have finished compiling your references please show us what you've got. In that vein, that's also why we need to describe Nair-Namboothiri relations and perceptions. Anyway, at least we have a good direction on all of this now. --vi5in^[talk] 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Additions to the article

I possess substantial info on the food habits and dress, ornaments etc of the Nairs. I noticed that the Namboodiri article has info on all that. Will it be fine if i add that to the article in a condensed form?? Manu

No need to even ask :). Just make sure you cite the source. I think it should probably be under the Customs section, I don't know if it merits a section of its own. --vi5in^[talk] 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heheh k i added it...its under a section which ive named general facts...thts how it comes in the book...so i guess its fine...check in out n correct it if essential Manu

Recent Changes

The recent changes in the article regarding marriage by a user kcsnambiar or somebody were quite shabby...before it is added please write it with links and in proper format...the article looks quite shabby otherwise...people have taken pains and efforts in writing it...this applies to all new editors..thanks Manu

What's so shabby about KCS Nambiar's edits?Palattu Koman 05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant it had several errors etc in it...facts were rite tho Manu

Wikify References and other Cleanup

An anonymous user has made some pretty good additions to the article. However, a few things need to be done. Remove all nonstandard quotes (the funky italicized ones you see when you edit the page) and replace them with ". Standardize spellings across the article. "Namboothiri" is spelt about three different ways now. As are other words. Just take a look and see what you can fix. Finally, I'd appreciate it if someone could help me wikify the references. I thought I would be able to do it this evening but I couldn't. Also I'm going to be rather busy this weekend. Check out Wikipedia:Citing sources. --vi5in^[talk] 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and wikified the references at the cost of losing the changes of the anonymous editor's new changes. I'll try to merge, but I've requested him to do it if he can. --vi5in^[talk] 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vivaham old form

Hey i m a little confused regarding the two sections on vivaham...older form n new form....i was under the impression Sambandham and Kettu Kalyanam were the only two forms in the past and Vivaham is the present form....whts this vivaham older form? was it followed till recently or summat? Manu

The "newer" form of Vivaham is the one practiced currently. The "old" form was the one that was in vogue during the 1800's, or at least during the time of Chandumenon's Indulekha. That's why I have two separate sections. --vi5in^[talk] 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's indeed heartening to note that the Article is shaping up, thanks to the effort of contributors who have drawn from well-researched reference material (Melinda Moor et al).Palattu Koman 08:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup the article looks pretty cool now...thanks to the anonymous user who added muc of the new info...Manu

Prune down the article

The article is also getting rather large. I suggest condensing or summarizing the different sections on Nair customs. All of those have articles of their own anyway. We can put most of the information into the individual articles and maintain a condensed version on this one. --vi5in^[talk] 17:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Panapillai Amma

I would suggest that a caption to this photo should be altered to "..Vishakham Thirunal's consort"(if at all Vishakham thirunal should be mentioned) rather than "......Vishakh's wife", because that's closer to the truth. Good old Vishu might have had as many "wives" as there are Ammaveedu( there were at least four). The use of the term "wife" at least as it's used in the western world today implies -if not the exchange of vows- monogamy.And that was certainly not the state of affairs here.

I would stress on this because I came across publications such as "Gosree" and another book dealing with the genaeology of the "Kings" of Perumpadappu Swaroopam (Kochi Royal Family) wherein the very mention of the Thampurans' wives (Nethyaramma) and children is steered clear of. And we are clamouring for identification with the "Varma" here all along!

Let this gracious lady be introduced as an example of the charms of the Nair woman.Why should there be a reference at all to her connection to Vishakh, except perhaps in a cursory manner?.It's more or or less clear to anyone participating in the foregoing discussions that the Nair race was inviegled into servility and ignominy by the Tantric Namboothiris and their royal patrons. It's high time we broke free of these mental shackles, since we can see through the entire gamut of "divine" tricks.

In an article that tells the world what Nairs are, Nambuthiri and Thampuran should n't certainly be anointed as objects of adulation. There's a need to de-romanticise institutions such as Ammaveedu, in order to portray their true role in history, which does not differ much from that of "pleasure-providers to the ruling elite"

I would rather go with Marxist historians like D D Kosambi and Marxist Literary Theorists such as George Lucas in dealing with this matter Palattu Koman 11:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I shall be contributing under the username "Nanchappayyan" henceforth since I am tired of "Palattu Koman". After all, ideas alone count, and not the identity of their progenitors! Palattu Koman 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Koman, having multiple usernames is discouraged in Wikipedia. Instead of creating a new username, you can request that your current username be changed (Wikipedia:Changing Username). --vi5in^[talk] 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This will need discussion as she resided in he palace and her children even got some property in trivandrum etc....visakhams sisters even arranged the marriage of his grandaughter with moolams son....yeah but anyhow consort sounds better as far as general facts are concerned...i changed it...and btw Vishu as u call him,,,hehe...had only one consort...the Panapillai Amma...and perhaps the picture of the Paliath Achan an also be added in the article..Manu

Are there Nayars who are not Nairs?

There's an incipient revert war going on at Arun Nayar over whether he is Malayali or Punjabi. At least one British newspaper has described his father as Punjabi. I don't know if there is a Punjabi Nayar that is distinct from the Malayali Nair or whether it was written by some clueless British journalist who can't tell South Asians apart (yes, I have a low opinion of celebrity journalists, so shoot me). I spent a few minutes on Google but there seem to be enough articles for each viewpoint. If Nayar is Punjabi, then please don't redirect Nayar to Nair - it may need an article. --74.132.201.173 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's well known that Arun's father was a Punjabi. So where's this question of revert war etc.? Nayar, Nayyar etc are Punjabi surnames. e.g Kuldip Nayyar (journalist), O P Nayyar (Music Composer).They are not Nairs.

Yes, there are Nairs who are Punjabis. For example, Mira Nair. Also, "Nayar" is an alternate spelling for "Nair". The spelling was used interchangeably during the 19th century. --vi5in^[talk] 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the redirect to Nair from Nayar, and replaced it with a stub. -- 74.132.201.173 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

References

We need references for the "Origins" and "Subcastes" section. Manu, could you also include references to the Attire and Food/Drink sections with the appropriate page numbers from the TSM? --vi5in^[talk] 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

hey im in kerala rite now...will do so when i can...Manu