Talk:Kamma (caste)

Kamma (caste) needs to be Wikified! So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria.	✔ check
Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject.	✔ check
Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup.	(Some excessive wiki-links.)
Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article.	✔ check
Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one).	✔ check
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template

Protected

I've semi-protected this article as we have been seeing persistent removal of sourced content by anonymous editors. Anyone who thinks they can remove content they don't like in this fashion, please take note that this is all you have achieved - you have prevented anonymous editors from editing it altogether. If you want to make changes, discuss them here first and await consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

What is the relationship between Kamma and Telaga caste ?

What is the relationship between Kamma and Telaga caste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.105 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oversimplifying a bit, the Kammas are the agriculturists of the Krishna delta, and the Telagas are the agriculturiss of the Godavari delta. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This page has more biased.

If I edit with the references also some one is removing. Please revoke my edits Rajasekhar Naidu (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits here, because you have removed well-sourced content. The citations you have added are no good. Kalpaz publishes a lot of fake books. A PhD thesis is a marginal source. If it repeats caste folklore from Edgar Thurston without any analysis or evidence, it doesn't fly. Most of all, you have not bothered to explain what you are trying to do, why you removed well-sourced content, and what your issue is!

All new content is subject to editor consensus. The WP:BURDEN to establish its veracity and relevance lies on you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I concur with his view. I added to your talk page to see if things can be improved. I have some suggestions: Can you add in the Varna-Status category that Kammas claim Kshatriya status and that they hold a status analogous to Kshatriyas. Yamada Keiko and Benhebali clearly state that Kammas claim to be Kshatriyas. Keiko states, " Today, it is only for the claim to Kshatriya status that any of these Kamma historiographies is remembered. Indeed, there is hardly anyone who actually reads the text nowadays, probably because as far as the Kammas themselves are concerned, the issue of their Kshatriya status is no longer under dispute: they were, and are Kshatriyas." Can we explicitly state the following, "The Kammas claim that they are Kshatriyas, though their status in the society of the Telugu states is one that is analogous to the Kshatriyas of the North, similar to the Reddies, Nairs, and Velamas.". We can still include the British Varna classification. Second, we need to include some information on the origins of the Kammas. Can we include a reference to Historian Bihari Lal Avasthi in the opening remarks and say that "There is a belief held by some historians, such as Bihari Lal Avasthi, that Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Indo-Aryan Clan that migrated southwards. This isn't conclusive, and there are other theories of their origins." Thirdly, I think we need to add more about the warrior status of the Kammas in the main page. Can we add this on the main section "The Kammas, in addition to having commercial and agricultural pursuits, also were warriors. They were involved in the military of the Kakatiya Empire and the Vijayanagara Empire as commanders, soldiers, and generals. The Musunuri Nayaks, who historians such as Durga Prasad, B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao, Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma and Etukuri Balaram Murthy state that Musunuri Nayakas belonged to the Kamma caste, established a dynasty by defeating the Delhi Sultante and recapturing Warangal. There were several Kamma Kings, including Vasireddy Venkatadri Naidu and the Pemmasani Clan of Gandikota". I am sure the Musunuri Nayak will not be a problem since its mentioned that these historians believe they are Kammas on the Musunuri Nayak Page. If you need a specific quote for the warriors things, Harrison states, "Both Kammas and Reddies were probably warriors in the service of early Andhra Kings. Page 383 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1951675?seq=6#metadata_info_tab_contents. For the Golconda Period Section, it's important to add this following "Vasireddy Virappa Naid, in the year 1670, obtained from the King of Golconda a sanad appointing him Deshmukh of the pargana of Nanidgama." (Gordon Mackenzie, a prominent historian and scholar, stated in A Manual of the Kistna District in the Presidency of Madras). Also transition from "The Kammas were largely reduced by the status of peasants in the post-Kakatiya period" by adding ",but they had an influential role during the Vijayanagara Empire and in the Nayak Kingdoms of Tamil Nadu." In the Modern History section, mention that there were Kamma Zamindari families. Harrison states, "Fourteen Kamma zamindars became the biggest estate owners in the Delta Country" (Page 238). Specifically, after this sentence, "Kamma landholdings were consolidated, and their influence consequently increased, by the introduction of the ryotwari system as a replacement for the zamindari system in the 19th century." please add "There were Zamindari families belonging to the Kamma community, such as the fourteen Zamindari Kamma families of the Krishna River Delta." Also " Despite this attachment to Brahminical orthodoxy, the Kammas related to the Kapus (cultivators) and their Shudra identity." This sentence should be changed by delteing everything after Kapus. Keiko probably got this from the fact Kammas have a lore that says they were Kshatriyas but when they were persecuted, they found refuge with the Kapus. I think we should leave it at the Kapus when used in this context. Unless, the Velama article also makes it clear that Velamas are also Shudras, this is not fair to Kammas.

Please see what of these changes you can make. We can have a discussion on ones you are unsure about. I think the warrior thing, Musunuri Nayak mentions, claim of Kshatriya status, the Sanad to Naidu, and the Kamma Zamindari thing should be easy to include since they have proper citation. Let me know. I appreciate it.

Vivek987270 —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Varna status

I prefer to remove varna status from all South Indian caste pages, because I think there was no varna system in South India at all. Pinging Sitush for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 That is a reasonable thought. The varna structure in the South is too fluid. For example the Komatis were Shudras until the Court ruling, and Rajus are grouped with Reddies, Kammas, and Velamas in regards to social status by many like Historian Sudarshan Ready. If Sitush is willing to get rid of it for all South indian groups, that's not an issue. But if any mention of a community's varna status is to be mentioned, it has to be equal in phrasing. Reddies can't have "analagous to Kshatriyas" when there is no mention of the equal social status held by Kammas or Kamma claims to be Kshatriyas. Outside the Varna issue, I think the other edits I suggested are reasonable. In the main section, please mention the warrior status of Kammas during the Kakatiya Empire and Vijayanagara Empire. Since historians believe that that warrior-kings Musunuri Nayaks are Kammas, mention that as well (like how Reddies get the Reddy Dynasty). It's a little ridiculous that Reddies get mentioned as "aristocratic" and "landownin" and Velamas as purely Zamindars. I hope you can see the unfairness. I have provided sourced content for my edit requests, and I trust you to help equalize the articles. Please let me know in very clear terms what edits you can make, and we will work through any disouted ones. If Sitush can help that is most welcome.

Kautilya3

Kakatiya period

Ventrun, Note that Benbabali is underplaying the migration during the Kakatiya period:

However, the martial activities of the Kamma agriculturists were intermittent and limited to times of war, when they worked as soldiers in the service of the Kakatiya kings of Warangal, and later of the Vijayanagar emperors.

While she is focusing on the Kammas, we know from other sources that all agriculturists from all regions served under these respective kings, and there is nothing surprising about that. The kingdoms would have recruited any fighters they had available. Note also the term "service", not "alliance".

However, sometime in the late Vijayanagara period, this became a more extensive migration without any connection to fighting, with the result that by 1897, three quarters of the Kamma population was found outside the then Krishna district (which included the entirety of Kammanadu).

That is remarkable for a community that derives its identity from a geographical homeland. The issues of mobility, which are extensively covered in the Benbabaali's article as well as Keiko's, would need to be covered in detail here. For the time being, I have only added a summary in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: From "The community of Kammas is that of agricultural families originating from the Kammanadu region of the Guntur and Prakasam districts in Andhra Pradesh" to "The community of Kammas is that of agricultural families originating from the Kammanadu region of the Guntur and Prakasam districts in Andhra Pradesh; in addition to being landholding agriculturalists, Kammas were warriors and some became Army Commanders and local kings."

Explanation of issue: In addition to being invested in agriculture, Kammas were also landholding warriors, commanders, and local kings (Vasireddy Naidu or Pemmasanis). By mentioning that as well, we give the readers a fuller picture of the occupation of the ancestors of the Kammas. The Reddies have a similar mention in their page, so there is precedent for including it.

References supporting change:

• Selig Harrison, 1956 states, "Both Kammas and Reddies were probably warriors in the service of early Andhra Kings. Page 383 [1]."
• John F. Richards, 1970, says, "Razus, Velamas, Kammas or Reddies formed the dominant land-holding stratum". (Pg. 71) and " The Telugu warriors were drawn from four major castes: Razus, Velamas, Kammas, and Kapus (Reddis)." [2]
• Census of India, 1961: "They [Kammas] belong to a warrior race, according to tradition." (Page 8) [3]
• A. Satyanarayana, 2007: "The family histories of some of the Zamindars of Kamma caste also indicate that they were the descendants of warrior chiefs and Nayakas under the Vijayanagara kings. " (page 7) [4]
• K. S. Singh, 1998: "It is claimed that Kammas were a warrior class for several generations who later took up agriculture as an occupation." (Page 1515) [5]

Also the real examples of the Ravella Nayaks, Pemmasani Nayaks, Vasireddy Naidu, Ravella Nayaks, and etc. --Vivek987270 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

None of these sources are better than the ones we have, viz., Talbot, 2001; Keiko, 2008; Benbabaali, 2018. All of these are in-depth studies, and they trump whatever whatever people wrote earlier. So I suggest you look at what these sources say.

Also, please don't bother mentioning "claims" and "traditions". They can never be facts.

Finally, sincere advice: Read the sources. Don't just do Google search for your favourite WP:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 First, when the Reddies have the Rashtrakuta claim on their website no one raises a word, so this is a double standard. Next, Thank you, but I have read all three individuals. Benbabaali clearly states that some Kammas become commanders and local kings in her paper. Talbot doesn't say anything specific about Kamma, and it is more historical oriented. It's not a good idea to get hung up over a single Historian's view. Keiko doesn't talk about early Kamma history. She discusses more about their history during the British Raj. Since Benbabaali concedes the point made by Harrison, A. Satyanarayana, and Singh, among others, it is well sourced. Had Talbot or Keiko directly discussed the Kammas directly or their ancestors, that would be a different story. The other caste websites make claims about Rashtrakutas from some random historian, but despite the many sources and individuals showing that Kammas have a warrior past and local kings/commanders, it is required to have a billion historians to say the same thing (though there is a clear historical consensus. --Vivek987270 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Benbabaali says some Kammas became commanders. Similarly, some Reddis, some Velamas, and some Kapus, and some Rajus would have become commanders too. There is nothing special here. The edit you asked for is not supported by any of your own sources once you throw out claims and traditions. So, this is a 'no go' from me. You better wait for Sitush and see if he feels any differently about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And, Keiko does talk about how an enormous mythology about Kammas was constructed during the British period. That very same mythology is the source of your demands here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 You have to get over your obsession with Talbot. She isn't the only scholar. Its like Kammas and that Chowdhary historian. Like you said SOME did become commanders. The thing is the Reddy and Raju article mention their warrior status but the Kammas don't have it highlighted in a prominent or explicit way. You also seem to never talk about the double standards I highlight with the Reddies and their obvious caste glorification. I am formally petitioning to have a "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met" put on this page. ALL POVs are not represented on this page. It is clearly being written by people with anti-Kamma bias, while Reddies are glorified on theirs. All I am asking if for equal standards. I am trying here in good faith, but you clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, perhaps out of jealousy or hatred. Sorry to say, but that's what I feel. I would like to be proven wrong.--Vivek987270 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I have a simple request. If you have no bias against Kammas. Edit the Reddy and Velama articles and bring it to the same level. They all have same social status and Reddies being "aristocracy" and the best warriors in the telugu states is clearly a POV. Why does the Reddy Dynasty have a prominent place on the Reddy article if Talbot Is right? Answer these questions and then critique my sourced edit requests. I hope Sitush will see this, and I trust he will be more reasonable and less prejudiced.--Vivek987270 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect to the conflict of interest-based {{request edit}} template used, there can be no conflict of interest (COI) with respect to communities. For example, a person from Japan would not be prevented from editing an article about Japan. A person who is either a member of this caste community or not a member, does not need the request edit template to suggest changes, because a COI is not simply about having a bias. The only conflict of interest possible here would be if the requesting editor were affiliated, either professionally or personally, with an author they are attempting to use as a reference. As no such affiliation has been claimed, I've changed the template to the {{edit semi-protected}} variant, based on the article's protection level. Regards,  Spintendo  00:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Spintendo I totally understand and thank you for the change. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek987270 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: From “During the British Raj, the Kammas were considered to be "upper Shudra", along with the Reddy and Velama castes, under the varna system.” to “During the British Raj, the Kammas were considered to be Sat-Shudra or "upper Shudra", along with the Reddy and Velama castes, under the varna system. However, as South India doesn’t have a distinguished or rigid four Varna system, ruling or military classes were often classified as Sat-Shudras. The Kammas, like the Reddies and Nairs, hold a status that is analogous to Kshatriyas. Moreover, The Kammas claim that they are Kshatriyas, and they protested when they were labeled as Sat-Shudras during the British Raj.”

Explanation of issue: There are several issues with the old version. Firstly, it doesn’t explicitly say that Kammas claim Kshatriya status, which they do. Secondly, their status and that of the Reddies and Nairs are the same. However, the Reddies and Nairs have a “analogous to Kshatriya status” in their wikipedia page. To ensure parity and a fuller understanding on the Kamma page, this should be included. Finally, it is important to note that Kammas protested their status classification during the British Raj which adds historical context on the result of their classification. Though there is debate on Wikipedia to get rid of varna articles for all South Indian castes, since other similar and prominent South Indian castes, like Reddies and Nairs, have a mention of their Kshatriya claims or analogous to Kshatriya status, it is important to give all POV a place and state that in the Kamma article as well.

References supporting change:

To support that Kammas have a status analogous to Kshatriyas, since they, Reddis, and Nairs were classified as Sat-Shudras:

Lohia, Rammanohar (1964). The Caste System. Navahind. pp. 93–94, 103, 126

M. P. Joseph (2004). Legitimately divided: towards a counter narrative of the ethnographic history of Kerala Christianity. Christava Sahitya Samithi. p. 62. ISBN 978-81-7821-040-7.

Shah, Ghanshyam (2004). Caste and Democratic Politics in India. Anthem Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-84331-086-0.

To Support Kammas Claim Kshatriya Status: Gajrani, S.. History, Religion and Culture of India. India, Isha Books, 2004. Page 29 (“The Kammas consider themselves as Kshatriyas in the Varna hierarchy, and recall their privileged position in the reign of the Kakatiya Dynasty” )

Harrison, Selig S.. India: The Most Dangerous Decade. United States, Princeton University Press, 2015. Page 295. (“Brahmans dismiss them as Sudras, but the Kammas and Reddies have never accepted this.”)

Narayana Rao, Velcheru. Text and Tradition in South India. India, State University of New York Press, 2017. Page 285 (“In premodern Andhra, as stated earlier, the Shudra king acquired Kshatriya Status, legitimized by the Brahmin poet. When the British occupied the role of the king, the non-Brahmin casteses were left with no hope of becoming Kshatriyas . . . However, the younger generation of landed castes - Kammas, Reddis, and Kapus - went to Western schools, as the Brahmins had done.”) Yamada Keiko Page 371 (“In his autobiography written in the 1960s, he [Ranga] openly and proudly enunciated Kamma caste identity not as Kisans, but as Kshatriyas”) [6]

Yamada Keiko (Page 378) “As far as the Kammas themselves are concerned, the issue of their Kshatriya status is no longer under dispute: they were, and are Kshatriyas.” [7]

To Back-Up the Claim that Kammas protested their Sat-Shudra Status during the British Raj: Yamada Keiko Page 363 (“They [Kammas in 1916] soon gathered at Kollur village to hold a public debate with local Brahmins to assert the Kshatriya status of Kammas, Velamas, Reddis, and others, and demanded the right to learn the Vedas and wear sacred threads.”) .[8]