Talk:Vellalar

Gangavamsa

The Vellalar were also called Gangakula or Gangavamsa, because they derived their descent from the great and powerful tribe named Gangavida, which inhabited in the valley of Ganges. (From People of India - Tamil Nadu by K. S. Singh, R. Thirumalai and S. Manoharan. Page no. 1609) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.166.197 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ganga Dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganga_Dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.166.197 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Velirs don't claim desedence from Ayar community. Please give actual reputable sources to help your claim.

Quote "There is fairly strong literary and archeological evidence linking core Vellala subcastes with a group of chieftains called velir; the earliest references are found in the Sangam literature (first to third century a.d.). Until about the fourteenth century a.d., the velir were prominent in the Tamil polity, economy, and society, and they have been linked with virtually all the major ruling dynasties. They were autonomous and collectively wielded significant political influence. Although ineligible to be crowned as kings, they were bride givers to the three "crowned" kings. "

Please edit the page so it actually reflects facts and proper citations. Not some bogus religious websites, but historical facts. source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/vellala — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRBABU01 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

VELIRS themselves claim descent from Ayar community. The Ayars are not Vellalars. VELIRS are not Vellalars.

Vellalars do not descend from Yadu / only VELIRS descend from Yadu clan. Ay Kandiran is an Ay King / Ayar king and not a Vellalar king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Following paragraph must be deleted from the Vellala article: Numerous poems in the ancient Sangam literature extol these chieftains' charity and truthfulness. Among the most prominent were those known as the 'seven patrons' (kadaiyezhu vallal); Vel-Pari, Malayaman Thirumudi Kaari, Ori, Adigaman, Began, Nalli and Ay Kandiran.[16]

They had close associations and held high positions of office with the three main Tamil dynasties, Chera, Chola and Pandya.[15] Some of them had marital relations; Ilamcetcenni, the king known for his fleet of warships, married a Velir princess, and his son Karikala Chola also married a Velir princess from Nangur.[17][full citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Vellalars were Sudras

The ancestors of the Vellalans were Sudras and in their ancestry were debarred from the Temple. (Holmes (1980):227) They were born from the foot of Brama, thus can’t chant the Veda. According to the Tholkapiyam the Vellalas are Sudras. These Sudra Vellalas have to worship the twice born namly the three highest castes such as Brahmins, Kurukulam i.e Kshathriyas and Vaisiyas. They have to do coolly work under these three castes. (Kathiravetpillai 2002): 888). Many Scholars conclude that these Coolly Vellalas began to claim for themselves a higher rank during 19th Century. Melongi Kurukula Karaiyars of Singai dynasty families, Madapallis, and Barathavers consider Vellalars are lesser breeds. Mannar Vellalas The Vellalas at Nanattan division were from Pannaivedduvan where the earliest inhabitants were Odders who were chiefly engaged in the quarrying of stones, in the sinking of wells and in the construction of the Tank bunds. The earliest inhabitants of Kankanithevu at Nanattan were Potters. Now the Pallankaipillai Vellalas are living. Parapandandal Vellalas are Maravars and Koviers from Poovarasankulam and Vavuniya. There are three divisions in Suriya Kaddaikadu village. The centre place is called Thiru Mudi Suriya Kaddaikadu, because the earliest inhabitants of this place are SuriyaKulam i.e., Kurukulam. Other two divisions are Periyakaddaikadu and Sampankaddaikadu. According to Baptismal register few people of Periyakaddaikadu were Padaiyardchi, a Tamil caste, who came from India and assimilated into Vellalar identity. The former settlers of Sampankaddaikadu were Sampan means Pariars. Now Sinnakulathar from Karisal settled there and call them Vellalas. The descendents of Annamalai group of India call them Vellalas at Kaddaikadu. According to one of the Vellala(Palla) informants the “Annamalai “ families are not original Vellalas( Pallas). He informed me that the refugees who went to India traced their origin and found that they belonged to Nalava caste. That was why they try their best to avoid using the surname “Annamalai”. There are some Vedha Vellalars in Batticalloa.

https://karampon.wordpress.com/page/3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikipedia user SITUSH: You seem to be partial to some communities - adding VELIRS in VELLALARS and deleting any linkage from VELIRS to Yadavas!! Stop Patronising VELLALAR Community!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Pattinappalai which is one of the greatest Tamil literary work, refers to Velirs as Shepherd Chiefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajan.nainar (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

How is it possible that Irunnkovel is linked to Vellalas? Irunnkovel according to Tamil literature is a shepherd chief (Velir) and not a Vellalar. If Vellalars aristocratic society, how come they want associate themselves with Yadavas, Ahirs and Velirs?

Velirs are Ayars (Yadavas) !!!

I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Rural Society in Southeast India Par Kathleen Gough [1] page 29: "The Vellalar were the dominant secular aristocratic caste...".

Al-Hind: Early medieval India and the expansion of Islam, 7th-11th centuries By André Wink page 321 [2]:
"... Rajaraja's army was raised and commanded by Vellalas".
"Not only the Vellalas were the landowning communities of South India, but they also formed, in alliance with the brahmans, a rulin stratum which was quite comparable to the Rajput of the North, even if such communities continued to be regarded as shudras rather than as kshatriya."

there was no link between velirs and vellalars

velirs are separate no link between velirs and velallars velirs didnt told they are velallars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasan107 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "It further appears that from the eleventh century onwards, the nadu which originally was largely represented by the dominant Vellala land-holding groups,...".

Peasant History of Late Pre-colonial and Colonial India, Volume 8 by B. B. Chaudhuri, page 664 [3]: "The Vellalas ('lord of the land') (...) were initially the people who had 'landed wealth and good stock'. The source of their landed status and the power associated with it was presumably their enterprise in the organization of the wet farming. The 'ritual division' between this group and the other gradually occured, largely as a result of the conscious efforts of the vellala, 'this noble stratum', to mark itself off culturally from the rest.'

An outline of the cultural history and principles of Hinduism by C. Sivaratnam, page 36 [4]: Velirs or Vellalas were landed agricultural aristocrats.

Based on the all the refs provided here & in the article, what we can tell is:

Vellalar is originally an aristocratic root caste, known for their control over the lands. they are linked to a group of chieftains called or untitled Vel or Velir during the Sangam age. Throughout time, some impoverished Vellalars got involved in non aristocratic activities such as land owning peasant labour, etc. while other enriched groups started claiming Vellalar status. Till the 14th century & the end of the 'pure' Tamil Kingdoms (Chola/Chera/Pandya), Vellalars held the top positions of the Tamil society. After the downfall of these kingdoms, Vellalar became known just as a farming, agricultural community eventhough some of them still remained big land lords.

Rajkris (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Velirs

Velirs claim a descent from Ayar community; Velir had clan names Ay and Avi representing their Ayar heritage. Velirs are associated with the Yadava of Dwaraka and Velirs are a particular segmentary lineage of Yadava. Source: Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Processes Paperback – 1994 by Martin Van Bakel, Renee Hagestenijn & Pieter Van De Velde (Author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Velirs are Ayar or Konar or Idaiyar kings (who are also called Yadava). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the research done by S.D.Nellai Nedumaran & S.Ramachandran in their project The Velir: Were they the Velalas? they reason that Velirs are clearly different from Vellalars. http://www.sishri.org/velir.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajan.nainar (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Mayasutra Refs

I don't agree with with what you wrote based on ref 17: "...the Velir tribes were a Shepherd class and different from the Vellalars" because does not say that, it is an addition from your part.Fyi, even if they may have sheperd roots, aristocrat are not sheperds... They own lands... Your ref only rejects the etymological connection between Velir & Vellalar.Rajkris (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In ref 7, you have not completely mentioned what is told by the author, we should add everything to avoid undueweight.Rajkris (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

Chronicleof COGRLAHEPETA (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing, again

I've just reverted this way back. There has been an edit war and just prior to that there was some stuff from a prolific sockpuppet - Buddhakahika (talk · contribs). I'm not convinced that the war was over as such: it seems to me that Rajkris might have just waited for an opportune moment and, sorry, I am very aware that Rajkris tends to rely on snippet views from Google Books etc even though they've been told before that such usage is not acceptable.

I'm not opposed to reinstating the content in a piecemeal fashion provided that the sourcing is indeed ok. Given the history, which goes back at least as far as events on Talk:Tamil Kshatriya, I think that we'll have to insist on having sight of all sources & for such sightings to includes pages before and after the one(s) of direct relevance to the article.

I know that I'm supposed to assume good faith, Rajkris, and indeed I've always thought you to be well-intentioned. However, you do have big problems with using sources and I can't just ignore that. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No pb but you have removed both snip views & full ones.Rajkris (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

Should include Christianity in the religion Chronicleof COGRLAHEPETA (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

velallars are sudras in hindu varna

velirs are diffrent from velallars velirs are kshatriyas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.182.22 (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pillas are not just from Chola Nadu but also from Pandya Nadu too.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of a content written by Maya

Tholkappiyam which dates from fifth or sixth century contains a passage which mentions velanmantar; which later commentators and recent scholars equated to vellalas. However, the Velanmantar do not necessarily refer to the Vellala. Some references are found in Niganthas such as the Pingalanikanthu, for Vellalars. Quebec Leslie mentions them as follows:

...the tenth century lexicon Pingalanikanthu does not consistently identify Vellalas as the "fourth caste" but informs us that this term is a synonym of both Vaiciyar (Sanskrit Vaishya) and of cuttirar (Sanskrit Sudra) (Pingalanikanthu 773 and 780). Another lexicon, Tivakaram, which is thought to be of slightly earlier date than Pingalanikanthu, lists the six kinds of works of the Vellalas: agriculture, tending animals, trade, playing on musical instruments, spinning and weaving, and serving the twice-born (MTL 3843-44). The references from these two lexicons suggest that neither a definition based on varna nor one based on occupation had become fixed by the beginning of the Chola period. This should be contrasted with Stein's (1989, 84, 448) characterization of the Vellalas of the early Chola period as being sat (clean) sudras, having a ritual status second only to that of Brahmans, and as firmly connected with cultivating the land, and being, indeed, the dominant peasant group.

I have removed the above content for the following reasons :

1. The author deals with women in (South) India and not about history of India. And above all, her statement regarding Vellalar contradicts scholars opinion of this caste : a ruling, land owning community (I have provided multiple sources written by historians dealing with Indian history)
2. The author uses a primary source: this is not because 1 or 2 historical sources assert something that it is true unless it is accepted as such by the current scholars which is not the case here
3. The last sentence of the author ("This shoudl be contrasted with Stein's...") is challlenged by the historian, scholar Andre Wink: [5]: "Here Stein's dichotomy of warrior and peasant is highly misleading,..."
   

Therefore, using this ref is clearly an undue weight.Rajkris (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

References

"role of Kshatriya in ancient and medieval Tamil Country" says Noboru Karashima

page 110 and 111 , Ancient to Medieval South Indian Society in Transition ,Noboru Karashima. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ancient-to-medieval-south-indian-society-in-transition-9780198063124?cc=us&lang=en&

he says "The Second Point I wish to add here for future discussion concerns the caste system based on hierarchy .These Thirty or Fourty years Scholars have been discussing the issue of caste hierarchy,Concentrating their arguments on the question of which of the two,Brahmanas or the King(Kshatriya),occupied the pinnacle of the hierarchy , or which of the two, religion or politics ,played crucial role in maintaining social order in traditional India,by quoting A.M . Hocart and/or Louis Dumont , it seems to be more important ,however , To realize the independence of the two, Brahmana and King, or Religious and the Political , if we consider empirically the function of the so-called caste hierarchy.In the Long course of Indian History , the opposition between the allies of Brahmana and King(Kshtriyas or dominant caste) as rulers on the one hand,and the others groups(classified theoretically as Vaishya or sudra ) as the ruled on the other,has had much significance in society ,Though no communities properly called Kshatriyas have existed in south India, we are able to regard the Vellalas , Who were the dominant caste , as having played the role of Kshatriya in ancient and medieval Tamil Country, A good example of Brahmana/Vellala coordination can be seen in the Thirukkachchur incription, quoted above , contrasting the (good) behaviour of Brahmana and Vellala with the (lowly) behaviour of the lower jatis and missing the former . The best example of the conforntation between the Brahmanas/Vellalas allies and other communities organized as idankai and valankai may be found in the revolt inscriptions of the fifteenth century referred to above"

Request to wiki editor to add this info into wiki page of vellala

Artilce needs more references per wiki Verifiability

Please provide references for the following sentences in article per wiki Verifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

1. "archeological sources trace the origin of the Vellalars to a group of royal house chieftains called Vel or Velir" -- It will be great to see valid references for these.

2. According to old Hindu, Tamil texts, the Velirs were warriors from the Yadu Kshatriya clan (Chandravanshi lineage); they came to south from the city of Dvārakā in north India under the leadership of the Vedic sage Agastya. It will be great to see valid references for these.

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2015

Please add this

It derives from the word Vel meaning a spear or lance and alar meaning "people of Vel", an old and archaic Tamil weapon. 2601:246:A01:2771:3064:58EC:50C7:CBE1 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
• The etymology section of this article is already well sourced. If you want to add to it you must provide a source as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add this

Post 13 century Jaffna saw the migration of many Mudaliyars from Thondai Nadu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.150.18 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow.. Everyone you ask would tell you that the Vellalar migrated to the Southern region from around Gujarat, but it seems someone has removed this information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.150.18 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

Vellalar doesn't means water or shower water, it means Spear Pari2343 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - we have 5 citations for water or flood based etymologies, but you have cited none for spear - Arjayay (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016

Velirs are Yadavas. Linking Velir to Vellalars is incorrect.

One can link Velirs with Vellalrs only if Yadavas = Vellalars, which is not the case.

Although some tamil Yadavas have a Vellala title, as a caste Vellalas are not the same as Yadavas.

Http://viswamurugu.com/link3.html

The Velala that is referred to in the book (page 32) A social history of Early India by Brajadulal Chattopadhyay is the one that carried out agriculture as occupation. This Velala is actually the people from "cattle-herding" caste (Yadavas) who also ventured out into agriculture.

The Vellalars to which this current Wikipedia article refers to is not the same as Velala referred by Brajadulal Chattopadhya - if Vellalars are aristocratic caste why do they do agriculture?

Any reference to Velirs from this Vellalar article should be removed

Vellalars are VELLA ALARS (the one who rules the flood) but they are not VELIRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Velirs are believed to be descendants of Yadu - today the descendants of Yadu are called Yadavas (also Ahirs, Konars, Idaiyar, Gowda, Gollas)

Not a single dynasty record(s) according to Travancore Dynasty Records & Kerala District Gazetteers show any linkage between Velirs and Vellalars. According to Travancore Dynasty Records & Kerala District Gazetteers Vel-Ay, Mal-Vel-Ay are Ay Kings belonging to Ayar Community.

According to Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Processes Paperback – 1994 by Martin Van Bakel Renee Hagestenijn Pieter Van De Velde, it states that Velirs are segmentary lineages of Yadavas (there is no mention of Vellalars or any linkage to Vellalars).

According to Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India: A Study of the Deccan Ashmounds. F. R. Allchin Ayars and Velirs are Cattle-keepers who rose to the level of petty chieftains.

Pattinappalai clearly states that velir King Irunkovel belongs to Shepherd race.

If Velirs = Vellalars, why would someone describe the hierarchical structure Ventar - Velir - Vellalar separately? If Velirs = Vellalars, thenn either the word Vellalar or Velir would have been omitted / because it would be redundant. It is clear from the hierarchy structure VELIRS ARE NOT VELLALARS and vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that those who contribute to Wikipedia research the history of Ay Kings as well as Velirs and provide an undistorted truth about Velirs. It seems that Vellalars want to link Velirs to Vellalar caste which is technically not correct.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 

188.155.19.47 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Topher385 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Reference given to add Christianity as a religion in the page "vellalar"

Vellalar's are also Christians from the early 16th century.

Missions and Empire (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) 1st Edition by Norman Etherington. page 112. ISBN-13: 978-0199253487.

Caste, Catholic Christianity, and the Language of Conversion: Social Change ... By S. Jeyaseela Stephen. page 97. isbn=8178356864. --Chronicleof COGRLAHEPETA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Now added. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

At a loss

I am at a loss to understand why this removal of sourced material that has been in the article for ages is in fact valid. There may be some subtle changes of phrasing required but do the sources really not support the statements at all? - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

There is a statement which quotes/cites David Ludden. From a scientific (and non-humanities social "sciences") viewpoint India was a vast country with a relatively "minuscule" population (compared to the land mass size) all along its recorded and pre-history as gathered by archaeological evidence, etc. At the same time, the availability of fertile land for agriculture was enormous. So why would the agricultural settlers chase away the hunter-gatherers ever? Is there archaeological evidence for such large-scale population replacement using violence (skeletons bearing such signature events? The scientific-logical answer to that is a resounding "no." So kindly remove that point or qualify it accordingly at worst, please. Mkv22 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ours is not to reason why. Ludden is reliable, as far as I am aware. I think you need to raise this at WP:RSN if you dispute his status etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Rangaswamy and Araṅkacāmi do not state clearly the link between velir and vellalar

In the same page Rangaswamy and Araṅkacāmi clearly state that " Therefore the attempt at confusing the velir with vellalar is misleading ".

Rangaswamy and Araṅkacāmi main intention is to state that the vellalar is derived from art of irrigation and cultivation.

Rangaswamy and Araṅkacāmi does not clearly mention about the origins of vellalars.

Also the Madras journal of literature and science, Volume 13 By Madras Literary Society and Auxiliary of the Royal Asiatic Society, p.41 does not state anything about velirs and vellalars link. and it is published in 1844 and is not a reliable source.

Also the same author in the book "The early history of the Vellar Basin, with special reference to the Irukkuvels of Kodumbalur: a study in Vellala origin and early history" states that the vellalar are of mix of various tribes and communities which took agriculture as their main occupation. Hence statements linking vellalar and velir are wrong and so far no proof exists. Page 127 Electron mass (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=UMBGAAAAMAAJ&dq=vellalar+++origin+++mix+of+castes&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=origin+++mix+of+castes

A handbook of Kerala - Volume 2 - Page 855 T Madhava menon states that "The caste is so widely diffused that several communities have infiltrated into it. As Thurston said, the "Vellala are compared to the brinjal...which will mix palatably with anything"." Clearly mention that Vellalar as such is a mix of various community.Electron mass (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hence can we remove the " Rangaswamy and Araṅkacāmi say the Vellālars are probably the descendants of the Vēlir; but the words Veļļālar, Vēļāņmai, Vēļālar, are derived from their art of irrigation and cultivation rather than from their original chieftainship.[9][10]"Electron mass (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vellalar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607212814/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/meluhha_and_agastya_2009.pdf to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/meluhha_and_agastya_2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930024359/http://noolaham.net/library/books/02/101/101.htm to http://noolaham.net/library/books/02/101/101.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

vellalars are higher castes still in Tamil nadu...and they are high dignity in the state and many multiple sub castes...here someone purposely try to put the caste of vellars in the list of sudras...check the medival period and harappan culture what said about vellalars..In Tanjavoor many higher caste want to use the caste in the name of vellalars...what is here purposely going on is not been understandable...

My revert

I reverted here because the changes were substantial. I realise that there were various tags in place but to lose 4k of probably and actually "accurate" information in a single edit is likely to be confusing - it certainly was for me. I think this needs smaller edits and better explanations. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that I shouldn't have made such big edits. I will from now on make smaller edits with better explanations. Xenani (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush.

I see that you reverted all my edits. I did this time shorter my edit as you previously told, which gives you chance to correct on those edits you disagreed on. However you reverted all my edits, and I don't understand why. I moslty removed content related to the Velir because according to the source of the content is the etymology from Velir to Vellalar highly doubtful. A lot of the rest of the article is based further on this doubtful etymology and talk about the Seven patrons, Velir princess, the Tamil kingdoms, which is pure WP:OR. A article should be neutral, and this article was very biased. Not sure if you really saw through my edits but I added content from reliable sources that were mainly published by Universities, I don't see why you would revert such content. Rather than undoing all my edits should only the parts you were disagreeing with being reverted with explanation of course. I think my edits were more from a neutral aspect with good reliable sources, following the WP:NPOV but I wont undo your revert, I hope we get to an understanding. I hope you can take more time to see through all the edits.

Peace Xenani (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xenani, I think I have worked out your logic now, thanks. There are long-standing issues regarding how we portray velir on Wikipedia because of its various meanings. I'm going to ponder a little longer and I'm hoping that some other people might add comments, too, so that some sort of consensus can be developed. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

Inlclude a link to Velir. Gokulna (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus required on Vellalar identity

Harishpranovhk has recently [6] removed sourced content from the Vellalar article page which includes the views of Maraimalai Adigal. Vellalar is only an umbrella term for various castes. Anyone can become a Vellalar. But user Harishpranovhk is of the opinion that the Devendrakula Velalar cannot be included in this page. So can we get some consensus on this? @Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93:, request you to help mediate. Sources as follows,

1. According to Tamil scholar Maraimalai Adigal, the Vellalar identity is a way of life and people of any caste or creed could become a Vellalar.

2. Vijaya Ramasamy, Professor of History, JNU, echoes point 1 above - "The term extends beyond the notions of caste and seems to be a generic term for farming groups dispersed over space"

Nittawinoda (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the adition of Devenedrakula Vellalar in this article as part of Vellalar subcaste. The term Devendrakula Velalar is a political term connecting all the Pallar subcastes. The Pallar's are the traditional farmhands who worked on the land of the Vellalar. They have always been different identities. The term Devendrakula Vellalar is derived from the traditional agrarian deity Devendra and the title Vellalar to give it a higher connotation.However, they are not considered Vellalar for that matter. The same goes for Isai Vellalar.Xenani (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can become a Vellalar. A Tamil proverb says "Slowly slowly they all become a Vellalar". -[7],

"To prevent minority Tamils from slowly becoming Vellalars, the high castes have used extralegal social controls to continue the imposition of the sumptuary restrictions on the Nalavars and Pallars"- [8]

"Anybody can become a Vellalar by acquiring the Vellalar attributes"-[9]

Nittawinoda (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Harishpranovhk and Xenani: while you're here please also give your opinion about Virakodi Vellala or Panisaivan [10] Are they considered as Vellalar? Nittawinoda (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@xenani To correct your statement ---Devendrakula Velalar are not traditionally farmworkers for the Vellalars as vellalar didn't exist since tamil sangam! And they is difference btw Velalar and vellalar! Velalar relates to land and agriculture, while vellalars are not as each of them have different traditional jobs Kongu vellalar- cow herder & tumeric farmers Mudaliyar- cotton looming Etc

Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Veera kodi vellalar is a one of the sub caste of vellalar Harishpranovhk (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Saiva Vellala

Please create page for Saiva Vellalar Hari Vellalan (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Info box

@Sitush: Please make sure that the info box tells that sub divisions is based only on Mudaliar, Gounder and Pillai title. Originally they are many other titles also used by Vellalar. Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: whether Mudaliar, Pillai, Gounder is sub division? Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to work out Vellalar related stuff in the past but it is a nightmare - a lot of the subgroups are vague associations with a multitute of conflicting names, titles and spellings. It might be easier just to omit that information from the box. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ok Vellalar using more then 10 titles So please remove the Mudaliar, Pillai, Gounder titles as sub division. Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

change "Some of the communities that identify themselves as a Vellalar are the numerically strong Arunattu Vellalar, Chozhia Vellalar, Karkarthar Vellalar, Kongu Vellalar, Thuluva Vellalar and Sri Lankan Vellalar." to "Some of the communities that identify themselves as a Vellalar are the numerically strong Devendrakula Vellalar, Arunattu Vellalar, Chozhia Vellalar, Karkarthar Vellalar, Kongu Vellalar, Thuluva Vellalar and Sri Lankan Vellalar." Passion.dinesh (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Devendrakula Vellalar community is the origin for all other vellalars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passion.dinesh (talk • contribs) 11:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you point to sources? – Thjarkur (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vellalar Classification as Vaishyas

@TheBrokenTusk: These are your references, Tambaih(2001) actually discredits Simon Chittys classification, you left out the complete citation by mistake.

Tambiah (2001) “ According to Swamy Vedachalam it is the Aryan priests who adopted the device of bringing all Tamils under three denominations: Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra and formulated rigid rules. He says : 2 "In this design the Aryan priests succeeded so well, that the Tamils whether kings or nobles ,rich or poor, learned or ignorant, all have become thorough slaves not only to Aryan priests but also to all who have joined the Aryan fold and bear the name of Brahmin. After this the further work of vilifying the Tamils was made much easier, and all those who in course of time, styled themselves Brahmins, discovered it to their great benefit and glory, to efface the three grades of distinction into which their predecessors classed the Tamils and to put them altogether under the general term "Sudra which means but the contemptuous menials as a whole. But in the Tamil country nobody will call himself a Sudra or a Vaisya or a Kshatriya. The Tamils are either agriculturists or traders, artisans, or labourers; every class of people follows a hereditary profession and calls itself by the name of that profession. But quite recently, a kind of mania has afflicted some classes; the people whose professions, though much useful, are looked upon as low by Brahmins and their imitators, to bring themselves under the Aryan appellation of Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaisya, escape being called the Sudra." It is into this error that even such an erudite scholar like Simon Casie Chetty falls when in his work entitled: The Castes, Customs, Manners and Literature of the Tamils where he classifies the Vellalas under the Vaisya caste and even goes to the extent of calling the Vellalas 'The Poo Vasi Ya/ 1 The caste system in Jaffna as it exists today is ample proof of the theories advanced by Kanagasabai and Swamy Vedachalam.”

Casie(2016) Simon Casie Chitty died in 1860. After the the Vellalans were classified as shudras in all official govt census.

Desai (1975) says Vellalas “proclaim themselves” as Vaishyas

Sanghvi (1981) says there is a tradition “among the Vellalans” that there were 3 divisions of Vaishyas....

Usha (2010) is analysis of Karmandala Satakam of the Medieval Period

Thruston(2018) is just a commentary by some “VED from Victoria institutions” on the original castes and tribes published in 1909. Edgar Thurston died in 1935. Even in Thurstons original work he only states “Bhu Vaisya” was the name returned by Vellalas. (That is how they perceived themselves, not how they were classified though)

So basically all your sources either state how the vellalans perceived themselves, or about their past traditions of having once been a Vaisya caste under the Medieval Cholas.

So I’m reverting back the edit to accurately depict that they were once classified as a Vaishyas in the past. From the 1870s despite their protests they were classsified as Shudras. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Bold text

@Cyberanthropologist Let us examine your conclusion, then my references.

Your claim, & I quote; "Simon Casie Chitty died in 1860. After that the Vellalans were classified as shudras in all official govt census."

There are 2 censuses mentioned in the article for this, 1871 and 1901, in which the Vellalas were classified as Shudras by the British. You seem conclude that there was no Vaishya classification at all post 1870, which is wrong!

I've mentioned in the article that 1911 Travancore Government Gazette classified the Vellalas as Vaishyas. I quote:

"Of the three subdivisions among Vysias, the Vellalas belong to one that is known as Bhoo-Vysias."

citation given: Rao, C. Hayavadana Rao (2014). The Vellalas of Nanjanad, Travancore State, India. Anthropos, University of California. p. 514.

Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias

This is a Government publication in 1911, post the 1871 and 1901 census. Hence, your claim is invalid as the 2 classifications coexisted. You cannot conclude that the Vaishya classification vanished, as I've given evidence to the contrary above. The dearth of literature still mentioning Vellalas as Vaishyas, both pre and post British rule, which I have cited (and will address below), lends credence to the fact that the Vaishya classification still exists. You cannot impose one Caste POV on other. I hope this particular issue is resolved now.

Your version of the varna status in the Introduction:

"who *were earlier* classified under the Vaishya[7][8][9]varna with 3 subdivisions, Bhu-Vaishyas[10][11][12] or agriculturalists, Go-Vaishyas or husbandsmen, and Dhana-Vaishyas[13] or merchants, and from the 1870's onwards, starting from British rule were classified as high ranking Shudras"

My version of the Varna status in the Introduction:

"who *ARE traditionally* classified under the Vaishya[7][8][9]varna with 3 subdivisions, Bhu-Vaishyas[10][11][12] or agriculturalists, Go-Vaishyas or husbandsmen, and Dhana-Vaishyas[13] or merchants, and from the 1870's onwards, starting from British rule *ARE ADDITIONALLY* classified as high ranking Shudras"

As you can see, my introduction is more correct, as:

→The Vellalas *ARE* traditionally classified as Vaishyas (Karmandala Satakam,1292, past→ LD Sanghvi, 1981, present→Busnagi Rajanan, 1992, present), & not *WERE* classified as LD Sanghvi and other sources cited till 2018, whether published or republished, fall under current literature.

→The Vellalas *ARE ADDITIONALLY* classified as as high ranking Shudras. Clearly this is an addition and not a substitution, as I proved above.

→Busnagi Rajanan also mentions in 1992, that the "Vellalars ARE referred to as Bhuvaishyas", not 'The Vellalars WERE referred to as Buvaishyas", implying this was a current practice and not a past one. Note the present tense used here (ARE), which I have capitalised.

Quote: "They ARE variously referred to as Bupaalan, Buvaisya"

Citation: Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.

Link:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Buvaisya&redir_esc=y

→LD Sanghvi in 1981 mentions that "There IS a tradition among Vellalans", not "There WAS a tradition among Vellalans, again implying this was a current tradition, not one in the past. Note the present tense used in the Quote (IS), which I have capitalised.

Quote: "There IS a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers , ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."

Citation: Sanghvi, L.D. (1981). Biology of the People of Tamil Nadu. Indian Society of Human Genetics. p. 19.

Link: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bxiAAAAAMAAJ&q=%22There+is+a+tradition+among+the+Vellalans+that+there+were+3+divisions+of+the+Vaisyas+:+(+1+)+Bhuvaisyas+or+farmers+,+(+2+)+Govaisyas+or+husbandmen+and+(+3+)+Dhanavaisyas+or+merchants+.+The+last+division+is+claimed+to+have+given+rise+to+the+Chettis+who+originally+belonged+to+the+Vellala+tribe.%22&redir_esc=y

→Desai (1975) says Vellalas “proclaim themselves” as Vaishyas

→I do not dispute the Vaishya or Shudra classification by the British, I am mentioning that they both exist today (there is no evidence to the contrary)

→Moving on, you say and I quote,

"The Manava Gotra was held earlier by the Vellalas"

This should be corrected to "the Manava gotra being held by the Vellalas" as you have given no evidence to you assumed stance of the Gotra being absent among the current Vellala population. If you do have citations to that regard, with surveys or censuses carried out which mention the absence of this Gotra, then please feel free to mention them, otherwise this conclusion is without evidence and hence semantically incorrect.

→Thank you for the correction on the Tambiah Wijayakone reference! Yes, that was mentioned by Simon Casie Chitty, hence I'm adding the Ceylon Gazetteer reference there additionally.

Reverting back to the original edit, since

1) the Shudra classification as proved above is an *ADDITIONAL* classification and not a substitution.

2) The *WERE* in the past tense used in the previous edit by @Cyberanthropologist in the instances quote is wrong and should be substituted by *ARE*

3) *Earlier* in the Manava Gotra sentence should be replaced with *being present* or *Being held* TheBrokenTusk (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)j

@TheBrokenTusk

1)LD Sanghvi

"There is a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers , ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."

Tradition-the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

So LD Sanghvi is just stating what tradition the Vellalars believe in. It does not mean they were perceived as Vaisyas by society or by govt.

Rajannan, Busnagi (1992)

He just states the Kongu Vellalars are referred to 'Buvaisya' along with other terms like 'rayar', and 'Gangavansam'

This again does not equate to being classified as a Vaishya at present 'Buvaisya' is just a a name here, with roots in their past.

It's like 'rayar' means King, but it not proof of a Kshatriya status or 'Gangavansam' name being proof of their Ganga descent being accepted.

About the 'Manava Gotra'. According to your source the Mnava Gotra is just a substitute used for those who don't have a specific Gotra in ceremonies. The usage of Ammava Gotra itself is indicates the Vellalars dont have proper Gotras.

The sources for present classification of Vellalars are not convincing for the reasond I mentioned.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk

I’ve gone through Edgar Thruston’s write up about Vellalans, here and it is contradicting their Vaishya status. I think you made an error here as well misled by the Snippets. Here is what the book says..

The Story of their origin is as follows. Many thousands of years ago, ​when the inhabitants of the world were rude and ignorant of agriculture, a severe drought fell upon the land, and the people prayed to Bhūdēvi, the goddess of the earth, for aid. She pitied them, and produced from her body a man carrying a plough, who showed them how to till the soil and support themselves. His offsprings are the Vellālas, who ASPIRE to belong to the Vaisya caste, since that includes Gōvaisyas, Bhūvaisyas, and Dhanavaisyas (shepherds, cultivators and merchants). A few, therefore, constantly wear the sacred thread, but most put it on only during marriages or funerals as a mark of the sacred nature of the ceremony."

In 'The Tamils eighteen hundred years ago,' Mr. V. Kanakasabhai writes that ....The Arivars were ascetics, but, of the men living in society, the farmers occupied the highest position. They formed the nobility, or the landed aristocracy, of the country. ​They were also called Vellālar.....But, in the chapter in which he describes the classes of society, the author omits all mention of the Arivar, and places the Brahmins who wear the sacred thread as the first caste. The kings, he says, very guardedly, and not warriors, form the second caste, as if the three kings Chera, Chola and Pāndy could form a caste; all who live by trade belong to the third caste. He does not say that either the kings or the merchants wear the sacred thread. Then he singles out the Vellālas, and states that they have no other they have no other calling than the cultivation of the soil. Here he does not say that the Vellālas are Sūdras, but indirectly implies that the ordinary Vellālas should be reckoned as Sūdras, and that those Vellālas who were kings should be honoured as Kshatriyas.

In an excellent summary of the Vellālas *[8] Mr. W. Francis writes as follows. "By general consent, the first place in social esteem among the Tamil Sūdra castes is awarded to them.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cyberanthropologist

→Again, I see that you are quoting Edgar Thurston selectively.

In the paragraphs immediately after what you quoted, Thurston quotes the Baramahal Records which give , same as the Karmandala Satakam, give the Bhuvaishya, Govaishya and Dhanavaishya status and classification to the Vellalars.

Quote:

"The traditional story of the origin of the Vellālas is given as follows in the Baramahal Records.*"

"Murdaka Pālakulu had fifty-four sons by the daughter of the god Indra, and fifty-two by the daughter of the god Kubēra, whom he married to the one hundred and six daughters of Nala Kubarudu, the son of Kubēra, and his sons-in-law made the following agreement with him, viz., that thirty-five of them should be called Bhūmi Pālakulu, and should till the ground; thirty-five of them named Vellal Shetti, and their occupation be traffic; and thirty-five of them named Gōvu Shetlu, and their employment breeding and feeding of cattle."

Link:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Castes_and_Tribes_of_Southern_India/Vell%C4%81la

Now compare it to Verse 34 of the Karmandala Satakam(1292-1342 CE), which I've cited in the article:

Quote:

"Gangeya Murthaka pala was born to Lord Shiva and he had two wives; the first wife had 54 sons & the second wife had 52 sons. Out of these Bhupalar, (one who practiced Agriculture) gave birth to 35 Vellala leaders, Dhanapalar, who was into trade, gave birth to 35 Vellala leaders Gopalar, (one who herded cattle)"

Link:

KARMANDALA SATAKAM: POLITICO-SOCIO-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIEVAL TAMIL LITERATURE ON THE VELLALA COMMUNITY OF SOUTH KARNATAKA : Usha R. Vijailakshmi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

As you can see, both the traditional records, the Baramahal records cited by Edgar Thurston, and Karmandala Satakam cited by Usha R.Vijailakshmi accord the traditional Vaishya status to the Vellalars.

Karamandala Satakam and Baramahal records ARE a part of Hindu Tradition, not WERE a part of Hindu tradition. *WERE* implies that they are no longer considered traditional records, or the tradition ceased to exist, and that is not the case here, as LD Sangvi uses *IS* in present tense. Hence ARE is the correct tense for the introduction. These ARE Traditional Records. Which currently exist. They are not absent or destroyed.

Therefore, Vellalars *ARE TRADITIONALLY* classified among the Vaishya caste with Bhuvaisya, Govaishya and Dhanavaishya subclasses.

So reverting back to the original edit for the intro, regarding the senetence with tradition in present tense.

@Cyberanthropologist Your claim, and I quote:

"Tradition-the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

So LD Sanghvi is just stating what tradition the Vellalars believe in. It does not mean they were perceived as Vaisyas by society or by govt."

→I have quoted above in my earlier reply that Vellalars were given the Vaishya status by the British Govt in the Travancore Government Gazette of 1911, hence your claim of "They were not perceived as Vaishyas by society or Government" is invalid. Putting the Quote from Travancore Government Gazette here again;

"Of the three subdivisions among Vysias, the Vellalas belong to one that is known as Bhoo-Vysias."

citation given: Rao, C. Hayavadana Rao (2014). The Vellalas of Nanjanad, Travancore State, India. Anthropos, University of California. p. 514.

Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias

As for societal perception, they I have quoted in the article Busnagi Rajannan (1992) who does say in his Salem Cyclopedia that Vellalars "ARE" referred to as Vaisyas or specifically Buvaisyas, in present tense, hence this claim of yours is invalid. If it was past tense it should have been *WERE*, but that is not the case here. Again putting out the quote from Busnagi Rajannan here, from my earlier reply:

Quote: "They ARE variously referred to as Bupaalan, Buvaisya"

Citation: Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.

Link:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Buvaisya&redir_esc=y

→You are by default accepting British censuses which as Gospel truth and Non British records quoted by Historians, like the Karmandala Satakam, as mythical. This affects the neutrality of the article. But even going by your stance, I have given proof that later British records like the Travancore Government Gazette accorded the Vellalas the Vaishya status, hence this Vaishya status of Vellalars is not in dispute, as it is mentioned in

--Traditional records- Karmandala Satakam (Quot U.Vijayalakshmi, 2010), Baramahal records (quot Thurston, 2018)

--British records- Travancore Government Gazette of 1911 , post 1871 and 1901 census. (Quot Hayavadana Rao, 2014)

→@Cyberanthropologist With regards to the Manava Gotra, you have said and I quote

"About the 'Manava Gotra'. According to your source the Mnava Gotra is just a substitute used for those who don't have a specific Gotra in ceremonies. The usage of Ammava Gotra itself is indicates the Vellalars dont have proper Gotras."

I have cited a reference which explicitly states that it was used by the three Upper castes, and not Shudras. If you have evidence that Shudras had the Manava Gotra, please free to cite evidence regarding the same. If you have evidence of the absence of the Gotra amongst current Vellalars, in the formn of censuses or surveyss please feel free to cite the same. In the absence of such citations, Reverting to the original edit for the Gotra section. Gotras are normally found among Vellalars, and are NOT absent. I quote;

"Gotra Lineage and Names The caste (jati) is an endogamous group, and gotra (clan) is an exogamous division within it. Normally, some of the larger castes, such as Rajpt, Jat, Vellala, and Brahman, have many constituent exogamous subgroups."

Citation:

Journal of Popular Culture, by the Popular culture association (Etats-Unis) & Modern language association of America. Published by Bowling Green State University, page 484.

Journal of Popular Culture - Popular culture association (Etats-Unis)., Modern language association of America. Popular literature section, Midwest modern language association (Etats-Unis). Popular culture section - Google Books

→@Cyberanthropologist Additionally, You have mentioned in the edit history that Shudras had Upanayana ceremonies as well. Yes, they did have Agamika upanayana ceremonies, Not Vedic Upanayana ceremonies which are traditionally restricted to the 3 upper castes, as I have specified in the article & given the citations for. The Vellalars are practitioners of Vedic rites who studied the Vedas. Quoting the references from the article here again:

"Verse 31 of the Karmandala Satakam states that the Vellālas of Kārmandalam belonged to the clan of the Gangas: they were both Srotriyas; practitioners of Vedic rites or Southerners"

Citation:

Vijailakshmi, Usha R. (2010). KARMANDALA SATAKAM: POLITICO-SOCIO-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIEVAL TAMIL LITERATURE ON THE VELLALA COMMUNITY OF SOUTH KARNATAKA. Indian History Congress. p. 430.

Quote 2:

"Yajñopavita is the sacred thread which all the ' twice born ' , ie , the three uppercastes , among the Hindus begin wearing when they come of age . The rite that confers this is called upanayana .

Citation:

Kentish Coomaraswamy, Ananda (1988). Selected Letters of Ananda K. Coomaraswamy. Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. p. 437. ISBN 978-0-90562-306-1.

If you have a citation which says Veic upanayana is traditionally given to the Shudras, please feel free to cite the source. Reverting to original in the absence of any such citation. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk Also, L.D Sanghvi is a Cancer Researcher [11][12] and not an anthropologist or historian. This is a publication by the Indian society of human genetics [13]. Add the primary source that L.D Sanghvi references. It’s probably one or the sources already discussed here. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also Thurston just states the “tradition of Vellalans” he DOES NOT classify them as Vaishyas or Shudras he only states what OTHER AUTHORS have classified them as.

The Bramahal record story does not even have the word ‘Vaisya’ in it.

>I have given proof that later British records like the Travancore Government Gazette accorded the Vellalas the Vaishya statu

One author Rao writes that they are Vaishyas. That is far from ‘British records’ classifying them as such. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk the ‘gotras’ among Jats and Vellalans are not the same as the ‘Rishi Gotras’ of the Brahmins and Vaishyas, every community has gotra like subcastes.

>The caste (jati) is an endogamous group, and gotra (clan) is an exogamous division within it. Normally, some of the larger castes, such as Rajpt, Jat, Vellala, and Brahman, have many constituent exogamous subgroups."

Yes. But Rishi gotra and clan cannot be used interchangeably

In Hindu culture, the term gotra (Sanskrit: गोत्र) is considered to be equivalent to lineage. It broadly refers to people who are descendants in an unbroken male line from a common male ancestor or patriline. Generally the gotra forms an exogamous unit, with the marriage within the same gotra being prohibited by custom, being regarded as incest.

A gotra must be distinguished from a kula. A kula is equal to a particular family , or equal to modern day "clans", Kula does relate to lineage or caste. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk about Upanayana

Several texts such as Sushruta Sutrasthana, however, also include the fourth varna, the Sudras, entering schools and the formal education process, stating that the Upanayana samskara was open to everyone. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Irawati Karve, an anthropologist, is one of the co authors of the book along with LD Sanghvi, as mentioned in the Google books link given. Do not selectively quote and remove references. Adding back the citation given by her.

"There is a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers , ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."

Link to the book which mentions Irawati Karve:

Biology of the People of Tamil Nadu - Google Books TheBrokenTusk (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk This karmandala Sathakam analysis[14] does not yield any results for the terms Vaishya, Vysya, Vaisya etc, it cannot be used as a source to claim that Vellalans were Vaishyas, Cyberanthropologist (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The terms Bupaalan used in the Karmandala Satakam is synonymous with Buvaisya as is referenced by Busnagi Rajannan here:

Quote:

"VELLALAR , Kongu . A major caste of farmers in the district . They are variously referred to as Bupaalan , Buvaisya , Dhevar , Gangavamsam , Rayar , and most commonly as Kudiyaanavar and Vivasaayi ."

Link:

Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District ... - Busnagi Rajannan - Google Books

Citation: Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.

Hence, Bupaalan=Buvaisya. Do not remove academically sourced content. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk

>The terms Bupaalan used in the Karmandala Satakam is synonymous with Buvaisya as is referenced by Busnagi Rajannan here: Quote: "VELLALAR , Kongu . A major caste of farmers in the district . They are variously referred to as Bupaalan , Buvaisya , Dhevar , Gangavamsam , Rayar , and most commonly as Kudiyaanavar and Vivasaayi

This just gives the commonly used terms to refer to the Kongu Vellalar. It does not say they are “SYNONYMS”. By your logic all the other terms are interchangeable too. So does Rayar, Dhevar and Vivasaayi mean Bhuvaishya now?

You’re quoting Karmandala Satakam, and Baramhal record mentioned my Edgar thurston as citations for them being classified as Vaishyas, but no where do both of them even mention the term “Vaishya”. You’re then using Salem Cyclopedia to claim Bhuvaisya and Bhupalan are synonyms. But that’s absolutely false. Because they’re two separate terms, like multiple others mentioned there to refer to them. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@CyberanthropologistWikipedia cannot use primary sources as quotation. The historian Usha R. Vijailakshmi has done an analysis of the Karmandala Satakam, it is not a Primary source. Other analyses and citations regarding the Karmandala Satakam are welcome. Since here analysis does not include all the verses from Karmandala Satakam, you cannot conclude that "Vaishyas are not mentioned in Karmandala Satakam".

Same goes for the Baramahal records, which are quoted partly by Edgar Thurston, this is not enough to form a conclusion that "Vaishyas are not mentioned in the Baramahal records."

See WP:RS for more information TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

{{Admin help}} Requesting dispute resolution. As a consensus wasn’t reached.Cyberanthropologist (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators have many roles but adjudicating content disputes isn't one of them. To learn about your options, such as requesting a WP:Third opinion, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk with your edits here [15] you have deleted my references stating they are a century old , but they are references I provided for the statements that Vellalars have been classified as “Shudras” since colonial times. So they are bound to old as they are colonial era sources.

And along with those references you deleted a 2008 one by Pillai where he says ”The Brahmin goes with the Vellala and others of the Sudra caste in this affair”.

This means the Brahmin of the Brahmin Varna goes with the ‘Vellala and others’ of the Sudra varna.

But okay, you disagreed with this, and claim the Vellalas are not being classed as Sudra here. Okay. But what about this edit of your then? [16]

This source you added . says “Other locals belonging to Chettiar , Goundar , Mudaliar and Vysya communities are also doing a substantial business” How are you passing this off as the Vellalar communities being classified as Vysya? Theyre not saying anything of that sort, This by no means can be twisted to imply that the Karnataka government classified the Chettiar, Gounder etc as Vaishyas. Vysa is a the name of a separate caste of Karnataka. Check this out [17], they’ve listed Vysya as a separate caste and Mudaliar, Chettiar, Pillai, separately too. here are other sources example [18] [19] Cyberanthropologist (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is precisely my point, if you do add the Pillai(2008) reference, then the 1981 census has to taken in the same semantic meaning.

"Vellala and others of the Sudra caste"

"Chettiar , Goundar , Mudaliar and the Vysya communities.

It is already cited by Busnagi Rajannan that they Gounders are Vaisyas, as I have quoted before in the earlier replies.

Adding back the 1981 Census with citation. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Nammazhwar is classified as Vysya among the 4 great Vysya saints in the same article, it is clear the Census of 1981 implies the same with regard to the Vellalalr community.

The 1981 Census of India classifies the Chettiar Vellalar, Mudaliar, & Kongu Vellalas or Gounders among the Vaishya communities of Karnataka involved in substantial businesses.

The Vaishnavite Vellala Saint Nammazhwar, who lived ca. 798 CE, was classified as Vysya, among the Four great Vysya saints, by the All India Vaishya Samaj in 1988.

Quote:

"VYSYA. SAINTS. NAMMALVAR. According to tradition Nammalvar is the first amongst Alvars of Ramanuja Visista Advaita Siddhantha and he was is known traditionally one who born in a Vysya family ."

Citation: Gupta, Ke.Si. (1988). Vaishyas in India, Volume 1. All India Vaishya Samaj. p. 38. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk Here look at page 607 and 633 of the 1981 census [20], it clearly, differentiates between them as separate castes in the table. I don’t know if you’re joking now. You cannot extrapolate one citation(Pillai 2008) (Gupta 1988) to another completely different one (census 1981) And draw your own conclusions. Does it say Nammalvar was a vysya in the census 1981 article [21]? NO. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia to present things as they are, but in the Varna sectiion you’ve drawn your own conclusions and made the following statement

The evidences of the Dvija Gotras being held by the Vellalas[89][90], along with the long documented tradition of them wearing the sacred thread[91][92][93][94][95] or Yajñopavita & the Vaidika Upanayana ceremonies having been performed by the Vellalar community,[96][97][98] which are traditionally restricted to the 3 upper varnas, namely Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya respectively.[99] reaffirms their traditional Dvija Vaishya status[100] & contradicts these additional Shudra classifications of the Vellalars from the colonial period onwards[101], as Shudras do not have Dvija Gotras & are not given the Vaidika upanayana ceremonies.

This is your POV and you’re pushing it, I’m removing this and adding that

‘The Varna status of the Vellalars is a contested and complex topic, they have been classified as Shudras and as Vaishyas by different sources.’ in the intro of the Varna section.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Paraphrasing the citation instead of exact quotation, is not conclusion. I have given the proper citations, which are not altered in any way, with links. Reverting. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

see Khatri#Origin_and_ritual_status as an example, the Wikipedia page should just state what the sources and authors have to say. Editors cannot write their own conclusions they arrived at using the sources. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The page cited is Irrelevant to this page in discussion. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In the intro i changed They went “traditionally classified as Vaishyas” to according to their traditions they are classified as Vaishyas. Because the Varna tradition was foreign to south (As stated by Swami Vedachala, and various historians like Edgar Thurston, Gail Omvedt, James Manor etc). So I changed it to ‘according to their traditions’ they are classified as Vaishyas, the Baramahal record and the Karmandala satakam don’t even mention the word vaishya. Busnagi does NOT claim that. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Already gave prrof with citations that 1911 Government Gazette recorded them as Vaishyas, as well as in the 1981 Census. That is 2 Government references post the 1871 and 1901 census which classified them as Vaishyas, not Shudras. It is not just the view of the Vellalas, it is shared by the British and Indian Governments as well.

The 1981 Census of India classifies the Chettiar Vellalar, Mudaliar, & Kongu Vellalas or Gounders among the Vaishya communities of Karnataka involved in substantial businesses.

I've mentioned in the article that 1911 Travancore Government Gazette classified the Vellalas as Vaishyas. I quote:

"Of the three subdivisions among Vysias, the Vellalas belong to one that is known as Bhoo-Vysias."

citation given: Rao, C. Hayavadana Rao (2014). The Vellalas of Nanjanad, Travancore State, India. Anthropos, University of California. p. 514.

Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias

This is a Government publication in 1911, post the 1871 and 1901 census. Hence, your claim is invalid as the 2 classifications coexisted.

TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk Here look at page 607 and 633 in the 1981 census you cite[22], it clearly lists Goundar, Mudaliar, Chettiar etct as separate castes from Vysya in the table.

The Karnataka census you cite does not state they are Vaishyas at all, you’re literally making up statements now. You cannot combine another source and reinterpret what the census means. It has to be taken verbatim. Does it classif them as Vaishyas? NO. Only the 1911 gazette states they are Vaishyas Cyberanthropologist (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: This is clearly a heated and controversial topic, and clearly also one that's quite impenetrable to an outsider. I have no opinion on how Vellalars should actually be classified, but to me it seems clear that the proposed introduction "The Varna status of the Vellalars is a contested and complex topic, they have been classified as Shudras and as Vaishyas by different sources." is a statement of fact and should be retained. It might also make sense to add three subheadings, presenting the case for Vellalars (1) being Vaishya, (2) being Shudra, and (3) the final argument by Swami Vedachalam that varnas are (were) historically alien to Tamil society, so Vellalars aren't (weren't) really either. As a side note, the nomenclature in the article seems highly inconsistent, I would strongly recommend using Vaishya (not "Vysya" etc) and Shudra (not Sudra etc) since those are the agreed names on Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jpatokal: Thank you for mediating, I have requested User:TheBrokenTusk to follow your suggestion. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Presentation of Varna Section

@TheBrokenTusk:

Third Opinion has been provided here for dispute resolution. Let’s do what Japtokal has suggested. You take care of the pro Vaishya arguments, I’ll do the anti. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk: Clean up the references for the Vaishya staus, 90% of your sources are basically reiterations of Edgar Thurston’s classification. Most state ‘Edgar Thurston classified....”. Edgar Thurston isn’t reliable according to WP:RS.[23] You deleted my sources stating because they were of the colonial era here. [24]. So uphold the same level of quality for the pro vaishya section.Cyberanthropologist (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Beatrix_Kiddo2004 is a sock puppet of User:TheBrokenTusk, and he’s POV pushing by reverting all my edits, he simply undid 35 of them at once.[25] This simply undoes all the effort and hard work that goes into editing process. 3rd opinion was given by a senior editor after dispute resolution appeal[26], but the user is ignoring all that and is adamantly misrepresenting and POV pushing. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

tagging @Sitush:

With these edits [27], User:Beatrix_Kiddo2004 who is a sock puppet of User:TheBrokenTusk, is trying to suppress my complaints to the Admins regarding his sockpuppetry, vandalism and POV pushing. He is undoing my discussion on the Talk Page to prevent me from exposing him Cyberanthropologist (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cyberanthropologist do not involve me in your personal disputes with other accounts by making false accusations on me like sock puppetry. Read WP:Bully TheBrokenTusk (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The user @cyberanthropologist is making baseless claims against my account, consistent with wikipedia's policy of Bullying. Tag WP:BULLY He has also vandalised the wikipedia page by removing relevant academic sources cited in a chronological order. Restoring to last best version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatrix Kiddo2004 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)