Jump to content

Talk:Balija

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyberanthropologist (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 27 May 2021 (→‎Reservation Status). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconIndia: Karnataka / Tamil Nadu Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).

Comment

Kambalathars/Rajakambalathars are not Balijas.Its a distortion of History. Please research. There is a group of people from Kambalathars who are distorting history and tagging with Balijas. Talk to Balijas in Tamilnadu for verification... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusersouthindia (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true the Kambalathars started claiming to be Balijas recently. But there is no proof. --Anon=us (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Anon=us[reply]

into the the Wikipedia page of such kind, there should be quantitative page also.... Saddam hussar (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

varna claims

Provide references from proper sources / old texts / inscriptions to prove varna claims. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

C 

left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others — were first mobilized politically by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday. Durjaya vamsam (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping required

This whole article needs to be revamped.
1) When sentences are provided to show mixed origins, with sources from noted historians, they have been deleted. This is sheer egotism
2) There are claims made about origin from Kaampu tribe and settlement areas. Citations have to be provided for each of the claims made with inline references duly tagged. Otherwise they need to be deleted.
--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Disambiguation page

I think there should be disabm. page, because in BIH this was and still is abusive name of Bosniaks. Primarly used by Serbs. Term was highly used during the Bosnian war, with devolution in after war time. E.g. like used in Prijedor massacre article.
--User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"sub caste" section

What is intended to be conveyed by this section? It is not clear to someone that is unfamiliar with this subject.Vontrotta (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References for Balija/Kapu/Telega Dynasties

There has been considerable debate on each of Vijayanagara Dynasties. Prima facie, at least Aravidu Dynasty belongs to “Raju” caste Aravidu_dynasty. Interestingly none of the original commentators don’t talk about this, but at least present generations claim so. This is actually a case study of caste evolution.

I request all to refrain from claiming a dynasty belong to particular caste. More than anything else, if someone else claim that "your caste" member belongs to "their caste", it should be a proud issue for you. Much more than anything else, Vijayanagara Kingdom as a whole made most of the Indian proud if not a single caste.

There are enough Balija/Kapu/Telaga proven prominent historical figures made this community proud. Let’s not "conclusively" associate "controversial" figures (pertaining to caste) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indo.gypsy (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable cleanup is necessary for Balija Dynasties and Balaji Branches. Though the text is OK, much of the info is not relevant for the sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indo.gypsy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline References Lacking

There appear to be a lot of references at the end of this document, but few in-line. Can some of these end-of-article references be turned into in-line citations?—C45207 | Talk 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Lists

There are a lot of lists. Can some of these be turned into prose?—C45207 | Talk 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varna

There has been a huge, detailed and pretty interesting section in this article relating to the background for varna. The problem is, it bears little relation to the subject of this article and it should really be in an article discussing the general nature of varna, to which this article can be linked.

It is grossly undue weight to use 9000 characters to explain what is essentially a background matter. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask that people read the articles for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am not the only editor who has seen this page recently and spotted that there is a mass of invalid content. It is poorly written, poorly structured and largely inappropriate. And now the varna stuff has been added back again. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balija - Goud - Idiga

Please can someone explain to me the connections between Balija, Goud and Idiga, preferably with some sources to back it up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sitush

Unfortunately, this has not been documented properly. Socially it is believed members of Goud / Idiga started claiming to be Balijas and Kapus very recently. Since their customs vary, their claims were / are not accepted by other Balijas and Kapus.

However, the point to note is that the term Balija merely indicates a trader or a banajiga guild member. So one never knows really.

In Karnataka, i personally know of Gouds (deve gowda's caste supposedly vokkaligas) who claim to be Balijas; and have successfully married into Balijas also. Surprisingly, they speak Telugu although outside they claim to be Kannadigas, and pass off as kannadigas intact with their pride for kannada language and all that. They worship the same gods, and in that respect there are some ritual similarities. But in customs or rituals pertaining to death, first menstruation of a girl, some wedding customs, etc, they are very different.

In Andhra, the Balijas and Kapus simply do not accept the claims of Idigas / Gouds. AFAIK, there is no evidence to indicate that Idigas / Gouds managed to enter the Balija and Kapu groupings in the Andhra regions. Even if they did, documented proof is lacking. For that matter, written proof is lacking for the Karnataka regions also.

Since documented proof is lacking it is impossible to represent content of this kind in the article. The best source is still the Sepuri Bhaskar one. Although its a poor source, unfortunately, some sorta 'indications' atleast are given in such sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Confusing

I know my way around Indic caste articles etc but this one is just a confusing mess. Given time, I could probably sort it out but I've tagged it as such in the hope that someone may beat me to it. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not willing to listen to Other's point of view, is this Wikipedia's crony democracy.

I think Sitush you are not willing to listen to another editor's point of view.

You are also not quoting any proper recognized sources to prove that Balija and Kapu were Sudhras or belonged to which Varna. Still you seem to be classifying Balija and Kapu are Sudhras without proper, authentic sources to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk78 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to listen. What is wrong with the sources which, by the way, I don't think I added to this article? - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between Bunts and Balijas

Sri Krishna Deva Raya Father is Tuluva Narasa Nayaka and Grand Father is Tuluva Eshwar Nayaka , both Bunt community chieftains. Please through light on the relationship between Bunt Community and Balija Community. This will also give the Balija Community the Naga Vamsa Kshtriya status.I think the madhurai nayakas gradually changed their kshtriya status to chandravamsa kshtriya status. The Balijas are descendents of the Great Mahabali Chakravarthy must also be elaborated and written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.41.48 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for this information? I would also suggest that your take a look at original research. with specific regard to your point about kshatriya status. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

telaga ,ediga,gowda are different from balijas, all balijas are kshatriyas.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

Balija community, an immigrant Telugu speaking caste Hindu of Kerala , had been availing of all the benefits earmarked for Scheduled Castes over the last 30 years or so under the name of Kavara.[1] Kamma vamsa (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not clear what change you are request. Please state in the form "Change X to Y". - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zmh_AAAAMAAJ&q=balija+SCHEDULED+CASTES+Kerala&dq=balija+SCHEDULED+CASTES+Kerala&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-i6nvz4jLAhVHeSYKHTGGDjUQ6wEICzAA

Surname

122.175.25.125 deleted Rao in infobox. Some examples of Rao usage:

122.175.25.125 made change in article Rao_(surname) which needs checking for discrepancies. --Anon=us (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Anon=us[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balija. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 manai telugu chettiar community in Tamil nadu is also part of Balija

Guys, the 24 manai telugu chettiar caste of tamil nadu also known as Sadhu chetty/ Janappan is also a part of the Balija community according to proper sources.

https://archive.org/stream/castestribesofso02thuriala#page/447/mode/2up

They are also a telugu/tamil speaking caste initially belonging to the Balija, but recently seperated out as a distinct caste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_four_Manai_Telugu_Chettiars

Please add them in the Balija sub classification if found suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.48.237 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Edgar Thurston nor Wikipedia itself are considered to be reliable. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not at all belongs to balija. 24 Manai Telugu cheetiars also called Sadhu Chetty in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. we follow 24 Manai means 24 families or gothras we are unique Thank and Regards, Akhila Bharatha Sadhu Chetty Sangam. Lokeshthimmana (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

@Kautilya3: you reverted here because the source is unreliable. Can you fill me in, please? The same contributor has reinstated it here and, I think, elsewhere. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am suspicious of publishers who don't take responsibility for copyright protection. Looking at the source more closely, it looks like the authors did a field study and got an endorsement from a Vice-Chancellor. However, their coverage of traditions is half-baked and full of folk etymologies and speculations. They don't cite any linguists or historians to support these theories.
By the way, note that Komatis, the other trading caste of South India, also have a sect named Gavara. So a proper theory would have to account for both of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the last sentence of the Foreword: Should the book rouse scepticism among some of it readers and stimulate further research with more refined tools and techniques, it would have attained a great purpose. It doesn't fill me with confidence. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sepuri Bhaskar was sociology professor in tirupati. For a professor, the book is of low caliber. Ethnohistory is never documented without archival research. Writing gossip is not fieldwork. Even today, if you ask 10 people they will say 1000 things about others. Does it become true? If this is the level of methods / methodology used in Indian universities even to this day, then god save india. Already, few decades ago people were fighting in courts for varna positions. Since it involved inheritance rights (see Kshatriya talk page), typically Indians wanted to pull down each other. What set off this, and the root cause of the problem cannot be discussed in present political situation. It will suffice to say this book and another book (on vysyas) by Sepuri Bhaskar are not reliable. Bhaskar's book on Vysyas also lacks research standards. If this is the level of research for a professor, it seems anyone can document gossip and write a book.--Anon=us (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Kavaras claim separate community not balija any doubt check Tamil nadu backward class report. Durjaya vamsam (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavarai

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

on Balija - pending reply -- for you to take the call to revert to branches (subcastes) or delete from intro:

(1) Mukund says merchant communities like Kavarai are mentioned in inscriptions after fifteenth century. Then writes in brackets (Kavarai is the Tamil word for Balija). His should be considered Primary Source. He gives no reference for his claim.

(2) Francis says "The Kavarai and the Balija are equivalent and occupied low positions" - did he say Balijas in Tamilnadu are called Gavara?

Many sources mention Gavara and Balijas as separate communities, including Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Yet, you both are insisting on something that is factually incorrect. Why?

Are you saying Balija subcastes like Gollas, Gajulus, Mahendravaram, Kambalar are ALL called Gavara in Tamilnadu? Sorry, you are wrong.

--Anon=us (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)--Anon=us[reply]

Kavarai is just the Tamil rendering of "Gavara". Plenty of sources [1] say that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you giving google link search for "Kavarai and Gavara"? Please, Why not for "Balija and Gavara"? Are you saying even Sanjay Subrahmanyam is wrong? This source too which mentions them as different communities? How about explaining your Mukund and Francis source first? BTW, even from the link you gave the very first source is 'Acts of Parliament' which lists the communities separately.--Anon=us (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Kautilya3, if you are still insistent, just check some tamil balija matrimonials. Kavara will be mentioned as subcaste. Like see this or this. Kavara will marry Kavara not other subcastes. How can you say all balijas in tamilnadu belong to one subcaste alone? Please, your sources do not support your claim.--Anon=us (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Matrimonials and who marries whom? You are engaging in original research supported by unreliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was for Kautilya for an idea of sub-caste. Is not original research. Do not assume. Let Kautilya3 reply. His own sources do not support his claims. Let him explain his sources first. BTW, i did not give any source in the article yet, for you to claim they are unreliable. Please take a break. That's a genuine suggestion, out of goodwill. Cheers bro.--Anon=us (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

The Francis citation does not support the claim in the lead. Being "equivalent" - a word seemingly used by the unreliable Baines in 1912 - does not mean the two are synonymous. For example, it could mean "of the same socio-economic or ritual or occupational status". I've yet to find the relevant bit in the Mukund source - can't see it on p 62 so I assume the page numbering is wrong. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Mukund bit is on p. 46 and is repeated in the glossary (p 185). In neither case is the word Gavara mentioned - it just says that Kavarai is the Tamil word for Balija merchants. I've no idea, then, why we have put a link to Gavara in parentheses in the lead sentence. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukund is Primary source. Gives no reference for his claim in bracket. All Balija subcastes are not called Kavarai either in Tamilnadu. Gavara, as separate subcaste, does exist. Hence this should go to branches, not intro. If you say all balijas of whole tamilnadu are gavaras, they will become very happy. They can start availing reservations!--Anon=us (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Mukund is not a primary source. Read WP:PRIMARY. But your argument seems to be irrelevant anyway because he doesn't connect Kavarai to Gavara. I don't think you are "seeing the wood for the trees" here. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone can write in brackets without providing reference and it is acceptable? How? How do you know Mukund did not intend to connect to Gavara? In Tamil the Gavara ARE called Kavarai.--Anon=us (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
In case it interests anyone, see this court case (glad it is available in public domain). Note the Tanjore Maratha Serfoji's concubine is a Kavarai lady. That is Gavara. In Tamil, ga becomes ka and a becomes i. Hence, Gavara is actually written and spelled as Kavarai in Tamil. YES, the Gavara-Balija exists as a subcaste of the larger Balija social group. All Balijas in Tamilnadu are not called Gavara / Kavarai. Example, the Kambalatar are not called Kavarai / Gavara. BTW, sword marriage also happened if lady was not equal caste of Maratha. Raja Pratap Singh's mother Annapurni was his father Tukkoji's sword wife (sword marriage). Annapurni's gurus were from the Tatacharya family. --Anon=us (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
We can only say what Mukund says, so speculating about what he may have thought but not said is pointless. And, yet again, the court case is completely irrelevant. You're making an interpretation of a primary source. Just stop with this speculative stuff, please. You're clogging up the discussion and it adds to the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources that matter here are reliable ones that deal directly with the issue. Everything else is BS. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can you speculate what Mukund intended to connect? How do you claim Mukund did not intend to mean Gavara when he himself says it is the TAMIL word for Balija merchants? How do you know Mukund was not referring to the Gavara-Balija subcaste? See another source by Mukund - again he says Kavarai in TAMIL. When he mentions TAMIL so clearly, how can you connect or disconnect on his behalf? How are you going to overlook sources like Rao, Shulman, Subrahmanyam, and various papers which mention (1) Balija and Gavara/Kavarai as separate castes or (2) Gavara/Kavara as a subcaste of Balija? Why is Mukund source more important than everyone else? How about Indian Government which records them separately for reservation purposes: 30. Kavara (other than Telugu speaking or Tamil speaking Balija, Kavarai, Gavara, Gavarai, Gavarai Naidu, Balija Naidu? Nobody should speculate. Unfortunately, Kautilya did; and you are supporting him. Agree court case is not relevant. --Anon=us (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Present the reliable secondary sources and we'll look at them. Writing bollocks and fake accusation as you are doing - including presenting government sources - is just pissing me off. The government caste lists are known to be ambiguous, variable and politically motivated - they're useless and that has long been the consensus. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright you do not want government source, no Raj source. Sure. First, thank you for cleaning up the article and for your patience. Take a look at these sources:

(1) Most accurate source is Subrahmanyam and Shulman, p.74 which says --- These left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others — were first mobilized politically by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday --- which means Gavaras became part of Balija social group at this point. How is it possible to say all Balijas in Tamilnadu are called Gavara or Kavarai (in Tamil)? Why not put Gavara-Balija subcaste under branches?

(2) See this paper on genetics - they acknowledge naidu title is used by many castes, such as balija and gavara (separately), and examine only the Gavara Naidu in the study.

(3) See this source - It says Balija community, with two sub-divisions, Gajalu Balija and Gavara Balija, migrated originally from Tamil Nadu.

(4) This Niels Brimnes source is indeed accurate. Page 106 says, "The Kavarais were Tamilized Balija Chettis of Telugu origin, returned in the census as 'Wadugas' or Northerners". Page 189 says "..were headed by Vellalas and Tamilized Balijas known as Kavarais".

(5) This source is most accurate. Says "Thurston and Rangachari describe three merchant castes (Balijas and their offshoots, Kavarais and Janappans).." -- Note offshoots.

(6) This source says - The Naidu caste has three broad sub-divisions: Kammas, Balijas and Kavarais.

Reg [citation needed] tag you marked in the article, there is a strong case of sanskritization which tried to explain in varna section below. If you are going to clean up, how are you going to say communities claiming to be balija are wrong?

See this page 223 for Sanskritization / Census issues.

--Anon=us (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Thanks. Some of those aren't going to be useful (eg: Thurston's opinion counts for nothing in particular, and we don't use genetics stuff in individual caste articles.) I am still at a loss regarding what your actual problem is, so it's a bit difficult to comment further. For example, we already use the Subrahmanyam and Shulman source you mention but they do not say what you claim, ie: that the Gavaras became part of the Balija community. What they say is that the word balija was used as an umbrella term to describe other castes as well as the Balija community itself. That's not uncommon. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it now. You're referring to this edit, which I reverted (for the wrong reasons, as it happens). The problem with what you said there is you appear to have misrepresented the sources. As I said at 21:09 above, the Subrahmanyam and Shulman source doesn't say the Gavaras became Balijas. Further, the Mukund source doesn't say some Kavarai etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you bro. Yes, is about your revert. Am expecting following changes: (1) The intro is wrong (all balijas in tamilnadu are not called Gavara/kavarai). (2) Move Gavara-balija to branches. Sure, source does not say Gavara became part of balija community. It says Balija was cover title for Sudra groups which also included Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others. Which means, I agree with you bro (I do not understand why you understand this differently) :) Yes, it is an umbrella term. If it is cover-term it means Gavara is also balija; hence there is a Gavara subcaste of Balija today (just as Gollas, Boyas, etc are subcastes of Balija - none of these intermarry). In Telugu, many would still say 'balija varna' for fighters gathered from different castes to protect dharma (burn in flames, ie, fight to death which Noburu Karashima documents well). There is no jati here, only dharma. This is a unique phenomenon in tamilnadu; which andhra and karnataka will not understand, as these became nayakas in tamilnadu. Please remove Thurston or others not acceptable.--Anon=us (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
I have this and this and this with me (indeed it was new society formation). Hope Noburu Karashima is acceptable source. After you have cleaned the article, will add content from them. Thanks. I do not know how you are going to represent sanskritization (of colonial period as in varna section below) because several communities till date claim to be sub-caste of balija. Also the concept of an umbrella term (bcoz today balijas think 'balija' is their caste / jati). Looking forward to wording which reduces caste puffery and accommodates everyone. Many thanks for helping with this article.--Anon=us (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

I am really not sure what this debate is about. The line in the lead says Balijas are "called Kavarai" in Tamilnadu. And, Anon=us rightly recognizes that Kavarai is the same word as Gavara (with a Tamil case ending). There are tons of other sources that say this too, e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc.

If putting "Gavara" in brackets is causing all this heartburn, you can remove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified, too. I do see a problem with not sourcing the Gavara = Kavarai point but I don't think that is what Anon=us is upset about. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I don't have a problem with Karashima. He is quite often a bit of a radical in his viewpoints but he's a recognised authority. I'm just not sure what use he may be in this context. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, you are right. Am not upset with that. Please see NOTE below. That explains. Wiki is a powerful tool. Have nothing against you and Kautilya. You both contributed much and deserve much thanks. Thank you bros. I was getting tired of explaining. Any Tamilian would understand how Gavara is rendered Kavarai in Tamil. Kautilya3 does not get the regional peculiarity. Balija and gavara/kavarai is used interchangeably among Tamil speakers socially (because Kavarais (viz Gavara-Balija) were the most dominant merchants all thru 1600s and 1700s as seen in enough sources). However, as you can see, the Balija is a social group, umbrella term for far many more subcastes; accomodating even more subcastes since colonial period via sansktitization. No intent to ruffle either of you. Just wanted someone else to intervene to take the call. If I revert even once, it can be dubbed edit-war. Hence, the DRN. Thanks and may providence remain benign on us.--Anon=us (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Kautilya's sources

@Kautilya3:

Back to square one. Your sources:

  • (1) Francis source -- See Sitush's explanation above. He says Francis does not say balijas are called kavarai/gavara in tamilnadu. Should be removed.
  • (2) Mukund source -- See above, as discussed with Sitush. See below for synopsis.
  • (3) From the ones you quote now:
  • [7] is the same as Sepuri Bhaskar. Vijayalakshmi and Bhaskar published the same book as co-authors and individually.See unreliable source above.
  • [8], -- the source says "The Gazula Balija are known as Gauriputra, Banajiga, Kavarai and Balija Naidu. The Gazula Balija are a subgroup of Balija" -- Does not say what you claim. Instead it says what am saying, that they are a subcaste.
  • [9] - Sitush made it clear Thurston is not acceptable.
  • [10] - source says "Kavarai (ie., Balija) Vadugans number 56,033..". See synopsis below.
  • [11] -- Same source I gave Sitush above for sanskritization issue. Authors Washbrook and Baker rightly note problems with caste claims in census taking. See synopsis below. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon%3Dus (talk • contribs)
This source says : 'Kavarai' was merely the Tamil equivalent of the Telugu word 'Balija'. Isn't that clear enough? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

synopsis

Balija is an umbrella term (see above). There are numerous subcastes, like golla balija, kambalathar, boya, mahendram, etc. All of them are not called Gavara/Kavarai in tamilnadu.

Do not quote me wrongly. I said Kavarai is Tamil rendering of Gavara. None of your sources say ALL Balijas in tamilnadu are Gavaras. The whole state cannot belong to just one subcaste. Your sources refer to the Gavara subcaste.

Remove your claim from intro; and put the subcaste Gavara-Balija under branches. Since you are very insistent on having this in intro, please see Neil's wall.

NOTE:
If all were Gavara/Kavarai, all can start claiming reservations. Whatever Sitush may say, government in this case got it right. Perhaps because periyar was under public scrutiny and wanted to show he was impartial. Balijas are forward caste in tamilnadu. They do not get reservations. Only Gavaras do.

You cannot get BC cert unless one of your parent is Gavara (and not balija). This led to mass marriages with Gavaras in past 30 years. Already caste organizations are getting active; supported by exigencies that be; with demands for reservations. Your claims will make it easier for them to quote wiki.

Instead of making casteism flourish with exclusive divide of feudal times, my request to Sitush was to word the article to lessen caste puffery and accommodate all; including ones who sanskritized in colonial period. Moreover, all balijas today believe that balija is their jati - none ponder over the umbrella term.

Since there are numerous sources contrary to your claim (see 1 to 6 above to Sitush), you cannot have this in the intro. --Anon=us (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Lead or not

@Sitush:, I think the sentence needs to be in the lead because somebody that looks up Kavarai based on some Tamil source, needs to be able to find this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that but the same would apply to all the other groups mentioned in the body. Isn't that what dab pages are for? - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could make a DAB page if we knew that the Tamil kavarai had multiple meanings. Do we? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I meant redirects. Kavarai currently redirects to Gavara, which actually doesn't even mention the Kavarai word and is a rather poor stub. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! And it was me who stubbed it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: On DRN Page you got it all wrong. Have moved my post there. Please take your arguments to the DRN page.--Anon=us (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Sources for the lead sentence

Sitush, the DRN case has been closed without conclusion. Do you have objections for the sentence being in the lead. Here is the discussion of the sources I posed in the DRN discussion: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of sources

I have been asked to provide sources for the sentence in the lead. Not sure why this is being asked, because the sources have been there in the article for quite a while.

  • The Kanakalatha Mukund source [12] mentions it multiple times in her book:
    • P. 46: kavarai (the Tamil word for Balija merchants)
    • p. 183: Balija: a right-hand merchant caste, kavarai in Tamil
    • p. 185: kavarai: Tamil word for Balijas
All three mentions make it clear that kavarai is the term used in Tamil to refer to Balijas. The first occurrence qualifies it as Balija merchants. That is presumably because the Balija warriors might have been referred to as Nayaka or some derivative of that word.
  • The Peter Francis source [13] says
    • p. 35: In British times, glass bead- and bangle makers in Tamil Nadu were the Valaiyal, a subdivision of the Kavarai. In other parts of Dravidia they were called Guzula, a subdivision of Balija. (Note that Kavarai include the Gajula Balijas.)
    • p. 35: The Kavarai and the Balija are equivalent and occupied low positions (Baines 1912, 97). (This is presumably said to amplify/explain the previous sentence because the whole discussion is in the context of bead-making.)
  • In the talk page discussion, I mentioned John Baker and Washbrook [14].
    • p. 223: The Balija caste, for instacne, was divided into several sub-castes... (in 1901 or 1911 census). Among them was Kavarai. However, 'Kavarai' was merely the Tamil equivlaent of the Telugu word 'Balija'. The authors are trying to say that the classification was broken. One of the supposed subclasses spanned the whole class.
  • The Niels Brimness source [15], which the filer claimed for his own support does nothing of the sort:
    • p.106: The Kavarais were Tamilized Balija Chettis of Telugu origin.., nothing more, nothing less. This is essentially a restatements of the sentence in the lead, which said "In Tamilnadu the Balijas are called Kavarai".
    • p.189: Tamilized Balijas, known as Kavarais.
  • The PRG Mathur source [16], which also the filer claimed supports his own objections, says:
    • p. 12: Balija, a Telugu speaking migrant caste to Kerala, is segmented into two sub-castes, viz., Gavara Naidu and Gajalu Balija (Vala Chetti). These communities styled themselves as Kavara/Kavarai and managed to get community certificates so as to avail of all the benefits exclusively earmarked for the Kavaras, the Scheduled Caste.
    • p. 341: Section titled Kavara/Gavara -- Balija: Similarly too [sic] the Balija community, with two sub-divisions, Gajalu Balija and Gavara Balija, migrated originally from Tamil Nadu. The Balija Gavarai are popularly known as Naidus and the others as Chetties, Valai Chatties, Chettiars. It is said that they originally spoke Telugu. (This suggests that Tamilnadu Gavarai were not a subclass of Balija, but rather a superclass. These Gavarai migrants to Kerala apparently claimed a scheduled caste status that was meant for the Kerala Kavaras, just by using the same name.).
  • The Tamil Nadu government OBC list [17], which also the filer used to buttress himself, says:
    • Gavara, Gavarai and Vadugar(Vaduvar) (other than Kamma, Kapu,Balija and Reddi), which again suggests that Gavara was a superclass of Balijas. (But this reference doesn't clinch the issue because it is also talking about Vadugar, which is a generic term for all Telugu people.)

The references are unanimous that all Balijas in Tamilnadu engaged in trading are called Kavarai. The exceptions might have been the non-trading warrior classes, who were pretty much gone by mid 19th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. I've seen those sources but they just confuse me because they are so inconsistent - some refer to specific types of Balija, some don't. And when they do, they don't seem to be agreeing. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DRN was closed because you filed SPI. Does not mean other venues are not open. Just because am out of this, do not think you can push your POV, Kautilya3. You had enough time from Jan to now in messing up; and you continue to do so. If you push, there are others who will take this to better admins in wiki; instead of your buddy group. There are people watching. Do not forget there are better sources than yours which prove the opposite. You are yet to disprove them. If this itches you so much, write a book and disprove Rao,Shulman,Subrahmanyam who investigated kaifiyats, manuscripts and a host of sources in proving fighters from different castes were brought under the cover-title balija. Disprove other sources also which say so, including madras infantry records which prove separate sub-divisions existed in 1891 records. Harping selectively on your sources cannot work. You are nobody to create terms like superclasses; or assume so; when they are subdivisions. This is to let you know, this is not the end, just because am out of wiki, because of your antics.--Anon=us (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
From View History, the last edit to the article was by Sitush on 12:14, 3 April 2017‎. However, Sitush did not touch the infobox. Which admin changed the infobox, without providing a View History record? Is there anyone above the admin to answer this please? Also, Kautilya3 seems to be very motivated. For what reason? --Anon=us (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
A newly-registered account messed with {{Infobox caste}}, which thus affected every article in which the thing was transcluded. It has nothing to do with Kautilya3 and you need to stop casting these aspersions. I've fixed the template. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Sitush. I did not cast aspersions on Kautilya3 for the Infobox. I said he (Kautilya3) seems very motivated. Having DRN closed with SPI, now again back to pushing what he wants in the lead. That is what I meant about being very motivated. Hope that clarifies.--Anon=us (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

varna status

@Sitush - reg clarification on collapsing Kshatriya and Vaishya varna. Velchuru Rao and Sanjay Subrahmanyam said that in reference provided. Frankly, i don't think varna system applied in east / south. Land-owners were often traders, regardless of varna.

Wrt rest, you are right in asking for citations / references. Sanskritization was such that Balija population in whole of Madras Presidency jumped from 804,307 in the 1891 census to an 8 digit number in later censuses. Several communities enumerated themselves into subcaste of Balija (that numbers are hard to add up really). Indicates it was popular enough for people to become part of it.

@Sitush and @Kautilya3, please am not here to show casteism. When some are self-obsessed, one must follow same route to show how hopeless their concept is. Am here to show how even religion accommodated social change. Culture was, is and will never be exclusive.

When brits made census reports, some interpreted everything with themselves as universal lords. See how every census is worded. Does it mean land-owning (so-called 'nonbrahmins'!) patronized aryans (see how the word is used in census reports) with themselves actually positioned into shudras having no right to own, inherit or bequeath land?! Is not shudra everyone's origin in a feudal setup?

How about folks who bothered more for religion, less for caste?

If either of you is interested, you can go thru census reports. Some things you may find interesting from this 1871 census link: http://dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/47396 --

  • In 1871 census, people were classed by religion, divided into 4 classes, Vaishnavite, Shaivite, Lingayite and other Hindus ((of) undefined faith) (see p.90). That changed. This topic raises heckles in powers that be today.
  • In 1871 census in whole of presidency, there were 11,610,000 telugu speakers and 14,715,000 tamil speakers. But later telugu speakers became more numerous! lol
  • From 1,095,445 brahmins in 1871 census the numbers actually decreased! In nearly every district you had minimum 2% brahmin population (even 6% in some districts). In contrast, the trading classes were less than 3% in every district. That changed.
  • See p.145 for Kavare and Kavare-Baligi ("Gavara and its Gavara-Balija subcaste"). But today it is called "Balija and Gavara-Balija subcaste"! --- THIS is what we are talking about.
  • See p.130 for Kavarai and Komati enumerated into separate castes (even at that point they were separate) but today all Komatis in tamilnadu are Gavara-Komatis. Wealthy "Komati Chetties" (as known previously) also profess to be Gavara-Komatis today. Trivarnika-komatis are just sanskritized Gavara-Komatis and freely marry into them.
  • See how vellalars are classified, as purely agriculturists (farmers and small land owners) but today they claim to be aristocracy of ancient tamil order (which is a farce bcoz imo current untouchable castes were former aristocracy (who got suppressed with feudal laws), and current middle castes are actually medieval creations consequent of vijayanagar period).

BTW, if you want clarification you could email Sir Subrahmanyam. Perhaps they have some evidence after all. Coz the nayaks in tamilnadu deployed Manusmriti to rule and followed the varna system. Cheers bro. May all of us be blessed thru these tumultuous times. @kautilya, no hard feelings please. I cannot revert unless you consent.

Thanks. --Anon=us (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

I couldn't care less what the 1871 census said or, indeed, any Raj census. They prove nothing because they're not reliable. I am utterly confused with most of what you write. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mark article asking for references / clarifications, but say you are confused. Shouldn't you take a break from this? Is not about what you care. Is about facts. The way census officers documented ethnohistory of castes was wrong, but numbers they counted (demography) was not. You need proof to back up your claims for lack of reliability for demographic numbers. Revenue department, Land records department, Tax department were all linked. Territorial Revenues of the Madras Presidency depended on enumerating how many farmers, potters, traders, land owners (producing how much crop), etc existed and who could be taxed. They mulled on taxing sale and purchase of land even back then. You cannot claim all of Raj census is wrong.--Anon=us (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
The day I need advice from you, I will ask for it. You know sod all about how Wikipedia works and it is showing. Raj censuses are not reliable, period. They didn't even get the demographics right - read, for example, the sources at Census of India prior to independence. We don't use them as sources, therefore they are not relevant in discussions. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have the right to your opinion. Am speaking of census of Madras Presidency not all of India. The north does not get things right even now.--Anon=us (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Like I said, read the sources in the article I linked. It doesn't matter which census of the Raj era you are referring to, it counts for nothing here. You're wasting my time and your own. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok if it counts for nothing. It was an attempt to show all castes are products of colonial period sanskritization, and hence the current confusion. Was also an attempt to let you know clarification (for varna) you marked in the article may not be got. Perhaps people disappeared. Sorry if you thought I wasted your time..--Anon=us (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Clarification is necessary because the sentence doesn't actually make sense. It is almost as if there is a word or two missing after "evidence". - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The books says so. Need to borrow, to read and see what evidence they cite. Please start working on the article. When I get the book, will first add content to talk page. If ok, you can add to article. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Andhra politics and the Kapus etc

We need to mention the on-off relationship between Kapus, Balijas etc in Andhra politics. I can see plenty of news stories about it but a lot of them appear to be hyperbolic and ephemeral claims, political point-scoring etc. I have found this but surely there must be more out there somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, Many thanks bro for the edits and the Raj period summary. Nicely done. Yes, this is a political cauldron. Already Kapus burnt a train. Let us be factual here please. The paper is right. Now Balijas want to be called Kapu in AP. Kapu, Balija, Kamma fights were common before (killing each other). Feudal lords in a feudal world. Now, all are modernizing into civility. Let the sanity keep. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Sourcing

Don't use census reports directly - they are primary sources. Furthermore, in the instances where they are being added at the moment, they are also Raj sources. Also, don't use rubbish from the "states" series of The People of India - this has been discussed at WP:RSN in the past, where it was noted that the series basically just plagiarises Raj sources, often without attribution.

The reasons for poor census enumeration are many and varied, as noted at Census of India prior to independence. It is pointless trying to hang it on one or two issues when there were in fact so many. Best to leave it with the examples that are already given rather than add more and more of them and attempt to attribute additional weight to certain ones. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sitush, have not used census (plz check, already replaced with Baines's report). You did not tell about "People of India". Ok I will remove it and replace with another source. While we document the census issue, we also provide current representation of the group. Hence, the current wording. If people want to belong to a community, let article represent so. Is understandable why numbers into this group grew so much thru every census. The British were not feudal, they did not remove anyone from their ritual status or banish them. Expectedly, a range of communities, from cultivators to cleaners, got the opportunity for social mobility. It is not uncommon for varied occupations to show sense of belonging to their overlords by professing caste kinship. If various sub-castes want presence in the community; so be it. So, I hope you will let the current wording remain. Thank you.--Anon=us (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Baines is WP:PRIMARY. You've got to stop this mission of yours. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add: your use of Suri is incorrect. That paper was for a specific period and place. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Suri is your source. Which place is it for? What Suri says, Bhatt also says in his book (p.55-56). Is that acceptable? Is Baines primary? That is the official report to the Queen's office. Alright. I will use only your sources. First tell me which I can use? Baker and Talbot are already used in the article. So, can i reword based on Suri / Bhatt, Baker and Talbot? --Anon=us (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Is this source acceptable? --Anon=us (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Where have I used the Suri source in the article? I just raised it on the talk page. Why hammer the point already made from Baker? Bhatt is Gyan - see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. Honestly, I am beginning to think you have an agenda here, what with all the past asides about inequities of the system etc.

Caste-related articles are difficult to write well because they have to be nuanced - what applies in one place at one time may not apply in another place and/or time, and sometimes omitting something or equivocating about it is preferable to making an absolute statement. These are things you learn as you go along but it will probably be more difficult to do so if you have a preconception about the system or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kolff source you have just linked is reliable. Not sure what use it is, though. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please restrict to article and do not assume things. Alright will not use Suri/Bhatt. Thanks for Kloff. Will use it. Do you want me to present everything on the talk page before permitting in article; or can i edit without issues? You can point out unacceptable sources. That's fine. But hope you raise them on talk page before reverting. I'll be glad to work around it, before continuing to expand on each of the major subcastes; without of-course touching on the Kavarai group (for that will wait till DRN is done). Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
I think you'd be better proposing changes here first. Your ability to discern suitable sources is not good at the moment, and that applies to other articles you have edited also. Don't know what anyone else might think, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, will do. You can fix edits in other articles I worked on too. WRT sources, will be glad to be guided along. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Hello Sitush. Reg changes, forgot to clarify, I'll do the writing in the article. Am renewing online access to some libraries including jstor and some unis. Its not going to be possible to share content from that in the talk page. You can approve the sources alone. So far, you said Gyan, Raj sources, and People of India is not allowed. You did not clarify if Suri source can be used in the article? Its from the Journal of Indian School of Political Economy. Please clarify on that. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]

Don't do the writing in the article. Don't assume what sources I can or cannot access. Please. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please.. I was referring to my access to sources, not yours. Again, please clarify if Suri source can be used in the article. Thanks --Anon=us (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
Will you please sort out your indenting. One colon adds one level of indent. I haven't read the Suri source in full, so don't yet know what it can be used for. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Do you approve the source or the content in the source? I mean, just as you'd approve of a source from new york university press, is it not enough that the article is carried by Journal of Indian School of Political Economy? Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us[reply]
That is one of the potential problems. I've never heard of that journal and I know that there are a fair few vanity journals - someone whose name I forget kept a list of suspects on the web somewhere until recently. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respective Kautilya3 Then see this reference its not written by honourable Indian Civil Service member might have said a century ago this was published few years age in the year 1992 

Balija

In the Book "Court and State in Nayaka Period Tamilnadu" by Velcheru Narayana Rao defines as below

" These left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others - were first mobilized by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday...These Balija fighters are not afraid of kings: some stories speak of their killing kings who interfered with their affairs".[1]

Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" These left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others - were first mobilized by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday...These Balija fighters are not afraid of kings: some stories speak of their killing kings who interfered with their affairs".[52] Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the book it was written on 1992 Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removals

The recent repeated removal of sourced info by Millikat (talk · contribs) has been explained to them on several occasions, eg: here. I have reverted it again. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why can't i add Gopita balija which is also a part of Balija Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why cant i add 'Gopita Balija' who is also the part of balijas. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telaga/Balija are same; They both are forward caste communities in Andhra & Telangana

This is Amit, Telaga caste history and correct current status (Forward or Other Caste) needs to be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:480:DF62:5B4:C169:CE56:2B6F (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.ripublication.com/ijhss18/ijhssv8n1_03.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:480:DF62:5B4:C169:CE56:2B6F (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Telaga caste is mentioned as backward caste category ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telaga

Famous personalities of Balija caste

Famous personalities of Balija caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.39.104 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational or not

With regard to the recent edit war on this page, please note that the Caste system in India page states:

The jatis are complex social groups that lack universally applicable definition or characteristic, and have been more flexible and diverse than was previously often assumed.

It is sourced to a scholarly book published by the Cambridge University Press in 2001. That is a reliable source. What any honourable Indian Civil Service member might have said a century ago is entirely irrelevant, and has no place on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nittawinoda, can I bother you to monitor this page since you have an interest in castes? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, sure. I have added to my watchlist. I'll keep a tab and give my inputs. Nittawinoda (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balija is combined term or not

Balija is the combined term of boyas,Gollas, Gavaras and some castes it is noted in the book of velcheru narayana rao in his book published in the 1992 telling as below Balija In the Book "Court and State in Nayaka Period Tamilnadu" by Velcheru Narayana Rao defines as below

" These left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others - were first mobilized by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday...These Balija fighters are not afraid of kings: some stories speak of their killing kings who interfered with their affairs".[2]

Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. From the source that you have quoted, it appears that these other groups like Boyas, Gollas etc. were not originally Balija but seemed to have been clubbed with them at a later point in time. This is the reason that the author lists these other groups explicitly. Note "..but also including Boyas..". Nittawinoda (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered in the article. I don't know why Sathyanaraya is raising it again. In fact, the entire history of the origin and development of the Balijas is discussed quite thoroughly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rao, Velcheru Narayana; Shulman, David Dean; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1992), Symbols of Substance: Court and state in Nāyaka Period Tamilnadu, Oxford University Press, p. 74
  2. ^ Rao, Velcheru Narayana; Shulman, David Dean; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1992), Symbols of Substance: Court and state in Nāyaka Period Tamilnadu, Oxford University Press, p. 74

Book reference

kaifiyat not given full details of who wrote it.cannot decide with only the lines of the page in a book. Durjaya vamsam (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balijas

All the books are called Balijas are an offshoot of the Kammas or Kapus, an admixture of Telugu castes. Durjaya vamsam (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

Just reverted back to a version of May 2019. I have ploughed through the tortuous history since then and can't see much except edit warring, pov-pushing, poor sourcing and regular contributors trying to stem this tide. I think we're at the point where this article needs indefinite WP:ECP or something like that. If I have missed anything of note then hopefully the other experienced contributors will spot it and fix. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history, ECP is a good idea. Done. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current article seems POV pushing and is incomplete

There are some key details about the origins of Balijas missing in the article. Apart from those involved in trade guilds, in Andhra the popular tradition as well the inscriptional evidence suggests Balijas have formed from Kapus who have taken up mercantile activity. This has been accepted by various scholars. Currently, Balijas are considered a sub-caste of Kapus in Andhra Pradesh by the government, and also by sociologists who research on Andhra. For example, in this study the author, a sociologist, mentions that Balijas of Rayalaseema are addressed as Kapus in Krishna-Godvarai delta and vice versa. The same can be found in various other socio-economic and political studies of caste groups in Andhra Pradesh. That is, the self identification of these castes in Andhra is a missing piece of information in the article.

Balijas are considered by various sociologists and psephologists to constitute the single largest caste in Andhra, especially in the Rayalaseema region. And, it is in Andhra where by far the largest number of Balijas are concentrated (based on the Britsh-era caste censuses). There has been a major development in the past decade where Balijas and other so-called Kapu subcastes have launched a movement for reservations which majorly affected the politics of the state. Post-this, the government has constituted a committee for Kapu, Balija, Telaga, and Ontari castes called Kapu Corporation to disburse loans etc. to these castes/sub-castes. Now, as can be seen the article does not address any of these very key issues regarding the modern classification, identity, and sociological status of the community. The article needs to be expanded with additional information on these key topics especially their relationship with Kapus and the current movement for OBC status which is very significant from political standpoint (parallel to the movements of Marathas, Jats, and Patels). The article in the current states has various lacunae as explained previously and needs to be significantly re-written/expanded. Let me know your thoughts on this. Reo kwon (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be mentioned that Balijas are now treated under the "Kapu" heading. (When I worked on this page, it wasn't clear to me whether this "Balija" was the same as the Balija subset of Kapu.)
However I don't see any basis for the claim that Balijas "originated" from Kapus. A new group for long-distance trading was the need of the time, and whoever wanted to signed up to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Kindly add the following section to the article. More than history, the categorical status of any caste in the Indian positive discrimination system is relevant and useful information that must be present in the Wiki article of a caste.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reservation Status

  1. ^ "CASTE LIST Government Order No.SWD 225 BCA 2000, Dated:30th March 2002". KPSC. Karnataka Government. Archived from the original on 20 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.:Refer Category III(A)
  2. ^ "Central OBC list, Karnataka". National Commission for Backward Classes. Retrieved 2020-11-30.:Refer Entry No.167
  3. ^ "List of Backward Classes approved by Government of Tamil Nadu". Department of Backward Clases and Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare, Tamil Nadu. Retrieved 6 March 2021. Sl.No 59
  4. ^ "Central OBC list, Tamil Nadu". National Commission for Backward Classes. Retrieved 2020-11-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balija&oldid=1025409497"