Talk:Ezhava

Don't feed the trolls!

Never feed the trolls.

This topic attracts a lot of trolls who are simply looking to get a rise out of people by writing inflammatory and generally useless comments. Please don't respond to them and encourage them. --vi5in^[talk] 07:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I encourage simply archiving their comments if they continue to waste people's time, especially if they are simply insults. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas == Dalits?

It will be nice if people stop fighting like cats and dogs over caste issues.All great people in the history of the world stood aganist caste and creed and they advocated the unity and prosperity of humanity.People with narrow mind (misers) are caste conscious and fight each other over caste.It is my humble request that these caste fights should be discontiued in this article as the great saint and social reformer Sri Narayana Guru's name reflects in this article and so the "discussion" tab of this article should be devoid of caste as Guru was a saint who ardently fought aganist caste and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manushyan1 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be understood that by 1930 Ezhavas had about 100 SNDP branches established. Not only the great Sree Narayana Guru, the poet Kumaran Asan,community leaders like Padmanabhan Palpu, TK Madhavan etc provided great leadership to the community and were great leaders in the general Kerala community. It is this leadership that resulted in C. Keshavan becoming the chief minister of the state of erstwhile Travncore-Cochin in 1951. just 4 years after India won freedom.

Ezhavas are not oppressed and cannot be oppressed. However we should respond to the "Dalit" term carefully. We must not unnecessarily denigrate the SC/ST people in the process. We have nothing to prove to any one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.160.140 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

References:

• Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India
• Affirmative Action and Social Mobility of Dalits"

Your views please. I have two references which say they are. --vi5in^[talk] 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Vivin, your intension ie clear from this post. You alway say you are neutral. but your edits and comments here never say it.59.162.138.193 13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I make a site and write saying Nair==dalit... Can it be a reference? Come on grow up. Your intentions are rotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nairs are not Dalits, and were never known to be Dalits. If you make a site claiming Nairs are Dalits, it would have little credibility as there will not be any factual or referential basis for such a claim. Ezhavas are Dalits because they have no varnas i.e outcasts in the Brahminical caste system imposed on Kerala communities, as the definition of Dalit is a community which has no varnas, and there are references as well to support the fact. In some ways Ezhavas share historical features with other Dalit communities in India. There is no need to be insecure about past caste system status as it does not imply much in modern times. B Nambiar 05:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. But these references I provided are not just "sites". They are actual books. --vi5in^[talk] 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Vivin, I don't see any difference between a book and a site. Both are reflections of author's opinion. Just to make you understand I am giving you this link. http://www.sndp.org/Html/BiographyByDrSOmana.html. It says under caste system in kerala Until recently Malayali Brahmins practiced the most heinous sociological crime of keeping women of a certain section of the Hindu community as concubines, without having the obligation of a responsible husband or father. If I want I can make this as reference and malign the article which you maintain daily. But I am not interested.

Well, there are differences between a book and a site. Almost anyone can make a site. It takes a certain amount of dedication and effort to write a book. And although a lot of people can, a book still has more credibility than just some website made by some guy. Listen, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bring this "caste-based" garbage here. I am not interested in your veiled threats. I know you are talking about the Nair article (which, incidentally, already mentions sambandham). Perhaps you automatically assume that by virtue of me being a Nair, I am out to malign you people. I honestly don't care. I'm here to build a good article, and I will go out of my way to do it. I have met this kind of opposition before, that too from overzealous Nairs who weren't too happy with some perceived "unfavourable" information in the Nair article. So please don't accuse me of bias. I do believe I have more than a decent measure of objectivity. I am almost certain that if I post a reference that portrays Ezhavas in a favourable light, you will not have any problem whatsoever with it. In fact, there are a lot of references in the article already, that are like that. If you are honestly so concerned about the references, why don't you say that those are "opinions" as well and remove them? Let me tell you what is really happening. You have double standards. It's that simple. Your threat is ample evidence that you aren't here to improve the article at all. Also, please don't change the title of my discussion. That's very immature. Finally, why don't you get a username instead of editing anonymously? All you seem to be doing is making potshots and not providing any worthwhile arguments. --vi5in^[talk] 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

At the unsigned user, what you are saying is essentially that references reflect the author's opinion, which is true, but that this makes it invalid, which is absurd and means that the wikipedia system which is supported by references is wrong according to your views. As for the threat of, which i understand as, showing sambandam in the Nair article, well that is already included and no one denies that. At least the Nair article is more accurate than this Ezhava marketing campaign that poses as an article. B Nambiar 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Along with just sources, the sources need to be reliable. See WP:RS. In this case, I'd generally say that books are inherently more reliable than website (the most cost involved in getting it published means some more review), but still, there should be more support if possible. If there is in fact an argument about something, make both sides clear. State "blah says this; in contrast, blah2 says this." It is possible to neutrally describe other people's arguments, even if it looks like a bunch of books says this, a bunch of people with websites argue this. That's neutral (and works much better). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No Ricky81682 if you study the arguments closely you will find a pattern of argument where users state Ezhavas are Dalits with references and the opposing side instead question the users motives and try to insult with references to Nair sambandams which personally is uneffective and has already been included in the Nair article, instead of disputing the statement of argument. Therefore there is really only one side of the argument relating to Ezhavas Dalit status and so is not really an argument concerning it but rather a user versus user as a result of the statement. B Nambiar 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::These people are forced to go out of kerala since they are too much irritated by the growth of the community. With/without Edu/job resrvation, activities of SNDP, then with hard wording people ezhavas growing day by day. Logical ethnical cleaning is happening. Just like Jews. others will remain in kerala as dalits. or feature dalits of kerala will come back as sudras. This statement from Mr. unsigned user is extremely idiotic in many ways in that it makes no sense though it tries to. Wikipedia is no place for drunken illogical statements Mr. unsigned user please refrain from similar statements as your input is useless. Lot of Ezhava(assuming) users seem to be heavily casteist though I must say. B Nambiar 14:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've already warned User:192.147.58.6 about his comment. I'm not going to go back and warn everyone else; what's past is past. If someone says something now, their past acts will be considered though. Do not point fingers at what others have said in the past. Now, once some discussion, some clarity on exactly what people want inserted (exact language and where), then I'll insert it. Once it's in, I suspect the protests will start, and then we go from there. Also, everyone remember, don't take me being an admin as having some sort of super-editor ability; everyone is equal here, I just have a little extra abilities. If there are accusations here that my edits to the protected article are biased, I will simply comment here like everyone else and leave it for some other admin to edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Ricky is completely missing the point as far as the usage of Dalit is concerned. It is not a controversial word and is something like the 'African-American' tag - it has within it multiple communities. But unlike African-American, it is not geographically indicative, but only points to a shared social (painful) past. Dalit is a voluntary social identity forged for the advancement of the members and used for political mobilization - there are no grey areas here and I am surprised that so much time has been spent over deciding whether Ezhavas are Dalits or not. A mere phone-call to anyone living in Kerala would have done. Anyway, for the sake of clearing it up for people outside Kerala (and India). There are two types of identities in India - the Brahmin-denominated (which are usually insults and hated by the communities to which it is applied) and (of late) voluntary. Dalit is not a Brahmin-created identity like Sudra etc.. Dalit is a positive and voluntary identity used to denote a very clearly defined group - the erstwhile 'untouchables' or 'Harijans' as Gandhi called them. Dalit does not mean anyone outside the four Brahminical varnas. It is NOT similar to 'Kafir' in Islam, where anyone who is not a Muslim is, by definition, a Kafir. All the communities that were outside the fold of the Brahminical Hinduism ARE NOT Dalits - only the groups that were co-opted by Brahmanical Hindu society as menial workers, yet kept at a distance through taboo, are. The others, who were not co-opted into Hinduism by Brahmins, were also kept at a distance and were considered untouchables by the Brahmins (a favour often returned, if not with the same passion.) So there are two 'untouchables' for a Brahmin - the Hindu untouchables (who tilled their field and fed them) and the non-Hindu untouchables with whom they variously had differing degrees of interaction. In the second class would fall all the Sramanic religions as well as the Semitic religions. To call all the Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Jains 'Dalits' because some Brahmins considered them untouchables or outside the pale is foolish and shows lack of understanding of the complexities of Indian social stratification. I hope I have made it clear, the term HINDU as a cultural denomination includes Ezhavas, but used in the sense of 'Brahminical Hindu' (as someone who accepts Brahmins as their masters) does not. It emphatically does not because a lot of Ezhava and Thiyya identity and heritage is built around, and draws from their Sramanic past. [Sramanic religions are those which emphasize sacrifice and penury, like Buddhism etc, and not God. Other examples are Jainism, Samkhya-Yogi, Charvaka and Ajivaka.] Sreejiraj 15:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with everyone that the word Dalits shouldn't have a negative connotation, I am still going to assume good faith and see if any of the other users can give me a clear counterargument; I just find it baffling why there is so much controversy against it. I've avoided this article for so long because all I see are the page-long diatribes about "this whole article is a mess" which is against my point of creating a ton of little sections to work with and just are not helpful. Sreejiraj, I'll say the same thing as to everyone else: find me a source (I'm willing to look a Wikipedia article right now if it's directly on point). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was too long. Let me be brief and prove my point in two steps - step one - i will 'prove' that ezhavas belong to a category called 'obc' or 'other backward castes'. In step two, I will 'prove' that the obc and the dalit groups are two distinct and mutually exclusive groups. I think that should settle it. In short, Ezhavas are OBCs, OBCs are not Dalits. Therefore, Ezhavas are not Dalits, the simple syllogism. So step one is to prove that Ezhavas are OBCs. For this, please click here: (you will find government records mostly) http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=ezhava+obc&btnG=Search&meta= That should clarify that Ezhavas are OBCs. In case, you think this is just a google trick, you can try this like as well (parallel process for dalit) : http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=ezhava+dalit&btnG=Google+Search&meta= You will notice that the only reference in the long list where Ezhavas are pictured as dalits is a link back to this talk page :-) Now the second step - to prove that OBCs and Dalits are mutually exclusive, and often antagonistic social groups. For this, please click here : http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=%22dalits+and+obcs%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Please take the bother to go through some of the articles. You will rest assured. Thanks. Sreejiraj 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that the government officially classifies Ezhavas as OBCs so that's not controversial. However, you still have not argued against the sources that state pretty clearly that the Ezhavas "are treated like" Dalits (I would hope that saying that the two cultures are treated the same with some sources saying that they are the same and some differentiating them would work best). Per WP:RS, I'm pretty sure books on the matter are considered authority over websites (the first page on Google shows Wikipedia and a number of blogs, none of which are allowed). I would suggest that you actually do what User:Vivin put the effort to do and cite exact sources, including link and page numbers (you look less credible when you say "see if I google these two words that means something and you go figure it out"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i give up. (your doubts are precisely the reason why i suggested you should read some of the articles that are thrown up by the last search..) OBC and DALIT are well defined communities. Also, one final thing, if i show you one or two books in which Iits written that African Americans were treated like dogs in the old times, will you start off an article about African Americans with 'African Americans, a dog community in North America... ?' Good luck to you. I am sorry to use such an extreme example, but i think it will help Ricky put things in perspective.. Being treated like something (according to authors) and being something are different things.. communities have been treated in a variety of different ways during their evolution. Nair have been treated like landed gentry and as foot soldiers, but that does not make them landed gentry or foot soldiers NOW. You cannot say, "Nairs, a landed gentry community..." Sreejiraj (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Nairs are Sudras too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.27.108 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I would like this be cleared up but you guys can't just keep coming in here going "Oh my god Ezhavas are not Dalits" and go off in a huff when you don't clearly explain your view. Asking me to read hundreds of other pages of text to understand a simple point (frankly, I have enough background to understand the complexities of the caste system) especially when other people have provided sources where authorities clearly have compared the treatment of Ezhavas to that of Dalits doesn't help make your argument. The word "Dalit" isn't even in the article anymore, so I really don't get what your argument is really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas are not Dalits

Ezhavas cannot be considered as Dalits (though there are physical resemblances) even though they were never part of the ‘Varna’ system. They were basically Budhist Srilankans who were well off till the 6th C. AD. This is very much obvious from their expertise in Ayurveda, proficiency in Sanskrit etc. They lost their status due to the Namboothiri hegemony which started from the 7th C AD. So during the arrival of Brahmins in Kerala, the Dravidian Nairs were the rulers and the Budhist Ezhavas were part of the upper crest society. However, after the Nambuthiri take over, they elevated the top Nair chieftains into the ‘kshathriya’ group and the fellow Nairs who were soldiers into the Sudra group. Thus they made sure that they are protected and served by the Nairs which was essential for them to retain their position in tact. The Dalits of today were petty laborers even before the arrival of the Brahmins and hence, were the most backward people among all the groups in Kerala.

As far as the Ezhava article is concerned, I feel whatever Vivin has done was correct. The article REALLY LACKS QUALITY and it is not doing justice to history. Also reference of other castes in this article reduces it to nothing more than a POV. Please remove the unwanted notions. There is also no need for a comparison between Nairs and Ezhavas. It would be rather more detrimental to the Ezhava article as Nairs have a great reputation all over the world even if one call them by whatever name like Sudra etc. Mind that Sudra is not a bad word and many of the fiercest warriors in medieval India were called as Sudras. Also they were rulers of many kingdoms like Rashtrakuta, chalukya etc. Basically all the warrior clans who refused to accept the dominance of the vedic Brahmins were made as Sudras. A neutral reader like me will find the Nair article more impressive and ingenuous than the Ezhava article which is lacking the authenticity and quality of the content.

I have also noticed that user Keralaone having a rush of blood and appealing the Ezhavas to keep their head high :-) What big deal man? This is just an article we are discussing about.. keep your cool. You also mentioned earlier that you have seen ‘lot of world’ but folks are not really measuring up when it matters. Another anonymous user has given a list of names whom he/she claims are prostitutes (User:124.125.229.64.) This maniac seems to be a good candidate for cyber prosecution.Lambodharan —Preceding comment was added at 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Although Ezhavas were treated in a similar way to Dalits (for example not being allowed to enter into a temple), the term does not represent the community. "Dalit" is used mostly in a North Indian context to describe outcastes in the community (similar to the Pulayar and Adivasis of Kerala) not the Ezhavas. Having said that, I should also note that the Ezhava article doesn't address toddy-tapping or servant status of several Ezhava families. Many Ezhava families were well off as traders and merchants, but many were also servants. It is similar to the Nair caste, where there were Sudra Nairs (such as Illathu Nair) who were servants for other Nairs and Namboothiris, in contrast to the Samanta Kshatriya Nairs (Kiriyathil Nair) who were from the same lineage as the royal family.Malayaliyan 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I really have no care about this, but does someone have a source? All I see are general musings. If people want specific language put in, tell me (a separate section would help) with sources. Also, Lambodharan, be civil even when others are not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I provided two references that say Ezhavas were Dalits. It seems to be a better term than saying "progressive" which seems rather vague. Here are a few more references:

• Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God
• Her-Self: Gender and Early Writings of Malayalee Women —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivin (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still a little concerned about that edit. While Arrow is quite clearly connecting Ezhavas and dalits (albeit in a footnote), in the second source (Her-Self), the author talks about untouchables including the Ezhavas and others who prefer to be known the dalits today. Under that, Ezhavas would be like dalits in that they are both untouchables but not exactly dalits (boy, that's an odd hair-splitting). I see this as the least controversial wording: Ezhavas were treated like dalits because people said they had no varnas. I would rather the wording be on how they were treated rather than what they are (I frankly find the obsessive desire to classify people in this level of detail a little depressing). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My original intent was to provide a reference to another editor's edit. But I agree. This level of detail is unnecessary. It might save us a lot of trouble if we took out that sentence completely. --vi5in^[talk] 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Present Population Trend in Ezhava Community

Ezhava's once formed the biggest ethinic group in Kerala. However, in 20th century Ezhava population decreased due to family planning and one child norm adopted by many educated Ezhavas. Presently the muslim population in Kerala has overtaken Ezhava's and have become the biggest ethinic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.197.36 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice opinion but do you have any sources to back that up? I mean, that is a pretty big claim to be making. If so, I have no problem editing the article to put that in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. There are a couple of separate independent statements you've asked about: (a) Ezhavas once formed the biggest ethnic group in Kerala; (b) the Ezhava population decreased during the 20th century; (c) Muslims have overtaken Ezhavas and become the biggest ethnic group; (d) reasons for the decline [you claimed "family planning and one child norm adopted by many educated Ezhavas"]. (a), (b) and (c) could all be easily found out by census reports, but (d) requires a real source analyzing the material. Of course, without (d), the population paragraph would be sort of bare (interesting but bare). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression that from 1981, the census in India do not ask for the caste of the people (except Scheduled castes and tribes). If it is so, I am not sure what sources we'll use for this. What you find in magazines etc. are likely to be nothing more than guesses (I could well be wrong about the census, in which we can case happily use the census data). Tintin 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that SNDP or NSS might have census information about Nairs and Ezhavas? I'll see what I can find... --vi5in^[talk] 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way, all of this will only answer points (a-c). We should still try to find something that answers (d), why there was a population change. If it is simply due to other groups coming in, there really isn't anything to add. If there is really is some societal change within the Ezhava community (more education means less children means small population group), that would be really interesting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

did some research about this topic but couldnt find exact answers. Only source is the census data on religion in Kerala, where there is clear data on increase in muslim population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudmam (talk • contribs)

I was concerned there wouldn't be. Of well. We might be able to find some scholarly article or something that goes with some vague information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

Looking over the article, I think the entire first paragraph needs to be nuked for NPOV purposes. Language about them being a "progressive", "mark in the economic and political", all that. I think it should be "The Ezhavas are one of the largest communities in Kerla, a state in southern India. Folklore and written records ..." Comments? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When I initially rewrote it, I rewrote it so that it would read better. But I didn't completely remove the POV. I had planned to do it later anyway because I wanted to concentrate on the flow of the article as a whole. But basically, yes. I agree. --vi5in^[talk] 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, the Folklore part... I am not so sure of the "martial class" part. I looked at the reference provided and although it says that Ezhavas were involved in Kalaripayattu, it doesn't say that they were an actual martial class. I believe as far as profession, that description only applied to Nairs who were always considered to be a matrilineal and martial class. The primary description of Ezhavas seem to be Buddhists who initially resisted attempts at conversion to Hinduism. --vi5in^[talk] 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, please find this reference. http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayItems.asp?id=SET20021221042249&eTitle=Think+Piece&rLink=0 . It says Before the 9th century of the Christian era, they seem to have formed three distinct strata on the basis of profession.... The upper stratum was well-versed in Buddhist scriptures and by virtue of education became experts in indigenous sciences like Ayurveda... The middle stratum preferred to be warriors. It began as a tradition of personal valour, but later assumed professional dimensions. The Chevakar (corrupt form of Chovar) of the Northern Ballads were noted for their individual prowess and proficiency and a perennial source of wonder to all. Towards the close of the 19th century, F W Dawson, commanding Nayar Brigade, recorded: “By about 1780 the strength of the Travancore army was over 50,000 men, disciplined according to the European manner, besides 1,00,000 Nayars and Ezhavas armed with bows and arrows, spears, swords and battle axes.” (A History of the Nayar Brigade, p.1) T K Velu Pillai, who authored The Travancore State Manual similarly refers to the martial heritage of the Ezhavas.... The third stratum of Ezhava society comprised agriculturists. They were the working class —— working in the farm, in the manufacture of various products from coconut tree like copra, mat and toddy.'

This is a newspaper article by Prof Kusuman, head of the department of history at the university of Kerala -- Panikkar

There is a lot of conflicting sources then as the most theories in article itself suggests a Sri Lankan and Buddhist connection, which people assume refers to all Ezhavas. Anyway Vivins description is the most accurate description with later descriptions of the wide range of professions Ezhavas are involved in the past. From what Panikkar's source says is there anything that unites all Ezhavas? they most certainly are not a martial class in the sense of the description. If there is anything that unites Ezhavas its their varnaless lower historical community position in Kerala society and their theories of Buddhist Sri Lankan origin. These most definite facts and theories describe the community more than that the whole community were a martial class, which gives the idea that they are similar to Nairs which to all our knowledge is wrong.B Nambiar 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nambiar, I am not saying entire Ezhava community were martial. A group of Ezhavas were martial and there is no doubt about it. You are trying to impose a definition that makes you happy calling it Avarna / Varna less / Out caste / Dalit etc.. You are overriding a history Professor's (Head of the Department) view with your's and Vivin's view. Our knowledge is not absolute and that's why we rely on references. Regarding origin of the community, each theory is conflicting with the other. Same is the case with Nairs origin.

a) Came with Nambuthiries

b) Descendands of Nagas of north India

c) Came from Nepal

d) Local cheftians of Kerala (before Nambuthiri arrival)

Aren't they conflicting?

The above was not to compare Ezhava with Nair. But just to make you understand.

About Ezhava origin, some says they came from Srilanka, and some says not. -- Panikkar

What you say above I almost entirely agree with except a thing you missed is that in the article it says "Folklore and written records show that Ezhavas were a martial class" which is wrong for your reasons "A group of Ezhavas were martial and there is no doubt about it". The key words being a group. Anyway what is common with these warrior Ezhavas as with other Ezhava if the Sri Lankan/Buddhist origin is not valid? that would be their lower position in Kerala society which is conveniently not mentioned in the article. I am not hell bent on this because of a personal vendetta, it is just misleading as most people would agree and therefore against Wikipedia's objectiveness. I mean any non-Ezhava Malayalee would agree this is still a glorified version of the Ezhava community, which you can also see in the Jat article. I agree that Ezhava Buddhist rebelling against Namboothiri implemented self-favoring caste system was the result they were in a lower position in Kerala society/not given varnas, but this should be mentioned in the article if supported by references and not conveniently omitted to change the image of the article. Anyway the article says specifically "Most theories of origin for the Ezhavas suggest a Sri Lankan and Buddhist connection" so the opening sentence should go something like this "Ezhava/Thiyya refers to a community of Kerala who did not have any Varnas under the Hindu caste system and are thought of based on most theories to have a Buddhist and/or Sri Lankan origin". Next sentence stating the professions involved by the community. Anything is better than the ambiguous term "progressive" which I don't really know the meaning of when applied to communities and I can't find a meaning for in a dictionary in community descriptive terms. A warrior Ezhava does not have anything in common, from the facts we know, ignoring theories of origin, with a toddy tapper Ezhava except for the fact that they had no varna and had a lower position in historical post-Namboothiri Kerala society. I think this is fact. B Nambiar 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that they (Ezhavas) never found a place in the four tier caste hierarchy. It also mentions about toddy tapping. What else is required? If you have seen any statement that adds to it's glory and not referenced you can let us know. I really don't understand what's wrong with the term "progressive" -- Panikkar —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are multiples theories, why not instead remove that from the intro, and expand the theories of origins sections? If there are 4 conflicting theories, we should have sources for all four. B Nambiar, why should the intro contain so much about the Ezhavas relationship within Hinduism? The intro is about the Ezhava community; their relationship within Hinduism should be a small section, at best. If they are in the lowest section of Kerala society (in what sense? by Hindu religious authorities? by socioeconomic views? we know the gov't puts them into the OTC class), that whole thing should go into a section on how the Ezhava community fits into the larger society, no more. Anyone more is just excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No what I speak is not theory. The fact is that there is nothing common among Ezhavas apart from their position in pre and post-Namboothiri society and the theories of origin largely pointing to a Buddhist and/or Sri Lankan origin for them therefore one or both of these facts must be mentioned in the opening line to justify the grouping of these collection of peoples. Progressive is not a descriptive term and definitely not encyclopedia material.B Nambiar 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say what do you mean by "progressive"? Is the group progressive compared to other groups in India, around the world, what? It doesn't make sense and is biased. If you are saying that they have 'progressed' (wow, there's another can of worms), then it is better to avoid using such peacock terms at all. The Ezhavas are a group in India, that's the most unbiased series of facts out there. At the same time, what does the 'martial class' mean? Is the point that (a) The Ezhavas consider themselves a martial class (like the Sikh solider) (b) that Hindus consider the Ezhavas a martial class (doubtful) or (c) the world has considered them a martial class due to what they've done (very unlikely)? Everyone remember, the terms and words are supposed to be in the context of the entire world, not just how the Ezhavas, Hindus, India itself, whoever see them. There is like no outside clear perspective in this article at all. Also, Panikkar, sign you messages; it is not that hard and annoying otherwise.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky81682 what say you to my earlier comment above?. Another alternative for opening sentence is "Ezhava is an OBC community and form one of the largest ethnic groups in Kerala" which is also fact. Right now the description that they form an ethnic group doesn't give a reason as to why they are a separate ethnic group of Kerala which most people should agree be included in the opening line of an ethnic community page on Wikipedia.B Nambiar 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would rather keep it bare in the intro for now, until the article stabilizes a little more. I would put on top about their history and their culture and leave that stuff until the end (again, their place in overall society). Frankly, I think the entire article could be revamped into a more chronological standpoint (there's a lot in there about Shree Narayana Guru's influence but I can't piece together an overarching change) with origins (both folklore and possibly historical) to the changes as the Hindu caste system sets in to the reforms (both Guru's and then as the Indian government has changed). At the reforms stage is when the OTC stuff would come in (the intro would have of that but the article's not ready for that yet). If you can't tell by the massive number of very small sections I've added, I am still just trying to get people to start using shorter much more focused discussions. Having huge paragraph arguments back and forth don't accomplish anything. Also, given the WP:AN notice (and the huge shadow of impropriety that casts on me), you can see that most arguments haven't even moved past the introduction yet. Of course, guys, remember, I am not the overruling be-all-end-all of discussions. If a consensus wants a bigger intro, I'll readily put it in; do not be afraid to disagree with me, just be civil is all I ask. I've just taking it from experience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cloth revolt details

Can someone confirm whether the citations for the cloth revolt actually fill any of the fact tags in the whole Spiritual and social movements section? They've been there for long enough in my opinion without a source so if nobody confirms, I'll remove them all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't really heard about this before either. Dayaanjali has provided links to books that apparently talk about this though. --vi5in^[talk] 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Societal position section

Now that I've probably annoyed just about everyone with my edits (probably the best), I'd like to add some historical details to that section. Frankly, the whole article should be rewritten in a historical fashion. Also, everyone, when providing sources, please provide the page number and the actual text you want to use; I'm tired of hunting through these tons of pages of text to see a single phrase that vaguely is on point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, yeah Izhava is another spelling for Ezhava. You haven't annoyed anybody :). Thanks for helping out! Yup, it's really helpful to cite the page number too. I've been using the {{cite book}} template and it seems to have a page number option in there. --vi5in^[talk] 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Theyyam versis Kaliyattam verus Theyyatom

Ok, per Theyyam, Theyyattam is just a different spelling or whatever. Kaliyattam looks to be the type of festival where this dance is done, not a particular form of dance. Confirm? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No Kaliyattam is just another name of TheyyamDaya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaliyattam , vellattom etc are different variants within the theyyam artform —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuruthi

Anyone know why Sree Narayana Guru wanted Kuruthi ended? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

kuruthi means Animal sacrifice part of the religion. Sree Narayana Guru oppposed this. i will come with with more rfs.Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mock marriage ceremony

Again, particular reasons for wanted it ended? I could guess but I'd rather be consistent and ask for a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

details abt this custom. [1]

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity

How does the Ezhava Memorial fit in there? It's vague but that seems to belong more in how the Ezhavas fit into the greater society. Also, source, especially for the time period? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This need not be and added to some other section.

Refs for Vaikom Satyagraha

• Boography
• http://www.kerala.cc/keralahistory/index25.htm

Actually the ist rf can used get many details abt the community. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref about army of different kingdoms

The below content is requesting citation. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin and you can find it here. Refer page no 27 of this book. http://books.google.com/books?id=07Y3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=izhava+kerala&source=web&ots=zFl70XFRFi&sig=FhdgryHrCKak2z2bK3yvQl8IjJk#PPA27,M1. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We can modify the section Martial background like this.

Martial Tradition

Folklore and written records also show that the Ezhavas were a martial class. Ezhava folk songs, the Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, describe military exploits of Ezhava heroes. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin. Their martial Mobillty is so well recognised with community title chekon, meaning soldier. Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiya</ref> They enjoyed better status before the arrival of the brahmins from north.

The Encyclopedia published by the Government of Kerala describe the martial tradition of Ezhavas such as Aromal Chekavar, Unniyarcha etc. That is an authentic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.160.140 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to remove following part from the section as the kottaram Vaidyan means Palace Physician and can part of the Ayurvedic vaidyars subsection of the section past occupations.

Many from community became Kottaram Vaidyan(palace physicians) of important kings in the region.

Vadakkan paattukal are Ballads of North Kerala and not ezhava folk songs :-))) If any community has a claim on it i think it is the "Panan" caste :-). It is definitely a historocal fact that the sub sect of chekors were a martial families and definitely there were vaidayrs like Itty achuthan.I definitely think it is historically true to state these things. But care has to be taken that since that both these professions were "fringe" and not the predominant profession of the community and therefore it would be nice if care is taken that overgeneralization does not happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Panars are the people who sang these songs. And the characters like Aaromal, Unniarcha were thiyya. If you don't know that it's your problem. I don't think anywhere it mentioned that all Ezhavas were martial. Remember that Aiyyappan's kalari teacher was an Ezhava. Panikkar 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Panars were not only the singers but also the composers of these songs. It was common in medieval Kerala to hire panars to compose songs and spread great stories or rumours by wealthy families.They were like modern day media persons or lobbyists. Vadankkan pattukal has therefore two families glorified - the puthooram house (chekavars) and the manikkoth house (nairs). There were only 8 families of chekors among entire of ezhava/thiyya community in Kerala so this compared to the proportion of the ezhava community as a whole was a fringe minority.I donot dispute or disrespect the fact that there were other professions being practiced but this was only a minority of the ezhava community and the vast majority of the ezhava community was in to toddy tapping (which was seen by the community themselves as their kula thozhil). This is the only reason i suggested that we be careful of over-generalization. (2)Also an important aspect of the Ezhava/tiyya community is being overlooked. In malabar post independence large fraction of the ezhava/thiyya community transited from toddy tapping to "beedi" making because a couple of these factories were owned by the wealthy people within the ezhava community.So majority of the community became daily wage workers in beedi making which helped them to unite to form unions with communist ideologies. This became a strong political votebank and a social force that played a significant role in the upliftment of the community in the post independence era in malabar.Something as important as that in the social mobility of the ezhava/thiyya community is not even mentioned in the article !!. Other factors are enumerated in the following reserach article.http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FASS%2FASS33_04%2FS0026749X9900347Xa.pdf&code=45a7368182cc26af0e528452fc6608c7

And therefore martial class is a very inaccurate term to describe the Ezhava community as a whole.B Nambiar 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism for Martial Tradition

What?!. How are all Ezhavas martial? there are references that claim they are all a martial class?. First Elam migration, now this?. If some members of Ezhavas were employed in small amounts in armies of Varmas across Kerala according to references, and I think someone mentioned they teach Kalaripayattu in south/central Kerala, but that does not warrant the whole community the description of a martial class. I have lived in Kerala(Kanhangad & Kannur) and out of the descriptive terms for Ezhavas/Billavas/Thiyyas I have heard, martial class was definitely not one of them. "Many from community became Kottaram Vaidyan(palace physicians) of important kings in the region.[1][2][3][4]". Ok so "many" of them were palace physicians but they are also a martial class, why not add that they are kings as well while you're at it, which of course one user mentioned unsurprisingly. Admin needs to scrutinize the martial class claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Nambiar (talk • contribs) 08:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky, Though book is a better reference, this page can also be used as a reference for martial tradition. http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayItems.asp?id=SET20021221042249&eTitle=Think+Piece&rLink=0 . -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panikkar (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the south Ezhavas and (Nadars too) were traditionally trained in the thekkan style of Kalarippayattu. The Ezhava caste as we know today is created out of several sections such as Ezhavas proper, Channars, Pachellis, Kollathu Ezhavas, Pandi Ezhavas, Thandars and so on. Even as late as second half of the 20th century the wedding between different Ezhavas were uncommon or at least frowned upon by some of them.

Not all are in martial arts. That being the case,whether Ezhavas are a martial race or not is subjective. We only need to preserve the lineage of the sections that did have martial heritage.

Being a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.160.140 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please find more references abt martial backgound of ezhavas.

1. Link [2] Its they also belong to martial class and chekon the title show that.

1. Link [3] This says chegos(ezhavan or chekavan) who came in ancient time to this country. The tradition is that they came from Cylon and belongs to millitary caste.

1. refer point 108 of this page here Link [4]. page number 50. The book name is Hendrik Adriaan Van Reede Tot Drakenstein (1636-1691) and Hortus Malabaricus by J. Heniger. ISBN 906191681X. Published 1986 CRC Press. It says Ezhavas(otherwise called silgos), tree climbers , also bound to wars and arms. These people will also serve to teach nayros in fencing school;further theior occupation is to tap coconut trees and suri, arrack and sugar therefrom, so that they usually have plenty of pelf.

1. link[5]. its here also.

124.125.228.205 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be honest that I haven't read all the material (frankly, I would rather someone say "this page indicates X") but I think the problem comes down to the issue of "what does it mean to be in a class?" and "at what time were they in a class?" By saying the Ezhavas were in a martial class, everyone is really saying they had a tradition of jobs in that class, correct? I know the language is mangled everyone (please don't point me to other articles that use that wording) so I just want to understand what exactly everyone is saying. It is obvious that there is no martial class (for anyone) in today's modern society. I hope that is right. Frankly, I find this a sad time waste for this article. I think a much better (and more sympathetic) story would be "Ezhavas were a top level or just an equal group in the past, the Hindu caste system came in and pushed them (why them in particular is interesting), and now with the social reforms, both societal changes and government forced, the group is moving up." If that sounds accurate, then I hope people could work on that tale. I would hope that the article expands enough that we could be forced in the future to expand this story into different articles because it is too damn large (which is the right way to have multiples articles). However, it seems like a number of people are intent on using false and fake sources for their own goals and to get their own wording in. Sorry to hear that and I really have to let this article go. Being challenged constantly is not a goal of mine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a single overall question

Ok, guys I don't there is a right way to say "they belong/they are the martial caste; they don't", whatever. That isn't the distinction I'm worried about. Again, I will repeat. Is the point that (a) The Ezhavas consider themselves a martial class (like the Sikh solider) (b) within Kerala/India/Hindus consider the Ezhavas a martial class (doubtful for now but maybe in the past?) or (c) the world has considered them a martial class due to what they've done (very unlikely)? Everyone remember, the terms and words are supposed to be in the context of the entire world, not just how the Ezhavas, Hindus, India itself, whoever see them. There is like no outside clear perspective in this article at all. Either way, I think Religion and Conflict that User:Dayaanjali pointed out at the top have the best description. Historically, like the Nairs, the Ezhavas identified themselves as a martial class (a la the Sikhs) but something changed and they are no longer thought of that way. The best wording (I'd remove the Sikh part but otherwise) would seem to be "Folklore and written records indicate that the Ezhavas identified themselves as a martial class." Then the folklore, serving in armies stuff. The doctors stuff doesn't belong (unless someone tells me how a martial class and being physicians are related). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sections merged

Just in case someone notices, I've merged the "Martial background" section into "Martial traditions" so that it flows better. Since I think everyone agrees that the martial tradition, whatever it is, is an older tradition and no longer really current. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Name used for the community in international books

Chogans, chegos, ezhavas, siegos, silgos, tifedoors, tiyyas, ilava, izhava, izhuva, ezhuva 124.125.228.205 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me a source that references all those name? Most I understand are just do the nature of translation but just would like a single clean cite. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas performing Brahmanical duties

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/24391829.cms

Can we have a section for this? Is he (Rakesh) the first non-brahmin to be appointed as priest in a Devaswom owned temple? Panikkar 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A section just for one person? There would need to be a very large number of people doing this for it to describe the actions of the entire caste. I don't think it's the place to describe a select few. Also, the article generalizes with "non-Brahmin" and gives the example of Rakesh. --vi5in^[talk] 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking to include this incident alone. This is just an example. There are other Ezhavas who are priests in temples. Adding such an information will not generalize the community. Panikkar 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you understand sort of why a single incident doesn't work. I do think a sentence (maybe just a parenthetical) would fit in nicely in a section about reforms or about how Ezhavas fit into society. Actually I am much more interested though in finding out more about the Supreme Court decision. Can you find articles about that? I think a topic like "the Supreme Court said this about all Ezhavas" and like reforms would help and this would just be an example. Do you think that works better, Panikkar? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Panikkar, I'd just add that I think we could have a section sort of on "improvements in society" like with the social reforms in India, the Supreme Court decision, and there, stories like this would fit in. We could also backtrack and add earlier details of how Ezhavas were kept out of the temples, etc. All neutrally stated of course. Would you think that makes sense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, Panikkar, are there articles about when the Ezhavas were removed from the temples? I am just trying to get a picture of the significance of this. It is obviously a very significant event for you, but we need some idea of its worldwide (or societal) significance to properly put it in context. As you can imagine, a single sentence saying "Hey, a non-brahmin was appointed as a priest in a Devaswom owned temple" is not really clear why anyone should care (especially using the more general non-brahmin instead of specifically Ezhavas). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava buddhist origin

LTTE talks about Thamizh Eelam ( Liberation Tigers of Thamizh Eelam). Eezham is Srilanka or northern part of the island. Caste name of chekavans (chons) in central Kerala is given as Eezhavan or simply "Eezham". In documents a typical statement is " Kumaran, 48 years, Eezham, Swastham..." ' Elam' is only another spelling for 'Eezham'. Simhalham (sanskrit) became Seehalham and Seelham and later Eelham and Eezham (Thamizh). Ezhavan is Simhalan or Srilankan. The great poet Kunjan nambiar calls Ezhavan, a 'Bouddhan' or Buddhist. Even though community memebers are called Srilankans all of them have not come from there. Analogy of Kerala Muslims being called Jonakar. Jonakar means the Greeks. All know that Kerala muslims have not come from Greece. The ezahavans were called Srilankans probably because they were converted into Buddhism by the Srilankan Bhikkhus. Linguistic proof is against mass migration from Srilanka to Kerala. Their language belongs to Indo-European (Aryan) family but ezhavans speak a Dravidan language. If there was mass migraion ezhava languagae would have been Indo-European. Vvmundakkal (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your speculation. Saying how organizations describe themselves and you saying your personal views (which is against the policy of original research) of what it means is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It doesn't pass the require tests of a reliable source or the greater verifiability standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

References

This section is only for collecting references. Not for fight.

Aiyyappan's Guru, Mailikapurathamma - http://books.google.com/books?id=v-w8AAAAMAAJ&dq=ezhava%2Bkalari&q=ezhava&pgis=1 Panikkar 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have anything better than a [Chandamama]] article ? Tintin 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that Chandamama or something else ? Tintin 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

its from Chandamama Publications not a chandamama magazine. its says Original from the University of Michigan

Vvmundakkal 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) More references about martial backgound of ezhavas.

1. Link [6] Its they also belong to martial class and chekon the title show that.
2. Link [7] This says chegos(ezhavan or chekavan) who came in ancient time to this country. The tradition is that they came from Cylon and belongs to millitary caste.
3. refer point 108 of this page here Link [8]. page number 50. The book name is Hendrik Adriaan Van Reede Tot Drakenstein (1636-1691) and Hortus Malabaricus by J. Heniger. ISBN 906191681X. Published 1986 CRC Press. It says Ezhavas(otherwise called silgos), tree climbers , also bound to wars and arms. These people will also serve to teach nayros in fencing school;further theior occupation is to tap coconut trees and suri, arrack and sugar therefrom, so that they usually have plenty of pelf.
4. link[9].

124.125.228.205 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For 1, I thought I discussed it earlier; that makes sense for it says "the Izhavas may have been a martial class" which is in the article already. For 2, it seems a little odd to be that specific about the exact event that determined a class identification, but it also is an 1862 book. For 3, you are seriously trying to cite a book on Indian flora for something this controversial, especially when it says that they "are bound to wars and arms"? For 4, I'd said this before but websites are given less authority than text. However, the article already says that historically, the Ezhavas identified themselves as a martial class. That is all we have; we don't have indications that other groups identified them as such. Am I wrong? If so, what do you think it should say? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

November 2007 addition

Refs for new content added [10]

• alummoottil channars
• Cheerappanchira Kalari trainer
• Valabhassery family

Vvmundakkal (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, moved for clarity. First, those aren't the sources you put on the article, so it is misleading. Saying that books are your sources and then pointing to these websites is frankly dishonest. Second, the first and third website (Alummoottil.com) does not seem to pass the standard for a reliable source. For the Google book, I only see a single line, what is it supposed to tell me? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Orkut forum

Hi, I have seen from a number of people that there seems to be an Orkut forum out there discussing this article, with a forum moderator encouraging people to edit here. This is to be discouraged primarily because it doesn't help foster any actual discussion of the issues and just seems like random edits coming from everywhere. Here, we have a history and trail to the discussion. If someone could provide a link for the Orkut forum, that would help. This is a very serious concern which is being discussed on our administrator's noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is just a largely opinionated forum. They advocate changing the Ezhava article into one reflective of a small minority of Ezhavas and hiding or marginalizing the features of the majority of the community. I don't understand why Wikipedia should involve itself in Orkut forums, discussion can be carried out in the talk page.B Nambiar 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't trying to be involved; I want the discussion on the talk page. It is not productive to have it there. The notice is more for those users who come here to tell us their issues (maybe a honeypot as well perhaps?). The WP:AN discussion is just trying to see if we can get a better way to deal with it than simply protect, watch no discussion, wait until it calms, unprotect, and watch it start again; massively unproductive. If nothing else, perhaps we can figure out who the forum moderator there is and punish him here. If there is even a remote chance that someone, one person even, there is interested in actually discussion, I'm open; I wouldn't mind the new users. If the insults and vandalism continues, I make have to go to {{bv}} warnings and then immediate blocks (which I would really really hate to do). I frankly hate the idea of keeping the article locked down but still... Right now, it's only semi-protected so that only delays the issue as they can simply wait. Frankly, this encourages their "look at them trying to keep up out" arguments and encourages martyrdom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)