Talk:Ezhava

Order of origin theories

Does anyone have a preference on what seems to be the dominant origin theory? The origin lead section is a mess. From what I recall, the Sri Lankan connection was supposedly the dominant theory. The language otherwise is difficult to decipher (and is completely badly sourced as well). Also, the Shaivite Roots section seem to be more about the origin of the religious beliefs, rather than the origin of the people. Those are two separate items which should be organized as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What Srilankan connection? Srilankan’s themselves believe that they are out of India. In my mind there is no doubt the 'mokuvas' and 'ezhavas' are the original sons of the soil. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/perera/wheel100.html. --Keralone (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual 'sons of the soil' of Kerala are the tribals and dalits and not Ezhavas. Ezhavas probably came to Kerala during the 3rd Century BC from Sri Lanka. Of course, most of the Sri Lankans migrated from Bihar. All historical records point to this theory. The only exception being that by Velu Pillai which claims that they indeed migrated from Pandya kingdom. The budhist roots and physical aspects of Ezhavas give more credence to the ‘Srilankan’ theory of origin that anything else.--Lambodharan —Preceding comment was added at 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Generaly it's very difficult to differenciate between an Ezhava and a Nair by physical appearance, except for those Nairs who had genetic relation to Nambuthiri Brahmins. A genetically pure Nair and an Ezhava looks similar physically. Also Ezhava is a group of subgroups who can claim different origins and migrations. A large mass of people moving from Srilanka is something not very probable. Even existence of a caste or a group by name Ezhava in the early centuries (before 10C AD) is disputed. It would have evolved gradually during the Vedic transformation of the Kerala society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.103.220 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All Nairs, Ezhavas and Brahmins are varied in appearance, its ridiculous to assume that you can tell one apart by looks. Nambudiris are not distinct in appearance, they are equally varied. It's fair to say that the tribals and non-Ezhava Dalits of Kerala are distinct in appearance though, and that Ezhavas are less varied in appearance than Nairs and Brahmins, and overall more closely resemble the Dalit communities of Kerala. The Sri Lankan theory is fringe and old and improbable, it should not be given much coverage. Trips (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ezhavas and Nairs look very distinct and if they were not, then the entire Malayalee populace

would have looked the same. Ezhavas,panars,arayar(mukkuvar) and cherumar do existed in Kerala much before the arrival of Nairs/Namboothiris and they very much resemble each other. They all belong to the dravidan race. In fact, Ezhavas resemble christians especially in the central travancore region than any other caste due to the conversions. However, dark people are part of any group in kerala including the cochin jews, which could be attributed to the equitorial climate prevailing in that area. Also the srilankan connection of Ezhavas is an absurd theory. Nairs doesn't belong to the dravidan race and are Nagas who are of indo-scythian origin who came to Kerala along with the Namoothiris in the 9th AD from UP-Nepal border.The dark population in Nairs could be due to the Nair status bestowed by local rulers and there by acquiring a new gene element in the process which could include other dravidian races as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.146.185 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Among todays' Hindu caste groups, the Nairs are believed to be the first Dravidian invaders of Kerala,while the Brahmins (Namboothiris) are the most recent immigrants to Kerala. Also the theory of Srilankan connection of Ezhavas is only as absurd as as Nair-Nepali theory,origin of Christian theory etc. All non-tribal communities of Kerala(Ezhavas, Nairs, Namboothiris, Syrian Christians, Muslims) have the existing local tribal population as the centroid of evolution. Genetic studies indicate that the Pulaya and Kurichia are the mothership of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.129.81 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezhavas (Billavas, villavar) and Meenavar (arayas) and Panars were rulers of the chera kingdom. At this point of time, the entire south was Dravidian and the language was Tamil. Hence Ezhavas, Panars, Arayas along with other tribal sects were the earliest settlers of Kerala. Then came the invasion of Namboothiris accompanied by Nairs. Namboothiris with the help of Nairs toppled all the Dravidian chera forces (initially they helped them in their war against Cholas and other Dravidian kingdoms and eventually took over the control). There are many instances to prove this theory. The Sanskrit, prakrit mixture of Malayalam language, the different architecture prevailing in Kerala, the aryanization and popularity of Aryan gods like Vishnu, Lakshmi are good examples. Even the ethnically different looks of Malayalee and Tamilian are good reasons to prove this point. In the case of Nairs, they are a heterogeneous group and many good warriors from the Dravidian clans were also awarded ‘nair’ status by local kings though major chunk of Nairs were also part of Aryan bandwagon that followed the Aryan Namboothiris. Matriarchy was never practiced by Dravidians and was a feature of Indo-scythian clans who invaded India from 300 BC to 600 AD. Christians are a mix of Dravidian people (predominantly ezhavas) and Syrian Christians who migrated to Kerala at different point of time in history. Muslims again are a mixture of dalits, arayas and Arab traders who settled in Kerala from time immemorial. Thus all the non-dravidian ethnic sets of Kerala are in one way or other are related to central and west asia. Hence, people from all the different religions in Kerala have a common look. However, Ezhavas, Arayas, panars and dalits by and large maintained their ethnic purity and are of pure Dravidian ancestry like any other Tamil ethnic group.

Lambodharan —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Lamboo.In either case the Sri Lankan ancestry of Ezhavas implies they had non-dravidian blood. Remember Srilanka was colonised by the Buddhists from Ashoka's Magadha ( with capital at Pataliputram or modern day Patna.) Whom do you think these people were? They were from the eastern fringes of Aryavarta, the migrant Dasyus and Aryans and a mixture of the two. They were not Dravidians in either case. Well, these Biharis too were forefathers of the Sinhalese who brought in Buddhism to the coast of Kerala.Our Ezhavas claim they are descendants of these Sinhalese adventurers.So, how do you say they have "pure Dravidian ancestry"? Pulayan Punchapadam (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I never did mention that Ezhavas came from Srilanka. In fact there is nothing to substantiate that theory. Ezhavas were Budhists, so was the entire populace of India, nobody had to bring Budhism to India from Srilanka rather it spread the other way round. Ezhavas were budhist scholars and were at helm of affairs during the pre-aryan era. This is so clear from the fact that Ezhavas even without having any connection with the Namboothiris were experts in Ayurveda, sanskrit etc. This they gained during their Budhist past. Ezhavas never had any admixture with any other community and are of pure gene.Lambodharan

There are no X'tian Ezhavas. Should some choose to convert, they would not be classified as Ezhavas. Just as there are no Nair X'tians or Namboothiti X'tians, there are no Ezhava X'tians either. vin (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Covering upper part of the body

To my understanding all non-brahmin castes were not allowed to cover their upper part. The article gives an impression that only Ezhavas were disallowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.103.220 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There was sumthing known as the Neriatu or mel Mundu which Nayars were allowed to wear. Infact when Nadar women in the mid 19th century wore kuppayams or blouses the Nayars did not object but as soon as the Mel Mundu was worn by Nadars, it was objected to. The Maharajah passed a proclamation allowing Nadars to cover themselves as they wished, but not to imitate the higher castes. However, as an act of obeisance, whenever in the presence of a person of higher status Nayars had to remove the mel mundu. Infact Brahmin women were also not permitted to remain covered before the deity, which is why none of them ever went to even temples. However if you read the old books you will find that covering of the upper body was not considered very important. I happened to see a portrait of a Maharani of Travancore in similar attire. Removing the cloth in the presence of higher status people was the form of salutation. At home all the women went about with bare torsos. Manu rocks (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To Pulayan Punchapadam

Pls stop vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.103.220 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Itty Achudan Vaidyan.jpg

The image Image:Itty Achudan Vaidyan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New info

If possible the regular editors may include these details in the article:

• The Ambanattu Panickers were an Ezhava family who assisted the Chempakasseri Devanarayana in regaining his kingdom after Mathur Panicker (Nair) and Thekkedathu Bhattathiri betrayed him.
• There appears to be some connection between Nair and Ezhava houses at places. Eg the reputed Cheerapanchira Ezhavas of Tannirmukam and the Payangala Nairs of Mannancherry observed Pula or pollution for each other on deaths and births.
• In Kokkotumangalam near Cherthala there is an Ezhava family called Chengot which had Pula relations with Piravath Illam in Muvattupuzha, of Namboodiris. This is an even more interesting case. Parayil Ezhavas and Edapally Thampurans had Pula connections.
• Varanapallil Panickers were in the service of the Kayamkulam Thampuran while Akkathayadi Panicker served the Kottarakara Elayadathu Swaroopam. Such was the position of this family that once in 12 years in the olden days the Panicker was taken around in a procession flanked by Nair women. In the event of marriages in the houses of Vanjipuzha Thampuran, the same had to be communicated to the Panicker, to acknowledge his position. Manu rocks (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

These are clear indications of Ezhava mixture in nairs and namboothiris. many ezhava soldiers got 'converted' into nair caste. similarly many budhist scholars transformed into namboothiris after accepting the hindu fold after adi shankara defeated budhist scholars.. is there any other explanation to this because 'pula' is observed only on the birth/death of blood relatives.Lambodharan —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC).

There might be many such instances but difficult to include in this article without references. one information which i have is like this. One of Chengannur king or chieftian (thampuran) was pressurized by his priest, an old brahmin, to get marry his daughter. The kalari trainers of this naduvazhi(his army) was an ezhava panicker from kollam. Days before the marriage, this princess, run away with this kalari panicker with the help this her mother. She also given an idol of their family deity, for protection this couple . They went to a place called Mundakkal in kollam. And later moved to eastern hilly areas of kollam. They got married and their decedents were started known as valiya mundakkal thampikal. During war between Marthanda varma and Ettuveeettil pillaimar, they sided with pillamar. After the defeat of pillamar, King in response of their support to pillaimar, completely destroyed them. Their family temple now become a devi temple under public trust. Amapnattu panikkar was the leader of chevakar pada under amabalapuzha king. Varanappaly panickers were commanders of kayamkulam king. So with vallabhassey panickers, they were commanders of panthalam king. These information can only available in some websites. But difficult to add in this article, as any day anyone can remove it citing lack of refernces.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 16:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the references for all these points. lets add these details to the article http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=Parayil++ezhava&source=bl&ots=9i4nVbpkEj&sig=VpVFOSLOJH9CKkqXSOJe3xFEiy4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1 thanks Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the info from the same book too. Forgot to mention the name though Manu rocks (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The google has only limted preview of the book. Anyway i ordered it :)

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 08:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

this is not reliable stuff to be put in the wikipedia. this contradicts all known theories of origin. if this is to be believed, all known source of our history has to be re-written. this is an ezhava purana....and highly imaginative....poor and malicious substance ..this has to be discarded.Lambodharan —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

The book is by no means entirely reliable and author has his own theories and ideas. However the examples given are authentic and historical and thus may be included. Manu rocks (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

how can you quote from a distorted, absurd and malicious material, you may, if you have some other source for the same info..the stuff in the above link is highly prejudiced and toxic..stay away from it..quoting kanippayyur (..the vicious namboothiri), keralolpathi (another throw away stuff) and a few missionaries with strong vested interests, he is arriving at his own distorted version of history..with adequate add-ons of imagination and fantasy to gratify his own inferior feelings.. this stuff needs to be put straight into the place where is belongs – Dustbin.Lambodharan —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Simple Questions.. 1)how do you know the history? 2) how can say you all contents are absurd? Man i purchased the book and for each every comment he has put his references of authentic books from many famous authors(even if exclude Kanippayoor). Last final question is there any rule in Wiki which says that you exclude material from a published book. Is there any benchmark in wiki or anywhere else to say the a book is absurd? If you dont like the truth, or if its against ur thought, say some book is absurd.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well..publishing a book is not a big deal..just because I published a book with my own theory and version, it doesn’t become the truth..if no one knows history then how you are sure that your version is correct…the tone in which this literature is written itself reveals clearly the intention of the author. I’ve read hundreds of books on the history of kerala and none of them has as nasty intentions as this one..he is not quoting but distorting the observation of other historians in this book..personally I have no problem in you putting this in the wiki at the cost of ezhava page’s genuineness…well, end of the day, who’s going to read Sadanandan’s history book when there are so many other truthful sources of history for an enthusiast. The bottom line of this book is that all communities in kerala except for the scheduled classes are derived from ezhavas, which no other historian has noted. Ethnically ezhavas are different from harijans and savarnas..this is a proven fact..though there are exceptional cases..the two large hindu communities of kerala are Nairs and Ezhavas..they are ethnically different. Probably all effort to unite nairs and ezhavas in kerela miserably failed because of this reason. Sadanandan is citing the similarities in the customes and rituals (or lack of it) of these two communities to prove their common ancestry. However, this is due to the fact that both these castes (including all other castes of kerala) were not part of the hindu fold initially and were later shoehorned into the hindu fold. Hence, most of them have same customs and rituals. Ezhavas and Nairs belong to two different ethnic groups which is spread across india. Ezhavas (Kerala), Billava (Karnataka), ilava (Andhra) and Nadar (Tamil nadu) are one group and Nairs (Kerala), Naidu/Reddy (Andhra), Bunts/Nadava (Karnataka) and Vellala (Tamil nadu) are a different group. Neverthless there had been conversions from ezhava warriors to Nairs and also ezhava budhist scholars to Namboothiris though this is at miniscule level. There is clear proof of the arrival of nairs and namboothiris in the Barkur inscriptions which is dated to 8th century during king Mayura Varma’s period. It also gives details of places from where they had arrived..of course, no one is doubting certain facts in this book like the Ezhava hegemony and rich culture before the coming of the Aryans. Ezhavas were budhist scholars, experts in the field of medicine, astrology farming etc. They were a peace loving lot..Lambodharan —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Certainly Sadanandans book has a rather vicious flow and intonation attached to it. However leaving the intention and ideas that he wishes to project through the book aside, the examples given may be, so far as they are adequately referenced, mentioned and quoted. However i agree that the theories and "history" stated is something i am reading for the first time and doesnt seem credible because its simply taking statements from other books, out of context, summing them up into a weird hotch potch and chronology, presenting itself as fact. Besides theres a strong anti Savarna flourish to the work. Nevertheless the examples, if amply referenced, may be included in the article. But in my opinion the projection of history in the book is by no means reliable. Manu rocks (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, come up solid proofs that sadasivan's statements lack any references. Take each statement and we can discuss. i have purchased whole book. i have complete set of references in which the books has written. Now-a-days its passion for many communities to claim aryan status. FYI, Aryanisation and aryans are different. There are no major sources references that says even Nammbothiris, as en mass, migrated to kerala.(Keralopathi says 16 Araya families were also converted brahmin status.) Rememebr Konkani who migrated to south india 1000s of years back and settle in bits and pieces still uses their mothertounge. From this basic info u can discard those Migration theories.(still there were small migrations throughout the history and influenced the local population). You know Idigas in Karnataka are called Arya idigas. This doesnt mean they are aryan decedents. They were followers of an aryan religion, buddhism. Same with Ayyappan. Its Arya appan. God of Arya religion, Buddhism. Same with Ayyanar, Aiyar etc. (This can be also derived arhatha). Most of the historians come from Upper class background wanted paint their history with their own colors. nammothiris also did same thing with kereloplpathi. If someone comes with any statements which breaks existing psedotruths, these kind of reactiosn are common. Also its will be also very much intersting for u guys to do some R&D about the origin of Tamil word mappilai.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

you have the freedom to believe in what you read..but don’t impose the same on others or question other’s rationale to differ from it..i’m not here for an argument on this..because it fetches no fruit..Lambodharan —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Chekavar

Hi, I was wondering why no one uses the grand title of "Chekavar" anymore? The Ezhavas had some of the most fiercest warriors in Kerala, and along with the Nairs they practiced the most sophisticated martial art of India. Warriors such as Aromal Chekavar, Chandu, Aromal Unni, were all Chekavar, and it is curious as to why their descendants no longer have this title. Those with a martial heritage (though not all Ezhavas) should be proud of their Chekavar ancestry and incorporate the title into their name.121.214.50.177 (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In chekavar page under heading LEGENDS people are engaging in self glorification (eg; there are families such as xxxxxxxx whose roots are closely associated with these clans) Let them first understand the meaning of legend first

Another thing there is difference between some one who have just chekavar in name and some one who have blood of chekavan. Chekavars were respected warriors dont try to degrade with irrelevant and degrading writings. Iam deleting irrelevent informations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.13.230 (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep ur right this people dont know the meaning of chekavan and legend they r just trying to glorify their family names like(xxxxxxxxfamily roots) and chekavers r not people who faught against caste opperission.Go through northern ballads and u will find these people were respected warriers. come to Malabar and these people might able to see some chekavar famaly and aristrocratic thiyya families and their traditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.119.228 (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ezhavas And Thiyyas

Thiyyas may be a sub caste of Ezhava like Billavas but they are still known by respective sub caste name so please show the sub caste name of the royal dynasties like Izhathu Mannanar or chekavar famaly like puthooran vedu or chekavar name like aromal chekavar etc who are thiyyas While showing in the main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayale (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

User Sanam001 is vandalizing both Ezhava and Nair articles for sometime now. He posted a particularly vulgar talk paragraph about Ezhavas claiming Thiyya women were concubines to European men here. He posted similar vulgar remarks about the Nair community also. As a Nair, I am appalled by these provocations to create ethnic distrust. I urge users here to see the real motives behind his edit wars. We should remain united, else others will gain at our expense. 122.177.232.141 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)