Talk:Iyer

Message for Ravichandar

Hi,

You have mentioned this:
(rm claim. The paper does not refer to any particular communities)

and have deleted the mention of community names from the below:

A 2007 study revealed that Iyers and Iyengars formed a separate cluster along with the high-ranking non-Brahmin communities of Tamil Nadu such as Ambalakarar (Mukkulathor) and Veerakodi Vellalars .
Kindly note the neighbour-joning tree on page 4 of the paper showing affinity with Veerakodi Vellalar, which in turn shows affinity with Amabalakarar. The study was to compare Mukkalathor communities with those of Iyers, Iyengars on one end, and Pallans and Vanniyars on the other end. Also note the gene flow amongst communities in the outliers in the heterozygosity vs distance diagram on page 6. The study noted the communities mentioned in the outliers as having higher than predicted heterozygosity. On the same page 6 you can find this mentioned:
The two Brahmins (Iyer and Iyengar) alongwith the high rank non-Brahmin formed a separate cluster.....The highrank non-Brahmin group – Veerakodi Vellalar and low rank non-Brahmin – Ambalakarar are the outliers of the above cluster...

Since the paper does mention the name of the community specifically as "highrank non-Brahmin group – Veerakodi Vellalar", I am therefore reinstating the mention of the Veerakodi Vellalar in the page. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

This Article Sucks

This article sucks. The outline sucks, there are too many sections, there is too much random information. Why can't it be done properly like any other article on a any other community? This whole Aryan origin stuff is also pointless - this is an Encyclopedia, and until there is evidence that Iyers are Aryans, it should not be included. A very brief mention of the politics of it can be made lower down, but this article is seriously nonsense. It sounds like a hotheaded politically inclined Iyer and non-Brahmin Tamilian have made this article; it looks like a compromise between two retards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.106.213 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, we ought to imbibe this article with extensive ultra-casteist propaganda like the other caste-related articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, since you find so many drawbacks in this article, why don't you create an account yourself and edit it. This article has 200+ citations, mind you, not one or two but 200. Now could you atleast find a single caste-related article in Wikipedia with so many sources. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've only referred about 50-odd books to write this article. Too little, perhaps! I hope this All-Knowing genius might be able to enlighten us with some useful knowledge on the Iyer community.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 05:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You can insult me all you want. But the fact remains that this article sucks balls. It really looks like it's been written by politically inclined retards. This article will never get a star rating... ever. It needs a total revamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.210 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no mister! I am not abusing you. I can very well understand that you are exceptionally great person from the way you contemptuously discard this article as "worser than articles on other Indian communities". But you see, I cannot recognize your abilities unless you could show them in "improving" this article.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is cheap propaganda written with personal agenda by Non-Iyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.110.2 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

well, the article is very bad. It's still not as bad as "articles on other Indian communities", but that isn't saying much. I have no idea what the GA tag is doing on this page.

The article needs to get its act together, stop bickering over racial/genetics red herrings, and instead give information on this population group in a detached manner, without "shrouded in mystery" and similar hilarities. --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Sects grouping

The grouping of subsects is perfectly in accordance with Edgar Thurston, and to a lesser extent, Castes in Indian Politics and Jogender Nath Bhattacharya. This sort of alphabetical group of sections or sub-sections (which, of course, don't comprise a list) are unnecessary and disruptive, almost akin to vandalism. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin stories

I reviewed the first paragraphs about the origins including the lead paragraph. Notice, that almost every reference regarding "Ayya" = "Arya" as well as North Indian name associations are critically violating against the quality sources guidelines. Such important information doesn't need random website articles, but well reviewed and respected books by all parties. Actually one or two of these references were real books and I googled for "THE EVOLUTION OF AN ETHNIC IDENTITY — The Tamils in Sri Lanka" and I found a review by The Hindu. Another book "The land of the Permauls, or, Cochin, its past and its present By Francis Day" (google scholar) didn't give me any information about Iyers or Bhattar's. I'm ignoring now the random websites, which look simply aweful. Some references were also attributed to the wrong sentence like in the Arya Ayya sentence, where infact no reference was found about Arya. I understand, that this is not merely a coincidence, but possibly an attempt to make the Iyers look as pure Aryans, while their mothertongues were Dravidian for many centuries. We will only know more about it, when we get proper sources. Needless to say, that the paragraphs should be reviewed sentence by sentence, word by word by experienced users. --Neutralpointofyou (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since, despite the fact that you are new to Wikipedia, yet you make such lofty discourses on "quality sources guidelines", I would like to know whether you are actually aware of Wikipedia's expectations. And of course, the book by Francis Day does speak about Bhattars or Putters, see here and this. And the other sources are also pretty okay. There have been plenty of books referred to for the sake of this article.

And then, of course, I agree with you that all Iyers need not necessarily be non-Dravidian. Neither has it been claimed anywhere in the article that Iyers were all Indo-Aryans without exception. The article only chronicles individual waves of Brahmin migrations to the Tamil land. And just because there is evidence of migration of sufficient numbers of Iyers to Tamil Nadu from outside, it does not mean that they are all Indo-Aryans by race. Most proven migrations have, after all, been from the Telugu country; in fact, a fairly large proportion of Tamil people are actually migrants from the present-day Andhra Pradesh, including Naickers, Reddiyars, etc. How come does this mean that they are Indo-Aryans? And are Iyers the only people who had migrated to Tamil Nadu from non-Tamil lands?-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the Ayya-Arya thing, it has been clearly explained. A sufficient minority believes that the word Ayya is derived from the Sanskrit Arya and the fact is mentioned here in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy which you claim to enforce. And even if this derivation is indeed true, then please keep in mind that the word Arya or its derivatives weren't used to denote Indo-Aryans alone, neither does the article claim that Iyers were Indo-Aryans because of that. Take for example, the Arya Vaishyas from Andhra Pradesh. Can you say for sure that they are Indo-Aryans basing your claims solely upon their caste-name alone! There have been various derivatives of the word Arya used in parts of India in order to address people in a respectful manner. Take for example, the -ar suffix which people append to their caste-names; a Mudali is respectfully addressed to as "Mudali-ar" and a Chetti is respectfully addressed as "Chetti-ar". Though I am not a professional linguist, I still feel that these suffixes might very well have been derived from the word "Arya". -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You are following the wrong path. We should'nt do own researches about Ayya-Arya but give proper references for this. Historians might think, that this is related together, but there must be a good source for it. That's the only thing, I'm asking for. The various websites don't provide the quality I'm asking for, that's it. Someone must find books or scientific journals for this kind of claims. Of course I know the different meanings of Arya, but this is not the issue here. However, I don't think that the -ar issue has something to do with arya at all. I think this is nonsense.

I would like to inform you, that in the recent past, there was a nature issue, which has neglected the theory of Aryan and Dravidian human races. The whole country was mixed 40 thousands years ago with 2 different populations. This article doesn't provide these new findings. Instead it's talking about "little difference among Tamils" when there is infact "no real difference in whole India". Maybe the genetics section needs to be rewritten in the near future. --Neutralpointofyou (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Aryan invasion/migration during the time of Raja Raja Chola??????

Is this editor trying to crack a joke?????-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

HLA affiniities shows Iyers are descendents of central asia http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/5220/brahmin_dna_study1.htm

The page is currently not accessible. Besides none of the "sources" you used mentioned the word "Iyer" at all. Please don't try to convertr Wikipedia articles into propaganda pieces or add your own original research. If you wish to use a portion of the webspace for projecting your own beliefs, try creating a blog of your own. Wikipedia is not a place to add nonsense.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted multiple edits by Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) as they removed long standing sourced content, and added dubiously sourced content like Iyers came from Arya, referencing it to etymologyonline for the word Aryan and so on. Unless some clear evidence is presented by the editor that the content doesn't belong in this article, it should not be removed. -SpacemanSpiff 02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jaggi81 is a long-time vandal who indulges in persistent racist POV-pushing. See here. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do have a look at the blog he frequently provides as a source. Must be a P. N. Oak-kinda joker :D-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 05:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a week now. I just noticed that. -SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to smell a rat here. User:Neutralpointofyou protested against the inclusion of claims that Tamil Brahmins migrated from outside and I replied by explaining that a large number of Tamil Brahmins could have migrated from Andhra Pradesh. Now, User:Jaggi81 claims that Telugu people were Aryans and hence Tamil Brahmins were also Aryans. Could Jaggi81 be a strawpuppet of Neutralpointofyou.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you, that I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. All I said was, that there is a new study out there about the origins of the Indian people. I have not denied any possible outside Tamil Nadu origin of the Iyers, only the outside India origin. --Neutralpointofyou (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I had modified the entry on Iyer genetics using as reference a paper on the subject, which was then removed by SpacemanSpiff on the context of not providing reference - despite the fact that I had. Care to explain? --Coolian (talk)

You should read the edit summary. -SpacemanSpiff 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Aiyars and aryans

There was no concept of Brahmins in dravidian society, ie no caste based on Varna. This is imported from aryan system. Brahmins of TN are different from dravidians. Its evident from their traditiosn, skin colour and exxessive use of sanskrit in their dialects. Anyone have more information on this? can we discuss? Vvmundakkal (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am getting reference to prove that Aiyar derived from Aryan or aryar

http://books.google.com/books?id=FL0OAAAAIAAJ&q=Aryan+aiyar&dq=Aryan+aiyar&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=rMfWAAAAMAAJ&q=Aryan+aiyar&dq=Aryan+aiyar&lr= Vvmundakkal (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then Tamil Kshatriyas are also outsiders. As far as traditions, skin colour and usage of Sanskrit are concerned, Iyers do not differ much from Saiva Mudaliars or other forward-caste Tamil people. Do I need to show you pictures of Jayanthi Natarajan, M. Karunanidhi, etc.

Your crap doesn't belong here simply because it is blatant propaganda. And if there was no concept of Brahmins in "ancient" Tamil society it does not imply that there had not been the admission of people of other communities as Brahmins.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard that they(Palakkad Iyers) were also known as Arya Pattar in kerala. I also believe they are descendents of Aryan migrants from North IndiaTn pillai

There were also Arya Vaishyas. The kings of Jaffna were called Arya Chakravarthi. The Nayak kings of Ettaiyapuram had the surname "Aiyan".

If we are to go by your logic, more than half of Tamil Nadu's population is made of "Aryans" from outside.

Ravi(Office of the secret service), i am not here with any propaganda, nor i am interested much in these subjects. Wikipedia is the place to share authentic information, not to give someone's personal views to the world. The tamil and prakrit Word Ayya is equivalent to Sanskrit Arya, there are tens of authentic references for that. please refer below links

http://books.google.com/books?q=Ayya+sanskrit&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?id=A1JuAAAAMAAJ&q=Ayya+sanskrit&dq=Ayya+sanskrit

http://books.google.com/books?id=vcwUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA98&dq=Ayya+sanskrit#v=onepage&q=Ayya%20sanskrit&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=APVtAAAAMAAJ&q=Ayya+sanskrit&dq=Ayya+sanskrit

So, if i go by your words,authors of all these books will have same propaganda. I am not sure whether you know or not, in north india also the surname ayya was in use.

Regarding colour, I did not all Aiyars were fair and looking good. What i intended to says comparatively, ie, majority, are fair. That doesnt mean all other upper caste people are not fair. Its just comparative observation.

And regarding entire Tamil population of TN, it doesn't imply that all were true Dravidian or Tamils. This is the case with most of states or races in india. Migrations and cross migration were common. This is also evident in other parts of the world. Simhalization has caused many Tamils started using simhala as their 1st language in Simhala dominated areas of Lanka. And vice versa in tamil dominated areas. Another example Jews of Cochin, Knanaya chsristians or travancore, both were migrants from central asia, now uses malayalam as 1st language. That doesnt means most of tamilians in TN are not tamils. In fact Tamils are one of the rare race which share almost similar cultural and linguistic among its subgroups or caste. However Aiyars are different story.

When Buddhism was in its peak in South India, the religion and its belief were always denoted with Aryan or ayyan. Ayyappan or arya appan means aryan god or buddhist god. Another name of ayyappan is sastha is also the name of Buddha. Dharma saranam of buddhism is also referred in Ayyapan's devotees vindicate the notion that Ayyappan was buddhist god

I wanted re-factor my 1st post.There were no concept called Brahmans in south Indian society or Dravidian society before the arrivals of vishnavaite missionaries from north. These people were Aryans who settled in south india and propogated their religion. Their descendants are Aiyars/Aiyankars in Tamil, Bhats in in Canara.Migration to kerala happened in 10th and 12th centuries and they mixed with local buddhist monnks, sill, they more of Aryan blood by race.

These my observations and comments , some with solid references, not a propaganda. If you dont like these just ignore. Thanks

Vvmundakkal (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvmundakkal (talk • contribs) 13:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying. But your argument on basis of etymology is not at all convincing. Firstly, are you aware that there is a sub-sect of Vadama Iyers called Thummagunta Dravida. There is also a sect of Telugu Brahmins called Aaraama Dravidulu closely related to the Vadama. There is also a subsect of Brahacharanam Iyers called Puthur Dravida who had settled down in Puttur in Andhra Pradesh. Rahul Dravid's ancestors were originally Tamil Brahmins from Tanjore. To this day, Andhra Brahmin society is divided into Vaidikis, Niyopgi and Dravidas of whom the Dravidas are exclusively made of migrants from Tamil Nadu. So, your Ayya=Arya hypothesis does not automatically lead to the conclusion that Iyers are Aryans by race.

And then, Brahmins existed in Tamil Nadu long before the rise of Vaishnavism which happened in the eleventh century during the time of Ramanujacharya. There have been references to Brahmins in classics of the Sangam period albeit few. Though I would not rule out the possiblity that some Iyers were indeed migrants from the north, not all were. There is stronmg evidewnce to back this up. Your hypothesis that Tamil Brahmins are all Aryans just because the varna system is of Aryan origin is as erratic as claiming that all Indian knights were Britons just because the concept of knighthood was introduced in India by the British.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to have your view and to share it with others, however there are some flaws. Firstly, Ayyappa may be derived from "Arya", but is by no means evidence for a Buddhist shrine. There is no evidence at all to show that Sabarimala was a Buddhist shrine, either archaelogically or historically. Ayya was used as a term of respect, since Arya mean "Noble". Also, the term "Sharanam", which is the main evidence put forward for a Buddhist influence, is moreso a result of the Bhakti movement, which preached Sharanagati (surrender to the Lord) Secondly, the Vaishnava movement gained strength only in the 12th century with Ramanujacharya, and the Bhakti movement of the time. There are mentions of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu from the Sangam Age, about 300BC, and could well have existed in Tamil Nadu before that itself. Thirdly, migration to Kerala and Canara occurred well before the 12th century, since Adi Shankaracharya (born a Kerala Brahmin) lived in the 7th century. There is also no proof of settlement in Kerala by Brahmins, and their unique practices of Shrauta, have set them apart from other Brahmins. At the end of the day the fact is there is no solid proof of migration to Tamil Nadu, by either Aryans or Dravidians. As well there is no proof of an Aryan race, which is in itself an outdated concept. By all means, express your views, but please find evidence before presenting your views as actual fact.58.165.6.47 (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have provided enough references to link Aryan and Aiyer. Please dont deny that. FYI, the present dravidian race, south indians, never called themselves dravidians. They were identified by differently. the word dravida was used by arayn brahmins of north to address the brahmins of south, the panchadravida bramins, later used to res the whole south indians. btb, in marathi community also there are brahmins and SCs with dravid as surname.

I have not observed that there were no brahmins before 10/12 century. But the migration happened during that time and mixed with some budhist monks and already setteled brahmins(as per keralolpathi, some mukkuvars also given brahmin status. These mix ups could be the reason why brahmins of kerala are different from other bramins). Brahmin migration was continuous when different kingdom promoted it. This is the case with TN and other states. Stronger brahmin influence came when there is mass migration and strong support from local kings.

Sabari mala temple customs and belief are very much different from other major temples in kerala. There are many evidence which is currently unearthed to point that sabari mala shrine is buddist vihara. Vvmundakkal (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Migosh! How many times do I need to tell you that the "titular Aryan" need not be an "ethnic Aryan"! As for your claim that Marathi Dalits have the surname "Dravid", could you please provide sources. You claim to possess extensive evidence but the only "evidence" you've provided until now is to prove that the word "Ayya" is related to "Arya", nothing else. And as for the usage of the word "Dravida", aren't you aware of the Dravida kingdom, or even that the term "Dravida" is etymologically related to the word "Tamil".-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk with references please. The brahmins of Kerala, the Namboothiris are probably the purest of all the brahmins castes in India due to their ridiculous rules and strict marital systems. I have never heard of Mukkuvars given brahmin status, reference please. Quote "Castes and Tribes of South India" on the Nambuthiri brahmans, book 5 page 157:

He is perhaps, as his measurements seem to prove, the truest Aryan in Southern India, and not only physically, but in his customs, habits, and ceremonies, which are so welded into him that forsake them he cannot if he would.--Jack.Able (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Gurukkal and some small changes in presentation of a paragraph on Origin

I have made some recent edits with a clear sense of purpose and based on well known and accepted evidences 1. The moment we include Gurukkals as Iyers we talk about Adi-Saiva Brahmins and not just Smarthas 2. That Link to an Aryan Origin, brings us close to Aryan theory and we dont need to give a detailed treatment in first paragraph as it is explained in much detail later in article and in the provided links within wikipedia and elsewhere. But what caused me to first change this paragraph is the use of the term popular tradition- Can something be a tradition just because it is only 50-100 years old. Imagine the consequence today informed readers know that the theories are only as old as 100 years or little more. But 50 years from now with repeated usage of such theories it could easily be assumed that it much older.So use of word opinion takes into account anything that can be classsified tradition and otherwise. Among other changes I have made, the evidence to the opposite that Iyers are not always North Indians comes from a genetic study that in general all Tamil Populations and castes have received gentic inflow from castes and populations from other regions of the country. This is sufficient to show that there is an evidence to discredit the opinion - Iyers are North Indians and other tamilians are pure south Indian because what we have is a generous intermingling of various castes. Furthermore if people want to still talk about no brahmin dravidians being somehow more tamil than others, we are still left with a very funny situation. That Nadars and other secluded tribes of Tamil Nadu can indeed be considered very ancient to this part of the country. At the same time these tribes were traditionally not among the best speakers of classical tamil, and as such there is no evidence of that, inspite of the tall claims being made by Nadars. The Nadar Tamil can usually best desribed as Nadar Tamil, which is very different from classical Tamil. Needless to say purely unmingled populations of Tamil Nadu are very small in number. --Harishsubramanian (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)