Talk:Nair

"Martial race" in lede

We have a "cn" tag on the term "Martial race" in the lede; looking over gBooks, I see plenty of mentions of their being martial, but not seeing much really explicit that they were classified as a martial race in the same way as the Rajput (and to a lesser degree, the Maratha). I think we can easily find sources saying "considered as" but "classified" is a bit more explicit and would require something pretty firm and authoritative. I would really like to see something too to verify the claim that they were de-listed as Marital by the British after that failed uprising. I did find a ref saying that after the uprising the Brits kept them out of the military, but again, that is a general observation, whereas "de-listing" is quite precise and specific and requires a more explicit ref. Anyone have any good materials for the cite, or are y'all okay with broadening the phrase to denote more general perceptions and less official decrees? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire sentence should be removed. Also the next sentence that immediately follows. It is not because there are no reference to martial status, but because there is no need to mention British in the lede. Brits are only one of many Foreign powers who colonized India, and mentioning them alone in the lede is surely undue weight. Btw, this is KondottySultan with new username. --Nair (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been searching also, and yesterday did a little tidying up at the linked article while looking for a corroborating cite there. Something needs to give, I feel. Especially since there have been several appeals here for this info + the tags have been in place for a while.

I do not understand Nair's point about weight (are you sure that you can use that name, btw? it sounds as if you are representing a group & so could be against policy). - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a new username, it is usurped from another years-old account. The usurpation itself was done by one of those administrators. There are many such usernames: User talk:Ezhava, User talk:Brahmin, User talk:Mexican, User talk:Canadian, User talk:Arab, User talk:America "Nair" is singular and used by millions as a surname. Therefore it is not against any Wikipedia policy. --Nair (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though your raise an interesting point about the British and WP:UNDUE, I would counter-argue that "the British labeled the Fooian caste a Martial Race" is an extremely popular sentence put into WP caste articles. I personally would not object to that phrase being removed, and more general statements about the military nature of the Nair being put into the lede, though I would submit that the British limiting them from military service, but then later allowing the Nair Brigade to form, is worth mentioning in the lede. I will BEBOLD and tweak that sentence now, but I'm open to counter-suggestions, or just revert with no hard feelings if you object and can explain why here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Matthew, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I strongly opine that when it comes to Hindu castes, their status or recognition during the Hindu rulers is what counts. That is, the recognition Nairs recieved from Europeans/Muslim rulers/Buddhist emperors is not at all relevant when determining their caste-status or whether they are "martial race" or not, etc. Only local Hindu kings were loyal to caste system and hence the historical status of Nairs should be determined on the basis of how they were officially treated by Hindu kingdoms, such as Travancore. Seriously, I am wondering why you people can't find the current notation in the lede of British raj inappropriate. Four European powers colonized the region: Portuguese, French, Dutch and finally English. Then how can we mention British alone in the lede? We read from the body part that Portuguese also recruited Nairs in their army. This means that if Brits are mentioned in the lede, Ports also should be mentioned. If Brits had a list of "Martial races" then French could have another such list. Again colonial period is only one phase of the long history of Nairs, but this phase was given undue importance. (Not only in the lede, but throughout the article.) --Nair (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if we were discussing colonists then mentioning only one of the colonising nations would be undue weight. However, the reason that the Brits are mentioned in the lead is not because they colonised the place but because the Nairs were (allegedly) a classified as a martial race at that time. The Portuguese (apparently) did not do so. Your argument is based on a false premise. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Brahmakshatriya

Something should be mentioned in the article about possible status of Nairs as Brahmakshatriya (Brahmin father, non-brahmin mother). In contrast to other Brahmakshatriyas, such as those in North India, who basically belonged to their father's Brahmin caste, the Brahmakshatriyas of Kerala, since they practiced matriarchy, belonged to their mother's Kshatriya caste.124.180.6.138 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This general issue has been raised previously and I have seen a table of the four possibilities in one of the sources (I forget which one right now). However, this is the first time that I have seen anyone, anywhere use the term Brahmakshatriya. Please could you provide some reliable sources that use the word in connection with the Nair community. In particular because the entire "kshatriya" bit of it is moot. - Sitush (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is purely hoax, like the article Brahmakshatriya. There is no such thing existing as Brahma-kshatriya. The term was never in use in Kerala. Traditionally Nairs were considered as Sudras, not as Kshatriyas and were called Malayala Sudra in Travancore documents. Also, in Hindu intercaste marriages, offsprings were always assigned with lower one of their parents' castes. --Nair (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I knew that it was dodgy when I responded, but AGF and all that. I had never seen the term before and subsequently could find very, very few uses of it. The table I refer to does, as you say, demonstrate that they took the lower caste designator. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Panapillai Amma

Panapillai Amma was the title held by the consort of the ruling Maharajah of Travancore. Its literal translation is 'the royal consort' since as per the formerly existent matriarchal system in Travancore, the Maharajah's sister, and not his wife, was the Maharani. Thus the wife took the title of Panapillai Amma. The Panapillai Amma's were always from families of the Thampi caste of the Nair nobility and their homes were called Ammaveedus.The Maharajah married these Thampi ladies through the Sambandham form of wedlock known as Pattum Parivattavum.

Similarly Royal consorts of the Maharajahs of Cochin were known as Nethyar Ammas, most popular of whom was Parukutty Nethyar Amma who was awarded the "Kaiser-i-Hind" by the British only to eventually earn their displeasure due to her nationalist work. As common among the matriarchical castes of Kerala, the form of marriage was Sambandham here also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.147.186 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As always, we need reliable sources to add any of this information. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources: Travancore State Manual by V.Nagam Aiya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.192.162 (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me the page number? I see the book at [1], and it doesn't seem to be searchable. Of course, we would only include a sentence or two of what you wrote above here, as we are only interested in this info so far as it is related to the Nairs, not Travancore in general. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

page no:234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.157.199 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that p. 234 in the link provided above by Qwyrxian? I can see nothing about Nairs anywhere near that page, regardless of what spelling of the name might be used (it favours Nayar). There was more than one volume, I think, & so perhaps this is the problem. -Sitush (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mamankam Festival

After the capture of Thirunavaya by Samoothiri, the festival often turned into battlefields. The Chavers (Suicide squad) to assassninate the Samoothiri participating from the kingdom of Valluvanad hailed from the four of the most important Nair families of Valluvanad. These families were:

   * Putumana Panikkars
   * Chandrath Panikkars
   * Kokat Panikkars
   * Verkot Panikkars

A total of 18 deshavazhis (Governors) of Valluvanadu went to the Mamankam festival, led by the lead Nair from each of the four main families. Apart from the four lead warriors, the other 14 hailed from the following families (Swaroopams):

Two Nairs from unknown Valluvanad families, Two Nambuthiris from Valluvanad, Two Moopil Nairs from the Valluvanad Royal House, Achan of Elampulakkad, Variar of Kulathur, Pisharody of Uppamkalathil, Vellodi of Pathiramana, Nair of Parakkatt, Nair of Kakkoott, Nair of Mannarmala & Pisharody of Cherukara.[3] Out of the 18 deshavazhis, 13 were Nairs (Mostly Menon Panicker section of Kiryathil Nair subcaste), 2 were Namboothiri Brahmins and 3 were Ambalavasi Brahmins.

The ruler of Valluvanadu hailed from the Vellattiri subdivision of Samanthan Nair subcaste, and held the title of "Moopil Nair". Zamorin belonged to the Eradi subdivision of Samanthan Nair subcaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.147.186 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As always, we need reliable sources to add any of this information. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maha-Magha Encyclopaedia of Indian Culture, by Rajaram Narayan Saletore. Published by Sterling, 1981. ISBN 0391023322. 9780391023321. Page 869.
  2. ^ "Medieval Kerala". education.kerala.gov.in. http://www.education.kerala.gov.in/englishmedium/historyeng/chapter8.pdf. Retrieved 2011-05-18. 
  3. ^ http://kerals.com/keralatourism/kerala.php?t=83
  4. ^ വേലായുധൻ, പണിക്കശ്ശേരി (ഭാഷ: മലയാളം). സഞ്ചാരികൾ കണ്ട കേരളം (2001 ed.). കോട്ടയം: കറൻറ് ബുക്സ്. pp. 434. ISBN 81-240-1053-6.

   * William Logan - Malabar Manual  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.192.162 (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 

This all looks like it would go better at the Mamankam festival page. That article is a big mess (lots of uncited material), so the best "easiest" thing would be to fix everything there. The question of whether or not to include it here is if it is so important to Nair history. That's unclear to me from your description above, but perhaps a short summary with a "Main" template would be good? Anyone else have an opinion? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Koyas

Will it be a bad idea that this article should have a section about the Muslim Nairs, i.e, Koyas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.137.139.236 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an entry in the See also section? Including anything more substantive would likely be awkward since the Koyas are a distinct group, are not Hindu and have their own article. Whether the See also mention is valid depends a lot on how accurate the Koya (Malabar) article is with regard to the claims of Nair origin. If there is a certainty of relationship then there might be scope for a paragraph explaining how the two groups diveged, but nothing much more. Well, that is my opinion at any rate. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Having now looked at the article in question, I note that it was replete with copyright violations and statements that were not supported by the cited sources. I do not yet know enough about the Muslim communities of southern India to fix these issues but clearly as things stand there is little to justify any inclusion here. I thought it was odd that despite all my reading around the Nair subject I was unable to recall a mention of the Koyas! Of course, the common origin may still be correct but it would need some decent verifying sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Koyas do not have any connection with Nairs. Koyas are Brahmin converts. Koyas never practiced Sambandhams. They never allowed other castes to have sexual relations with their women. They were landlords and merchants, not servants like Nairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.73.128 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fake images?

Can I add CN tag to image captions? I'm not sure about this. Because atleast two of the images in this article seems to be misplaced. -Nair (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not tell us here & see if anyone has the answer? No need to post the image itself, the caption would suffice or, alternatively the filename wrapped in the nowiki tags like this (you'll have to edit this section to see the tags) - Filename.png - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments and discussions made here may be ignored and forgotten, but a CN tag, once added, will remain there until a decision is reached. That is why I prefer to add tags. Anyway I will try to be optimistic. My concern is over two images. May be these things are already cited in the article, but I would like to be sure about it.

1. The So-called "Headquarters of the Nair Brigade"[2]: The image given here is that of present Legislative Museum, situated right at the heart of Trivandrum city. I have no doubt that this building had some official significance during the Travancore era. But do we have any reference to believe that this was actually the headquarters of the "Nair brigade"? Even then, was this building used solely as Nair headquarters or was it just one among many of its purposes? What exactly do we know about this?

2. Nair feudal chief belonging to the Ettuveetil Pillamar[3]: The source of this image is a self-glorification Website[4] which simply says "An Ettuveedan". The website does not give the source of this image, such as "Painting found on a tomb in ABC" or "Mural in XYZ palace" etc. Anybody can start a website and upload such images. We cannot take this until we have some proof that this image belongs to Ettuveettil Pillai. Again, which Ettuveettil Pillai? Ettuveetil Pillamar were eight warriors each from a different family, living in different villages. Even if this image belongs to one Ettuveedan, which one? The description of the image is in German which reads: "Ein Nayar aus der Gruppe der Pillai, zeitgenössische Darstellung um 1750" (Translation: A Nayar from the group of Pillai, contemporary illustration from around 1750). Pillai is a subgroup of Nair and there are thousands of Pillai families unrelated to Ettuveedans. I think we need to dig into this issue a little. --Nair (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)