Talk:Nadar (caste)

{{dyktalk|5 April|2007|entry=...that it is estimated that 40% of the Tamil and Malayalam Nadar caste are

File:Kamarajar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kamarajar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nadar were shudras and untouchables til the 19th century

Nadar were shudras and untouchables till the 19th century

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11caste.html

Social movements in India: a review of the literature by Ghanshyam Shah, Ghanshyam Shah - Caste, caste conflict, and reservations by Ishwarlal Pragji Desai, Ishwarlal Pragji Desai -

clearly states that Nadars were shudras under the hindu varna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be corrected. There is no neutrality and missing many facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that the article lacks neutrality - it clearly states that, for example, the Nadar were below the Maravar and that the Nadar claimed a kshatriya status as part of the sanskritisation process (which we all know led generally to a series of bogus claims by numerous communities). However, it certainly does not mention the varna specifically and there is no reason why it should not do so.

The problem is, the New York Times - which says "Tamil Nadu’s Nadars belong to a community in the middle of India’s caste system, occupying a place barely above the untouchables" - is not a great source for info such as this, and I cannot actually find the page in Social movements that calls them either shudra or dalit/untouchable. Perhaps you can let us know? - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

pages 22&23 of hardgrave speaks abt their ritual ranking.Mayan302 (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that bit. I may have to take you up on your offer. Just as a general comment, I've spent a bit of time this morning tidying up the article and my gut feeling is that it is really not too bad at all in terms of accuracy/content etc. I have not actually checked any refs but I have done a fair amount of work in this subject area & have come across the Nadars before in that context. I'll continue to fiddle with the wording etc, which rather let the thing down, but if there are any issues of dispute then I would hope that we can resolve them on this talk page without engaging in edit wars etc. As long as people provide decent sourcing for any points of contention, things should be ok. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I follow the rules of wiki very well.u don't have to worry about edit wars.jus because i only edit nadar pages doesnt mean i wont follow rules of wiki.:)how ::::do i send u the book??i actually myself wanted to expand the article.Mayan302 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SITUSH. Some references which clearly state the social economic standing of Nadar ( shanar ).

1. Socio-religious reform movements in British India, Part 3, Volume 1 By Kenneth W. Jones page 159. The last para of page 159 clearly states that the Nadars were considered as untouchable caste.
2. Christians and public life in colonial South India, 1863-1937: contending ... By Chandra Mallampalli Page 247 , states that "Nadars formerly referred to as Shanars are a semi-untouchable community".
3. The untouchables of India by Robert Deliege Page 17 clearly states how the word Shanar was used in a derogatory manner.
4. Social movements in India: a review of the literature by Ghanshyam Shah. page 110 States that the Shanar or Nadar were considered as untouchables in the past.
5. Conversion to Islam: untouchables' strategy for protest in India by Abdul Malik Mujahid page 27 States that Nadars were an untouchable caste

The article is missing the part were the Shanars/Nadars were considered as untouchables by the hindu caste society in the past. probably its just putting the right words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I've had a long day but will take a look at it all tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

the books mentioned by sharma is more about relgion than caste.at the same time it doesnt properly explain the exact position held by the nadars in the caste system.hardgrave and the books below state that they were above the untouchables.u might also wanna take a look at Nadar climber and Nadan article.i separated these article to make the article less confusing.if its appropriate u can merge the two article with the nadar main.also u should consider the various subcastes within the community.back then these subcastes acted like different communities n had different traditions.there r also many christian missionary books written by caldwell etc to prove dis pt .but i did'nt wanna include them as they are not very anthropological n they don't go very deep into this topic.even the books below r not as good as hardgrave.the caste system in kerala was entirely different.a nair cant touch a nambudri in kerala.i can very well understand dat user:sharma is not new to this page o wiki.i wonder y he is pretendin to be a newbie.please 'sign' ur posts.

1. By Christophe Jaffrelot Page 166.
2. By Y.Ashok Kumar Pg 55-56
3. By Dennis Templeman Pg 34&78.(.i think.snippet view here!i don't hav access to this book.hope u do.but the line is somewhere there)
4. By Rajni Kothari Page 99

Rather than goin through these books it will be less confusing to go through Hardgrave.the book is entirely abt the nadars.most importantly the tamil middle castes were regarded 'shudras'.Mayan302 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not how we do things, sorry. If there is more than one point of view then we We have to show them all, not just one. Always assuming that the sources are reliable, not a fringe theory etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth's book just uses the nadar history as a case study to analyse the impact religion had on a caste.whereas hardgrave uses anthropological techniques to study the actual history of the nadars.more ever keneth backs his theory by using hardgrave's which is awkward.I am sorry ur judgement is wrong.could tell me of a untouchable caste which had zamindars n landlords.

Look, let me read up on the subject. I am pretty experienced at this sort of thing. By the way, I do not appreciate your insinuation about Sharma007007 above. I thought you had said that you knew "the wiki way", in which case you should know that your comments here should be confined to improving the article rather than taking pot shots at people. You may wish to retract that bit. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SITUSH for the valuable comments.

More sources which explain about the untouchable status of Nadars.

1. Mission reader: historical models for wholistic mission in the Indian context By Samuel Jayakumar page 148 Clearly explains the untouchable status of Shanars
2. Mission and Tamil society: social and religious change in South India by By Henriette Bugge, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Page 86 clearly explains the untouchable status of Shanars ( Nadars ).
3. Social and cultural history of India since 1556 by By N. Jayapalan Page 163 clearly explains the Shanar ( Nadar ) as untouchable.
4. The political career of K Kamaraj by P. Kandaswamy page 20 clearly explains the Nadar as an untouchable community.
5. Anthropologica 2004 by Canadian Anthropology society. page 259 clearly explains the Nadar as an untouchable community.

There are probably many reliable resources which state that Nadars/Shanar were an untouchable community. Please make changes to the article based on these references provided. sharma007007 (talk)

One more thing I am new to this article and I am just bringing out the reliable resources. sharma007007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

More books

1. Bishop Stephen Neill: from Edinburgh to South India By Dyron B. Daughrity Pg 77 this book quotes the contents of caldwell.however caldwell was no antropologist.he was a christian missionary.
2. Caste and race in India By G.S. Ghurye Pg 380

i wil be back wid more books.i m a little sick today.as far as i know edgar is a very old bookMayan302 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Edgar Thurston is old stuff and not a great source. Same applies to Herbert Hope Risley, Horace Arthur Rose, Denzil Ibbetson and others of that period - I wrote most of those articles. Get yourself well: nothing is going to happen to the article for a few days yet. No rush. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

) i think the article will never be complete without templeman.i wil some how buy the book within this week.kothari's book quotes the lines frm caldwell's.Mayan302 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't go mad! If you can pin down the relevant bits of Templeman then we could try WP:RX - there are some really helpful people there. I agree that he could be useful, having seen his intro to the 2nd edition of Hardgrave. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you should ever come across any info about William Crooke that is not already in that article then please could you let me know on my talk page. I wrote that one also, but there are gaps in it. - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My University has Templeman. I can get scans but it will be a few weeks, as they are closed for winter break. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, JD. It seems from my talk page that Mayan would like to own a copy of the book in any event. Although there is still stuff to go through, I am beginning to think that we need to show both points of view here. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

both pts of view?i dont know how long it will take me to get this book.u can ask mr.jd to get the copy of pg 21 for the time being..Mayan302 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

i think i ve provided u wid all the good refs i know of.nadar subcastes can be the most difficult concept to comprehend.for instance few subsects like the nelamaikkaras(nadans) wer respected by high rankin communities n enjoyed most of the privileges of the tamil middle castes whereas nadar climbers of the tranvancore region and regions where they formed a minority population were discriminated.the nadar traders were protected by their uravinmurais.nadars today are a fusion of so many subsects.for instance the gramanis,a caste of toddy tappers of northern tamil nadu, are completely irrelevant to the nadars.however they are today a part of the nadar community.there r even subsects even i dont know of.the subsect culture still however exists in regions around south of tamirabharini accordin to the tuticorin gazetteer.untouchablility in tamil nad was different frm kerala.in tamil nad,communities like parayas n pallas were considered as untouchables.wheras in kerala it was an entirely different concept,as u already know.as far as i know hardgrave's book is the only book which can answer these questions precisely.so if u r goin to include the term untouchable in the article it may be appropriate to describe some subsects.however it wont be appropriate to describe subsects like the nadans.watever i am sayin is already in the hardgravebook.so dats abt it.my problem is dat i get sick very often n at the same time i hav a lotta work in my real life.i can check on this article once everyday.i hope my contributions were useful.thank u.Mayan302 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More sources.

The Pearson Indian History Manual for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary ... by Singh page C 78 clearly mentions the Shanars were considered untouchables.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wsiXwh_tIGkC&pg=RA2-PA78&dq=NADAR+UNTOUCHABLE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eEUFT4PQJ8GSiQLnqKCtDg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBDgy#v=onepage&q=NADAR%20UNTOUCHABLE&f=false

Averting the Apocalypse: social movements in India today by Arthur Bonner Page 323 also mentions the nadars as untouchables.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxJlAgRemHgC&pg=PA322&dq=NADAR+UNTOUCHABLE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-UUFT7bgFaXaiQLrlqS6Dg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATg8#v=snippet&q=untouchable&f=false

sharma007007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Sitush probably you can reword the article based on resources provided which indicate the social standing of Shanars/nadars. sharma007007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Still reading Hardgrave, cover to cover, but I will sort something out after that. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

the dennis templeman book is not available in india.however it is available in a govt library.hopefully i ll get the book in abt a week or two.pages 21 n 22 of templeman r relevant to this discusiion.Mayan302 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitush comments on sources provided above

If you want to add any more then can you please do so above this subsection. Thanks.' For anyone who is in doubt about my background knowledge, among other things I am the major contributor to Nair and to Caste system of Kerala. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• From Sharma007007

• 1 - Kenneth Jones. Reliable source, reliable publisher. Book appears to do what it says, ie: is discussing socio-religious stuff. That is bang on target for use in this article, and he is clear that they were regarded as untouchable by at least some other communities.
• 2 - Mallampalli. I have not bothered to check out the author's credentials. The relevant point is made in a footnote and therefore is pretty much a "passing mention". It is rarely a good idea to use such things, especially if the point could be contentious.
• 3 - Robert Deliege. I cannot really comment on this one because I can only see a snippet view and therefore I lack any sense of context. If anyone really thinks this is an important source then perhaps you could provide a copy of the page, plus a few pages either side of it.
• 4 - Shah. Same problem as for Deliege.
• 5 - Mujahid. Ditto. This is unfortunate, since the snippets of this, (3) and (4) do seem to indicate support for the pro-untouchable "argument" - but context is always important, sorry.
• 1 (second batch) - Jayakumar. I'd rather not rely on it, but we can keep it in reserve. I get a little worried about books produced by or for religious groups because they usually have a message that they want to put across and they are often blinkered in their research. This one may be different but I note that the source is Hardgrave, so we should be able to avoid using this. I've never heard of the publisher, OCMS, before - but that might say more about me than them!
• 2 - Bugge. I suspect that this is saying pretty much what Hardgrave says, but time will tell. Gist is, they were untouchable until the Christian missionaries got involved & then, like so many others, started to self-promote. It's an ok source, certainly. Cited by quite a few people, though not published by a university press (odd, that, since it seems to be the book version of her PhD thesis).
• 3 - Jayapalan. I've never been wonderfully happy about stuff published by Atlantic - their output tends to be a little hit-and-miss. In this instance, the relevant section pretty much starts by saying the the move from alleged untouchability happened with the 1901 census. There is no doubt that the (methodologically poor) 1901 census was affected by such self-assertions of caste etc, but so too were the 1891 and 1881 censuses. Given that the other sources seem to date any change to a time before 1901, and couple that eminently verifiable point with this being an Atlantic publication, I am not particularly encouraged. Who is/was Jayapalan, in terms of academic qualifications etc?
• 4 - Kandaswamy. No. sorry. This is a "passing mention". It lacks authority. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• 5 - Anthropologica. Again, this seems to me to be a passing mention. And in this case the author does not even provide any sort of comment on it, merely relates the hearsay. It is not good enough. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• From Mayan302

• 1 - Jafrrelot. I know that author well! We do not really need this: there is nothing wrong with it at all but he is just quoting Hardgrave, whom we already have.
• 2 - Y. Ashok Kumar. Sorry, but we cannot possibly use this as a source. It is published by Gyan, which is fatal in itself, and even on one page (56) it contradicts itself. It refers to "near-Untouchables" near to the top of that page, and then near to the bottom says that "no other Untouchable caste could ...". It is nonsense, as is usual with a lot of stuff from Gyan.
• 3 - Templeman. I, too, can only see snippet view and as such the same issues arise that I have referred to above. Page 21 seems to mention something about the situation, citing Caldwell and Thurston, but the situation is very unclear since it seems to say that some community was the lowest of the shudra but that the Adi Dravida were untouchable. I guess that we could always check what Caldwell and Thurston say themselves?
• 4 - Kothari. I cannot even see a snippet view. You would have to get hold of the relevant pages.
• ? - Hardgrave. Classic study by a political scientist/anthropologist (similar job description to Jaffrelot).Seeing them as being in a social limbo between untouchable and shudra, he studies "the relationship between political sentiment and behaviour, on the one hand, and the structure of society, on the other". I need to read this one right through because it is a seminal work. I have some questions in my head already, but hopefully the book will resolve them.
• 1 (second batch) - Daughrity. This is not completely useless. Yes, it takes a lot from Caldwell but it does so in the manner of a critique. Daughrity appears to be a respected historian of religion and its relationship to society, and Christian missions in particular. Page 80 pretty much says what our article shows now, but unfortunately there are some pages unavailable to me. I'll see what I can do about that - sometimes using GBooks with a proxy gets alternate results. I will also check on the publisher.
• More comments to follow. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is enough reference to indicate that the nadars/shanars were an untouchble caste till the 19th century.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=Gns1T-eHNIjvmAW0mo2BAg&id=CvIvAQAAIAAJ&dq=nadar+untouchable&q=nadar++ Page 40 published by tata mcgrawhill

http://books.google.com/books?id=H4q0DHGMcjEC&pg=PA106&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I3w1T_q-KMyimQWImLmiAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=nadar%20untouchable&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gt9PQ-mjzRoC&pg=PA140&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SXw1T5L6HcjHmQX8-umcAg&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=untouchables&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation format

Can we agree on a format to be used for citations in this article? At present we are using at least three different styles. There is no great rush about fixing the thing but it will have to be done. Contributors may wish to read up on the subject at WP:CITE before responding. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OkMayan302 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brewing/distilling caste

This edit removes what appears to me to be a valid category. Whether it was toddy or jaggery, surely this means that they were involved in brewing/distilling. The fact that it may no longer be their primary occupation is completely irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

as far as I know brewing is something relevant to fermentation. U get jaggery by boiling the sap and making it coarse.u get toddy by brewing the same sap.nadars were mostly involved in the production of jaggery sugar(hard grave:24&137).sorry not pg136.

And even if the tag is appropriate in anyway it will fit into nadar climber article rather than the nadar main as toddy tapping is not the traditional occupation of some nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as jaggery goes, that is my mistake, sorry. However, I've just done a quick GBooks search and there are plenty of refs (at least 1500) to Nadar toddy-tappers. Furthermore, as you say, we have an entire article on Nadar climbers. Therefore, the category is appropriate here: it seems clear that a fair proportion of the community was traditionally involved in toddy tapping. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

yes.there r many books.but few r anthropological as I already said.the climbers who lived as minorities where a few palmrya tree grew had to make toddy due to the unavailability of trees.whereas the climbers of southern tirunelveli had proper resources to manufacture jaggery.jaggery trade actually made the nadars prosperous. So only a minority were involved in toddy trade.similarly u can't group them under land lord caste category just because of the nadan subsect.think it wud be better to add the tag to the climber article.Mayan302 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

going out now.bye for nowMayan302 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Partying again? <g> Let's see what others think. - Sitush (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

omg now we need to listen to caste warriors (there are many on wikipedia).nadars were historically a backward and socially downtrodden community.their social status was low because of their invovlvement with toddy tapping which is taboo in the agama shastras.they were not allowed to worship in the brahmin temples which makes them outcastes (avarnas).Even the socially high Vellalarcaste and the related Thevar caste who worship in brahmin temples could only get the tag of Sat-Shudra(clean shudras) the pretensions of the nadar to higher social status continues even to this day.kaumudi temple case etc are well documented.the nadar who were previously known as shanar changed their name to nadar just to avoid their toddy tapping tag.the word shanar is pretty derogatory in tamil as far as i know.Between i want some comments on the lead why is this person Shiv Nadar(whoever he is ) being singled out as a symbol of the community's progress looks Undue.does he identify with the caste ? being born in it is not enough.i am sure other indian castes and communities will have number of billionaires not one.also this statement in the lead looks absolutely ridiculous to me.The Nadars today are a powerful community.[14] They are financially very strong and are also politically influential in the Southern districts of Tamil Nadu.[15].both the citations are actually related to tamil nad mercantile bank.one even says that the Nadars were predominantly toddy tappers who have became traders..This is selective quoting of citations and some are wrong quoatations.The tone of the article is also something which is not neutral.Ps the category stays i am adding it back as sitush approves.Pernoctator (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

untouchable status of nadars

http://books.google.com/books?ei=MxA7T-qRFaK62gWIgNnECg&id=CvIvAQAAIAAJ&dq=nadar+untouchable&q=nadar+

http://books.google.com/books?id=PoBJJej_IiwC&pg=PA159&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JhE7T8fJK4nS2AXwxqy9Cg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=nadar%20untouchable&f=false

The valid resources point to nadars being untouchables till the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The first of those is a compendium & therefore not great. The second has been referred to in the earlier thread & I am still working my way through Hardgrave. It looks valid but please can I have a few more days? - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

more references for untouchabe status of nadars.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gt9PQ-mjzRoC&pg=PA140&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wu87T8naB4rHmQW_g6GhCw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=nadar%20untouchable&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dERuAAAAMAAJ&q=nadar+untouchable&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MvA7T4HFN5DomAXWteCoCw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzge

SITUSH please take you time.