Talk:Paraiyar

Subdivision origin

Another reason for groupism came from the profession followed by the differnt groups. As people changed professions, they also had to change names to reflect those professions. However they needed to differentiate themselves from people who were already using those professional names. So as people took up farming they had to call themselves Vellala. However since other groups were using Vellala as title, different groups with additional names were created. Thus were created the various groups of Vellala.

Lathead 9:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination against particular section of people

Hereby I acknowledge that the article about "Paraiyar", a community of South india is a sensitive information.Some Users are potraying the community as slaves.Mentioning of "Slave" or Using any defamatory words against any community or particular section is an punishable offence.There may be a chance for particular section of people were treated as slaves,but mentioning a community as slaves is unconstituional since slavery is abolished by the constitution of India.Degrading a community status is a punishable offence under India law (Promoting enmity between different classes and endangering Integrity of India.Some times some truths cannot be exposed in public.(India was once a slave nation to british,for this single reason India cannot be introduced as former slave of british).I Hope all the admins can understand well.I welcome more research and discussions about the article.I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources).But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language.I Hope wikipedia will protect the true spirit of knowledge and human freedom. AntanO (talk · contribs) is promoting discrimination. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs)

I agree. I very much doubt that "Paraiyar" means slave. None of the three sources cited say that. This source says that it was used interchangeably with words meaning slave. That wouldn't be the case if the word itself meant slave. I think this was WP:OR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are four sources say "Paraiyar" means slave. All information should be in here as per WP:CENSOR. --AntanO 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please provide quotes that establish what you are claiming. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the OED, the literal translation - from Tamil and Malayalam - is '(hereditary) drummer'. [1] --regentspark (comment) 21:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RP. I think I saw this meaning in an earlier version of the article. It seems to have been removed inexplicably.

This source says that only the Pariyars of Malabar were enslaved, those in other districts weren't. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Translation" seems wrong. "Synonym" might be appropriate in context, eg: Raj era. I'm not in a fit state to review the sources at the moment, which I guess includes determining population densities if we may have to debate about where X was called Y. I doubt that where something actually happens defines much at all - generally speaking, it doesn't when it comes to name-calling etc - but there probably is something to investigate here. It will probably get complicated because there is also the definition of "slave", eg: indentured vs. reality of the situation. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, user (RajaRajan Tamilian) should not accuse other editor since I am not this particular community or against the community. By saying AntanO is promoting discrimination is not going to give anything, but deal with the subject. See User talk:RajaRajan Tamilian#Unblock Appeal to understand what I was did.

I have found that pariah means a person who is hated and rejected by other people, an outcast, etc. So, work on the right area rather than removing the content and restore. It is not a good way of editing. --AntanO 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Let us not worry about the meanings of the English word "pariah." Things are complicated enough already. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Slave

I'm removing the translation slave part from the lead. The OED clearly states in its etymology of Pariah that Paraiyar means 'hereditary drummer' in Tamil and Malayalam. Our article has three sources attached to 'translation slave' and neither the first nor the third support the translation. The second is off line and cannot be verified. As long as there is no clear reference in support of the translation, it shouldn't be in the article. --regentspark (comment) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nandanar

[Moved from Talk:Pariyar]

@Utcursch: I admit that ambiguity exists about the caste identity of Nandanar. The idea that he was a Pulaiyar is apparently from the Periya Puranam, which is evidently a Brahmanical rendering. The description of his background as leather worker fits the identity of Paraiyar. Eleanor Zellot herself admits this, and this source [2] is much more explicit about it. I think it is best to include him here and note the uncertainty around the caste in a footnote. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I think you meant to drop a note at Talk:Paraiyar. Sure, feel free to add it with a reference. I removed the earlier bit, because that particular part of the Moffatt book talked about untouchables in general, not specifically Paraiyars. Just keep this in mind -- the connection of Nandanar, Tiruvalluvar etc. to the Paraiyar caste is a modern reconstruction -- no sources contemporary to those people mention them as Paraiyars. So, that content would belong in the "British colonial era" section. 17:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I have now read through George L. Hart's papers. It appears that Pariayan appears only once in the Sangam literature (in Puram 335). But Hart thinks the parai drum is probably the same as kinai, and kinaiyans appear quite frequently. The generic term for the low-status groups appears to be pulaiyan, and Hart says this is the same as how paraiyan is the generic term now. Are you happy for me to cover these matters?

Secondly, according to Burton Stein, paraiyan became generic term for low-status groups during the Chola period, when all the new forest-dwelling groups were integrated into that group. So it doesn't appear to be a modern reconstruction. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK. Go ahead and update the article. utcursch | talk 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Done updating. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've not really been following the recent changes but "acclaimed saints" seems like peacockery to me. And the use of "scholars" is weaseling. I have no firm opinion about Hart: linguists come and linguists go, and etymologies change according to which ever linguist happens to be de rigeuer. I certainly would be wary of overstating a case. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, changed "acclaimed" to "venerated" (the same description on the Nandanar page). Note that there was some process of "canonisation" here. I added the mention a couple of scholars re Bhakti, but I think there are a lot of them that question the Bhakti rhetoric. As for Hart, I don't believe we are overstating the case. Rather we seem to be overstating the case that there was no mention of Paraiyar before the Rajaraja Chola's time. My point is that the nomenclature might have changed, but the idea of `low caste' corresponding to leather workers goes back a very long time. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lets state the facts. Paraiyar is always used to mean slave castes

In traditional tamil society paraiyar is used interchangeably with the word slave.By not mentioning the paraiyar as slave caste of ancient India a grave in-justice is being done to the community. SOcial justice can be given only if every one is well aware of facts so that the same mistake is not repeated.My request to mention the "Paraiyar as slave caste" so that facts are not suppressed.

Proof provided.

Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895 By Eugene F. Irschick Page 169 [3]

The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India By Rupa Viswanath Page 3 [4]

Global Capital and Peripheral Labour: The History and Political Economy of ... By Ravi Raman Page 67 [5]

The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India By Rupa Viswanath Page 594 [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veera pandyan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that these sources are reliable, I don't think we can say 'slave caste' up front in the lead because the word 'slave' needs to be contextualized and the term 'slave caste' would .need to be defined. (Also, presumably, members of the caste today are not slaves?). Bottom line, Paraiyar is a caste which may have had characteristics of agricultural slavery. If the latter is true, then that can be explained in the body but, in the lead sentence, no. --regentspark (comment) 01:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Veera Pandyan: I agree that the slavery issues need to be covered, and I have been researching them. We can revisit the lead after the content is developed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Kathir1992 edits

@Kathir1992: There are several problems with your edits today which reverted here:

• Your edit makes it appear as if sambavar and valluvar are synonyms of pariayar. But you haven't provided any reliable sources for this claim, and those terms have their own pages currently.
• You have added content within sourced segments. You can't do so unless the source mentions your new content. You haven't said whether it does.
• You have also modified sourced content without explanation.
• You have deleted a key sentence sourced to Basu 2011. Even after RegentsPark reverted it, you deleted it again.
• You have added various personalities, not all of whom appear to be notable. You need to provide evidence of notability, unless these personalities are already described in separate pages.

Your habit of labeling all edits as "fixing typos" is irritating. You need to make an effort to accurately describe the edit made, and when it needs explanation and/or justification, provide it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of word Untouchable

Hi Editors, Untouchability is abolished by Constitution of India. Calling a particular section of people as Untouchable is a criminal offence. The concept untouchability itself has various dimensions and view points. The word untouchability not exists in Tamil culture and it is a practice of Vedic Brahminic culture. Vedic brahminic culture was spreaded by Aryan invaders around 1500 BCE. Aryans came to India through khyber and Polan pass around 1500 BCE. Before that there is no caste hierarchial divisions. The Invading Aryan race created divisions among the indigeneous people to reduce the strength and to win their culture.So please be careful while using the word "Untouchable" because it is only a view point from Hindutva Brahminsim and in Tamil culture there is no caste differences. Even many Tamil literatures will clearly indicates this.--JohnPhilipsDM (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Aryans and Dravidians are different races and we cant consider only one view point. There are two view points about caste hierarchy.One is Hindutva brahminic view point and the other one is Dravidian view point.--DanielZinker (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Paraiyar VS Pulaiyar VS Sambavar

Sambavars are a seperate community found mostly in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu. Paraiyars are a seperate community people who are living in Northern districts such as Arcot, Tanjore, Chennai, Kanchipuram and Vilupuram of Tamil nadu. Paraiyars are a warrior caste but Sambhavars is a priestly caste. Paraiyars lived in Ancient chola kingdom but Sambavars lived in ancient naanjil kingdom and Chera kingdom. Pulayars are a community living in the state of Kerala.There is no relation between between Paraiyars and Pulaiyars. Pulaiyars lived in Ancient Malabar kingdom (North kerala) and Paraiyars lived in Travancore kingdom (South kerala). Pulaiyars are magicians while Paraiyars are Drummers and warriors.--JohnPhilipsDM (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory

Please read Aryan invasion theory concepts to understand the evolution of caste hierarchy in India. The present day caste system was founded by Aryans (Brahmins) and there existed no differences among indigeneous people before Aryan Invasion.--DanielZinker (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)