Talk:Kamma (caste)

Kamma (caste) needs to be Wikified! So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria.	✔ check
Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject.	✔ check
Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup.	(Some excessive wiki-links.)
Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article.	✔ check
Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one).	✔ check
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template

Protected

I've semi-protected this article as we have been seeing persistent removal of sourced content by anonymous editors. Anyone who thinks they can remove content they don't like in this fashion, please take note that this is all you have achieved - you have prevented anonymous editors from editing it altogether. If you want to make changes, discuss them here first and await consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: From “During the British Raj, the Kammas were considered to be "upper Shudra", along with the Reddy and Velama castes, under the varna system.” to “During the British Raj, the Kammas were considered to be Sat-Shudra or "upper Shudra", along with the Reddy and Velama castes, under the varna system. However, as South India doesn’t have a distinguished or rigid four Varna system, ruling or military classes were often classified as Sat-Shudras. The Kammas, like the Reddies and Nairs, hold a status that is analogous to Kshatriyas. Moreover, The Kammas claim that they are Kshatriyas, and they protested when they were labeled as Sat-Shudras during the British Raj.”

Explanation of issue: There are several issues with the old version. Firstly, it doesn’t explicitly say that Kammas claim Kshatriya status, which they do. Secondly, their status and that of the Reddies and Nairs are the same. However, the Reddies and Nairs have a “analogous to Kshatriya status” in their wikipedia page. To ensure parity and a fuller understanding on the Kamma page, this should be included to have all POV be heard. Finally, it is important to note that Kammas protested their status classification during the British Raj which adds historical context on the result of their classification. Though there is debate on Wikipedia to get rid of varna articles for all South Indian castes, since other similar and prominent South Indian castes, like Reddies and Nairs, have a mention of their Kshatriya claims or analogous to Kshatriya status, it is important to give all POV a place and state that in the Kamma article as well.

References supporting change:

To support that Kammas have a status analogous to Kshatriyas, since they, Reddis, and Nairs were classified as Sat-Shudras:

Lohia, Rammanohar (1964). The Caste System. Navahind. pp. 93–94, 103, 126

M. P. Joseph (2004). Legitimately divided: towards a counter narrative of the ethnographic history of Kerala Christianity. Christava Sahitya Samithi. p. 62. ISBN 978-81-7821-040-7.

Shah, Ghanshyam (2004). Caste and Democratic Politics in India. Anthem Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-84331-086-0.

To Support Kammas Claim Kshatriya Status:

Gajrani, S.. History, Religion and Culture of India. India, Isha Books, 2004. Page 29 (“The Kammas consider themselves as Kshatriyas in the Varna hierarchy, and recall their privileged position in the reign of the Kakatiya Dynasty” )

Harrison, Selig S.. India: The Most Dangerous Decade. United States, Princeton University Press, 2015. Page 295. (“Brahmans dismiss them as Sudras, but the Kammas and Reddies have never accepted this.”)

Narayana Rao, Velcheru. Text and Tradition in South India. India, State University of New York Press, 2017. Page 285 (“In premodern Andhra, as stated earlier, the Shudra king acquired Kshatriya Status, legitimized by the Brahmin poet. When the British occupied the role of the king, the non-Brahmin casteses were left with no hope of becoming Kshatriyas . . . However, the younger generation of landed castes - Kammas, Reddis, and Kapus - went to Western schools, as the Brahmins had done.”)

Yamada Keiko Page 371 (“In his autobiography written in the 1960s, he [Ranga] openly and proudly enunciated Kamma caste identity not as Kisans, but as Kshatriyas”) [1]

Yamada Keiko (Page 378) “As far as the Kammas themselves are concerned, the issue of their Kshatriya status is no longer under dispute: they were, and are Kshatriyas.” [2]

To Back-Up the Claim that Kammas protested their Sat-Shudra Status during the British Raj:

Yamada Keiko Page 363 (“They [Kammas in 1916] soon gathered at Kollur village to hold a public debate with local Brahmins to assert the Kshatriya status of Kammas, Velamas, Reddis, and others, and demanded the right to learn the Vedas and wear sacred threads.”) .[3]

|}

Verifiability

This edit from a decade ago illustrates how this article has been constructed, by piling folklore upon folklore, without any sources. Then other people came and added WP:FAKE sources, claiming to have verified them. But more than half the text is still the original junk.

So, I am going to do another verification drive now, cleaning out anything that I can't find in the source. Any vague citations that cite author/title, without a WP:Full citation will face the same fate. The WP:BURDEN of verifiability rests on the editors that add content. It is not our job to go hunting for sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I just finished adding citations for the Krishnadevaraya and Battle of Raichur articles. I will also work on this, specifically the Vijayanagara and Golconda Period. I will weed through the content because I do have the University of Michigan library at my disposal - I am an alumni - and they have a vast content stock from these areas. I can also increase these sections with sourced content. Is there anything specifically that you wanted to get citations on? Also were Wikipedia policies more lax a decade ago for people to abuse the platform as such? Thanks. Timmarasu (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Struck comments of a now banned sock Sharkslayer87 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

Add Superstar Krishna reference in 'Notable People' section Pkhanda (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 21:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

New Changes Explanation

1. The Old Post-Kakatiya section was essentially more of an Origins section, which is already present, and it repeated some information present in the Origins section. Therefore, I shifted the origins content, namely the Belthi Reddi folktale and the descent of Velamas and Reddys from Kapus, into the Origins section.

2. I have written a new section for the Post-Kakatiya section. I am going to explain each sentence and its justification below:

- "The demise of the Kakatiya Empire resulted in confusion and anarchy for sometime, before the Musunuri Nayaks brought stability to the region." (This is a direct usage from the Kakatiya page that is exceptionally sourced.)

- "The Musunuri Nayaks, who Telugu historians have stated are Kammas, led a confederacy of Telugu nobles to liberate the Telugu regions from the rule of the Tughlaqs." (There are a grand total of 7 citations attesting to their roots as Kammas. All from the post-1990 era, including ones from 2000s, except for one in 1988. That is the fact and I have written as such. The other part of the sentence is a usage from the Kapaya Nayaka article, and I was not the one who phrased it that way initially.)

- "The Vilasa Grant of Prolaya Nayaka, where he bemoaned the devastation of Telugu regions under the Turks, sought to legitimize himself as the rightful restorer of order following the Kakatiyas. Kapaya Nayaka, who was the cousin of Prolaya, later succeeded him, and the capital was shifted to Warangal following Kapaya Nayaka's ousting of Malik Maqbul, who was the governor of that area for the Delhi Sultanate. The Musunuri Nayaks were succeeded by the Recherla Nayakas." (These sentences should not be controversial. They reflect the main-pages of these articles, and I used as much direct phrasing as possible from the likes of Eaton.)

- "Cynthia Talbot states that the modern-castes of the Telugu states did not originate until the late stages of the Vijayanagara Empire." (This is a critical piece of information included in most-post Kakatiya articles before Vijayanagara. I have stated what she has written. If there are more historians that agree with her, do provide citations in the Talk Page so it can be rephrased.).

- "Telugu historians disagree with that statement. For instance, B.S.L Hanumantha Rao, states that the post-Kakatiya Andhradesa (Telugu regions) experienced a triangular-conflict between the Velamas, Kammas, and Reddys, and K.Satyamurthy noted that the post-Kakatiya period saw the Kammas, Reddys, and Velamas, among others, leading Telugu society." (This reflects the other part of the equation to show Telugu historians, with all theirs positives and faults, disagree with Tolbot. Dr. Benbabaali herself attributed the word Kamma to describe a specific community to the 10th century, which contradicts Tolbot's conclusions. As Ms. Talbot's work is mentioned, there is no harm in mentioning the views of local historians since the two specific ones I have cited are in the 1990s.)

3. I have written this in the most agreeable language without the usage of "Peacock" or other glorification terminology. Much of what I added is not my own writing, but rather the work of other great contributors on Wikipedia. Everything is properly sourced with as many as 7 sources and reflects the current main-pages of those articles. Callofduty259 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Musunuri

I am afraid it makes no differences how many hundreds of Andhra historians "disagree" with Cynthia Talbot. Talbot has done the research and published it in internationally refereed journals and Oxford University. They have nothing to counter it with, except folklore. This is POV and not acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia cites these historians on many articles. Dr. Dalel clearly states in her book that "After the decline of Buddhism in the Krishna valley, the term ‘Kamma’ no longer referred to a place and started to be used as a caste name to designate the main agrarian community inhabiting that territory." She is also published by international publications and much more recently. In her video presentation, she gives the dating as the 10th century. Talbot's view is represented. Also while we are on this topic, I noticed you made edits to the Telaga article a while back. You cited a source saying they are descended from the Telugu Chodas and cited an Andhra historian with no mentioning of Talbot nor her work. Please do explain. Callofduty259 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

While you explain how it met Wikipedia policies to cite one Andhra historian for the Telugu-Choda claim for the Telagas with no mention of Talbot or another additional source (compared to the many I provided), please keep in mind that Wikipedia states "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians". I understand you believe ALL of Andhra's historians are based on folktales, but do cite a published scholar or two that concur with that view. Finally, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority viewsthat have appeared in those sources are covered" is also stated in Wikipedia. This is definetely a majority opinion backed up by 7 different sources, and the only opinion amongst who commented on their caste. Considering many were published by universities and in the 2000s, they are reliable. Callofduty259 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Callofduty259:, have you read Cynthia Talbot's book? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In all kindness and respect, please do answer my questions directly. I respect Cynthia Talbot and her work. Besides Stein, Romila Thapar, Sheldon Pollock, Dr. Dalel, I’m sure she is an accomplished author. However, despite her publishing years before individuals like Dr. Dalel, who is similarly held in high-regard internationally, her work is a minority opinion. No matter how excellent her credentials, is there any other scholar that agrees with her? So my direct answer to your question, which I would appreciate if you could do as well, is no, I have not read her book entirely. I have read snippets of it, enough to understand her view on issues. But her view was directly contradicted by a much more recent and international scholar, Dr. Dalel. Moreover, to dismiss the work of Telugu historians in the 2000s and the 1990s as pure fiction, when indeed no other scholar, including Miss Talbot has done so, is not correct. There is no rule in Wikipedia that says “Talbot trumps all”. Recent scholarship is also given more weight, and Dr. Dalel is not only recent and published by internationally recognized publications, but directly contradicts Talbot. It’s easy to pick and chose what we like and what we don’t. Looking forward to your answer for the Telaga-inquiry and if you have scholars backing up your view that ALL Telugu historians write is folktales. I’m especially interested in the former since you have clearly based on your wording read Talbot’s Book and yet made no mention of it in that article, but felt a single Andhra historian, whom you consider to be a teller of folktales, was sufficient enough. Thanks - much kindness and respect for another Wikipedian. Callofduty259 (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see Benbabali as a historian. She is merely reproducing folklore.

I am afraid you do not understand what is going on here. Talbot has said, after analysing hundreds of medieval inscriptions, that there was no caste system in Andhra until the late Vijayanagara period. There were Brahmins and Komatis, and an amorphous "chaturthakula" (I guess the Brahmins didn't feel comfortable using the term "Sudra"). This is just the imaginary varna classification, not a real caste system. Medieval identities were regional and occupational, e.g., "pakanati kapu" meant an agriculturist from Pakanadu. The term kulam, on the few occasions when it was used, could mean anything from family, to clan, to some vague form of community. There was no "Velama caste", or "Reddy caste", or "Kamma caste". All these caste identities arose when the Vijayanagara empire fell apart and the groups started contesting for power. Then they back-projected whatever identities they formed back into time. You really need to read Talbot's book or at least the paper before you make any further edits to caste-related articles.

Has Benbabali cited any historical evidence that contradicts Talbot's conclusions? Did she say that Talbot's conclusions were wrong? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Anyone who disagrees with you, regardless if they are currently an Oxford Professor, is merely reproducing folklore. Also please answer my question. I have answered yours. Under your own rules, you should not have made those edits to the Telaga article. Please provide an explanation because An explanation is warranted. Again no one is denying Talbot’s work. I explicitly mentioned her. The issue has arisen because you say that all Andhra historians produce folklore, even in the 1990s and 2000s (though you did use it for the Telaga article - again please provide an explanation.) Not even Talbot claimed that. I hope you realize, with all warranted respect and kindness, that you are asking the community to overrule not only Telugu scholars, but international ones as well who have done work more recent than Talbot. I don’t see this dispute resolving with us two. I think it’s wise for us to request an arbitrator through Wikipedia’s request option. Also do answer the the question about the Telagas - perhaps silence speakers greater than volumes. With all due respect. Callofduty259 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Calm down buddy. You are still a greenhorn here. At least I presume you are.

Reliable sources for history are described at WP:HISTRS. Here is Cynthia Talbot's home page, and here is Dalel Benbabali's. Which of them is a historian?

WP:RS gives some guidelines for how to assess sources. In particular, note: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Cynthia Talbot's work has overturned a lot of age-old assumptions. It has received wide recognition and acknowledgement. See Google scholar listings and citations. I can also cite book reviews if need be. But the other sources you are coming up with are so weak that I wouldn't even bother. If you are claiming that Benbabali's analysis has overridden Talbot's, then you need to answer the two questions I asked the end of my last post. Your tendency to throw a fit without sincerely participating in the central issues of the discussion is inexplicable.

So, once again I ask: what did Benbabali write which overrides Talbot's analysis? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for the advice, though I am calm and see a path forward. First, please explain your actions on Telagas. If you are a staunch believer in Talbot's work, why was she excluded. How can you write that Telugu Chodas, who came hundreds of years before the Musunuris, are believed to be Telagas with ONE Andhra historian and no mention of Talbot's work. Yet, you object to the edits I made. Callofduty259 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Also do-explain how when you performed "clean-up" on October 4, 2018 on the Kapu-article, how despite Talbot's beliefs, which you clearly so agree with, you did not challenge nor delete the classification of Prolaya Vema Reddy, Yogi Vemana, and Gona Budda Reddy as Kapus? It was only Sitush who deleted it later. Under your beliefs, they should not have been classified as Kapus, but not only did you not challenge it, but you assisted in linking them to their main-pages. You said so yourself that all the Kammas, Velamas, and Reddys were one large Chathurthakula, not Kapus. The article clearly mentioned at that time that "Kapu refers to a social grouping of agriculturists found primarily in the southern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (the Telugu-speaking states). Kapus are primarily an agrarian community, forming a heterogeneous peasant caste." So this was not an "occupational identity" but a page for a modern-caste. Do explain since Talbot would clearly disagree with tagging these figures as part of the modern-Kapu community. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes this more bewildering to me is that you clearly knew about Talbot's work at least in 2016 when you made the edits to the Kapu article referencing her work. Kudos to you - but explain the select ignoring of her work on the Telaga article and the Kapu article when it came to historical figures and events. Yet you trumpet her work on non-Kapu affiliated articles it seems. I had no idea Wikipedia exempted those two articles from have the scrutiny of Talbot's work. Looking forward to the explanation with all due respect, kindness, and courtesy. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It says at the top of this talk page is for discussing improvements to the Kamma (caste) article. Please refrain from discussing the whole world here. If you want to raise questions about other articles, please do so at their respective pages. If you want to complain about my editing, please do so at WP:ANI. Should I ask for the third time: how does Benbabaali's work override Talbot's analysis? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand. But I hope you see how they are linked. It is hard to see this as an engagement based on factual principle when you have a history of selective applications. With that being said, we should reach consensus. We all have lives to lead. Therefore, we need to stop running around circles and get to work. What are some thing you would like to see adjusted in the section - without deletion in my mind. I can say right now that I will not agree as a fellow editor for full-sale content deletion because they are reliably sourced and I have presented in a balanced perspective, whether one likes it or not. If full-scale deletion is what you have in mind, I suggest a third-party be involved so they can analyze the full-picture without any preset notions. I never stated the Benbabaali overrode Talbot, but in her conclusions about when the Kammas as a caste identity came in, she clearly disagrees. In fact, Talbot is a really an odd-one out. Her conclusions in the book challenges the work of Stein on the Cholas and the late-Vijayanagara period, and the work of Nicholas Dirks, in addition to South Indian scholars, not just Telugus. Her work is a challenge that has clearly not attained mainstream consensus evidenced by Benbabaali and the likes of Vijaya Ramaswamy, Daniel Jackson, and Peter Berger/Frank Heidmemann written view the caste formations to an earlier day. No where do they even mention Talbot's view. Can you provide another scholar that concurred with her findings? I clearly state that Benbabaali's work does not override Talbot's but disagrees with it. It is not just her. However much you may like her work, which is a selective liking, Talbot is a minority opinion that is contradicted by her own international peers and ignored by Indian historians. In my edit, I clearly gave Talbot due credit because of her international standards - but what you are asking is to make her the only opinion on this topic, which is not only against Wikipedia rules, but you yourself do not adhere to that rule in edits. Callofduty259 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)