Talk:Caste system in Kerala/Archives/2013/December

Topics of debate

Position of Ambalavasis

Most of Kerala society structure is the replication of Tulu society. The Ambalavasi section is similar to Devadiga in Tulu society. Though it must be said that Devadigas didn't have much exalted position in the society. In fact, many were bounded to landlords(Bunts, whose equivalent is Nair), so clearly were lower than Bunts. I believe the position in Kerala society was higher because of Sambandhams. However, it should be noted that system was peculiar to Kerala society and a later phenomenon whereas this temple worker section predates that in Tulu society and so must be the case in Malayala society. Curiously, Billavas(Tulu equivalent of Ezhavas) consider Devadigas as one them(Veerappa Moily belongs to that community).

if u read the malabar manual (i think) or travancore state manual, why even search on google book search..u will find all saying that there are certain temple serving nairs who generally consider themselves above the nairs proper...they were called ambalavasis and later became an independant caste...manu

If you observe the situation of Devadiga(also called Ambalavasi) and that of Ambalavasis in Kerala, only "son of a Namboothiri" could claim higher position and still remain unquestioned in the old Kerala society, I suppose. However, the point remains that it was not a caste created exclusively from Namboothiri Sambanthams. I was wondering if these Ambalavasis were one of the priestly communities of South Indians. If you observe in old South Indian society the position of priest was low(not only in Tamil society I believe) as such many traditional priests became part of lower castes. However, I think some of these priestly families might have survived as temple workers under Brahmins. At least their position in Tulu regions might show their original position in the society.

Covering upper part of body

This is another not much understood topic. I have read that in South Indian society mostly the upper levels of women never covered their upper part of the body. It's true even for the queens of Karnataka before 15th century. I wonder about Kerala society. As far as I know, Kerala never had much of cotton cultivation. When did the transition from leaf covering to cotton covering occur in Kerala society? Were clothes imported before?

Also, if we say non-brahmin castes were not allowed to cover their upper parts of the body implies that they used to cover it before. Does that mean the women of lower classes started covering the upper part as a protection from heat and dirt, as they used to work mostly outside unlike the upper classes who were not exposed to such a life style? Just imagining wildly.

Also, whether the rule was the lower classes must not cover their upper body all the time or just in front of Namboothiris?

Any thoughts? Thanks.

Manjunatha (14 Sept 2006)

Well from all that i could collect, even namboodiri antherjanams were not allowed to cover their torso in the strict sense of the term. They were given a thorthu which they took over the shoulder of one arm and tied below the underarms on the other side...when in 1932 Parvathi Antherjanam wore a blouse it was considered heretic...

My grandmothers mom wore that mola kutcha dress...but she says inside the house they moved about after tying a particular type of blouse that exposed the stomach n shoulders...at the same time while lower caste women went about in public without anything on top till as recently as the 1960s, upper caste, mainly nairs n ambalavasis, covered themselves by wrapping a mel mundu like a shawl....thts all..they didnt have to take it off or anything when a brahmin passed...its just that they didnt have the right to wear a 'blouse' as such...

in my grands family, her mother n all never went before the men of the house...they never left the house....if they wanted to talk to their brothers, they wud have to stand in another room, behind the door in such a way that nothing, not even a finger is exposed and then talk...so there was no chance of any men seeing them..

ive seen pictures of old tamil pattees and while they wear the tamil saree, they too donot wear blouses...this system was prevelant all over south india...manu

The situation during/after 19th century does not give proper picture. Blouse has nothing to do with covering upper part of the body(I think it must be a 19th century invention). The problem is account of covering of upper body differs. From an article I came across on the web( I didn't mention because I was afraid that it could be muslim propaganda).

Another social custom imposed by the aristocracy was that except the Namboodiris no men and women should cover the upper half of their body. Shaikh Zainuddin gives interesting details of this mode of dress; only a single loin cloth is girdled round the waist leaving the upper part exposed. In this respect males and females, rajas and nobles, rich and poor are equal.”30 None of the Hindu ladies except Brahmins thought that the breast was to cover; and to them to cover the breast was an act of immodesty. “The caste law prohibits a Nair lady to cover her breast.”31 There are instances of cruelties inflicted upon the ladies for violating these laws. An Ezhava lady who happened to travel abroad and returned well dressed was summoned by the Queen of Attingal and her breast was cut off for covering them.32 In Travancore a riot occurred when a group of upper caste men assaulted a lady of Ezhava caste for wearing cloth below her knees.33 In 1859 another riot took place in Travancore and continued for several days, when the ladies of Channar caste started to cover the breast. The revolt was called chela kalapam (cloth revolt). It became very important that later scholars regarded it as a part of the struggle for independence.34

From this article

What puzzles me is that if indeed except Brahmins all other castes were tribals who became castes then there was no need for such a law as South Indians(both males and females) never covered their upper part of the body. It should be the case in East India also. And for that matter I am not sure when North-West Indians started covering the upper part though chilly winter of North India might have ensured full clothing long back unlike South and East.

When I hear about the old traditions I find it difficult to understand if covering the breasts were considered unlawful because of caste rules or if there is some kind of aversion to change(as mentioned in the article above). I mean I have heard my community women from Tulu regions(where I believe such rules didn't exist) married to males from Malayala region, to their horror, were asked cover their upper part with only a cloth(torth) or leave it bare by their mothers-in-law.

If anything, we need chronological order of these rules. I mean if the rule was made in 17th-18th century when men/women thought they should cover their upper body for some unknown reasons then we can't apply it to the centuries before it when covering upper body was in fact considered "immodest".

Four fold Varna system

I am going to delete all Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudra categories. Please discuss here.

Kshatriyas

I have read that Chirakkal kings invited Brahmins from Tulu regions as Malayalee Brahmins refused to declare Chirakkal kings as Kshatriyas. I would like to know about Cochin and Travancore families. Somebody mentioned somewhere that Travancore kings underwent Hiranyagarbha to become Kshatriyas. Was that performed by Tulu Brahmins(Embanthiris) or Namboothiris?

Manjunatha (14 Sept 2006)

Manju You've got a point there. Caste system in Kerala never strictly followed the Four-Fold classification as in North where they orignated. Still, i don't know whether putting a word 'Rulers' could effectively bring the correct picture. It was all entangled and mixed up. I corrected it with the word 'Kshatriyas' with an implication that it meant members of royal families. But it is not completly explanatory. Rulers could be Varmas or Nairs (Rajas were varmas, but the feudal lords (naduvazhis) were generally nairs. Pl remember the Ettuveettil Pillamar.). But then, atleast one royal family was Nampoothiri (Ambalapuzha) before its annexation to Travancore. Palakkad royal family is Nair and so is Zamorin. Royal (Varma) families had a lot of nair members. Consorts of Rajas used to be nair women, but their children would not be rajas, but part of the nobility. So you see it is all mixed up and complex as it could be. But Kshatriyas is the best word i could think of. May be a better option may be possible. Now about a 'a section of Nairs' being Avarana. They are known as 'Fallen' or 'Veena' Nairs. these castes are thought to be formed to serve nairs and other forward castes. But the Nairs did not have any social contact (like marriage) with them. This seems to be true even today.Even now they do not form the part of Nair Service Society (NSS) the organisation of Nairs. Instead they have their own community organisations like Velluthedathu nair Samajam etc. They belong to OBC category according to government rules. I could not get a word to categorise them together. So i have mentioned the castes together. A debate would be welcome and is required RAMS

Yes, it is all mixed up. That's the reason it's just under heading "Savarna" :-).

I do not think these castes were created to serve the Savarna castes. If you read about other non-brahmin castes of South India(like Bunts, Gowdas in Karnataka) then you would know that barbers, washermen were integral part of the community life including marriage and death ceremonies. In fact, even Avarna castes employ them so these families had a very long existence. Certainly, before caste system. Curiously, oil mongers were equated with Ambalavasis in Tulu regions.

--Manjunatha

A correction: It is mentioned in the article that Christians claimed equal status with Nairs. I gather the people referred to must be the Syrian Christians. Nairs practised a limited form of Aayitham with Christians. Nairs were prohibited with taking food with Christians. You can find this in any authoritative work of or on ealier Kerala. Even during my grand mother's childhood, her father's Christian business partners or clients were allowed to sit on a chair on the sit out and not in the Sweekarana Muri. And many of them were rich land lords and personal friends. I am just stating what was the situation that time without being judgmental. I think mixing of religions were generally discouraged in all parrts of India. Maybe, this was to avoid inter religious marriages, which was thought as a threat for every religion. Remember the famous story of a young Vivekananda (then Narendra Dutta) tasting each hookah kept for clients of different faiths in his lawyer father's consulting room. On quizzed by his father Narendra told him that he was tasting whether the Hindu hookahs tasted different from Muslim and Christian hookahs. RAMS

It so happens that syrian christians claimed a status equal to ambalavasis while all other christians were aitham for nairs....infact as somebody had mentioned elsewhere, syrian christians had certain temple duties as well...

As for veenu nair samajams,,,they were never nairs...from what i have heard from the old people in my family they were avarnas only but just because all the nairs, which was a huge community, were involved in military and namboodiris were too wealthy to do menial jobs they did, these barbers were theoretically made nairs...this was mainly coz namboodiris were so orthodox that they cudnt stand anybody below nairs serving them...and so al who served them became nairs....manu

The Christians I mentioned were Syrian Christian. In Central travancore you wouldn't generally find other christians. The prohibition of taking food together were with syrians. Others were considered polluting. they never were allowed the previlage of ruling, civil adminstration. an exception could be Mathu Tharakan before his dismissal by Velu Thampi. however, relgious freedom was ensured. But forward caste Hindus were strictly discouraged from converting to Christianity. the punishments for breaking the taboo was death. The well known example is of Devasahayam Pillai (earlier neelakanta pillai)a high official in the Travancore Raja's court. He converteed under the influence of Admiral Delannoy the commander of Travancore army. Pillai was shot by soldiers and killed under royal orders. Even Delannoy's great influence could not save him. In temples and churches then as of now, Hindus had religious rights/duties and vice versa. That does not form the general picture. Similar features could be seen in certain dargahs and temples in North. RAMS

Okay. You can mention about Syrian Christians in the article.

--Manjunatha

Veenu Nairs

As for veenu nair samajams,,,they were never nairs...from what i have heard from the old people in my family they were avarnas only but just because all the nairs, which was a huge community, were involved in military and namboodiris were too wealthy to do menial jobs they did, these barbers were theoretically made nairs...this was mainly coz namboodiris were so orthodox that they cudnt stand anybody below nairs serving them...and so al who served them became nairs....manu

this was mainly coz namboodiris were so orthodox that they cudnt stand anybody below nairs serving them...and so al who served them became nairs

That is interesting. Any idea, when did it take place?

--Manjunatha

well i wud say that took place exactly as gradually as the caste system formed in kerala...ie these serving castes were also added as nairs in theory when it came to assigning them a position...again tht was just coz they needed to work for 'upper' castes and all manu

Sambandams

I would like to know if Namboothiris practiced Sambandams with Nair women only. I mean I watched a movie named Perunthachan. And I noticed that every now then he would be called "son of a Namboothiri" with awe and to his great pride. I suppose, he is a Kammalan. And generally Kammalan women were treated as sexual objects. Did Namboothiris strictly followed religiously sanctioned Sambandams with only Nair/Kshatriya women or had illicit relationships with Avarna women too. Thanks.

--Manjunatha

Perunthachan was indeed the son of a Brahmin. After all he was the son of Vararuchi ,brother of Naranathu Bhranthan and Agnihotri.He was brought up by a carpenter family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.24.3 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

About sambandam. You can call it quasi legal marriage. The women is appreciated as the wife of The nampoothiri. The sons were legally recognised. eg Swathi thirunal was the son of a brahmin. but they did not have any claim on the paternal property. It's different from keeping concubines. I read in menon's book on Kerala history that nairs were permitted to keep mistresses from castes like Veluthedathu , Chakkala Nairs etc. I don't know how. But the sentence above was part of my last but one post. I don't know how it appeared as a separate entity --RAKS

Anyway, I have read that Perunthachan, a Kammalan, had a Brahmin father, Tunjath Ezhuthachan, supposed to be a Chakkala Nair, had a Brahmin father. I was wondering if these were just legends because of the mindset during that period or really the case. --Manjunatha

from what i know yes sambandham in the proper sense of the term, as in alliance, which was usually not only related to sleeping at night but also had a political and money aspect to it. from what i have read, namboodiris had sambandhams with wealthy and powerful families and often these nair ladies were given residences at their illoms...same has happened in the case of one of my ancestresses...

as for lower castes and samabandhams, well i guess THAT would be more like concubinage...my grandmother mentions a building where our relations stay now where mistresses of all the obc nair castes were kept...as sum1 mentioned before...

as for being proud to be the son of a namboodiri..well this pride is in the case of lower castes to whom that meant a lot..most of the nairs too but since they were rather privilaged i guess it wasnt all tht imp...one of my relations long back had a kid thru a kaniyan lady...and the kid thru that even today takes great pride in saying tht he is ananthapadmanabha Panicker's son n all..Manu

most of the nairs too but since they were rather privilaged i guess it wasnt all tht imp

I am skeptical about that. But anyway, detailing the various kinds of responses to caste system would certainly helps us to make it a better article.

Manjunatha (15 Sept 2006)