Talk:Thanjavur Nayak kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Somebody is persisting in changing the Balija affiliation of the Tanjore Nayaks to Kamma affiliation. He has gone ahead and cited references which state that they were Balijas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.135.194 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste claims from Census reports[edit]

Hi,

The Census of India, 1901: Madras XV, Pt.1, 144 mentions that the Nayaks of Tanjore belonged to the Balija Naidu caste. How authentic are Census reports wrt caste claims? Please discuss. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Add the citation as part of the references.Kumarrao (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Message for Kumarrao[edit]

Hi,

I had added in this part:

"According to the Literary cultures in history by Sheldon I Pollock and Questioning Ramayanas by Paula Richman, both writers who based their research on existing government gazettes and records, Raghunatha Nayaka belonged to the balija caste".

However, I notice that you have been repeatedly deleting any reference to the caste of the Tanjore nayaks.

Both the books, Literary cultures in history by Sheldon I Pollock and Questioning Ramayanas by Paula Richman were written after they had extensively looked into various government gazettes and records. Please look into their reference sources. I have undone your deletion.

If you wish to mention another writer claiming the caste of Raghunatha nayaka as a different one, you can certainly put it down alongside the sentence above to say that according to so-and-so author Raghunatha nayaka belongs to Kamma or Velama caste.

However, please note that in Tamilnadu regions, there are no inscriptions or manuscripts or old written works found mentioning the word 'kamma' or 'velama' anywhere. Even the word 'balija' was used in inscriptions only from the 15th century onwards. Before the 15th century, all of them had the titles of cetti / chetti only; and their caste was not mentioned. It is not known why Raghunatha nayaka referred to himself as a balija since telugu people in the tamilnadu regions in the past merely went by the word telaga which is slang for telugu, and kammas also used to be called kamma kapulu there. Only since the 18th century onwards, british writers noted and thereby created the awareness of specific differences in caste such as kamma, kapu and balija in the tamilnadu regions. And there was no "long and bitter rivalry" b/w the Madhurai Nayaks and Thanjavur Nayaks. They were very well connected by matrimonial alliances with one another and also with the Gingee nayaks, Venkatagiri nayaks and few others. But apparently it seems they were greedy for power and fiefdom control. I shall provide references for all these points from Tamil and Telugu manuscripts / untranslated works soon.

Please note that the work of Sheldon Pollock and Paula Richman specifically mentioning Raghunatha Nayaka as a balija remains since both writers mentioned it based on verifiable and credible sources. Infact quite a few writers, both indian and western, are censuring about it, since balijas come under shudras and were noted as a left-handed caste involved in manufacturing; and had moved into the brahmin-held bastion of producing literary works at this time.

Thanks.

--Illusion 03:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayasutra (talkcontribs)


No Evidence[edit]

Thanjavur Nayaks were not Balija. There is no evidence in any of three references cited. Sevappa Nayudu who served in Vijayanagar court is considered a Padmanayaka Velama, although solid proof is not available. The Madhura Nayaks were Balija merchants who had long and bitter rivalry with Thanjavur Nayaks.Kumarrao 12:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


There is evidence[edit]

Thanjavur Naiks are Balija Naidus like Madurai and Vijayanagar kings. Please refer to Edgar Thurston's "Castes and Tribes of Southern India" and Kante Narayana Desai's "Balijakula Charithra".

Be Specific[edit]

It is very unfortunate that Wiki is being used to put forward unsubstantiated theories. One should log in with propoer User name and then should cite proper references e.g., which volume of Thurston's book and the page number. I could not find such a reference. "History" books writtten to prop up caste-based claims are not reliable. An important point was forgotten while claiming Thanjavur Nayaks belonged to Balija group. There was sworn rivalry between Madurai and Thanjavur nayaks right from the inception of these kingdoms. In fact, this rivalry went upto the extent of inviting muslim kings to destroy the fellow Hindu kingdoms. Chokkanatha Nayak destroyed Thanjavur on the "flimsy" marital ground. The affiliation of Thanjavur nayaks was not mentioned in any historical records. I also appeal to downplay the caste affiliation in Wiki articles. Subtle mention in the running matter does no harm. Kumarrao 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


True Kumar rao... Maybe you should go ahead and delete the words Kamma in Musunuri Nayaks.Please donot come and preach here!!!!!!! Anyway its the truth whats wrong in doing that ???

I see youve got so much of Knowledge that you have started to claim and say Edgar Thurston is wrong good work Dude... Madurai and Tanjavore were Enemies right from the inception... You are kidding me can you tell me when that was and how that was...

And reagarding your theory of Velamas being Tanjavur Nayaks there are contradictory proofs which say they are Balija and you are the only one who is claiming without proofs that they are Velama.Even the Velamas cannot counter this claim...

And for your information if you want to hold your argument that Madurai and Tanjore nayaks were sworn enemines right from their incpetion then the Viajaynagar rulers did not have any love lost for the Velamas they were defeated and subjugated and sent off from their native kingdoms to avoid trouble. And no sane emperor would gift his daughter and his lands to an Enemy which has such good history of upsurping rulers... (Musunuri Nayaks and Reddys) are very good examples...

Also one again please dont delete content and references in articles... When you cant show any prrof that they are wrong or atleast post valid counter arguments... PadmaVelama Nayaks were sworn rivals of the Balijas who ruled from chandragiri and they were reponsible for eliminating the last ruler of the Araveeti Dynasity of Vijayanagar and Tanjavore Nayaks were the ones who aided and supported the Vijaynagar rulers when they ruled from Chandragiri towards the end of the Vijayanagar rule...

And regarding the war on the flimsy ground of marital allainces its pretty much clear that Chokanatha Nayaka was a maniac and it showed in all his dealings and the way he ruled his kingdom...

Ludicrous[edit]

It is rather ludicrous to imply that authors like Thurston and the like wrote "History" books to promote caste- based claims.Thurston's book is not a history book ,it is an authority on Castes and Tribes of Southern India and is greatly respected by all except a few who may feel that Thurston's book became a big obstacle for spreading their half truths.

Evidence[edit]

I shall be happy to accept the theory of the anonymous Editor that Thanjavur Nayaks were Balija if sufficient evidence is provided. Desai's book is not reliable, which was what I meant earlier. I greatly respect Thurston's work. He said nowhere Thanjavur nayaks were Balija. If he said so, please mention the volume and page numbers. I shall withdraw my previous remarks in the Talk page. The surnames mentioned (both Madurai and Thanjavur nayaks) exist in many social groups of Telugu population. Please keep the articles academic.Kumarrao 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Family names of Nayaks and relatives[edit]

Before asking somebody to mention the volume and page numbers of Thurston book may I ask the gentleman to show the volume numbers and the page numbers of books that he read to prove that Thanjavur Nayaks were Padmanayaka Velamas and not Balija Naidus. By saying that the sur names of Madurai and Thanjavur nayaks exist in many social groups,it appears that he is making a futile effort to show that the Nayaks were not Balija Naidus and belonged to some other caste.It is a well known fact that sur names coincide in different castes of Telugu people and on that flimsy ground one can not attempt to prove that Nayaks belonged to some other caste and not to Balija Naidu caste. Whether it is going to help or not I am tempted to give a small piece of information here.Madura King Vijayaranga Chokka Natha naidu once held a great meeting in Sreerangam to which he invited all royal family members of his caste,Balija. The family names of the royal members were:

Garikepati(Madurai Nayaks'family name), Alluri(Thanjavur Nayaks'family name), Chinthalapuri (Kandy or Khandi nayaks'family name), Chenchi (Gengi Nayaks' family name), Thupakula (family name of Anantha bhoopaludu,Dalavai of Madurai king Vijayaranga Chokkanatha Naidu and writer of Vishnu puranam,Bhagavatham,Ramayanam,Bhagavadgeetha and Garalapuri Mahathmyam ) ,Thota, Pagadala, Degala, Neelakantham, Rayalakulam, Savaram,Puram, Setty, Katthi, Vazrala, Dalavai, Ande, Kunche, Javvaji, Kandhala, Gopisetti, Medisetti, Vanga, Enugula, Koppula, Kotte, Kanakala, Chandu, Yarramsetti, Yerra, Chinnamsetti, Marisetti, Pasupuleti, Kamatham, Manku, Dhanasetti, Sreepathi etc. Of course these family names can be seen in other castes also.

Hyperenthusiasm[edit]

The enthusiastic attitude of 65.24.145.57 is understandable but his innuendos against others are not in good taste. We are dealing with history. History, especially that of India and Indians, is hazy because of our casual attitude to account-maintenance, unlike European and Islamic traditions. 65.24.145.57 should note that I said Thanjavur nayaks are considered 'Velama'. I never mentioned it emphatically. On the contrary, 65.24.145.57 asserts Balija connection without proper evidence. I leave the matter to 65.24.145.57's discretion. I am wondering why 65.24.145.57 likes to remain an anonymous Phantom.Kumarrao 10:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in good taste[edit]

How come rehashing the same question and rendering some information became innuendos and are not in good taste? Then is it in good taste to call someone "anonymous phantom"and "hyperenthusiastic" ?

Caste[edit]

The caste affiliation is not clear. The citations quoted do not mention the caste affiliation of Thanjavur Nayaks. Page numbers may be mentioned if I am wrong. Kumarrao 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Very clear Balija caste affiliation with Vijaya Nagar,Madurai and Thanjavur kings[edit]

It was clearly mentioned in Edgar Thurston's "Castes and Tribes of Southern India "and in R.V.Russell's "The Tribes and Castes of Central Provinces of India" that Vijaya Nagar,Madurai and Thanjavur Kings belonged to Balija caste.The references can be seen in Edgar Thurston's volume 1 and R.V.Russell's volume 2. Edgar Thurston was famous museologist and ethnographer based in Madras. R.V.Russell was superintendent of Ethnography ,Central Provinces.I hope the information given by these authorities would clear anyone's doubt as to the Balija Naidu caste affiliation with Vijaya Nagar,Madurai and Thanjavur dynasties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.136.234 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it by choice one topic becomes controversial and the other becomes noncontroversial?[edit]

I am just wondering! I found that a duo is in the perennial habit of selectively removing one particular caste name on the grounds of controversy (inspite of the evidence )and selectively adding one particular caste name linking with the Nayaks inspite of controversy.Case in point : Thanjavur Nayaks versus Musunuri Nayaks. If this trend continues the very neutrality of the Wikipedia articles would be in jeopardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.136.234 (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Caste[edit]

It needs to be authenticated by proper citations with page numbers etc., See the article Madurai Nayaks and its Talk page for the citations about their caste affinity and who first provided these evidences. History does not change with caste biases.Kumarrao (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

CASTE BIAS?[edit]

Quoting caste names of dynasties is not tantamount to caste bias.It is a historical fact. Madurai and Thanjavur Nayaks were Balija Naidus(Kapus/Telaga /Ontaris)and evidence for this abounds. Those who agonize at the very thought of these dynasties belonging to Balija Naidu caste and those who say history does not change with caste bias should realize that the mentioning of the caste name is not akin to caste bias and it amounts to telling the very truth. Mentioning of caste name is mandatory in this particular case especially in a world where truths are being highjacked by half truths and distortions executed by some with different techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.199.139 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Dear 75.81.199.139,

You must first create an User Page with a proper Username to engage in Wiki contributions. Your inputs definitely betray caste bias. I have been emphasizing that the kind of evidence available for Balija affinity of Madurai Nayaks is not available for Thanjavur Nayaks. The matter is controversial. If available, please cite the books/inscriptions etc with proper reference to page numbers. Wiki will be enriched by truthful edits.Kumarrao (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIAL ?[edit]

It has become a norm to say simply the subject in question is "controversial" instead of telling the reasons why and how it is controversial. Readers will be greatly indebted if the truthful points are furnished as to why Thanjavur kings are not Balija Naidus.Wiki will be enriched if references with page numbers are provided as suggested.It is guaranteed that information as to why Thanjavur kings are Balija Naidus would be following later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.199.139 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Logic?[edit]

Dear 75.81.199.139,

Your silence to the suggestion that you should take an Username is mystifying and is against Wiki guidelines. Your argument that one should provide evidence for something non-existent is contrary to the logic. You say that Thanjavur Nayaks are Balijas. Please provide evidence. The Users will be glad to accept. Wiki operates on evidence in an affirmative sense not on contradictions. If you persist on this the matter you will be taken to the Administrators.Kumarrao (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Continued: The analysis of the establishment of Thanjavur Nayak kingdom and the antecedents of Sevappa Nayak by V. Vriddhagirisan clearly showed that the identity of Sevappa Nayak is not clear. He might be a Nayak orphan who became the betel bearer for Achyuta Raya and whom the sister-in-law of the king loved and married. See the Google book: "Nayaks of Tanjore" by V. Vriddhagirisan, 1995, Asian Educational Services, ISBN 8120609964.Kumarrao (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of Balija origin[edit]

I have added the evidence that states that these nayaks are of Balija origin.Please refer the reference section for more details.

Edit[edit]

I referred to the citation which says, "....supposed to have been the Kings of Madura, Thanjavur and Vijayanagar". There is some evidence for the first but not for the other two. In fact, there are innumerable evidences to show that the Vijayanagar kings were of Yadava origin.Kumarrao (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bibilography added[edit]

I have added more sources where social scientists,historians,biographers and intellectuals have stated that Tanjore nayaks are of Balija/Kapu origin.In Balijakula Charitra too the author has mentioned about the matrimonial alliances between Tanjore Nayaks and other Balija Nayaks dynasties.The large population of Balija Naidus in Tanjore and their claiming Kshatriya status because of their elevated status also adds to the fact.So I have modified the statement as according to the historians. John Rambo 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarificaton[edit]

I cited above the exact sentence used by Russell which says "supposed to be". He also mentioned: "Bangle, Pearl and ornament sellers" which seems to be nearer to the truth, as we all know the social habits of different people in AP. Bangle sellers cannot be Kshatriyas by any stretch of imagination. Vijaya Kumari and Bhasker also made a sweeping proof-less statement that Kings of Madhura, Thanjavur and Vijayanagar were Balijas.

As history tells us, matrimonial alliances of ruling classes are not any indication of caste affinity. In fact, if you critically read the history of Madhura and Tanjavur nayaks, you will find that they were bitter enemies throughout which caused rifts among Hindu unity and helped Muslims consolidate their power in pre-British South India. Please give specific evidences as we can find for Madura Nayaks. I regret to bother you. Your edit is deleted.Kumarrao (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Kumarrao and Clarification for the same[edit]

Dear Kumarrao, I have stated what many historians felt about which social group of Tanjaur Nayaks may have belonged...Its not only Russell but many others scholars too which I have mentioned ...So pls go through the other references I mentioned in the bibilography.All of them felt that Tanjaur Nayaks MAY be of Balija Nayak origin....All the historians and social scientists cannot be wrong ???....If they have stated some thing then there should some amount of research or study into it......Here in wikipedia we are not doing research where u mention thing only when you have all proofs...If that is the case then we would not be able to fill anything in these articles ... Here people who read this should known point of views of various scholars about a particular subject and we provide the references to it to support the statement ....I just said about what these scholar felt about Tanjaur Nayaks along with references....Its upto the users to decide or find out the real proofs...and if they find one which says that Tanjaur Nayaks are of so and so caste or group then they can mention the same in this article. So please refrain from making edits to it unncessarily.

  • Regarding your comments that how "bangle sellers can be rulers" its in such a poor taste and insulting.....

FYI - Yadavs who are considered to be backward in South and North India have many Kingdoms in the ancient India and they claim kshatria status...So do u mean to say that now "how can a cattle rearer be a king" or claim kshatria status ???...Your statement is so demeaning,insulting and sarcastic..Please avoid such degrading and demeaning statemnets in future.... John Rambo 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No insult[edit]

I absolutely did not insult anyone. Yes, as you said Yadavas ruled great parts of the country throughout history. Same thing holds good for the betel bearer who established great Madhura Nayak kingdom. That will not make him Kshatriya nor a community associated with trade and business will become Kshtriya. I hope you know the ancient Hindu varna system. If you insist reverting my edits, let it be so. I do not want continue arguing with you. I only wanted to bring credibility to any statements one makes. Suppositions do not validate the hypotheses.Kumarrao (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more references[edit]

In Harmony of Religions: Vedānta Siddhānta Samarasam of Tāyumānavar By Thomas Manninezhath, the author describes how the Tamil country was divided into 3 Nayakships viz., Madurai, Tanjore and Gingi under the Vijayanagar emperor Krishna Deva Raya (1509-29).

Snippet view:[1]. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BALIJA ORIGIN[edit]

The Bangle sellers can not become Kshatriyas by any stretch of imagination as per Kumarrao would speak about the height of arrogance and the poor taste.In the olden days Sudra Kings of Thanjavur,Madurai and others belonging to Balija caste(Kapu/Telaga) were quite proud of their Sudra status and their enormous contribution to the art ,sculpture and literature(Telugu).By virtue of ruling the people they might have been called Kshatriyas.John Rambo is absolutely correct in saying that Yadavs attained Kshatriya status by becoming the rulers. No wonder , in the same token Bangle sellers could become the kings and attain Kshatriya status. I regret to inform you,Kumarrao that you coveniently avoided the important piece of information on Desa or Kota Balijas and laid emphasis on Gajula Balijas to suit your stale argument.According to R.V.Russell's "The Tribes And Castes Of Central Provinces of India" Balijas have two main divisions ,Desa (or Kota) and Peta, the Desas(Kotas) being those who claim descendents from the old Balija kings while the Petas are the trading Balijas and are further divided into groups like Gajula or Bangle sellers and the Perikis,the salt sellers. According to Paula Richman in "Questioning Ramayana:A South Asian Tradition"Raghunatha Nayaka who ruled Thanjavur during the early 17th century was Balija. According to the same writer Varada Raju ,another Balija claimed descent from Karikala Chola.This proves again that Thanjavur kings and Telugu Cholas were Balija Naidus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.66.114 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

All the books cited in favour of Balija affinity made only presumptions not based on facts.Kumarrao (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

These writers are not the kith and kin of Balija Naidus to favour Balija caste . They are the genuine,neutral and truth seeking writers that helped us to gain knowledge . To say that their writings are based on presumptions and not on facts tantamounts to insulting the very authenticity and sincerity of these great writers. Majority of the readers would attach great importance to this kind of writers and believe in them cent per cent for their great input because of their honesty and truthfulness. If some people do not have belief in these writers it is up to them,but they can not thrust their thoughts and opinions on others . History would always prevail with knowledgeable , dedicated, honest and impartial writers such as R.V.Russell and Paula Richman but not with writers with partiality and half-baked knowledge. It is high time these highly deserving writers are given due respect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.203.17 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous users 71.97.66.114 and 75.81.203.17, I would like to repeat that the same authors (as you mentioned above) wrote that certain social groups CLAIM descent from Thanjavur Nayaks. They did not emphatically say so nor provided evidence. I earlier provided solid evidence for Balija affinity of Madhura Nayaks, although I was aware of an article by well-known writer/historian Tirumala Ramachandra in the magazine 'Bharati' that Madhura Nayaks were Kammas. Carry on. Cheers.Kumarrao (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao:It is good that you had provided solid evidence for Balija affinity of Madhura Nayaks despite some writer wrote otherwise as per your quote. Whether you agree or other writer disagrees the truth of the matter is that both Madurai and Thanjavur Nayaks were 100% Balija Naidus. Whenever other writers write Balija affinity to Thanjavur Nayak dynasty you are habituated to dismiss them as not mentioning emphatically,not providing evidence,not based on facts and based on presumptions etc,etc.If you still do not believe in these writers of repute,please get this!I happened to go to Thiruvaiyur( few miles away from Thanjavur city) where locals had told me that Thanjavur and Madurai Nayak kings were Balija Naidus and their descendents were living in Thanjavur,Tiruchi and other places of Tamil Nadu .(If you believe in the locals and me only).If Kumarrao still dwells on defying Balija affiliation with Thanjavur Nayaks nothing could be done, and it would be left to his discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.234.74 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear 76.177.234.74, You must follow Wikipedia guidelines. Take an Username. Engage in meaningful discussion with proper evidences to support your views. I am not going to edit the article for some more tme so that you can provide tangible proof.Kumarrao (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Casteism Sucks[edit]

I request wiki to BAN the naming of castes until proper references or proof from inscriptions are available.

Apparently there will always be people who will not accept works of selected historians coz they are not what they expect to see.

Most works in Saraswati Mahal library are not yet translated. And probably they will never be in the next 50 years or so.

Kumar Rao, if you are really interested, please visit Saraswati Mahal library, talk to the translators / librarians there and refer to books yourself instead of arguing on wiki. I say this, because you seem to insist everywhere that the Madurai and Tanjore Nayaks were enemies. You may wish to look up the number of matrimonial alliances b/w them (which are available in english also but as a handful currently). Ofcourse they also fought against one another, as struggle for dominance and largess. Who was ever satisfied with what they had. And if kings, of all people, were satisfied with what they had, there wud never be something like an Ashwamedha Yagna even in those times.

I find it an utter shame at the level of casteism shown here to prove the caste of people long dead and gone. As humans, those people were far from perfect, their so-called position as 'rulers' notwithstanding. Everyone just wants them to belong to their caste apparently because they were so-called 'kings' even if some were dabba kings.

[[An aside, Successful people may look at caste as a subject on interest but unsuccessful people appear to be the ones really interested in caste differences. If Thirumala Nayaka or Raghunatha Nayaka were so bothered about caste, they wud have made sure it appeared on every bloody inscription or writing they left. Obviously, they didn't care because they were successful people. What does that make people arguing here.

Its so funny that some people even claim they have "aryan genes" and that too "more aryan genes". Ofcourse, they will stick to one-sided history as well. And its apparent such people will over-ride stuff from other historical works or from genetic studies, to stick to what they want to see. Puritanical attitude in the 21st Century really sucks guys. Probably your ancestors were not as puritanical in the 14th century as some folk on wiki are trying to be.

Also, it appears to me that those arguing about the caste of the Nayaks here are people from Andhra. They can never understand the sensibilities of Tamil-Nadu based telugu speaking folk. Even wedding customs of the same caste grouping but of diff states, Andhra and Tamil Nadu, can vary. Anyways, wiki is not a place for such discussion (or POVs as it might be called) and neither am I interested in any]].

I just wish that wiki truly does take a step to BANNING the names of castes of kings and kingdoms unless they are from recorded works of history. Wiki also needs to make sure that works of "other historians" also get reported. "Other historians" mean historians of repute that also reported and wrote books on the same given topic but recorded stuff that "casteists" do not want to see.

Thanks. MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

stone walling[edit]

Unfortunately some people just want to argue on wiki and for them to visit libraries and talk to librarians might not change their preconceived thoughts.Agenda driven stone walling appears to be the norm.Matrimonial alliances between Madurai and Thanjavur Balija kings were very well known according to so many reputed sources. Mentioning the name Balija as the caste name of Madurai and Thanjavur dynasties is not equivalent to casteism.It is the history that is documented by so many reputed writers.When Kshatriya,Reddi ,Yadava kings and the like are acceptable why not Balija kings of Madurai and Thanjavur?


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.193.226 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Casteism[edit]

Mentioned the banning since what we are seeing as present-day castes are indeed present-day ones. Its upto wiki. Thanks.

Btw, Kumarrao seems to look upon bangle makers with a disparaging attitude. In Sangam times, brahmins made bangles and its been recorded in the Akananooru. Bangle makers of later times manufactured and exported glass for various purposes. Gajulu was the most common product sold. So it became their caste tag. Apparenty, they represented an industrialized unit of sorts of their times. Their wealth status was better than the yadavas (gwalas or gollas), who went around streets selling milk and curds. Those glass manufacturers hired these yadavs for street hawking bangles. That's how a section of yadavs got merged into the balijas. A streethawker laden with bangles usually with a namam was considered an 'auspicious' sight. I cannot mention specific books and references. Those that are interested can visit the Saraswati Mahal library for actual and detailed info since they can also get help on Sangam period works there. Was only trying to say caste units were fluid. And trying to prove or establish caste by way of arguing like this with disparaging comments might sure amount to some amount of casteism. No offence meant. Thanks MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

Does anyone know how to post tamil script here. Posted something in tamil and it comes up as ascii. Thanks in advance MigratoryRefRequest (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)MigratoryRefRequest

You don't post in Tamil script here. It is not appropriate. This is the English language wikipedia. If you want to post in Tamil, do so on the Tamil wikipedia.1812ahill (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian refugees from the siege of Malta???[edit]

Now that is news to me! The 'wars with Portugal' section claims that Italian refugees settled in this area/kingdom of India on condition that they became Hindu, after fleeing the Ottoman Siege of Malta in 1565!?! Such a bizarre statement needs to be referenced - why would they go half way around the world to settle in India? (Incidentally the Knights of St John won that siege leading one to wonder why these alleged Italians (would they not be Maltese?) would need to flee anywhere!) Portuguese were present in India around this time - in Goa, and some of them did indeed convert to Hinduism in the very early days c.1500, after being deserted for several years and 'going native' - however the torture and mutilations meted out to them for their apostacy would have thoroughly discouraged any others from following their lead.

I am not disputing the statement per se, I just find it highly unlightly, and it needs referencing if indeed true.1812ahill (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thanjavur Nayak kingdom/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This wonderful encyclopedia cannot be a forum to establish caste supremacies. Tanjoor Nayaks -Telugu Nayaks. Thier sirnames indicates few castes ala Madurai too i.e. Alluri, Garikapati, Pemmasani etc.
This article surely deserves a 'B' for its exhaustive coverage of the Nayak period of Tanjore history. It is quite well-written -- 11:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 07:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thanjavur Nayak kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)