Talk:Chakkala Nair

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chakkala Nair. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901154501/http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/main.htm to http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/main.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking

The Fuller source specifically and repeatedly describes the Chakkala as a "lower subdivision", eg: on pages 289 and 293. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new image added in this edit comes from Raj era sources, which are not considered to be reliable. The edit also messes about with a much later source (Fuller) which is reliable. I am getting fed up of this. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkala was not indeed a higher ranking Nair like kiryathil or samanathan but neither was lower ranking like velutettan Nair or vilakkitalavan Nair or anthikurichchi Nair.

The chakkala Nairs, itasseri Nairs,marars,kalamkotti Nairs,and pallichchan Nair ranks varied from malabar,Central kerala and travancore.. In some regions some are above some and other regions some are below some and it was always fluctuating.

The higher ranking Nairs was the kiryathil nairs and samanthans while middle ranking nairs was charna Nairs, chakkala nairs, itasseri nairs and lower ranking nairs was vilakkitalavan Nair, anthikurichchi Nairs etc

Chaliya or saliya was not even considered as Nairs since they are treated below low castes like thiyya and ezhava in north malabar 3Aum3 (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a reliable source for this and, even if you do, that will not mean we can remove Fuller's opinion - see WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all all Nairs was sudras and considered lower caste by namboothiris but does that mean Nairs was lower caste in kerala??? Certainly not! Just like this in Nairs except Kiryathil and samanthan nairs every other Nairs was lower Subcastes (whatever it may eg marar ,chakkala,itasseri,ottattu ) but that dosen't make them lower caste because if that is case only few nairs (kiryathil and samanthan) belonging to King and jenmi family making lower than 5% of whole Nair population is only Real nairs. Practically anthikurichci nairs,velutettan nairs and vilakkitalavan Nairs were lower nairs and other nairs dosen't considered this sub castes as nairs but still they are nairs. In the case chaliya or saliya they are not even Nairs and they are treated below low castes like thiyya or saliya in malabar

(Please try to understand this and i'm interested in a editing war sitush 3Aum3 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that what you know and/or what you can infer is classed as original research. You can't draw your own conclusions and you must be able to verify information using reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at fullers opinion talking about 4 Nairs subdivisons in travancore and he mentioned chakkala as one.He said vilakkitala ,velutettan,anthikurichchi are the lower sub caste in nairs and other nairs didn't recognised this subcastes but they cretainly did in the case with chakkala since it was not a lower subcaste 3Aum3 (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you also refer malabar manual of william logan you can see that chakkala nairs was not a lower subcaste (Since lower sub castes like velutettan or vilakkitala cannot touch (untouchabillity)higher or middle subcastes but chakkala nairs didn't had this restriction) 3Aum3 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan's Malabar Manual is not a reliable source - nothing from the British Raj era is considered to be such. You are cherry-picking from Fuller: if you read his entire article then you will see numerous places where he refers to them as one of the "lower subdivisions". I don't think he even uses the word middle, although I'd have to re-read it myself to confirm that. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And last but not least you cannot simply call a subcaste 'lower'(Which certainly was not) Since Even real lower castes like ezhava ,thiyya, or pulaya wikipages dosent mention they are .This slandering mentality categorising something 'lower' is againts our constitution and humanity at the first place! 3Aum3 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friend how many times i said whole subcastes except kiriyathil and samnathan was lower (Since they had no power but certainly had social status since they are Nairs) Even zamoarian of calicut was from a lower subdivison in this sense since he is not from kiryathil or samanthan nair .Even mannadiyar which had significant number of lords are co sidered lower to kiryathil and samanthan but they are not lower caste according to the social status . No on disrespected zamorin because he was not from kiryathil or samanthan.Just like that marar ,chakkala and itassrri nairs status lies somewhere in the middle of rank hierarchy list and certainly is not low as anthikurichchi or velutettan nairs 3Aum3 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this appears to be original research. You are drawing conclusions based on your own knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well my knowledge is mainly from my ancestors and many books those are locally available rather than foreigners like fuller (i myself belonging nambiar subcaste) .They knew very well about chakkala since large number of population is living in our locality. I have never heard about anyone mentioning chakkala as lower subcaste in nair community 3Aum3 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipage seemed like it was solely created to blacken chakkala nairs status & it is indeed a disgrace to call something 'lower' based on statements made by some foreigners without local knowledge

No caste or no religion is lower to any other, Even government itself categorise castes as forward or backward for reservation purpose 3Aum3 (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry but this is Wikipedia and it has policies and guidelines that apply. For what it is worth, Fuller spent a long time with local people during his research in the field. Unless you can come up with something that is reliable, we will have to revert your recent changes. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just stress that Fuller describes them as "lower", not "lowest". The description is not used in a strict mathematical sense, eg: if a ranked table of 10 were given, then "lower" does not mean "in the bottom half". - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit claimed to add stuff from Iyer, Gough etc and the 1961 census. The census is useless and the source given - The Nayars Today - is actually a book by Fuller whose paper we already cite. Fuller does discuss Gough, yes, but you have to read the discussion, not just count the lines in the tables. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]