Talk:Ezhava/Archive 3

Doubt

It was just now that i noticed that some information i had added was deleted. Quite some time back, several months maybe, i had added information on the subcastes of the Ezhavas. Could i know y that part was removed? Manu

Subcastes no more exists in Ezhava community. The new generation is not aware of such a division and not interested.

Well this is hardly about interest. In an encyclopedia u need to add as much info as possible and not mention just what "interests" the "new generation"..Manu

Manu is correct. Information about subcastes should be given. The List of Ezhavas should be made into a new article to prevent this article from becoming too long. Please make sure that names which do not have a link or that cannot be referenced are removed. Kshatriyan 04:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Manu, Do u have any reference on Ezhava Subcastes? Panikkar

Yes. It is from the Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiya. If you want i can give the information here and it can be added to the article as suitable Manu —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:50, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Happy Onam to Ezhavas the world over. long live the name of Sri Narayana GuruKamalalochanan Vaidyar 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the list of famous Ezhavas are a little too extensive to include other community members as well ;-) I know for sure that Kavya Madhavan is a Saliya And KPAC Lalitha is a Nair.User:Lambodharan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Selected List of Famous Ezhavas

Kavya Madhavan is not ezhava/thiyya girl.She is from Saliya community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajithmkm (talk • contribs) 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"In Kannur, many Saliya families identify themselves with Tiyyas" - A sentence taken from "Saliya" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.95.171 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why music directors Raveendran master and devarajan master were removed from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.108.62 (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The Origin of ezhava caste article should probably be merged into a subsection of the Ezhava article. It is an un-necessary fork. The Ezhava article already has a "Theories of Origin" section. This article can be condensed and merged into that section. --vi5in^[talk] 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No Merge. The ezhava article itself is very big article. Origin of ezhava caste article is also big. if we merge it would be very difficult to maintain the merged article. Also Origin of ezhava caste article is in the process of expanding.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a merge. I have moved pertinent information from the Origin of ezhava caste article into this article. A major part of the Origin of ezhava caste is badly written and is unsourced, uncited, and full of OR (see WP:NOR). The language is completely unencyclopedic. For example, sentences such as these:

...The Nairs trace the source of their knowledge of Sanskrit, Martial arts etc to the Aryan Brahmins, but ezhavas had all these already from their Buddhist traditions. May be Sri Narayana Guru believed this...

...is not a caste of Hinduism, it's a community which was made a part of it by force or some other strategies. Some says that the ezhava Buddhist priests and monk leaders who decided to join the Brahminical religion where allowed to join the Brahmin community. Who knows maybe the Nairs and the other 'Savarna Hindus', were also Buddhist or even ezhavas itself who joined and Hinduism and got the patronage of the Brahmins...

...As a single community the ezhavas are the majority community in kerala, most of the Christians and Muslims were actually belonged to this community who for the need of freedom and social status got converted. Most of them hided it and claimed lineage from biblical places and high caste roots in kerala for keeping their place in society. The Hindus, Christians, Muslims of kerala looks very much alike in their appearance. Truth is that we most of the Keralites are of Aryan-Dravidian-European mix origin and no Brahmin, no Kshatriya, no Nair, no ezhava can claim that purity of caste or race...

A lot of this is just Original Research, and worse, editorialization and commentary. There is useful information in this article. I have taken what I can and incorporated it into the "Origins" section of this article. There is also a no cohesive structure to the article and a lot of conflicting claims and sections. This is why the article should be merged into this one. --vi5in^[talk] 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have performed a selective merge. I've taken useful information from Origin of ezhava caste and added it into this article. I do believe it reads a whole lot better than before. Before closing this merge proposal though, I would like to solicit some additional input. --vi5in^[talk] 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Support  : The two articles should be selectively merged.This will reduce data redundancy.

ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs) 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have finished the selective merge. --vi5in^[talk] 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas

I have created an article List of Ezhavas so that this article will not become to long. Please make sure that all names added to the list has a reference. Malayaliyan 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a Big list of ezhava's here few weeks back..it has been removed by someone. It was good know each other..Being a big community , most of the time, ezhava's miss to know each other and kill each other for political parties..If someone has the old list, please publish it in Wikipedia again..

Fair use rationale for Image:Sathyananthikkad.jpg

Image:Sathyananthikkad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Poojari

So show everyone what I mean, it looks like the "Poojari" section is at the wrong level. Do people think it is better at the same level as "Billavas" (both under "Similar communities") or as a subsection of "Billavas"? Also, it would be nice to add something about what they added to the Nema or Bhuta Kola. Any sources? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should probably put them under similar communities. There's not much as far as descriptions go for those both communities. --vi5in^[talk] 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

These are the changes I have made:

• Cleaned up the opening paragraph and removed spelling, and grammar mistakes.
• Removed Ezhava reference from Moplah rebellion. The Moplah Rebellion article itself makes no mention of Ezhavas.
• Added tags for cleanup.
• Moved main article templates to their correct places (beginning of section). --vi5in^[talk] 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Made some more edits:

• Cleaned up some paragraphs (especially the Toddy Tapping and Arrack Brewing).
• Added fact tags to some sentences and OR tags to one section.
• Corrected a few spelling mistakes (many still remain). Reworded sentences.
• Removed POV and Weasel Words.
• Removed irrelevant sections (Social Stratification was simply a section that listed temples with Ezhava involvement)
• Reorganized sections (moved Sree Narayana Guru section to Social movements. Cleaned up Religious Conversions section). --vi5in^[talk] 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More edits:

• Cleaned up list of Ezhavas
• Removed redundant information about Sree Narayana Guru.
• Made sure the lists were lists and not interspersed with sections of text. The lists have links to the appropriate articles anyway.
• Merged small subsections into their parents.
• Reordered some sections to enhance article flow and cohesion.
• Removed references that were either 404'ed or unreliable.
• Corrected grammar and spelling (more needs to be done!). --vi5in^[talk] 09:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Other factors that design caste structure

It has been a long time since I came here. Other preoccupations.

I have the feeling that castes and connected things are not entities separated from other features connecting to a person in this society. Yet, to discuss about them would take the discussion to a wider ambit of subjects. This may not be liked here. In my posts, I did allude to many things which from an immediate perspective did not belong to the subject matter here. Even though a debate on Kalari wouldn’t be objected to. There are other things more closers to the society here than Kalari.

So I have kept an article on this link[1], which can have connection to my earlier posts here, but may at the moment may seem not connected to the subject matter. Actually it is very much connected. --218.248.68.63 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC) --Ved from Victoria Institutions 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ved036 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

=Nair sudra and ezhavas dalits

Its welcome if you add as ezhavas as dalits. Mind it not forget to add Nairs ad sudras. U can find enough references here. http://books.google.co.in/books?q=Nair+Sudra and here http://books.google.com/books?q=Nair+Sudra http://books.google.com/books?id=s0EAAAAAMAAJ&q=Nair+Sudra&dq=Nair+Sudra&pgis=1 Dont say then brahmin treated Nairs as sudra. 59.162.138.193 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism In Ezhava article

It has been noted that there is constant vandalism of Ezhava article By User:Vivin and User:B Nambiar.The User:B Nambiar has been blocked for the violation of 3RR. User:Vivin have been removing sourced content from the article. User:Nishkid64 have put protected tag to the version which has removed many content by the User:Vivin. please find the same here [2] and [3]. please find the User:Vivin has removed many content from the article. Vvmundakkal 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont care about vivins intentions. we all know why these mongers are frustrated. Keep your head high Ezhavas!Keralone 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ezhavas!!, hold your head high and battle and collude to make and maintain the article POV, misleading and misinforming, after all no Ezhava really wants the article to show the actual representative truth do they?. I guess there are some flaws in wikipedia that no one can do much about. B Nambiar 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly believe that you people are confused about the definition of "Vandalism". Typical vandals don't provide a description of their intentions. I have regularly described my edits and why I did them. This article is in dire need of improvement. The grammar and spelling are terrible. The tone is inappropriate. There are a lot of peacock terms and weasel words. In addition there is also a lot of Original Research in this article. Previously, the article contained information that didn't even describe the Ezhava caste. For instance, there was a whole section called "Social stratification" that merely gave a list of temples that had some sort of Ezhava involvement. I understand people have some sort of "caste-pride" issue here. I've heard this before. I faced the same sort of opposition in the Nair article and eventually I was able to fix that. My intentions are honest. I really have absolutely no agenda. I'm just trying to make the article better. I am quite aware that I may be stepping on a few toes by including material that is "unflattering" or by deleting information that is "overly aggrandizing". But this is an encyclopedia. And that's how things work here. Hope you understand. --vi5in^[talk] 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is obvious from this request to move this page to the perceived "good" version that certain parties here have absolutely no interest in improving this page. In fact, the only interest is to present their POV. Let me remind them that protecting a page to a certain version doesn't automatically mean that the version is endorsed. I have described my changes here many times and invited people to participate. However, none have done so. My edits have been consistently reverted and labeled as "vandalism". If you honestly want to improve the article, why not talk about the changes here? Our aim is to build a quality encyclopedia. --vi5in^[talk] 04:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed editprotected request. Work out some neutral language and it will go in. Don't argue about which version is better. Make your request explicit and clear; complaining about the intentions of other users (and calling their edits vandalism) is not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the note on my talk page, it looks like someone wants to something like "Ezhavas have historically had no position under the Hindu caste system, like dalits" with some sources. First, where? It seems like "Historically, they never found a place in the four-tier caste system of Hinduism" in the intro could use those sources and then more could be added in another section under "Culture" (relationship within Hinduism)? Thoughts? Oh, and Vvmundakkal, please see the Wrong Version which applies to your argument; everyone see it, it's pretty clear. If someone wants to add something (especially when you guys *know* it is going to be controversial), for the sake of peace, discuss it first on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

B.Nambiar, It looks that you are so obsessed to associate certain terms and professions with the Ezhava community. There are many ignorant people editing wikipedia articles, no doubt you are one among them. You consider looking like a Dalit is Bad.? Fair skin is superior? Your sick mind will churn out more' epithets ' If you want to know about your looks, you need to know about the first order Tipu sultan gave to Nairs after capturing Malabar.This order in its orginal form can be seen in the mysore museum, recently I found the same in one sitesYou can just read it here below:

"Here after you must proceed in an opposite manner, dwell quietly and pay your dues like good subjects and since it is a practice with you for one women to associate with ten men and leave your mothers and sisters unconstrained in their obscene practices and are hence all born in adultery and are more shameless in your connections than the heasts of the filed. I hereby require you to forsake these sinful practices and live like the rest of mankind, and if you are disobedient to these commands, I have made repeated vows to honour the whole of you with Islam and to march all the chief persons to the seat of the Government".162 http://www.jaihoon.com/watan/indarbmappilacommunity.htm

Now you make an introspection and tell us which is good? Today tapping or prostitution? Dalit looks or European/Iranian looks? I suggest you get some basic knowledge about history,archeology,anthropology etc. before you think of editing encyclopedia.This is not meant for immature minds. Martial Race This is a British invention .Martial races are intellectually inferior people who would fight someone's war and get killed for somebody.This is one of the reasons why Pakistan invaded India 4 times .There are many martial tribes in Pakistan who assumed that they can defeat a bigger Army(indian)as one pakistani is equal to 5 Hindus.It has been proven wrong again and again. It should be noted that Nairs never challenged the supremacy of Brahmins and Kashtriyas(Varma).They were always obedient servants who fulfilled every wish of their masters. Anil kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil4773 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather unusual personal attack, not one I would have predicted as it does nothing to challenge the facts that I have stated, i.e Ezhavas are Dalits or Avarnas and historically predominantly toddy tappers and that Sambandham does not share many important features with the prostitutional profession therefore it is not prostitution. The attack also assumes strange motives for my actions. Why do you bring up skin colour? "fair skin"? most South Indians are dark skinned, few native South Indians have "European/Iranian looks", so how can skin color have anything to do with what I am saying? "fair skin" superior? where did this come from? where is your head at? since when does your position in society determine ones looks? what kind of assumptions are you spitting out?. "If you want to know about your looks, you need to know about the first order Tipu sultan gave to Nairs after capturing Malabar" what on earth does knowledge about my looks have to do with Tipu Sultans order?. Tipu Sultan would call all non-Muslims sinful and obscene practicers, as that is the way of empire, by demonizing native culture. The fact that he singled out Nair's is an indicator of Nair prominence in Kerala, and he would have said the same derogatory comments to the obscure Ezhava practices had they been anywhere near as prominent in society. Tipu Sultan exhibited a point of view which does not change Nair history as we know it so not much purpose in that quote inclusion. To me personally Muslim practices are sinful and obscene but it similarly a point of view to foreign elements. Martial races are intellectually inferior people you claim? I find this as hard to believe as the very concept that a person born into a martial class family is naturally predisposed to be a better fighter compared to non-martial class people. So you believe two idiotic outdated theories British colonists created. Nairs are more accurately a historical martial class than a "martial race" and they are by no means intellectually inferior to the Ezhavas if that is what you are suggesting. Also you claim all Nairs "They were always obedient servants who fulfilled every wish of their masters" which is also untrue as it varies from Nair sub-caste to sub-caste with certain Nairs servants to no one (Samanthans), also not forgetting that Malayala Kshatriyas are descended from the more powerful Nair families and are largely Nair in terms of culture and that pre-Brahmin Kerala was dominated by Nairs so "always" is false as well, whereas all or most Ezhavas were untouchable or servants to even Nair servants. You can call me "ignorant" "sick mind" "immature minds" but you like other caste obsessed Ezhava users have not challenged the facts which you obviously accept and know to be true, but rather shown your own immaturity by attacking the Nair community as a result of the facts surfacing and perhaps an inferiority complex as well. Obviously that hasn't worked very well and Nair history will not change as a result of personal attacks. We all know todays post-Land Reforms act Kerala is a much different scene with caste not determining ones position in Kerala society very much so why take so much offense? It has should have minimal if any relevance to you. Toddy tapping or prostitution you ask? I choose neither though it has no relevance to Wikipedia anyway. B Nambiar 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

B.Nambiar, Your response is just kid stuff.You are so confused as usual due to ignorance . when a historical document is presented, you just fumbled and hurled abuses. you did even question a professor of history on another occasion. What are you up to.?. I gave a brotherly advise to you to acquire atleast basic knowledge in History, Anthropology and Archeology before you start edit work. But you are so determined that you don’t want to improve. Be it so..I went through your different postings; none have any basis except it is a manifestation of your farcical and arrogant dispositions. When you say known to everybody---- It is known only to you… When you say HISTORY it means your distorted, biased views.. Insecure? Who? you or me? Don’t go into a personal level. It is not a healthy practice. There are many books,articles and web sites on martial classes/races. You will be surprised to see how these terms came into being.. who made it and for what.. I Think Brahmins will have the last laugh now.They are a microspic minority in kerala but they could pit different communites at each others throat.. even now….Who is big?who is small.?Caste is man made.It is time we ignore this malady and focus our energies on something constructive.

After going through both nair and ezhava pages,I have the following notes for all the participants: 1.Karumadi kuttan is a Budha statue in karumadi near Ambalapuzha in Alleppy dt. I saw this statue in 1972.it is 5 feet tall , one hand was broken. 2.Chera kingdom was a Tamil kingdom and cheraman perumal was never a nair.The people who carry this surname "perumal" are now in Tamil nadu and they are SC 3.Though 3 times Tipu attacked Travancore,he had to retreat in a hurry since the British attacked mysore to force him to withdraw. 4.Kulachal battle was fought mainly by the marvapada(thevers).The Maharja of Travancore suspected the loyalty of the nairs so he sought the help of the pandyan king to loan a section of their Army to fight this battle.Kulachal is in Tamilnadu near Thakkala on the road to kanyakumari. 5.presently Marvar (thevar) are SC(OBC?) in Tamilnadu 6.The surnames "Nayanar","Konar" are for the Yadava caste and they are OBC there in TamilNadu.

7.A book or site is not an authentic reference material unless it is accepted by the authorites.To accept a book as a reference material,there are expert committees in the govt to review and decide on its authenticity and give approval.Such books sometimes are prescribed for studies. 8.CITATION BUFFS. Even something tought at high school level, you guys need citatation.What a pity.!!

9.Shree Narayan Guru was not a prophet,but was a social reformer and a revolutionary.He could help bring radical changes in the society. 10.Ezhava community is progressive a) they fought for the rights to cover a women's breast. b)they fought against evil taxes such a mulakkaram and mesakkaram etc c)they fought for equal rights in all spheres d)they fought for temple entry and simultaneously floated their own temples that helped other communities to follow suit. e)Ayyankali was inspired by the teaching of the \Guru and the ezhava movements.

The rights enjoyed by different communities now including Nairs are a result of the ezhava struggle.Nairs were untouchable to Brahmins and Kshatriyas.Nair women can cover and all…..are a result of ezhava struggle. Ezhavas are hard working.They are the foremost community in kerala now ,educationally and financially. 11)Kshatriyas are never nairs. 11)There were several non nair local rulers(Naduvashis) in kerala.They were not kings.They could be more appropriately called village chieftains. a)Ezhupunna Tharkans(Christian) were the rulers of cherthala region. b)Kalathungal tharavad (Ezhava) near Haripad,Alappuzha dt were the rulers of Pothappally. You find mention of these family names in Travancore History.There are many more families….

anil4773

Anil, again personal attacks, childish, and argument shifting. Anyway most of what you are now saying I suppose can be supported by references, but it doesn't challenge the three facts I stated previously. Although I see toddy tapping, like usual, is marginalized or ignored, I can guarantee you in Kanhangad where I'm from asking people about Ezhava/Billava/Thiyyas and they will reply "toddy tappers" as the only or of some descriptive terms. Anyway a few false statements, all Nairs were untouchable to Brahmins, no this is not true as the Kiryathil Nair class could perform duties which untouchables could not, therefore were not untouchable. And "Kshatriyas are never nairs", this is also false as Malayala Kshatriyas are descended from some of the more powerful Nair families: "With the breakdown of Chera empire the next phase of Kerala history began. This was the period of the provincial rulers. Provincial rulers were Nairs those who took control of a small province rather than a large empire. These provinces were once part of the Chera empire. The Nairs were confined to small areas but they frequently fought each other for domination", "The first ascension of these Nairs to Kshatriya status was begun by Kolathiri Raja, Udayavarman who wished to wear Yajnopaveetham (Poonool or sacred thread) by performing Hiranyagarbham". So basically all of Kerala was ruled by Nair's for a sizable period of history and nothing you say will change that fact. "They are the foremost community in kerala now ,educationally and financially", are your relying on the 1931 census of Travancore which shows there are more rich Ezhavas than Nairs in the city of Travancore in 1931?. I highly doubt that claim is true despite Nair decline, but I'd like to see the references for that. Personally, I would put my money on Christians being the foremost community financially and educationally, with Nairs after that. Anyway I await the next round of personal attacks and sidetracked arguments from anil4773. B Nambiar 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nambiar, Please read my postings carefully and consult the contents with History experts so that you can write sensible responses. What I find now is like a nagging women you keep on singing the same song again and again. This is absolutely mean and ridiculous behavior. Repeating lies will not create new history, it can only harden your criminal intent. Being sarcastic and abusive will not help lest you could bring shame to your parents .Being uncivil will not unravel unknown pages of history. I don’t attack anyone,I just presented some historical facts that are true. you felt it as an attack as it was contradicting with your whims and beliefs. we are discussing about Nairs and Ezhava then you brought in Christians for their wealth. Isn't it sidetracking? Your world is kanjangad,there is much more in kerala beyond kanjangad.You are like the legendary frog(Panchatantra) in the well. You travel the length and breadth of kerala and see for yourself the condition of nair community. I have found that atleast 30% of them are poor and 40% lowest middle class. In many places they are below SC economically and educationally. I know a few nair boys who are coconut climbers. Sometime in 1985 when Narayana panicker came for the annual celebrations of Erickavu NSS Karayogam,in his public address he had mentioned that 16 of the community members were toddy tappers then..!!.His speech was to encourage the community members to shed their past and look for new opportunities. You can check this with NSS HQ at perunna in changanaserry. For Nair fanatics like you Toddy tapping is a mean profession so you like to identify the entire ezhava community by this profession. You get a perverse pleasure in belittling ezhava community. This has been the traditional position of castiest nairs all the time. But for me I consider toddy tapping as a noble profession and I would love to do it, if I had to do it, Since It is a 1000 times better than prostitution, pimping and working as a servant in a Brahmin household and mercenary work.. Who were Devadasis?what does kothichi (whore) mean(kooth+Achi)?These are all terms associated with your community. You don’t feel ashamed? what is the state of your head? You are so paranoid about kashtryia tab and toddy tapping.The population of Ezhavas are about 12.5million++.Toddy tappers are around 7000 people now as per CITU and INTUC records. What is the percentage of toddy tappers? It is less than 0.0006%.Majority of ezhavas were(1) agriculturists,(2) physicians (3) Into Kalari (4) Toddy tapping etc.In the case of Nairs, 100% females were prostitutes and 100% men were servants.Naduvashis could be less than 0.00001% of the total population of Nairs.For you there are two kinds of truths-convenient truth and bitter truth. you are mentioning only convenient truth. And I see a competetion among the community members to glorify the past.!!This will not help project the real face of the community. But for you all ezhavas are toddy tappers!! And all nairs are kings and warriors!! Hypocrisy supreme! So foolish! So igonorant!?.Dont be Cissy,Learn to call a spade a spade. Nairs are Sudras in the 4 tier hindu caste hierarchy.This is an established fact accepted by all including nairs.But I have always maintained that caste is man made and I don’t believe in it.I am just correcting the Himalayan blunders some editors present with the Nair and Ezhava caste. For other Editors. 1.I have no intention to offend Nair community. 2.I am against caste system 3.Thampi- The surname of a person who has a Kashtrya father and Nair mother.For females ,Thankachi/Thampatti. 4.Focus on improving the article rather than wasting on non issues. 5.Ignore B.Nambiar 6.Origin of Nair has nothing to do with Naga or Nayaka.Learn a bit of phonetics and philology before you talk about word origin. same is the case with Elam. 7.In srilanka the majority(80%) are Sinhalese,15% Tamils and the rest is made up by Malays and burgers. Sinhalese are the people who migrated from Orissa and Bihar. Sinhalese language is of Aryan origin and it comes in the Indo-European language family and very close to Sanskrit like Oriya language. 8.The number of Ezhavas are more than that of muslims in kerala.Muslims get 8% reservation in professional colleges as against 9% for ETB(Ezhava,Thiyya,Billava)

9.Ezhavas are a little over 30% of the total malayalee population and Nairs nearly 17%. Muslims 24%,Christian 19% 10.Ezhava migration from srilanka in such large numbers(back calculation) are not possible considering the poor maritime history of East Asians(my opinion).More research is required on this subject.T.Damu has written a book saying that Thiyyas came from Uzbekistan.If he had seen any uzbek or Romanian in his life he wouldn’t have written such blunders. 11.Majority of ezhavas were farmers or farm hands.All toddy tappers were ezhavas.Their number currently stands about 7000 against the total ezhava population of 12.5million++.. Anil4773 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.88.111 (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anil4773 such hypocrisy!, please relax, and refrain from personal attacks(I have not done so in my previous posts which goes against what you claim), you must realize they have little effect coming from what seems to be a raving, agitated and evidently insecure random user. Most of your largely anti-stereotypical claims must be cited to be believed or included in the article. As long as you do not add such OR to Wikipedia it should be ok to continue on your amusing tirade, sorry for winding you up so much by the way. Again the claims of prostitution is irrelavant to Sambandham, just because some Ezhava/s claims it is so in spite hardly matters, because it differs from actual prostitution. For your information yes, Nair's are warriors and kings historically, with Namboothiris on top of the caste system, I can prove this. Claims like this: "In the case of Nairs, 100% females were prostitutes and 100% men were servants.Naduvashis could be less than 0.00001% of the total population of Nairs." clearly written in spite and without regard to actual truth and facts. You cannot hide the only objective facts I am stating, that Ezhavas are Avarnas, and that "toddy- tapping is an occupation traditionally associated with the Ezhava caste" (many references), despite the many professions some Ezhavas were involved in, which I guess must be why you got so wound up. I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that Nair's belong to the Sudra varna in the unique Hindu caste system in Kerala, though I find it hard to believe that(referring to Nairs) "atleast 30% of them are poor and 40% lowest middle class". Anyway no references = no credibility. "1.I have no intention to offend Nair community", obvious hypocrisy there. Please look over what you have written once before commenting, and just because a certain Anil4773 say it is so won't make it a guaranteed inclusion into Wikipedia articles. "But for me I consider toddy tapping as a noble profession and I would love to do it", by all means release some stress by doing so. Have a good one.B Nambiar 08:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, stop all this. Does anyone really think someone is going to all this mess? Everyone needs to learn how to write shorter paragraphs that are clear and on the point; this is just completely useless and frankly, I'm going to just remove diatribes like these. B Nambiar, stop with the toady topping insults (and don't claim you aren't being insulting). As I've told you before, this article is not just a "people in Kerala see the Ezhavas as a backwards caste to be made fun of" which seems to be the only thing I seem to see out of you; more productive about the wording of the article, not just insulting about the Ezhavas or the other users. Anil, take the higher road and ignore him; if you want to comment on him personally (not about the article), you should go to his talk page and tell him. And don't think I didn't notice the "Brahmins will have the last laugh now." Last warning to the both of you. If this escalates, I will bring in others and maybe just block the whole lot of you. Anil, if you want argue citations, go to WP:CITE and particularly WP:RS and change policy; I don't care for your comments about the citations (find some sources yourself and make your arguments). There is a reason this entire article is in lockdown and why I'm trying to force order with an iron fist if necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop unwanted arguments over caste

It will be nice if people stop fighting like cats and dogs over caste issues.All great people in the history of the world stood aganist caste and creed and they advocated the unity and prosperity of humanity.People with narrow mind (misers) are caste conscious and fight each other over caste.It is my humble request that these caste fights should be discontinued in this article as the great saint and social reformer Sri Narayana Guru's name reflects in this article and so the "discussion" tab of this article should be devoid of caste as Guru was a saint who ardently fought aganist caste and religion.Kindly don't insult this great personality.

It would be nice if people actually talked about the article itself. This article is of a very few that are in entire lock-down mode and yet I see little actual attempt around here to discuss the actual issue that got it locked. I fear removing the protection as users will simply start edit-warring without discussion again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of the above request, may I suggest, as a student of ancient Indian history and philosophy, it seems to me that- throughout ancient India, there were two large ethnic groups, going by the literary and folklore evidence -- a group that seems to have gone by the name of 'deva' or derivaties of it and another which seemed to have gone by the name of 'naga' and derivatives of the same. The sanskrit 'deva' seems to have morphed into Dev in Hindi and Oriya (lots of surnames/castes there), De in Bengal, Devar in Tamil Nadu, Dheevar (etc) in Karnataka, Thevar in southern TN and may I also suggest that both the Dheevara and Theeyar are likely to be off-shoots of this same community. There seems, however, to be an absence as far as the centre of Indian caste cauldron is concerned - the Gangetic valley, unless one takes the Yadavs to be the Devs here. While that will explain why Krishna's father was called Vasu-Dev, it doesn't explain where the 'Ya' came from or why they are also called Ahirs. However, in favour of the argument is also the apparent physical similarities between Yadavs and the other Deva communities.

It may also be noted that none of these communities are either forward castes or extremely backward castes and seem to be hovering somewhere in the middle. At least, as far as the Theeyar, Thevar and Devar communities are concerned, they did seem to make a living out of weapons such as swords, as indicated by their old customs which gave a lot of prominence to these weapons. Ditto with their folklores. Besides this, there are also similarities in appearance amongst the far flung deva groups. Second is 'Naga'- The remnants of this community is also to be found across the country (besides in ancient literature.) We have Nagar brahmans in Rajasthan, Naga sadhus (who do not look mongoloid :-) ) in UP and Bihar, Naidus in AP, Nags in MP and Maharashtra, Naiks in Konkan and Karnataka, Naikars in Tamil Nadu and Nayars in Kerala. We also have Nagas in the north east. As for mention in historical literature, Nagas are mentioned in Mahabharat (Krishna defeating Kaliya - the naga of the Yamuna, Arjuna's son being predicted to die at the hands of Nagas etc.). Nagas find extensive mention in ancient Buddhist literature, especially when talking about Andhra, which seems to have been one of their strongholds.

A rather interesting thing is that the north Indian script is called 'DEVA-NAGARI' and that the word for town in hindi is 'Nagar' and for civilization is Nagarikta.. While Dev seems to have soon become equated with Divinity. Anyway, like the erstwhile great Mauryas of Bihar and Mallas of UP, both groups seem to have definitely fallen on hard times later on. Both are OBCs in most states (except of course, the Nagar Brahmans).

Another interesting thing is that the Arayans of kerala are the only community I know of who have a name even remotely similar to Aryans.. I have quoted all this, so that people who are zealously claiming lineage of kings and gods understand that nothing is permanent.. and belonging to no group can make you better than what you are.. this is not the place to boost up your low self-esteem, and this childish bickering exposes insecurities. so let us go easy on this a bit.. Sreejiraj 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting OR. Why two language families for related groups may i ask?B Nambiar 15:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bardwell Smith citation

Does anyone know if there is a difference between the Bardwell Smith citations in the article [4]? Both cites 7 and 8 point to page 27 (a lot for a single page) and cite 24 just references the entire thing (for a minor point). Also, should I assume that 'Izhava' then is another spelling of Ezhava? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Izhava is another spelling of Ezhava. --vi5in^[talk] 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas untouchability to upper castes

This article seems to make Ezhavas look greater then they actually are in my personal opinion. But some facts have been conveniently not included such as the untouchability to upper castes such as Nairs and Brahmins. Lot of comments concerning the Nairs dislike of being called sudras but the Nair community mentions that they were considered sudras to the Kerala Brahmins, but historically the real sudras (servants and labourers), both in profession and officially , are the Ezhavas and not one mention of that in the article describing Ezhavas.211.30.222.155 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that’s because modern day Ezhavas have come a long way and many would like to forget the past. (Just like the Irish/Jewish immigrants in America would rather forget the treatment they were met with in the hands of English/Germans). At the same time Nair article boasts about the past and calls them selves as 'martial nobility'. But the reality today is that they have no more influence in kerala or anywhere else in this planet. Keralone 00:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people didn't dare to touch us. That's not our problem. Ezhava hatred is very evident in your writings. Panikkar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panikkar (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

True, everyone wants to paint a golden past. Nairs claim they were royals. ‘Martial Nobility’ is a forgotten past and today there is nothing called a ‘Martial Nobility’ anywhere in the world. However in the past, they were warriors, no denying that FACT. Ezhavas also want a piece of the warrior cake. Ezhavas were primarily farmers, though not all were toddy tapers as some people try to prove here. They were also physicians and traders. However, the claim on ‘Vadakkan Pattu’ is absurd. Vadakkan Pattu per say is myth and imagination. The ‘Chekavars’ were not that great warriors as depicted in the third rated movies made on them. They were skilled warriors who fought for the feudal lords. Also there were many others like Thacholi Othenan who were not Ezhavas who featured in these imaginative stories. However, a strange thing about the Ezhava page is that they refer to other communities also in this page and call them as Sudras etc which is totally unwarranted. Because, if you refer about other castes, then probably you will also get exposed on the pathetic side of history like untouchablity etc. So better to remove such statements. Also should understand that the truth cannot be concealed for ever. As mentioned by Keralaone, even if the Jews and Irish conceal their slave past, even Keralaone knows that they were slaves some point of time in the history. So better to do justice to the FACTS. It will manifest one day even if you try to conceal.Lambodharan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia published by the Government of Kerala describes Aaromal Chekavar, Unniyarcha etc as Ezhvas. That is an authentic source. Do not make anything inconvenient to you as myths. Sorry this is an inconvenient truth to you.

Lambodaran, Untouchability existed between all the castes. Nair was not allowed to touch a Nambuthiri, An Ezhava was not allowed to touch a Nair, Pulaya was not allowed to touch an Ezhava.. and it goes on.. So all except Nambuthiris were untouchables to someone in the past. Referring other castes is not only with Ezhava page. I have seen this in other caste related pages (more in discussions). I don't want to get into the details. Every caste had warriors. It cannot be that all in a particular caste were warriors. that too in the case of a large community. There were castes in the past who had 'kula thozil' like washerman, barber, Asari, Ambalavasis etc. But these communities were small in population. Large castes such as Ezhavas and Nairs didn't have a single occupation. Most of the King's soldiers were from Nair caste which no one denies. But it had representation from other castes too. Panikkar —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lambodaran, as a person who has seen the world and one who believes that all mankind are some how related, all the slave talk of the past is of nonsense.

For me “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players”. So Nairs have played at higher level in the past, so? Why are they not playing now?

What is important is what we are today and where we are heading. I can see that some people go freaky when called 'Sudra', I wonder why? What’s there in it? Majority of the people in South India are dark and are of so called Sudra/dravidian origin. So what’s the big deal? I suggest clean up of the Ezhava article to remove any references to other castes, so that no one is offended. I am sure Ezhavas can still be of proud people without them.Keralone 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"I can see that some people go freaky when called 'Sudra', I wonder why? What’s there in it? Majority of the people in South India are dark and are of so called Sudra/dravidian origin. So what’s the big deal?" Sudra, Dravidian and dark are not synonymous. Sudras are slaves, altough sometimes slapped on foreign communities (from a Brahmins perspective) to give the Brahmins more power over the foreign communties, such as Jats of North India. Dravidian refers to different but similar communities who natively speak or historically known to natively speak Dravidian languages and is factually proven to not refer to a separate race. Majority of people in South India are dark and majority of people in North India are slightly less dark. Nairs technically WERE not Sudras in profession they WERE unofficial kshatriyas so to speak, though most Nair communities WERE untouchable to Namboothiris, although some Nair communities such as the Kiriathil Nairs WERE untouchables to nobody, and the Malayala Kshatriyas and Samanthans WERE originally one of the more powerful Nair feudal families, and some Ezhavas WERE historically warriors and tradesmen despite the majority being historically servants, so there are always exceptions. However Nairs should not be referred to as Sudra Nairs in this article as it is largely misleading and irrelevant. The Ezhava and Nair articles are historical and everyone understands this, the playing field is rather level in these modern times with either community possibly overall more financially better off then the other. "As per the Census in 1931 of Travancore, number rich business people among the community was better compared to Malayali Sudra(Nairs) and Nanchinattu Sudras(Vellalas), even after being denied government jobs.", I doubt this sentence, however it is again misleading and rather irrelevant, and if true it only refers to the Ezhavas and Nairs in Travancore a small part of Kerala. This is similar to if the fact "For the vast majority of Kerala history Nairs were far wealthier and influencial than the Ezhava communities until the Land Reforms Act" appearing on the Nair article. Both articles are historical and not relevant to today, however the Nair article suggests this(Nairs WERE a martial nobility) whereas the Ezhava article contains this comparison, perhaps due to group insecurity, which is totally unnecessary. B Nambiar 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

http://books.google.com is very useful some times if you want info on something useful for supporting your arguement as someone has used in this page itself.I hope this will clear ur doubts. http://books.google.com/books?q=Nair+Sudra . http://books.google.com/books?q=Malayali+Sudra . Its a known fact that ezhavas were never part of chathur varna. So theye never fall within any layers of chaturvarna. See wiki is not the page add content with no reference. You can see from this Nair woman goes everywhere thus, uncovered and unashamed. from the book found here [5]. So thing we cant add and some details we can add. in 1931 servay, there was no reference of Nair and vellala, but called Malayali Sudra and Naanchinadu sudra. The page scanned and added in SN director from Koumudi publications page number 86. The english books say same thing with ref to Nair. 124.125.229.64 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A touchy lot for sure but I see that Ezhavas did not belong in the caste system, therefore they are Dalits "In the Indian caste system, a Dalit, often called an untouchable, or an outcaste, is a person who according to traditional Hindu belief does not have any "varnas"", perhaps in the city of Travancore in 1931 "number rich business people among the community was better compared to Malayali Sudra(Nairs) and Nanchinattu Sudras(Vellalas)" but why the comparison?, is it necessary to the article? I must ask again. If the line will remain in the article than the many cited Nair/Ezhava historical comparisons that obviously favors the Nairs shall be included in the Nair article. I mean why the cherry picking, selectively including probably the only source which ever found Ezhavas better of, so to speak, than the Nairs, why not also add the fact that the Nairs were much more better off for most, if not all, history of both the communities existence than the Ezhavas overall. Nair woman goes everywhere thus, uncovered and unashamed. Im not sure what this is suggesting? perhaps poking fun at the Nair traditional dress? most dress in Kerala those days was similar so it would reflect Ezhava dress as well to some degree. Well some clothing is certainly better to none or rags which a number of poverty stricken Ezhavas in the past wore, in my opinion. But maybe its the poor grammar, but please illustrate me with what that comment suggests as I am not quite sure. And please do not keep the comparison line as it is misleading and irrelevant as I said earlier. B Nambiar 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Prostituion was common among nair woman for many centuries. If you search this in net you will find that. They did prostituion with Brahmins and Khatriyas. There Many nairs stuill follow the same traditiona custom. We all know about Latha Nair, Riya pillai, Arunima(Goa) all follows the tradion. Can you add same thing to nair article in wiki(Just like dalit phrase)? Because for that also you find references in google. 124.125.229.64 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting sambandam is prostitution? or actual prostitution? If you are suggesting sambandam then it is already added in the Nair article, and is not prostitution, but if you are suggesting a small number of Nairs engaged in the prostitution career then please direct me to the reference as I have never heard of this before, and we'll see if it authentic and deserves to be included in the Nair article. The names mentioned are not known to me. If your claims are factually warranted like the "dalit phrase" then I shall raise the issue in the Nair talk page and add it "Just like dalit phrase". B Nambiar 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas are not Dalits. SC/ST are called Dalits. Ezhavas come under OBC now and soon they will be be known as Forward caste. No comments on Sambandhan now. It would nice if user Nambiar refrain from unneccessary edits.

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE BRAHMANS

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE KSHATRIYAS

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE VAISYAS

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE SUDRAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.95.171 (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE BRAHMANS

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE KSHATRIYAS

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE VAISYAS

Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE SUDRAS "

Ezhavas were/are none of the above as they have no varnas, so i don't know how you thought those claims would be supported. Dalits does not necessarily imply SC/ST, however it does imply a descriptive term to communities of no varnas as I have stated many times previously. Why cant people acknowledge this? especially the user Tulu war who has reported me and refused to reply to my explaining of the facts behind my edits to him/her and has constantly reverted my removal of the rather pathetic POV comparison. B Nambiar 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As per Manusmrithi 'varna' is defined based on a person's quality. Even a Christian / Muslim can be categorized under this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no doubt that was the original intention but the caste system according to most of Indian history and the most widely accepted view is that it's designated by Brahmins to Hindu communities and hereditary. B Nambiar 04:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas and other communities

There is mention about Ezhavas in South India as early as 3rd century BCE - in rock inscriptions of Tamilnadu and Kerala. The word nair appear only around 11th century CE ( according to Ilamkulam Kunjan Pillai). The brahmins who established Hinduism in Kerala took nairs into the Hindu fold and labelled them as Sudras. It is very clear from the fact that Nairs have no sacred thread. Brahmins and Kahathriyas have the thread. Hindus who do not have sacred thread are Sudras or panchamas. There were some nair rulers. Before the arrival of Brahmins, members of all communities - Pulayas, Parayas, Billavas/Ezhavas - had kingdoms in Kerala. Ezhavas were mainly traders, agriculturists, weavers, physicians, astrologers and soldiers. A small minority of them were toddy-tappers. While almost all nairs were following Marumakkathayam, Ezhavas belonged three groups - followers of makkathayam, marumakkathayam, misradayam124.125.228.205 09:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• What exactly is your point?
• Who cares?
• What rock inscriptions are these? --vi5in^[talk] 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava kingdoms? never once came across that. There needs to be references to support the POV statement "A small minority of them were toddy-tappers" which goes very much against the common view, in my part of Kerala anyway. No one is arguing Nairs are not official Sudras like Jats, and there is not much point for the posting, unless you want to add references to the content you claim which is not already part of Wikipedia if you want to add it in articles, if that is your intention.B Nambiar 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

B Nambiar, Your view on toddy tapping is completely wrong. Which part of kerala are you from? Toddy tapping was done by a subset of Ezhavas, but the entire commuinity was/is branded as toddy tappers just to belittle the community and inject inferiority complex. As a member of Ezhava community I know better than you about my community. It's not neccesary that what you know is TRUE and what you don't know is FALSE. Have you see the movie Kilichundan mampazham? Mohanlal asking Sreeni "nigalu Dubai kandittundaa" Sreeni say "Illa".. Mohanlal asks "Appo Dubai ille??"..

All efforts were made by caste hindus in the past to immobilize other communities, by not allowing them to learn, worship, forcing them to use bad language, bad names etc (there were many exceptions) . You won't find good references on Avarna Hindus in any history books. Becasue all the past historians were interfacing with caste hindus. Though Kerala was a bastion of Buddhism before 7C we can hardly find any evidence of Buddhism in Kerala. Then how can someone provide proof / reference about Ezhava kingdom? Panikkar —Preceding comment was added at 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a historic reason for the enmity between Nairs and Ezhavas. There was no religion in Kerala upto the third century BCE (BC). The first religion to spread here was Buddhism. Jainism also came . Hinduism,Christianity and Islam reached Kerala after several centuries. The brahmins who came from outside could convert large number of Buddhists during the centuries 6th to 11th. Some were taken into Hinduism as brahmins, a few as kshathriyas and others as Soodras. Those who joined Hinduism as soodras were the nairs. It is very clear from the fact that brahmins, kshathriyas an vaisyas are entitled to bear the saccred thread while soodras are not. Those Buddhists who refused to join Hinduism are the Ezhavas. Soodras joined the brahmins in persecuting the Ezhavas. It is history. V T Bhattathiripad has written : The only community which has not subordianted itself to the Namboothiris and assertively assumed an independant stand was the Ezhavas. They alone exhibited courage to fight the domination of the brahmins.124.125.228.205 05:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello user:124.125.228.205. Do you have any reference for the statement by VT Bhattathiripad? Is it in a book?. If so we can add this to the article. Panikkar

Is there a point to continually make references to Nairs as Sudras? as you don't need to prove that. The Kshatriyas of today are in essence the descendants the more powerful Nair families of that bygone period so not all Nair's are Sudra as such. But anyway that is a rather romanticized POV take on why Ezhavas are Dalits, I'm sure if the Brahmins offered status to Ezhavas under the new Hindu caste system the Ezhavas would have jumped at it as they did convert to Hinduism and not rebel the Brahmins by remaining Buddhists. B Nambiar 15:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you to see WP:TALK? Talk page are for the purpose of discussing the article itself, not your personal views. If you have something you would like changed, you need to tell everyone the exact language you want changed and provide sources for your version. Otherwise, it is purely a waste of time posting here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism By User:vivin

Please read/refer the sources

Abt Guru

Refer Sree Narayana Guru

• http://books.google.com/books?id=07Y3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA35&dq=Prophet+Narayana+Guru&sig=x0t2wmzaVNJwLRPww35F0G8dD9o

More details

• http://books.google.com/books?q=Prophet+Narayana+Guru
• http://books.google.com/books?q=Saint++Narayana+Guru
• * http://books.google.com/books?id=L3sZAAAAMAAJ&q=Sage++Narayana+Guru&dq=Sage++Narayana+Guru

Abt Billava

Even before Guru built temple from Billava community, they accepted guru as their spiritual leader. Also Third statue of guru had built in front of Gokaneswasara temple in Mangalore. U can read here also. [[6]] Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism eh? I had no idea that cleaning up terrible grammar, spelling mistakes, and blatant POV was called "Vandalism". May I remind you to look at WP:NPA and WP:OWN? As far as the "prophet" thing goes, I take back what I said earlier. That reference looks pretty good. Oh, and a warning. If you call edits that you disagree with as vandalism, you're going to get blocked. Just a friendly reminder. Try to argue constructively. --vi5in^[talk] 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

B.Nambair, I agree with you. there is no need to have comparisons in either Ezhava or Nair pages.Keralone 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas

Um, does anyone know where this list came from? Frankly, if someone doesn't identify themselves as Ezhavas (or are identified by someone else), their name should be immediately stricken. I'll get to that soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work Ricky, the article has come a long way now. However, there are areas still which doesn’t have any historical corroboration like …Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin…. There is no reference of Ezhavas serving in the army of Travancore and Cochin at all. While in Travancore, the army was 100% reserved for the Nairs, Cochin had a small army which comprised of only Nairs (The name ‘Ernakulam’ itself is derived from the name Erai (War) + Nair + Kulangara (cantonment)). Nevertheless, there are reference of Thiyas serving the Zamorin and other small kings of Malabar including Valluva Konathiri.

There are references of Ezhavas being part of travancore kings army. Also there were other kings in Kollam, kayamkulam etc before travancore kings captured the whole south Kerala and Ezhavas were in the army. I think references are provided. Else we will get you. Come on man, 100% reservation? -- Panikkar

Ok, no Panikkar, there were no references. Get them. Also, what is "Else we will get you" supposed to mean? If that is some sort of threat, you could be blocked if you don't stop that sort of language immediately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky, here is the reference. http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayItems.asp?id=SET20021221042249&eTitle=Think+Piece&rLink=0 -- Panikkar 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious. Excuse Panikkar Ricky81682, I am sure he meant "we will get the reference for you" instead of "else we will get you". Hope Malayali English, which I can understand, no offense to you Panikkar, doesn't come across that way to anyone.B Nambiar 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL. Panikkare, "else we will get you" means something like "ninne njaan ethutholaam" :-) Tintin 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of a sentence should be interpreted based on the context. Here I was talking about 'reference'. Any common man can understand what I meant. I am surprised if anyone got threatened with that simple sentence. In fact I am being threatened.

Tintin, "get them" : Does that mean "Avane edutho" ?

Dayanjali, Could you pls provide all the references you have? -- Panikkar 12:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see a little humor here. Sorry I misunderstood but just wanted to make sure (believe me, I've heard worse for more trivial things). Also, while I'm fine with using the NewIndPress as a source, I hope everyone sees that they are not the most neutral of sources which is a concern. See WP:RS for how sources should be. However, just being realistic, I take what I'll get. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note but if anyone still wants a separate List of Ezhavas article, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhavas. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

Well, it looks like User:Dayaanjali feels like I've abused my privileges. Please comment at WP:AN and if others agree, then like I said earlier, if I suspected of bias, I'll probably walk away from editing the article. I've already asked User:Nishkid64 about what he suggests for protection but otherwise, I'll leave it to the board. Lot of good all my work did. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky i have taken back my allegeations. please find hereWP:AN. cheers

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't seem to see the edits I have made on the bottom of the page and it only shows on the actual edit page. Also despite my signing it, the edit is shown without a signature with the BOT doing so promptly. Does anyone know what is happening?B Nambiar 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian migration

Theory of Migration from Iran is also totally absurd. There is no need to quote “Northern Ballads” as folk stories are no good source for an Encyclopedia. There were many Iranian invasions and Exodus to India like the Parsis and other Kamboja Kshathriyas who have settled in India. There is no connection whatsoever between these ethnic groups and the Ezhavas.Lambodharan —Preceding comment was added at 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lambodhara, If so, Parasuraman's theory is also no good source for Encyclopedia. -- -- Panikkar

Lambodara , Lakhumitharaaa .. Ambaasutha, Amaravinutha..Lambodara, Lakhumitharaa... Sakalavidyaaa.Aaaadipooritha Sarvothama, The... Namonamah Lambodara Lakhumitharaa...Bold textKochu Thomman Kottappadi 10:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, some response is a start. First of all, remember to sign your posts; it helps a lot. Second, while I generally would agree that the folk stories are not the best source, I don't think it would be a problem to say that 'this folk story says that the Ezhavas came from blah, which this person indicates is Iran.' If that's the best source, that's the best source; I'd prefer an anthropological source (or both). Of course, like most of the article there isn't a source at all. I think I'll go see what others think about the protection; it's longer than I would have liked, but I see that a lot of edit-warriors are not commenting here at all and I fear they'll return in a second once the protection is lifted. Maybe, I'll wait until Thursday, the first of November and then nuke everything from the article that doesn't have a source; I hope that my repeated requests indicate that I am serious about getting sources about everything here. Then, I'll lift the protection to allow established users to edit but again, any sort of controversy and it's locked again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ricky, as far as the Iranian connection. I left that bit in there when I edited originally because it was there in the original article. The more I think about it, the more it seems like OR. Folk Songs say that Ezhavas came from "Elam". But comparing "Elam" to the "Elamite" language/civilization is OR. Unless we have a source. --vi5in^[talk] 08:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Panikkar, again, you should post at the bottom, especially if you aren't going to post with the four tilde that will add a date and time stamp. As I pointed out, folklore would be appropriate if that is all we have. However, I don't even see a source for the folklore; there is some agreement about a mention of "Elam" but not about what "Elam" is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section; it needs a source. Again, I have no problem stating that folk stories claim that Ezhavas came from whereever. You should just have a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection removed

Just in case someone didn't notice, the article is now free for everyone to edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Locked again due in large part to the issues with the the Orkut forum -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Orkut forum

Hi, I have seen from a number of people that there seems to be an Orkut forum out there discussing this article, with a forum moderator encouraging people to edit here. This is to be discouraged primarily because it doesn't help foster any actual discussion of the issues and just seems like random edits coming from everywhere. Here, we have a history and trail to the discussion. If someone could provide a link for the Orkut forum, that would help. This is a very serious concern which is being discussed on our administrator's noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is just a largely opinionated forum. They advocate changing the Ezhava article into one reflective of a small minority of Ezhavas and hiding or marginalizing the features of the majority of the community. I don't understand why Wikipedia should involve itself in Orkut forums, discussion can be carried out in the talk page.B Nambiar 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't trying to be involved; I want the discussion on the talk page. It is not productive to have it there. The notice is more for those users who come here to tell us their issues (maybe a honeypot as well perhaps?). The WP:AN discussion is just trying to see if we can get a better way to deal with it than simply protect, watch no discussion, wait until it calms, unprotect, and watch it start again; massively unproductive. If nothing else, perhaps we can figure out who the forum moderator there is and punish him here. If there is even a remote chance that someone, one person even, there is interested in actually discussion, I'm open; I wouldn't mind the new users. If the insults and vandalism continues, I make have to go to {{bv}} warnings and then immediate blocks (which I would really really hate to do). I frankly hate the idea of keeping the article locked down but still... Right now, it's only semi-protected so that only delays the issue as they can simply wait. Frankly, this encourages their "look at them trying to keep up out" arguments and encourages martyrdom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas == Dalits?

It will be nice if people stop fighting like cats and dogs over caste issues.All great people in the history of the world stood aganist caste and creed and they advocated the unity and prosperity of humanity.People with narrow mind (misers) are caste conscious and fight each other over caste.It is my humble request that these caste fights should be discontiued in this article as the great saint and social reformer Sri Narayana Guru's name reflects in this article and so the "discussion" tab of this article should be devoid of caste as Guru was a saint who ardently fought aganist caste and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manushyan1 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be understood that by 1930 Ezhavas had about 100 SNDP branches established. Not only the great Sree Narayana Guru, the poet Kumaran Asan,community leaders like Padmanabhan Palpu, TK Madhavan etc provided great leadership to the community and were great leaders in the general Kerala community. It is this leadership that resulted in C. Keshavan becoming the chief minister of the state of erstwhile Travncore-Cochin in 1951. just 4 years after India won freedom.

Ezhavas are not oppressed and cannot be oppressed. However we should respond to the "Dalit" term carefully. We must not unnecessarily denigrate the SC/ST people in the process. We have nothing to prove to any one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.160.140 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

References:

• Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India
• Affirmative Action and Social Mobility of Dalits"

Your views please. I have two references which say they are. --vi5in^[talk] 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Vivin, your intension ie clear from this post. You alway say you are neutral. but your edits and comments here never say it.59.162.138.193 13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I make a site and write saying Nair==dalit... Can it be a reference? Come on grow up. Your intentions are rotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nairs are not Dalits, and were never known to be Dalits. If you make a site claiming Nairs are Dalits, it would have little credibility as there will not be any factual or referential basis for such a claim. Ezhavas are Dalits because they have no varnas i.e outcasts in the Brahminical caste system imposed on Kerala communities, as the definition of Dalit is a community which has no varnas, and there are references as well to support the fact. In some ways Ezhavas share historical features with other Dalit communities in India. There is no need to be insecure about past caste system status as it does not imply much in modern times. B Nambiar 05:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. But these references I provided are not just "sites". They are actual books. --vi5in^[talk] 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Vivin, I don't see any difference between a book and a site. Both are reflections of author's opinion. Just to make you understand I am giving you this link. http://www.sndp.org/Html/BiographyByDrSOmana.html. It says under caste system in kerala Until recently Malayali Brahmins practiced the most heinous sociological crime of keeping women of a certain section of the Hindu community as concubines, without having the obligation of a responsible husband or father. If I want I can make this as reference and malign the article which you maintain daily. But I am not interested.

Well, there are differences between a book and a site. Almost anyone can make a site. It takes a certain amount of dedication and effort to write a book. And although a lot of people can, a book still has more credibility than just some website made by some guy. Listen, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bring this "caste-based" garbage here. I am not interested in your veiled threats. I know you are talking about the Nair article (which, incidentally, already mentions sambandham). Perhaps you automatically assume that by virtue of me being a Nair, I am out to malign you people. I honestly don't care. I'm here to build a good article, and I will go out of my way to do it. I have met this kind of opposition before, that too from overzealous Nairs who weren't too happy with some perceived "unfavourable" information in the Nair article. So please don't accuse me of bias. I do believe I have more than a decent measure of objectivity. I am almost certain that if I post a reference that portrays Ezhavas in a favourable light, you will not have any problem whatsoever with it. In fact, there are a lot of references in the article already, that are like that. If you are honestly so concerned about the references, why don't you say that those are "opinions" as well and remove them? Let me tell you what is really happening. You have double standards. It's that simple. Your threat is ample evidence that you aren't here to improve the article at all. Also, please don't change the title of my discussion. That's very immature. Finally, why don't you get a username instead of editing anonymously? All you seem to be doing is making potshots and not providing any worthwhile arguments. --vi5in^[talk] 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

At the unsigned user, what you are saying is essentially that references reflect the author's opinion, which is true, but that this makes it invalid, which is absurd and means that the wikipedia system which is supported by references is wrong according to your views. As for the threat of, which i understand as, showing sambandam in the Nair article, well that is already included and no one denies that. At least the Nair article is more accurate than this Ezhava marketing campaign that poses as an article. B Nambiar 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Along with just sources, the sources need to be reliable. See WP:RS. In this case, I'd generally say that books are inherently more reliable than website (the most cost involved in getting it published means some more review), but still, there should be more support if possible. If there is in fact an argument about something, make both sides clear. State "blah says this; in contrast, blah2 says this." It is possible to neutrally describe other people's arguments, even if it looks like a bunch of books says this, a bunch of people with websites argue this. That's neutral (and works much better). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No Ricky81682 if you study the arguments closely you will find a pattern of argument where users state Ezhavas are Dalits with references and the opposing side instead question the users motives and try to insult with references to Nair sambandams which personally is uneffective and has already been included in the Nair article, instead of disputing the statement of argument. Therefore there is really only one side of the argument relating to Ezhavas Dalit status and so is not really an argument concerning it but rather a user versus user as a result of the statement. B Nambiar 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::These people are forced to go out of kerala since they are too much irritated by the growth of the community. With/without Edu/job resrvation, activities of SNDP, then with hard wording people ezhavas growing day by day. Logical ethnical cleaning is happening. Just like Jews. others will remain in kerala as dalits. or feature dalits of kerala will come back as sudras. This statement from Mr. unsigned user is extremely idiotic in many ways in that it makes no sense though it tries to. Wikipedia is no place for drunken illogical statements Mr. unsigned user please refrain from similar statements as your input is useless. Lot of Ezhava(assuming) users seem to be heavily casteist though I must say. B Nambiar 14:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've already warned User:192.147.58.6 about his comment. I'm not going to go back and warn everyone else; what's past is past. If someone says something now, their past acts will be considered though. Do not point fingers at what others have said in the past. Now, once some discussion, some clarity on exactly what people want inserted (exact language and where), then I'll insert it. Once it's in, I suspect the protests will start, and then we go from there. Also, everyone remember, don't take me being an admin as having some sort of super-editor ability; everyone is equal here, I just have a little extra abilities. If there are accusations here that my edits to the protected article are biased, I will simply comment here like everyone else and leave it for some other admin to edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Ricky is completely missing the point as far as the usage of Dalit is concerned. It is not a controversial word and is something like the 'African-American' tag - it has within it multiple communities. But unlike African-American, it is not geographically indicative, but only points to a shared social (painful) past. Dalit is a voluntary social identity forged for the advancement of the members and used for political mobilization - there are no grey areas here and I am surprised that so much time has been spent over deciding whether Ezhavas are Dalits or not. A mere phone-call to anyone living in Kerala would have done. Anyway, for the sake of clearing it up for people outside Kerala (and India). There are two types of identities in India - the Brahmin-denominated (which are usually insults and hated by the communities to which it is applied) and (of late) voluntary. Dalit is not a Brahmin-created identity like Sudra etc.. Dalit is a positive and voluntary identity used to denote a very clearly defined group - the erstwhile 'untouchables' or 'Harijans' as Gandhi called them. Dalit does not mean anyone outside the four Brahminical varnas. It is NOT similar to 'Kafir' in Islam, where anyone who is not a Muslim is, by definition, a Kafir. All the communities that were outside the fold of the Brahminical Hinduism ARE NOT Dalits - only the groups that were co-opted by Brahmanical Hindu society as menial workers, yet kept at a distance through taboo, are. The others, who were not co-opted into Hinduism by Brahmins, were also kept at a distance and were considered untouchables by the Brahmins (a favour often returned, if not with the same passion.) So there are two 'untouchables' for a Brahmin - the Hindu untouchables (who tilled their field and fed them) and the non-Hindu untouchables with whom they variously had differing degrees of interaction. In the second class would fall all the Sramanic religions as well as the Semitic religions. To call all the Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Jains 'Dalits' because some Brahmins considered them untouchables or outside the pale is foolish and shows lack of understanding of the complexities of Indian social stratification. I hope I have made it clear, the term HINDU as a cultural denomination includes Ezhavas, but used in the sense of 'Brahminical Hindu' (as someone who accepts Brahmins as their masters) does not. It emphatically does not because a lot of Ezhava and Thiyya identity and heritage is built around, and draws from their Sramanic past. [Sramanic religions are those which emphasize sacrifice and penury, like Buddhism etc, and not God. Other examples are Jainism, Samkhya-Yogi, Charvaka and Ajivaka.] Sreejiraj 15:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with everyone that the word Dalits shouldn't have a negative connotation, I am still going to assume good faith and see if any of the other users can give me a clear counterargument; I just find it baffling why there is so much controversy against it. I've avoided this article for so long because all I see are the page-long diatribes about "this whole article is a mess" which is against my point of creating a ton of little sections to work with and just are not helpful. Sreejiraj, I'll say the same thing as to everyone else: find me a source (I'm willing to look a Wikipedia article right now if it's directly on point). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was too long. Let me be brief and prove my point in two steps - step one - i will 'prove' that ezhavas belong to a category called 'obc' or 'other backward castes'. In step two, I will 'prove' that the obc and the dalit groups are two distinct and mutually exclusive groups. I think that should settle it. In short, Ezhavas are OBCs, OBCs are not Dalits. Therefore, Ezhavas are not Dalits, the simple syllogism. So step one is to prove that Ezhavas are OBCs. For this, please click here: (you will find government records mostly) http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=ezhava+obc&btnG=Search&meta= That should clarify that Ezhavas are OBCs. In case, you think this is just a google trick, you can try this like as well (parallel process for dalit) : http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=ezhava+dalit&btnG=Google+Search&meta= You will notice that the only reference in the long list where Ezhavas are pictured as dalits is a link back to this talk page :-) Now the second step - to prove that OBCs and Dalits are mutually exclusive, and often antagonistic social groups. For this, please click here : http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=%22dalits+and+obcs%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Please take the bother to go through some of the articles. You will rest assured. Thanks. Sreejiraj 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that the government officially classifies Ezhavas as OBCs so that's not controversial. However, you still have not argued against the sources that state pretty clearly that the Ezhavas "are treated like" Dalits (I would hope that saying that the two cultures are treated the same with some sources saying that they are the same and some differentiating them would work best). Per WP:RS, I'm pretty sure books on the matter are considered authority over websites (the first page on Google shows Wikipedia and a number of blogs, none of which are allowed). I would suggest that you actually do what User:Vivin put the effort to do and cite exact sources, including link and page numbers (you look less credible when you say "see if I google these two words that means something and you go figure it out"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i give up. (your doubts are precisely the reason why i suggested you should read some of the articles that are thrown up by the last search..) OBC and DALIT are well defined communities. Also, one final thing, if i show you one or two books in which Iits written that African Americans were treated like dogs in the old times, will you start off an article about African Americans with 'African Americans, a dog community in North America... ?' Good luck to you. I am sorry to use such an extreme example, but i think it will help Ricky put things in perspective.. Being treated like something (according to authors) and being something are different things.. communities have been treated in a variety of different ways during their evolution. Nair have been treated like landed gentry and as foot soldiers, but that does not make them landed gentry or foot soldiers NOW. You cannot say, "Nairs, a landed gentry community..." Sreejiraj (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Nairs are Sudras too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.27.108 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I would like this be cleared up but you guys can't just keep coming in here going "Oh my god Ezhavas are not Dalits" and go off in a huff when you don't clearly explain your view. Asking me to read hundreds of other pages of text to understand a simple point (frankly, I have enough background to understand the complexities of the caste system) especially when other people have provided sources where authorities clearly have compared the treatment of Ezhavas to that of Dalits doesn't help make your argument. The word "Dalit" isn't even in the article anymore, so I really don't get what your argument is really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas are not Dalits

Ezhavas cannot be considered as Dalits (though there are physical resemblances) even though they were never part of the ‘Varna’ system. They were basically Budhist Srilankans who were well off till the 6th C. AD. This is very much obvious from their expertise in Ayurveda, proficiency in Sanskrit etc. They lost their status due to the Namboothiri hegemony which started from the 7th C AD. So during the arrival of Brahmins in Kerala, the Dravidian Nairs were the rulers and the Budhist Ezhavas were part of the upper crest society. However, after the Nambuthiri take over, they elevated the top Nair chieftains into the ‘kshathriya’ group and the fellow Nairs who were soldiers into the Sudra group. Thus they made sure that they are protected and served by the Nairs which was essential for them to retain their position in tact. The Dalits of today were petty laborers even before the arrival of the Brahmins and hence, were the most backward people among all the groups in Kerala.

As far as the Ezhava article is concerned, I feel whatever Vivin has done was correct. The article REALLY LACKS QUALITY and it is not doing justice to history. Also reference of other castes in this article reduces it to nothing more than a POV. Please remove the unwanted notions. There is also no need for a comparison between Nairs and Ezhavas. It would be rather more detrimental to the Ezhava article as Nairs have a great reputation all over the world even if one call them by whatever name like Sudra etc. Mind that Sudra is not a bad word and many of the fiercest warriors in medieval India were called as Sudras. Also they were rulers of many kingdoms like Rashtrakuta, chalukya etc. Basically all the warrior clans who refused to accept the dominance of the vedic Brahmins were made as Sudras. A neutral reader like me will find the Nair article more impressive and ingenuous than the Ezhava article which is lacking the authenticity and quality of the content.

I have also noticed that user Keralaone having a rush of blood and appealing the Ezhavas to keep their head high :-) What big deal man? This is just an article we are discussing about.. keep your cool. You also mentioned earlier that you have seen ‘lot of world’ but folks are not really measuring up when it matters. Another anonymous user has given a list of names whom he/she claims are prostitutes (User:124.125.229.64.) This maniac seems to be a good candidate for cyber prosecution.Lambodharan —Preceding comment was added at 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Although Ezhavas were treated in a similar way to Dalits (for example not being allowed to enter into a temple), the term does not represent the community. "Dalit" is used mostly in a North Indian context to describe outcastes in the community (similar to the Pulayar and Adivasis of Kerala) not the Ezhavas. Having said that, I should also note that the Ezhava article doesn't address toddy-tapping or servant status of several Ezhava families. Many Ezhava families were well off as traders and merchants, but many were also servants. It is similar to the Nair caste, where there were Sudra Nairs (such as Illathu Nair) who were servants for other Nairs and Namboothiris, in contrast to the Samanta Kshatriya Nairs (Kiriyathil Nair) who were from the same lineage as the royal family.Malayaliyan 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I really have no care about this, but does someone have a source? All I see are general musings. If people want specific language put in, tell me (a separate section would help) with sources. Also, Lambodharan, be civil even when others are not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I provided two references that say Ezhavas were Dalits. It seems to be a better term than saying "progressive" which seems rather vague. Here are a few more references:

• Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God
• Her-Self: Gender and Early Writings of Malayalee Women —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivin (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still a little concerned about that edit. While Arrow is quite clearly connecting Ezhavas and dalits (albeit in a footnote), in the second source (Her-Self), the author talks about untouchables including the Ezhavas and others who prefer to be known the dalits today. Under that, Ezhavas would be like dalits in that they are both untouchables but not exactly dalits (boy, that's an odd hair-splitting). I see this as the least controversial wording: Ezhavas were treated like dalits because people said they had no varnas. I would rather the wording be on how they were treated rather than what they are (I frankly find the obsessive desire to classify people in this level of detail a little depressing). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My original intent was to provide a reference to another editor's edit. But I agree. This level of detail is unnecessary. It might save us a lot of trouble if we took out that sentence completely. --vi5in^[talk] 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Present Population Trend in Ezhava Community

Ezhava's once formed the biggest ethinic group in Kerala. However, in 20th century Ezhava population decreased due to family planning and one child norm adopted by many educated Ezhavas. Presently the muslim population in Kerala has overtaken Ezhava's and have become the biggest ethinic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.197.36 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice opinion but do you have any sources to back that up? I mean, that is a pretty big claim to be making. If so, I have no problem editing the article to put that in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. There are a couple of separate independent statements you've asked about: (a) Ezhavas once formed the biggest ethnic group in Kerala; (b) the Ezhava population decreased during the 20th century; (c) Muslims have overtaken Ezhavas and become the biggest ethnic group; (d) reasons for the decline [you claimed "family planning and one child norm adopted by many educated Ezhavas"]. (a), (b) and (c) could all be easily found out by census reports, but (d) requires a real source analyzing the material. Of course, without (d), the population paragraph would be sort of bare (interesting but bare). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression that from 1981, the census in India do not ask for the caste of the people (except Scheduled castes and tribes). If it is so, I am not sure what sources we'll use for this. What you find in magazines etc. are likely to be nothing more than guesses (I could well be wrong about the census, in which we can case happily use the census data). Tintin 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that SNDP or NSS might have census information about Nairs and Ezhavas? I'll see what I can find... --vi5in^[talk] 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way, all of this will only answer points (a-c). We should still try to find something that answers (d), why there was a population change. If it is simply due to other groups coming in, there really isn't anything to add. If there is really is some societal change within the Ezhava community (more education means less children means small population group), that would be really interesting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

did some research about this topic but couldnt find exact answers. Only source is the census data on religion in Kerala, where there is clear data on increase in muslim population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudmam (talk • contribs)

I was concerned there wouldn't be. Of well. We might be able to find some scholarly article or something that goes with some vague information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) YES! I found that Ezhavas constituted the largest portion of Hindu society in Kerala (22%) in 1968.[7] A start but now, where should it go? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

Looking over the article, I think the entire first paragraph needs to be nuked for NPOV purposes. Language about them being a "progressive", "mark in the economic and political", all that. I think it should be "The Ezhavas are one of the largest communities in Kerla, a state in southern India. Folklore and written records ..." Comments? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When I initially rewrote it, I rewrote it so that it would read better. But I didn't completely remove the POV. I had planned to do it later anyway because I wanted to concentrate on the flow of the article as a whole. But basically, yes. I agree. --vi5in^[talk] 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, the Folklore part... I am not so sure of the "martial class" part. I looked at the reference provided and although it says that Ezhavas were involved in Kalaripayattu, it doesn't say that they were an actual martial class. I believe as far as profession, that description only applied to Nairs who were always considered to be a matrilineal and martial class. The primary description of Ezhavas seem to be Buddhists who initially resisted attempts at conversion to Hinduism. --vi5in^[talk] 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, please find this reference. http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayItems.asp?id=SET20021221042249&eTitle=Think+Piece&rLink=0 . It says Before the 9th century of the Christian era, they seem to have formed three distinct strata on the basis of profession.... The upper stratum was well-versed in Buddhist scriptures and by virtue of education became experts in indigenous sciences like Ayurveda... The middle stratum preferred to be warriors. It began as a tradition of personal valour, but later assumed professional dimensions. The Chevakar (corrupt form of Chovar) of the Northern Ballads were noted for their individual prowess and proficiency and a perennial source of wonder to all. Towards the close of the 19th century, F W Dawson, commanding Nayar Brigade, recorded: “By about 1780 the strength of the Travancore army was over 50,000 men, disciplined according to the European manner, besides 1,00,000 Nayars and Ezhavas armed with bows and arrows, spears, swords and battle axes.” (A History of the Nayar Brigade, p.1) T K Velu Pillai, who authored The Travancore State Manual similarly refers to the martial heritage of the Ezhavas.... The third stratum of Ezhava society comprised agriculturists. They were the working class —— working in the farm, in the manufacture of various products from coconut tree like copra, mat and toddy.'

This is a newspaper article by Prof Kusuman, head of the department of history at the university of Kerala -- Panikkar

There is a lot of conflicting sources then as the most theories in article itself suggests a Sri Lankan and Buddhist connection, which people assume refers to all Ezhavas. Anyway Vivins description is the most accurate description with later descriptions of the wide range of professions Ezhavas are involved in the past. From what Panikkar's source says is there anything that unites all Ezhavas? they most certainly are not a martial class in the sense of the description. If there is anything that unites Ezhavas its their varnaless lower historical community position in Kerala society and their theories of Buddhist Sri Lankan origin. These most definite facts and theories describe the community more than that the whole community were a martial class, which gives the idea that they are similar to Nairs which to all our knowledge is wrong.B Nambiar 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nambiar, I am not saying entire Ezhava community were martial. A group of Ezhavas were martial and there is no doubt about it. You are trying to impose a definition that makes you happy calling it Avarna / Varna less / Out caste / Dalit etc.. You are overriding a history Professor's (Head of the Department) view with your's and Vivin's view. Our knowledge is not absolute and that's why we rely on references. Regarding origin of the community, each theory is conflicting with the other. Same is the case with Nairs origin.

a) Came with Nambuthiries

b) Descendands of Nagas of north India

c) Came from Nepal

d) Local cheftians of Kerala (before Nambuthiri arrival)

Aren't they conflicting?

The above was not to compare Ezhava with Nair. But just to make you understand.

About Ezhava origin, some says they came from Srilanka, and some says not. -- Panikkar

What you say above I almost entirely agree with except a thing you missed is that in the article it says "Folklore and written records show that Ezhavas were a martial class" which is wrong for your reasons "A group of Ezhavas were martial and there is no doubt about it". The key words being a group. Anyway what is common with these warrior Ezhavas as with other Ezhava if the Sri Lankan/Buddhist origin is not valid? that would be their lower position in Kerala society which is conveniently not mentioned in the article. I am not hell bent on this because of a personal vendetta, it is just misleading as most people would agree and therefore against Wikipedia's objectiveness. I mean any non-Ezhava Malayalee would agree this is still a glorified version of the Ezhava community, which you can also see in the Jat article. I agree that Ezhava Buddhist rebelling against Namboothiri implemented self-favoring caste system was the result they were in a lower position in Kerala society/not given varnas, but this should be mentioned in the article if supported by references and not conveniently omitted to change the image of the article. Anyway the article says specifically "Most theories of origin for the Ezhavas suggest a Sri Lankan and Buddhist connection" so the opening sentence should go something like this "Ezhava/Thiyya refers to a community of Kerala who did not have any Varnas under the Hindu caste system and are thought of based on most theories to have a Buddhist and/or Sri Lankan origin". Next sentence stating the professions involved by the community. Anything is better than the ambiguous term "progressive" which I don't really know the meaning of when applied to communities and I can't find a meaning for in a dictionary in community descriptive terms. A warrior Ezhava does not have anything in common, from the facts we know, ignoring theories of origin, with a toddy tapper Ezhava except for the fact that they had no varna and had a lower position in historical post-Namboothiri Kerala society. I think this is fact. B Nambiar 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that they (Ezhavas) never found a place in the four tier caste hierarchy. It also mentions about toddy tapping. What else is required? If you have seen any statement that adds to it's glory and not referenced you can let us know. I really don't understand what's wrong with the term "progressive" -- Panikkar —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are multiples theories, why not instead remove that from the intro, and expand the theories of origins sections? If there are 4 conflicting theories, we should have sources for all four. B Nambiar, why should the intro contain so much about the Ezhavas relationship within Hinduism? The intro is about the Ezhava community; their relationship within Hinduism should be a small section, at best. If they are in the lowest section of Kerala society (in what sense? by Hindu religious authorities? by socioeconomic views? we know the gov't puts them into the OTC class), that whole thing should go into a section on how the Ezhava community fits into the larger society, no more. Anyone more is just excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No what I speak is not theory. The fact is that there is nothing common among Ezhavas apart from their position in pre and post-Namboothiri society and the theories of origin largely pointing to a Buddhist and/or Sri Lankan origin for them therefore one or both of these facts must be mentioned in the opening line to justify the grouping of these collection of peoples. Progressive is not a descriptive term and definitely not encyclopedia material.B Nambiar 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say what do you mean by "progressive"? Is the group progressive compared to other groups in India, around the world, what? It doesn't make sense and is biased. If you are saying that they have 'progressed' (wow, there's another can of worms), then it is better to avoid using such peacock terms at all. The Ezhavas are a group in India, that's the most unbiased series of facts out there. At the same time, what does the 'martial class' mean? Is the point that (a) The Ezhavas consider themselves a martial class (like the Sikh solider) (b) that Hindus consider the Ezhavas a martial class (doubtful) or (c) the world has considered them a martial class due to what they've done (very unlikely)? Everyone remember, the terms and words are supposed to be in the context of the entire world, not just how the Ezhavas, Hindus, India itself, whoever see them. There is like no outside clear perspective in this article at all. Also, Panikkar, sign you messages; it is not that hard and annoying otherwise.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky81682 what say you to my earlier comment above?. Another alternative for opening sentence is "Ezhava is an OBC community and form one of the largest ethnic groups in Kerala" which is also fact. Right now the description that they form an ethnic group doesn't give a reason as to why they are a separate ethnic group of Kerala which most people should agree be included in the opening line of an ethnic community page on Wikipedia.B Nambiar 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would rather keep it bare in the intro for now, until the article stabilizes a little more. I would put on top about their history and their culture and leave that stuff until the end (again, their place in overall society). Frankly, I think the entire article could be revamped into a more chronological standpoint (there's a lot in there about Shree Narayana Guru's influence but I can't piece together an overarching change) with origins (both folklore and possibly historical) to the changes as the Hindu caste system sets in to the reforms (both Guru's and then as the Indian government has changed). At the reforms stage is when the OTC stuff would come in (the intro would have of that but the article's not ready for that yet). If you can't tell by the massive number of very small sections I've added, I am still just trying to get people to start using shorter much more focused discussions. Having huge paragraph arguments back and forth don't accomplish anything. Also, given the WP:AN notice (and the huge shadow of impropriety that casts on me), you can see that most arguments haven't even moved past the introduction yet. Of course, guys, remember, I am not the overruling be-all-end-all of discussions. If a consensus wants a bigger intro, I'll readily put it in; do not be afraid to disagree with me, just be civil is all I ask. I've just taking it from experience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cloth revolt details

Can someone confirm whether the citations for the cloth revolt actually fill any of the fact tags in the whole Spiritual and social movements section? They've been there for long enough in my opinion without a source so if nobody confirms, I'll remove them all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't really heard about this before either. Dayaanjali has provided links to books that apparently talk about this though. --vi5in^[talk] 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Societal position section

Now that I've probably annoyed just about everyone with my edits (probably the best), I'd like to add some historical details to that section. Frankly, the whole article should be rewritten in a historical fashion. Also, everyone, when providing sources, please provide the page number and the actual text you want to use; I'm tired of hunting through these tons of pages of text to see a single phrase that vaguely is on point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, yeah Izhava is another spelling for Ezhava. You haven't annoyed anybody :). Thanks for helping out! Yup, it's really helpful to cite the page number too. I've been using the {{cite book}} template and it seems to have a page number option in there. --vi5in^[talk] 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Theyyam versis Kaliyattam verus Theyyatom

Ok, per Theyyam, Theyyattam is just a different spelling or whatever. Kaliyattam looks to be the type of festival where this dance is done, not a particular form of dance. Confirm? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No Kaliyattam is just another name of TheyyamDaya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaliyattam , vellattom etc are different variants within the theyyam artform —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuruthi

Anyone know why Sree Narayana Guru wanted Kuruthi ended? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

kuruthi means Animal sacrifice part of the religion. Sree Narayana Guru oppposed this. i will come with with more rfs.Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mock marriage ceremony

Again, particular reasons for wanted it ended? I could guess but I'd rather be consistent and ask for a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

details abt this custom. [8] Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a good enough source for WP:RS in my mind. It is especially hard to call it an unbiased source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity

How does the Ezhava Memorial fit in there? It's vague but that seems to belong more in how the Ezhavas fit into the greater society. Also, source, especially for the time period? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This need not be and added to some other section.

Refs for Vaikom Satyagraha

• Boography
• http://www.kerala.cc/keralahistory/index25.htm

Actually the ist rf can used get many details abt the community. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref about army of different kingdoms

The below content is requesting citation. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin and you can find it here. Refer page no 27 of this book. http://books.google.com/books?id=07Y3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=izhava+kerala&source=web&ots=zFl70XFRFi&sig=FhdgryHrCKak2z2bK3yvQl8IjJk#PPA27,M1. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We can modify the section Martial background like this.

Martial Tradition

Folklore and written records also show that the Ezhavas were a martial class. Ezhava folk songs, the Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, describe military exploits of Ezhava heroes. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin. Their martial Mobillty is so well recognised with community title chekon, meaning soldier. Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiya</ref> They enjoyed better status before the arrival of the brahmins from north.

The Encyclopedia published by the Government of Kerala describe the martial tradition of Ezhavas such as Aromal Chekavar, Unniyarcha etc. That is an authentic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.160.140 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to remove following part from the section as the kottaram Vaidyan means Palace Physician and can part of the Ayurvedic vaidyars subsection of the section past occupations.

Many from community became Kottaram Vaidyan(palace physicians) of important kings in the region.

Vadakkan paattukal are Ballads of North Kerala and not ezhava folk songs :-))) If any community has a claim on it i think it is the "Panan" caste :-). It is definitely a historocal fact that the sub sect of chekors were a martial families and definitely there were vaidayrs like Itty achuthan.I definitely think it is historically true to state these things. But care has to be taken that since that both these professions were "fringe" and not the predominant profession of the community and therefore it would be nice if care is taken that overgeneralization does not happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Panars are the people who sang these songs. And the characters like Aaromal, Unniarcha were thiyya. If you don't know that it's your problem. I don't think anywhere it mentioned that all Ezhavas were martial. Remember that Aiyyappan's kalari teacher was an Ezhava. Panikkar 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Panars were not only the singers but also the composers of these songs. It was common in medieval Kerala to hire panars to compose songs and spread great stories or rumours by wealthy families.They were like modern day media persons or lobbyists. Vadankkan pattukal has therefore two families glorified - the puthooram house (chekavars) and the manikkoth house (nairs). There were only 8 families of chekors among entire of ezhava/thiyya community in Kerala so this compared to the proportion of the ezhava community as a whole was a fringe minority.I donot dispute or disrespect the fact that there were other professions being practiced but this was only a minority of the ezhava community and the vast majority of the ezhava community was in to toddy tapping (which was seen by the community themselves as their kula thozhil). This is the only reason i suggested that we be careful of over-generalization. (2)Also an important aspect of the Ezhava/tiyya community is being overlooked. In malabar post independence large fraction of the ezhava/thiyya community transited from toddy tapping to "beedi" making because a couple of these factories were owned by the wealthy people within the ezhava community.So majority of the community became daily wage workers in beedi making which helped them to unite to form unions with communist ideologies. This became a strong political votebank and a social force that played a significant role in the upliftment of the community in the post independence era in malabar.Something as important as that in the social mobility of the ezhava/thiyya community is not even mentioned in the article !!. Other factors are enumerated in the following reserach article.http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FASS%2FASS33_04%2FS0026749X9900347Xa.pdf&code=45a7368182cc26af0e528452fc6608c7

And therefore martial class is a very inaccurate term to describe the Ezhava community as a whole.B Nambiar 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism for Martial Tradition

What?!. How are all Ezhavas martial? there are references that claim they are all a martial class?. First Elam migration, now this?. If some members of Ezhavas were employed in small amounts in armies of Varmas across Kerala according to references, and I think someone mentioned they teach Kalaripayattu in south/central Kerala, but that does not warrant the whole community the description of a martial class. I have lived in Kerala(Kanhangad & Kannur) and out of the descriptive terms for Ezhavas/Billavas/Thiyyas I have heard, martial class was definitely not one of them. "Many from community became Kottaram Vaidyan(palace physicians) of important kings in the region.[1][2][3][4]". Ok so "many" of them were palace physicians but they are also a martial class, why not add that they are kings as well while you're at it, which of course one user mentioned unsurprisingly. Admin needs to scrutinize the martial class claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Nambiar (talk • contribs) 08:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky, Though book is a better reference, this page can also be used as a reference for martial tradition. http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayItems.asp?id=SET20021221042249&eTitle=Think+Piece&rLink=0 . -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panikkar (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the south Ezhavas and (Nadars too) were traditionally trained in the thekkan style of Kalarippayattu. The Ezhava caste as we know today is created out of several sections such as Ezhavas proper, Channars, Pachellis, Kollathu Ezhavas, Pandi Ezhavas, Thandars and so on. Even as late as second half of the 20th century the wedding between different Ezhavas were uncommon or at least frowned upon by some of them.

Not all are in martial arts. That being the case,whether Ezhavas are a martial race or not is subjective. We only need to preserve the lineage of the sections that did have martial heritage.

Being a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.160.140 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please find more references abt martial backgound of ezhavas.

1. Link [9] Its they also belong to martial class and chekon the title show that.

1. Link [10] This says chegos(ezhavan or chekavan) who came in ancient time to this country. The tradition is that they came from Cylon and belongs to millitary caste.

1. refer point 108 of this page here Link [11]. page number 50. The book name is Hendrik Adriaan Van Reede Tot Drakenstein (1636-1691) and Hortus Malabaricus by J. Heniger. ISBN 906191681X. Published 1986 CRC Press. It says Ezhavas(otherwise called silgos), tree climbers , also bound to wars and arms. These people will also serve to teach nayros in fencing school;further theior occupation is to tap coconut trees and suri, arrack and sugar therefrom, so that they usually have plenty of pelf.

1. link[12]. its here also.

124.125.228.205 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be honest that I haven't read all the material (frankly, I would rather someone say "this page indicates X") but I think the problem comes down to the issue of "what does it mean to be in a class?" and "at what time were they in a class?" By saying the Ezhavas were in a martial class, everyone is really saying they had a tradition of jobs in that class, correct? I know the language is mangled everyone (please don't point me to other articles that use that wording) so I just want to understand what exactly everyone is saying. It is obvious that there is no martial class (for anyone) in today's modern society. I hope that is right. Frankly, I find this a sad time waste for this article. I think a much better (and more sympathetic) story would be "Ezhavas were a top level or just an equal group in the past, the Hindu caste system came in and pushed them (why them in particular is interesting), and now with the social reforms, both societal changes and government forced, the group is moving up." If that sounds accurate, then I hope people could work on that tale. I would hope that the article expands enough that we could be forced in the future to expand this story into different articles because it is too damn large (which is the right way to have multiples articles). However, it seems like a number of people are intent on using false and fake sources for their own goals and to get their own wording in. Sorry to hear that and I really have to let this article go. Being challenged constantly is not a goal of mine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a single overall question

Ok, guys I don't there is a right way to say "they belong/they are the martial caste; they don't", whatever. That isn't the distinction I'm worried about. Again, I will repeat. Is the point that (a) The Ezhavas consider themselves a martial class (like the Sikh solider) (b) within Kerala/India/Hindus consider the Ezhavas a martial class (doubtful for now but maybe in the past?) or (c) the world has considered them a martial class due to what they've done (very unlikely)? Everyone remember, the terms and words are supposed to be in the context of the entire world, not just how the Ezhavas, Hindus, India itself, whoever see them. There is like no outside clear perspective in this article at all. Either way, I think Religion and Conflict that User:Dayaanjali pointed out at the top have the best description. Historically, like the Nairs, the Ezhavas identified themselves as a martial class (a la the Sikhs) but something changed and they are no longer thought of that way. The best wording (I'd remove the Sikh part but otherwise) would seem to be "Folklore and written records indicate that the Ezhavas identified themselves as a martial class." Then the folklore, serving in armies stuff. The doctors stuff doesn't belong (unless someone tells me how a martial class and being physicians are related). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sections merged

Just in case someone notices, I've merged the "Martial background" section into "Martial traditions" so that it flows better. Since I think everyone agrees that the martial tradition, whatever it is, is an older tradition and no longer really current. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Name used for the community in international books

Chogans, chegos, ezhavas, siegos, silgos, tifedoors, tiyyas, ilava, izhava, izhuva, ezhuva 124.125.228.205 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me a source that references all those name? Most I understand are just do the nature of translation but just would like a single clean cite. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezhavas performing Brahmanical duties

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/24391829.cms

Can we have a section for this? Is he (Rakesh) the first non-brahmin to be appointed as priest in a Devaswom owned temple? Panikkar 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A section just for one person? There would need to be a very large number of people doing this for it to describe the actions of the entire caste. I don't think it's the place to describe a select few. Also, the article generalizes with "non-Brahmin" and gives the example of Rakesh. --vi5in^[talk] 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking to include this incident alone. This is just an example. There are other Ezhavas who are priests in temples. Adding such an information will not generalize the community. Panikkar 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you understand sort of why a single incident doesn't work. I do think a sentence (maybe just a parenthetical) would fit in nicely in a section about reforms or about how Ezhavas fit into society. Actually I am much more interested though in finding out more about the Supreme Court decision. Can you find articles about that? I think a topic like "the Supreme Court said this about all Ezhavas" and like reforms would help and this would just be an example. Do you think that works better, Panikkar? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Panikkar, I'd just add that I think we could have a section sort of on "improvements in society" like with the social reforms in India, the Supreme Court decision, and there, stories like this would fit in. We could also backtrack and add earlier details of how Ezhavas were kept out of the temples, etc. All neutrally stated of course. Would you think that makes sense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, Panikkar, are there articles about when the Ezhavas were removed from the temples? I am just trying to get a picture of the significance of this. It is obviously a very significant event for you, but we need some idea of its worldwide (or societal) significance to properly put it in context. As you can imagine, a single sentence saying "Hey, a non-brahmin was appointed as a priest in a Devaswom owned temple" is not really clear why anyone should care (especially using the more general non-brahmin instead of specifically Ezhavas). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava buddhist origin

LTTE talks about Thamizh Eelam ( Liberation Tigers of Thamizh Eelam). Eezham is Srilanka or northern part of the island. Caste name of chekavans (chons) in central Kerala is given as Eezhavan or simply "Eezham". In documents a typical statement is " Kumaran, 48 years, Eezham, Swastham..." ' Elam' is only another spelling for 'Eezham'. Simhalham (sanskrit) became Seehalham and Seelham and later Eelham and Eezham (Thamizh). Ezhavan is Simhalan or Srilankan. The great poet Kunjan nambiar calls Ezhavan, a 'Bouddhan' or Buddhist. Even though community memebers are called Srilankans all of them have not come from there. Analogy of Kerala Muslims being called Jonakar. Jonakar means the Greeks. All know that Kerala muslims have not come from Greece. The ezahavans were called Srilankans probably because they were converted into Buddhism by the Srilankan Bhikkhus. Linguistic proof is against mass migration from Srilanka to Kerala. Their language belongs to Indo-European (Aryan) family but ezhavans speak a Dravidan language. If there was mass migraion ezhava languagae would have been Indo-European. Vvmundakkal (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your speculation. Saying how organizations describe themselves and you saying your personal views (which is against the policy of original research) of what it means is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It doesn't pass the require tests of a reliable source or the greater verifiability standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

References

This section is only for collecting references. Not for fight.

Aiyyappan's Guru, Mailikapurathamma - http://books.google.com/books?id=v-w8AAAAMAAJ&dq=ezhava%2Bkalari&q=ezhava&pgis=1 Panikkar 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have anything better than a [Chandamama]] article ? Tintin 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that Chandamama or something else ? Tintin 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

its from Chandamama Publications not a chandamama magazine. its says Original from the University of Michigan

Vvmundakkal 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) More references about martial backgound of ezhavas.

1. Link [13] Its they also belong to martial class and chekon the title show that.
2. Link [14] This says chegos(ezhavan or chekavan) who came in ancient time to this country. The tradition is that they came from Cylon and belongs to millitary caste.
3. refer point 108 of this page here Link [15]. page number 50. The book name is Hendrik Adriaan Van Reede Tot Drakenstein (1636-1691) and Hortus Malabaricus by J. Heniger. ISBN 906191681X. Published 1986 CRC Press. It says Ezhavas(otherwise called silgos), tree climbers , also bound to wars and arms. These people will also serve to teach nayros in fencing school;further theior occupation is to tap coconut trees and suri, arrack and sugar therefrom, so that they usually have plenty of pelf.
4. link[16].

124.125.228.205 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For 1, I thought I discussed it earlier; that makes sense for it says "the Izhavas may have been a martial class" which is in the article already. For 2, it seems a little odd to be that specific about the exact event that determined a class identification, but it also is an 1862 book. For 3, you are seriously trying to cite a book on Indian flora for something this controversial, especially when it says that they "are bound to wars and arms"? For 4, I'd said this before but websites are given less authority than text. However, the article already says that historically, the Ezhavas identified themselves as a martial class. That is all we have; we don't have indications that other groups identified them as such. Am I wrong? If so, what do you think it should say? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and The Heritage cited by Panikkar is the source I am looking at in the next section. While I am concerned about taking a single sentence from a magazine from almost two decades ago, it seems to fit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

November 2007 addition

Refs for new content added [17]

• alummoottil channars
• Cheerappanchira Kalari trainer
• Valabhassery family

Vvmundakkal (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, moved for clarity. First, those aren't the sources you put on the article, so it is misleading. Saying that books are your sources and then pointing to these websites is frankly dishonest. Second, the first and third website (Alummoottil.com) does not seem to pass the standard for a reliable source. For the Google book, I only see a single line, what is it supposed to tell me? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It says the Lord Ayyappan was trained in an ezhava Kalari(an indian martial art) family Cherrappanchira. The Panicker and her daughter of the family were trainers. Vvmundakkal 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I understand. According to legend, the South Indian god Ayyappan was trained by an Ezhava martial arts expert. Remember that the article should be understandable by someone with little to no background knowledge of the material. I'm not sure if the daughter is worth mentioning. Would you agree to putting this language in the "Martial traditions" section after the folk songs sentence, moving the armed forces into the next paragraph and remove the sentence about them later becoming physicians (it just doesn't fit)? That way, the paragraphs reads: martial tradition, according to legend, and then according to history. Also, note if you still want to claim bias on my part, you can always use {{editprotected}} to get some other administrator to change something in the text. I'll just say that most other admins are must be stringent than I am in reviewing your edits. Also, if you get another admin to agree to an edit, it would be rude of me to just revert them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The website that you refer to (Alummoottil.com) has scanned articles from India Today and Kerala Kaumudi (leading national and regional journals) both supporting the matter at hand. Additionally, most of the sections referenced are english translations from M Radhakrishnan's book titled 'Paada Palakakal'. So I beg to differ; the website does seem to pass the standard for a reliable source, and removing this reference without proper scrutiny was uncalled for. I request you to reconsider this edit. -- Sathishcm 05:00, 19 December 2007 (EDT)

Ricky, for your clarity the scanned articles links are added here http://www.alummoottil.com/Heritage/Article/IndiaToday/IndiaToday.htm and http://www.alummoottil.com/Heritage/Article/KeralaKaumudi/KeralaKaumudi.htm. I am still looking for references to the pada palakakal book. Of course, all three are in published in Malayalam, and I dont know if translation will be an issue for you. And I agree that those aren't the sources he put in the article, so it is grey as to how relevant this site is. I am just pointing out that there are such references on the website. -- Sathishcm 05:19, 19 December 2007 (EDT)

Well, if the citation was to the newspapers itself (use {{cite news}} with a language parameter for Malayalam and the url), that is fine with me. I'm still concerned about the website on its face. Again, my biggest concern was that Vvmundakkal was inserting the exact same language again and again [which was from months ago] and referencing other citations (improperly in my view). That is a very troubling habit and one that should not be rewarded in any way; I'm pretty sure most other admins would have blocked him immediately and for quite a while. Now, if the newspapers say something that is relevant, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be used. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Travancore State Manual source

Hi, in the "Buddhist roots" section, there is a old cite to I assume to "(II, 845)" to the Travancore State Manual. Does anyone know if there is an electronic link to it? I'm assuming that this is the same manual that is cited as reference 9 (confirmation?), so I have the author's name to add (since we have the exact page number, I'm not going to combine it with the regular one). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Book title

Can someone who knows explain exactly what the title of "K R Narayanan, Ezhavar Oru Padanam Vevekodayam publications, 1967) page27" is? I assume it is author: K. R. Narayana, title: Ezhavar Oru Padanam, publisher: Vevekodayam publications, year: 1967, page 27. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, is "EMS Namppothirppadu, Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhumi Desbhimany publications, VOl1, 1947 ) page27" supposed to be author: EMS Namppothirppadu, title: Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhumi, publisher: Desbhimany publications, volume: 1, year: 1947 page 27? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaleidoscopic Ethnicity and untouchability

Ok, this is the most interesting discussion on the issue I've seen. According to Kaleidoscopic Ethnicity, although the Ezhavas performed the same tasks as the Sudras (the fourth caste in the system), they were considered to be avarna (without varnas) or unclean or "untouchable." Now, here is the interesting part: with the caste they were considered at the top of the caste group known as tindal jati (those who pollute from a distance). They were said to pollute from a distance of 32 feet (pretty strangely specific) so this is why they were unable to attend the temples and created their own ones. If anyone can confirm, we have a very good source for a number of details. I'll add what is already there unsourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture versus Custom sections

Does anyone have a idea why there is split between the custom and culture sections? They seem to fit better under a single heading. I think a section called "Culture" and then subsections for "Family" and one "Rituals" (where all the ritual dances and arts, snake worship, and the temple rituals all fit). Suggestions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I also think it would be helpful to have a few pictures of Ezhavas there without the traditional makeup, which should go at the top. The goal is to get an article on this populace, not just about their cultural traditions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls!

Never feed the trolls.

This topic attracts a lot of trolls who are simply looking to get a rise out of people by writing inflammatory and generally useless comments. Please don't respond to them and encourage them. --vi5in^[talk] 07:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I encourage simply archiving their comments if they continue to waste people's time, especially if they are simply insults. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)