Talk:Kamma (caste)/Archive 3

Citation needed for warrior classification

Please provide valid citation that Kamma were classified as warriors otherwise it will be removed from classification. Again do not cite sources like "Kammavari Charitra" because it is a book written by a Kamma for Kammas. Again just by some handful of people in a community being warriors does not classify the whole caste as warriors.You cannot simply say "well, the Kammas produced this warrior and that warrior, so they're classified as warrior." You have to find a reputable source of information which states that the Kammas were classified as warriors.Foodie 377 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. Material continues to be contested and without valid citation will be removed. I need a book, a page number and a sentence that says that Kammas are "classified" as warriors for this to remain. Otherwise it will be removed.You need to find some proof that some authoritative body, whether Indian or European, classified the group as warriors.Foodie 377 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note also that there appears to be some scholarly consensus that the Kamma are a Shudra caste; please note results on GoogleBooks for "kamma shudra"[1]. There are some cites which mention a claim by the Kamma to be Kshatriya, as well as some offhand references putting them in a similar echelon to the Kshatriya (by which I believe they mean the Southern Indian "Kshatriya" caste-groups, not necessarily Brahminical Kshatriya), so also see "kamma kshatriya"[2] on gBooks. Thanks for your help in expanding critical appraisal of Southern caste articles. To save yourself time, do note that whenever you find a good page on gBooks, it can be auto-formatted using http://reftag.appspot.com into a proper footnote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. As stated by me in Talk pages related to Telugu speaking social groups, Kammas belonged to Shudra caste but Kshatriya element got infused because of historical reasons. Of course, that does not make them Kshatriyas. The most illustrious Kamma of 14th century Musunuri Nayaks proudly and honestly claimed in their inscriptions that they belong to fourth caste. All social groups including Kamma, Velama, Telaga, Balija, Munnuru Kapu, Ontari belong the Kapu group whose basic profession was farming. The illustrious Prolaya Vema Reddy in his inscriptions claimed that he belonged to fourth caste and Panta vamsa (clan) a branch of Panta Kapus. Villge chiefs were given titles ssuch as Peda Kapu, Reddy, Choudary, Naidu etc., These titles are now confused and consolidated as "castes". Till fifty years back there was no separate social group like Reddy. Because of social and political reasons, Kapu gentry bearing the title "Reddy" started distinguishing themselves as a separate social group and Telugu society came to accept it. Too much should not be read into that.I can provide several references to cite that present day "Reddy" was kapu and that they are Shudras. However, I would not like to do that because I have other things to do. I leave it to Users like Foodie to improve his approach to Wiki and contribute more meaningfully. Kumarrao (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Shudra cites

To get consensus, presenting here a few academic references which note the Shudra status of the Kamma:

• and the Sale or weaver caste show a higher rate of literacy than all the 'upper Shudras' (Kamma, Velama, Reddi, etc[3]
• In Andhra, the Shudra higher castes Kamma and Reddi turned out to be the dominant landlord castes. In scuttling land reforms benefitting the downtrodden or committing atrocities, these Shudra Castes are nonetheless akin...[4]
• According to local Hindu caste hierarchy Brahman is regarded as superior caste followed by the Kshatria, Vysya, and Sudra. Kamma, Reddi, Kapu, Yadava, Baligi and Mala in the present study come under Sudra...[5]
• It was at this stage that a powerful Sudra Dravidian writer, Tripuraneni Ramaswami Choudari, emerged in the coastal districts. Tripuraneni (1887-1943) was born in a rich peasant Kamma family and became a lawyer in Tenali.[6]
• Chandrabhan's thesis of the conflict between what he calls the Upper Shudras ( read Yadav, Jat, Maratha, Kamma[7]
• was not accepted by the higher-ranking Sudra castes such as Vellalars, Kamma Naidus, and even Kaljars, who, although Sudra, had occupied positions of authority as nobles, army officers, and land managers in the pre- British kingdom.[8]
• The tenant-cultivators in the zamindari and ryotwari areas also belonged to the Sudra varna which included peasant castes as well as artisan castes, viz., the Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, Raju, Telaga, Balija, Saale (weaver), Chakali (washerman[9]
• The second group consisted of the four dominant upper sudra castes of Andhra Pradesh viz., Kamma, Reddy, Kapu and Patnaik[10]
• The pujari receives the offerings and lives from them and the income from the land. The story of Mundla Mudamma is somewhat striking. In a village near Kandukuru lived a little girl of the Kamma branch of the Sudra caste,[11]
• The position of each caste vis-a-vis the rest is seen in the light of its day to day relations with them. Statement V CASTE HIERARCHY A Brahmin B Vaisya C Sudra (Kamma) Kapu Balija Golla Goundla Kummari Chakali Mangali Uppari Yanadi[12]
• Of the three Hindus, two (Rajaji and Munshi) are Brahmins, while Ranga is a 'clean' sudra (a Kamma).[Of the three Hindus, two (Rajaji and Munshi) are Brahmins, while Ranga is a 'clean' sudra (a Kamma).]
• The agricultural castes of the Telegu country* are the following :— L Telega. 4. Reddi Varu. 2. Vellama Varu. 5. Kapu. 3. Kamma Varu. 6. Nagas. These are all high caste Sudras. They enlist in the army as common soldiers.[13]

Given the great frequency with which Kamma are referred to as Shudra in these works, academic and political, ranging from very recent to a century old, by authors foreign and Indian, why should we not make note of their Shudra status in the article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that Kammas are Shudras. As cited above by me, rulers such as Musunuri Nayaks also proclaimed their fourth caste status in their inscriptions. It also applies to Velama, Kapu, Telaga, Balija, Reddy etc.,Kumarrao (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember why I have this article on my watchlist, but I've been seeing the "Shudra" addition/removal a lot recently. I decided to start glancing at the cites above, and what I saw at first were either dead links or books that don't seem to meet WP:RS to me (for example books published before 1900 by unknown publishers written by otherwise unknown authors probably aren't RS). MatthewVanitas/Kumarrrao, could one of you point a naive reader like myself to what you think are the best of those sources that make this claim? Please note that I am not at all doubting this claim, merely that I'd love help to see into the sources more precisely to determine which are best. Also, we really need to get one or more of those into the article--technically, removing the information is correct if it's not verified. Since we appear to have sources that will do so, adding a citation will at least justify reverting the removals. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dumbest Debate on Wikipedia or Dumbest Debate EVER????

I don't even know what to say or where to begin.... When I was in college my roommate and I heard two of our friends seriously debating which one of them had the best chance of hooking with a girl that was out of both their leagues. At some point I said, "it's a battle of mediocre buffoons!!!!" He thought it was really funny; I was pretty happy with myself. Regardless, I'm a Kamma raised in the U.S., so up until this past year, I knew basically nothing about my community/social group/caste. (I have another simple word to describe it. One that might be more apt, but I don't want to make anyone's head explode). I've done an incredible amount of research beyond what is on this page, yet this page has been extremely helpful in giving me a good background and pointing me in various directions to scour through everything I could get my hands on(KumarRao, thank you for administering this page, the content and archived discussions here have been priceless).

Mr. Food--you said that you were simply searching for the truth? Do you really want it? Here it is: you live in a world of illusion. If you are Hindu and you feel it's concepts are hopelessly evasive, Google "Plato's Cave" ( BTW, if you're not Hindu, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a different path.) I see that in a period of thirteen hours you commented/altered your responses on this page 7 times completely uninterrupted by any other commentator. Once at 4:07, another at 4:29, then one at 7:53, another at 8:05, and again at 8:31. Next, however, you took a break, had a scrumptious meal (good idea), and returned to edit this discussion page at 17:04 and 17:11. The question is, are you really searching for the truth??? Will you allow yourself to see anything but the shadows? If you are, I think that's great...keep going... Yet I fear for you, Mr. Food, and of course, for MatthewVanitas.

"Wouldn't he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?" (Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Wikipedia)

I'm sorry, I cannot engage in this debate in any meaningful way. I like myself and my sanity way too much. I've watch you and MatthewVanitas go back and forth. Both of your ever devolving, convoluted, and contradictory arguments, are designed more to hurt and destroy at the expense truth. It's like you guys are debating the distance a boat can travel before it falls off the edge of the Earth. I see that you, Mr. Food, have removed my footnotes on the Kamma page, hoping a piece of the truth will be deleted. Yet you have footnoted the "King" and "Warrior" category on the Reddy page. Was I wrong when I accused you of having bad faith??? I notice that wikipedia has also suspended you for 24 hours??? Do you know what I'm going to do on the Reddy page during your timeout?? NOTHING! Why? Because there is no purpose to that kind of behavior. Why would I violate the Reddy page? That would be pathetic. Have you heard the joke about the Indian crabs in the lidless barrel??? Of course you have, we all have... So at what point do we try and make ourselves better human-beings?

And Mr. MatthewVanitas, don't talk to me about academic consensus. I've read all that and more (grad. school=awesome access to scholarly journals and books). Any real debate would be a joke. The problem is, I would have to shift your perception, which would take a lot of time. It's not because you, or Mr. Food, are unintelligent. Politicians can be intelligent, but they rarely say anything intelligent, and most of the time probably believe the words coming out of their mouth. I mean, it would take a decent amount of effort to even begin thinking about the level I would have to break stuff down for you guys to even begin to understand the absurdity of your debate. I know this sounds arrogant, but really MatthewVanitas, you should let things continue to evolve towards the truth. This process will ALWAYS be a never ending, on almost every Wikipedia page. Most importantly, though, it's not like the perspective you are pushing is anywhere closer to the truth. You're just seeing shadows too. Let things be, you've restarted a stupid conflict by framing things in a elementary school way. Mr. Food couldn't handle it and now both of you are spreading a stupid virus.

At all events, this is the way the phenomena look to me: in the region of the knowable the last thing to be seen, and that with considerable effort, is the idea of good; but once seen, it must be concluded that this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right and beautiful – in the visible realm it gives birth to light and its sovereign; in the intelligible realm, itself sovereign, it provided truth and intelligence – and that the man who is going to act prudently in private or in public must see it." (Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Wikipedia)

Your debate is not intellectual at all. You are basically behaving like politician, using citations as talking-points. Your wasting your time and your brains. If you look at the edit history of the Kamma article, you'll notice it has made significant progress and growth over the years. Warrior, Landlord, Peasant, is a correct statement. It doesn't need a footnote, its better without it. A footnote would imply a negative and historically flawed worldview that humanity has been grappling with since our existence, but this is a whole separate topic. I read one of your posts where you said you were not from India and that you are an impassioned contributor and editor, while I'm not sure I believe the later, this does explains things. The education I received in the U.S. when I was growing-up concerning India was far from perfect, so I can see how you can rationally believe the things you do. It gave me a decent background, but it was too theoretical and detached to give anyone I real understanding of how India's story fits into the ebb and flow of human history in such a beautiful way.

I might remove the footnote request today or tomorrow. It's a Friday night, I'm going out. Peace. Chutney10 (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Dumbest Debate on Wikipedia or Dumbest Debate EVER????

One is born with a genetic makeup, that is something we can not change. Everything else is a choice. No one is born in a CASTE. Language, Nationality, Education, Profession, Friends, Religion, God, -- they are all choices. You are what you want to be. Caste is neither a choice nor a given. Nobody is born in any caste or religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see some serious discussion. I tried my best, (see the archives) and gave up. This page does not deserve to be in Wikipedia, it should be hosted by KumarRao as his personal propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine for you to hold whatever opinion you want. However, expressing it here is inappropriate--this is not a place for you to discuss your opinions about religion, castes, genetics or anything else. It exists only for people to discuss improvements to the article. If you do not wish to do that, please don't post. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

it is the discussion page, not the main article, so your objection is meaningless. this is the discussion about discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NOTFORUM says that we do not use any part of Wikipedia, including article talk pages, as a general forum for discussion. If this conversation continues in this vein, then I'm just going to go ahead and remove the sections. Help improve the article, or find another site on the internet to hold your discussions, either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Patience fello wikipedian. not so fast. in ths WP world everybody is a self proclaimed cop. same thing can happen ro you. so dont draw so fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Shudra

I added a citation which indicates that Kammas belong to Chaturthanvaya (Shudra) caste as proudly proclaimed by the Musunuri Nayaks, the liberators of Telugu Land from Muslims. No one, let alone, Kammas should feel disenchanted by this historical fact.Kumarrao (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And I just pulled it out. Even if that information belongs in the article, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Furthermore, that one source seems to contradict many of the other sources in the article. If it belongs here (that is, if that source really does meet WP:RS), please find some way to incorporate it somewhere else into the article. The lead cannot be the only place that such a contentious claim is made, especially when that contradicts other parts of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interject. There is nothing "contentious" about saying that the Kammas are a Upper or a "clean" Shudra caste and not to be confused with the lower shudras or untouchables/dalits etc because all shudras are not dalits. there are "clean" , "high caste" "upper" shudras as well. such is the complexity of indian caste system . it is not all black and white.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, Foodie 377--with those 3 sources, the designation seems clear (at at least one of those seems to be a very high quality source). I still think it would be better if this were discussed in detail in the article, rather than just in the lead, but as it is, with those references, I'm happy with the inclusion of the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Qwxyrian for your positive feedback. Yes, I was thinking the same too. I am working on a section on how to incorporate the varna status of this group (and also similar groups such as Reddy) and how they got this varna and the "historical debate" about it.Its a bit complex so I would take some time to entirely present all angles before putting it up there but rest assured I would like expand more about this issue in the main article as you suggested. I feel that it would give a better understanding of these castes to an average reader. Foodie 377 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gyan book ("Readings in the sociology of the professions") is not a reliable source. Nothing from Gyan is: they are assembled copyvios, mirrors of Wikipedia, fringe theories etc & have been discounted on multiple times at multiple places in Wikipedia. They also publish as ISHA & you will often find that they use the names interchangeably (eg: ISBN record shows one, title page shows the other). Examples of past discussions include Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#ISHA_books_and_other_circular_references & Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_70#Circular_references:_Gyan_Publishing_and_ISHA_Books but there are loads of them scattered across talk pages. I really should compile a list and perhaps will start doing so from now on. Even their reprints of Raj works are often mangled.

The book in question has barely been cited by other sources and there is no indication that this particular chapter has been cited at all (the book is a compilation of papers). - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya status of Kammas

It was stated in the article that Kammas only belong to the Shudra category. But this is not completely true. Most excavations prove that Majority of the Kammas are Kshatriys and only a minority of Kammas are shudras. Here are some of the events that prove my statement.

1. The word Kamma in Telugu means the ear-ornament, such as is worn by women. According to one legend "the Rishis, being troubled by Rakshasas, applied to Vishnu for protection, and he referred them to Lakshmi. The goddess gave them a casket containing one of her ear ornaments (kamma), and enjoined them to worship it for a hundred years. At the expiry of that period, a band of five hundred armed warriors sprang up from the casket, who, at the request of the Rishis, attacked and destroyed the giants. After this they were directed to engage in agriculture and warfare, being promised extensive estates, and the consideration paid to Kshatriyas. They accordingly became possessed of large territories, such as Amravati and others in the Kistna, Nellore and other districts, and have always been most successful agriculturists and warriors.

2. The social group, is made up of members belonging to the haplogroup R2 (M124) at 73.3% in a sample size of 15 individuals, with remaining contributions coming from haplogroups L1 (M27), R1a1(M17) and Q*(M242). The haplogroup R2 is preponderant in Jaunpur Kshatriyas (Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar).

3. Gandikota is a small village on the right bank of the river Pennar, 15 km from Jammalamadugu in Kadapa district, Andhra Pradesh. Gandikota was one of the greatest forts of south India in its hay days and so were the kings who ruled the region. Years after its formation, Gandikota fort was ruled by the Mikkilineni dynasty of Bharadwaja gotra who belonged to a clan of Kamma lords. Kammas were kings belonging to the Solar, lunar and Haihaya clans of Kshatriyas and were said to be ferocious in nature. The kings of Gandikota were equally famous and said to be so powerful, that they could severe the heads of a horseman and the horse with a single stroke of the sword. The location of the fort and the security it offered attracted most of the enemy kings for conquering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasnarne (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you need to have secondary sources for edits on Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussions

Kumarrao, i feel you have given into talk by Foodie and such folks into acceding to varna labels. Please remove varna tags from this article atleast. Infact, i request the removal of varna terms from ALL articles on southern-indian social groupings for the following reasons:

1) The works of Himanshu Ray (JNU professor) and DD Kosambi (amongst many other authors) clearly explain how there was a gradual penetration of varna terms in a non-brahmanical society. There were purohits, priests, philosophers, sages, and various occupational divisions in southern-india but none used or followed varna terms. Varna as a rigid birth-based system is mainly from the smrithis only, and pertains to a militant organization of society.

2) Himanshu Ray rightly puts forth Satavahana period as the time when a gradual social transition started from 'tribal' into the 'varna-jati' system (in south-india). Donors to buddhist, jain and hindu institutions (temples, viharas, monastries, etc) mentioned only their occupation (without using varna terms) until the late-Satavahana period. Such usage was then increasingly replaced by varna terms. Even then, there was confusion regarding which occupation fitted into which varna. Even till date there is no clear consensus on this. Several occupation groups have claimed and obtained 'brahmin' varna position in the medieval period, including weavers and those doing petty rituals for fishermen (refer to works by SN Sadasivan).

3) Himanshu Ray also rightly observes how there was a strain on kinship ties even during the tribal states, due to varna claims. Clans with various occupational categories appear to have existed peacefully until clamouring for Varna labels took root. Agricultural and commercial developments along with increasing monetisation began relegating the importance of birth and the notion of purity of blood. This happened gradually as settlements grew into towns and cities. This is how society developed. But this came with a "price"; as most importantly, it underlined the significance of wealth as the major determinant of social status. If you had the power of position or money you cud claim a varna position to go with it. And that is what happened thru history.

4) Groups like Boyas claimed shudra varna status, just to position themselves equal to their Velama overlords. Both the military groups (Boyas and Velamas) cud have easily claimed brahmin varna status if they so willed, as there was no one stopping them from doing so in those times. This is just an example of how varna labels were claimed. Similarly, the position of a Sat-Shudra or Upper-Shudra was claimed by vellalas in the past (see Nattar). In the article on Samata we have noted how buddhist peasants went on to become princes (Betha became Betha Raju). There was no one stopping anyone, esp those with power and money, from making varna claims, which seemed to be common esp as one grew in eminence. Even during the colonial period varna labels were claimed. The only difference was that during the colonial period self-claimed 'brahmins' went to courts to testify and attest varna labels which they based on then-existing occupations.

5) Simply because some medieval warriors claimed shudra varna status for themselves does not make all kammas into shudras. Just because some kammalan artisan groups were considered as vaishyas by some writers does not make all present-day kammas into vaishyas either.

6) You may take into consideration that the term Kamma would at best represent an old nationality term, as those who belonged to Kammanadu; irrespective of occupation. Or it would represent a Karma or Kamma Buddhist irrespective of occupation.

Based on the above, i would suggest deletion of varna tags from articles of Kamma, Kapu, reddy, etc. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)MayaS

Before I start let me tell I am all for removing VARNA status from the above mentioned articles and also all south Indian groups.You have raised a very valid point. And this is precisely the point that some editors do not understand.In south India status is based on "occupational titles".Maybe thats why editors did not involve Varna in any of these south indian caste articles to begin with.I just entered WIkipedia recently a couple of months ago, so I do not know much before that. So for example when you talk about Reddys and Kammas and Velamas, people will say , yeah those are powerful castes, they run things down here and they were warriors and zamindars and an affluent group. Not one guy will tell , Oh yeah u know what I think they are Upper shudras. There is a difference between south india and north india. And "Varna" is a thing created by brahmins who ofcourse originated in north india. For more on this, please click on the link I provided below. I never introduced the terms "shudra" to the articles Reddy and Kamma (caste). It was User:MatthewVanitas who introduced the term "shudra" backed by cites from "academics". Now for some reason MathewVanitas introduced this term to Reddy ( maybe because this article gets a good number of hits). Now I am not going to take that lying down especially when Kammas and Kapu article do not have the same info, so to be fair since these are all similar castes so I did the same to them ( i.e mention that they are upper shudras). But the truth is I REJECT it. Now please do not think I am a caste warrior and I reject the word shudra. I REJECT VARNA. This whole thing started when editors introduced a "Varna" term shudra into the articles as if to bust our balls for "CLAIMING" Kshatriya status. WHEN IN FACT Articles like Reddy and Kamma and Velama ARE NOT CLAIMING Kshatriya status i.e we are NOT claiming the "mythical" Kshatriya lineage of the Vedas and Gods like other zillion castes out there are. No thank you we DO NOT need that badge. You editors are making the mistake of EQUATING KSHATRIYAS WITH WARRIORS. That is wrong. Not all warrior clans are Kshatriyas. We are just stating the fact that we are warriors, rulers and landlords which is 20000% correct and ofcourse we have provided valid cites for that. I think south Indian editors will agree with me when I say that we simply DO NOT want to subscribe to the "Varna" system. Here is a link that will detail what I am trying to convey. In the below link it is written Reddys, Kammas are the warriors/kings and are ANALOGOUS to the Kshatriyas of Aryan society AND OCCUPY THE FIRST place in the hierarchy. No matter how many "academic references" you throw at us, I can assure with utmost honesty that this is indeed the ground situation in the society atleast as far as Andhra pradesh is concerned. This is Real. Pls check below link.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7RW6MrAiJ-0C&pg=PA176&dq=reddi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=OB0rTpHGDM_qrQeOkvixDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6wEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=reddi%20kshatriyas&f=false

I have no problem with removing the VARNA status in Reddy, kapu, kamma, velama articles. But either all should have it or all should not have it because they are all similar castes. So let us get some consensus and if we arrive at a suitable decision it should be applied to all otherwise we maintain Status Quo. Foodie 377 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting but also odd. For example, people involved with Kashmiri Brahmin have been saying the opposite: that there were no groups other than Brahmins in that area (far north) and that is what differentiates it from south India, where varna was prevalent. There certainly was an issue in Kerala - the "lunatic asylum of castes" - which included issues relating to varna. Also, I have been involved in Nair and it is apparent there that varna mattered because it was the basis for the hypergamy that they practiced etc. I have no idea where the specific communities you refer to above fit into the scheme, or if they were outside it, but the comment that varna did not apply in the south is incorrect. What is really nice is to see a civilised discussion going on rather than the ranting that I've seen elsewhere recently. Well done for that. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Foodie, Sitush, and other interested ppl

There is no necessity for any southern-indian 'caste' to claim that they belong to a particular varna. Infact, varna claims may not even apply to northern indian populations. However we shall concentrate on southern-india. Right from the Chola kingdom to Vijayanagara kingdom, warriors have come from various occupational backgrounds including farmers. As per the dharmashastras (smritis), a shudra is essentially a bonded labourer (slave). There is no evidence to prove that present-day Kapus, Kammas, Reddys, etc descended from bonded laborers or slaves. On the contrary, historically various kingdoms have been created with warriors produced from various such social groupings. You can have the history of your so-called "caste", or clan, or social group, occupational division, whatever, without the necessity to claim any sort of varna. The onus is infact on the groups that claim to be dvijas, to prove how they historically came to be known so. Common consensus is -- there is no need to mention varnas in southern indian social groupings. Thanks. --Casteeditor (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)casteeditor (mayasutra)

I do want to give some partial agreement to the "ball busting" comment Foodie makes above; it was indeed the massive prevalence of unqualified and uncontextualised Kshatriya claims on WP that caused me to take an interest in varna issues in the first place. However, I disagree that varna isn't worth having in WP articles. On an anecdotal level, the fact that so many articles add "Kshatriya" to the lede, first paragraph, or even first sentence of caste articles demonstrates the ongoing interest in the varna backgrounds of many castes. I do also fully agree with Foodie (and Sitush, and most folks) that South India, as somewhat of a latecomer to the varna system, had a very distinct manner of dealing with that issue within Hinduism. Combining those two points, I would not agree with CE that we have "common consensus" (where was this decided?) to leave varna out of South Indian articles. I do agree, and Sitush makes a good pointa above, that it's a complicated issue where we should provide context (as backed up by RSs) to qualify any varna statements. Note in Nair we specifically note that they were labeled "Shudra" for not being Vedic Kshatriya, but played a clearly Kshatriya-like role in their society. On a sidenote, to CE above, there were plenty of Shudra kings and Shudra armies in Indian history (particularly in the Deccan), so "X caste produced kings and warriors = not Shudra" just doesn't convince me as an argument. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am voting in favor of removal of "Varna" content from the related castes Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, velama articles. The reasons why I have come to this conclusion is the following:

1. This was forced upon us in this article to add "Shudras". I am disputing why it should be there. We have never CLAIMED Kshatriya status in the lede. We are not subscribing to the Kshatriya varna and never claimed "dvija" status.

Please look at the following links, and as you know in south india the varna concept is forced upon and is a contentious issue.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7RW6MrAiJ-0C&pg=PA176&dq=reddi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=OB0rTpHGDM_qrQeOkvixDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6wEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=reddi%20kshatriyas&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=GhQrTu_ZOcnhrAfsg4iyDQ&ct=book-thumbnail&id=nG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=reddys+in+south+indian+caste+system&q=reddys#search_anchor

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=lRgtTr75C8rorQfd7qz2Dw&ct=book-thumbnail&id=AOU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=reddy+sat-sudra&q=wily#search_anchor

Page 93 in this link - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aX-ZAEit4fgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Caste+and+democratic+politics+in+India+By+Ghanshyam+Shah&hl=en&ei=ngATTuq8OpDNrQeSg7CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=reddys%20kshatriyas&f=false

It says - The Reddys, Nairs and Marathas were never backward. They are the Kshatriyas , Vaisyas of the north with the difference that religion did not sanctify these castes.meaning in the Aryan Brahmanical varna they are listed as upper shudras. But that was never accepted by Reddys.

There are accounts of "wily" Aryan Brahmins who just waltzed in and saw these prosperous and dominant castes and started to demean them by craftily creating a section called upper shudras. I am not disputing that in the Brahmanical system, reddys, kammas are upper shudras, i am just saying that "Varna" issues are contentious and highly debatable topic. So it is unfair to put up something so contentious up there especially when we are not claiming that we are Kshatriyas or brahmins or dvijas. The intention is that we just do not want to enter the GREY area and the highly contentious topic of Varna Foodie 377 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I just answered this same post you made at Talk:Reddy. Given that this covers multiple articles, what say we take it to WPINDIA so we're not trying to reply to each other on multiple talk pages? This is a large issue, so it'd be good to work it out centrally. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I created s section at WPINDIA. Please take further discussion there.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics.Foodie 377 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas

1) I do not know what you would call as "massive prevalence of unqualified and uncontextualised Kshatriya claims". Varnas labels have always depended on CLAIMS in eastern-india and southern-india. Groups that transitioned from 'tribal' into hinduized groups CLAIMED to belong to some varna or the other (ref Bhandarkar, Kosambi, Ray, etc). And this did not even depend on the occupation professed.

2) Varna CLAIMS were also made irrespective of the size of the group. Kayastha zamindars have claimed to be 'Kshatriya', but Bengali 'brahmins' (despite their own tribal origins) did not concede such a claim in the colonial period, which makes us wonder what authority or right did self-claimed 'brahmins' have to decide on other peoples' varnas despite their own origins. Komatis claimed Vaishya status -- they even adopted the 'sacred-thread' as though that wud instantly make them dvijas depositing all knowledge of brahman into their mind. And typically 'self-claimed brahmins', that is Niyogis opposed them. See Arya_Vysyas. All this was in the colonial period. In the pre-colonial period, a classic example from medieval Andhra is that of Boyas who represent the semantic change from a 'tribal' state into a 'hinduized' state. As they became hinduized, their members became 'Brahmins', 'Rajus' and 'Shudras' (they made the shudra claim despite being warriors). The Malayala 'Kshatriyas' arose from Nair groups but again CLAIMED to be kshatriyas upon coming to power. Those who wish to prove they are dvijas are the ones who need to discuss on their respective pages their historical basis for making such claims.

3) In the sangam period there used to be Velappaarppaan who were paarpans but did not perform 'vedic rituals'. The context of who is a brahmin, vaishya, kshatriya, shudra is a huge debate, and is not possible to have on wiki because the context of such varna terms have been dynamic. In view of the fact that varna depended on the semantic change from 'tribal' into 'hinduized' group; and the fact that varnas depended on position of power or wealth and on making claims, I am in favor of removing varna labels from wiki articles on south-indian social groups. Those who wish to have varna labels on their respective articles can go ahead with discussions on their respective pages to prove their claims. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Again, this is not about proving claims, this is about representing the very sort of complexities that you refer to above. People still speak of these varna terms, and as I mention people are awfully quick to put "Kshatriya" prominently in all kinds of articles. To prevent these drastic over-simplifications, we should eschew having varna in infoboxes, but devote a section of each caste article to it as information may be available. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree regarding removal of varna in infoboxes. Please explain how you expect representation of varna complexities on wiki articles. If you want to mention which varnas self-claimed 'brahmins' gave or conceded to others, its not going to work. Question is -- who gave the right and the authority to self-claimed 'brahmins' to go to courts to allocate varnas to groups??? In the past, if one ritualistic group did not perform a coronation ceremony, then warrior-groups wud get another group of ritualists to do it. In the process each would elevate one another's social status as dvijas. However, in the colonial period, the self-claimed 'brahmins' seemed to have all the right to decide varnas of others. So infact 'brahmins' have to prove their claims of being dvijas from the historical pov. After 'brahmins' prove their claims, we can think of representing varna complexities in various wiki articles. I will be initiating discussions at the brahmin discussion page. And unless discussions are complete, please do not put back varna tags on articles. I request Kumarrao or others to remove varna tags from this Kamma article also until discussions are over. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

One thing is emerging for sure out of these discussions,

1. Varna should not be in infoboxes and also classification section in infobox should be addressed differently and should indicate if the caste is OBC/SC/ST/Forward in India today. I will work on that.

Also on a side note, please note that in general none of the editors of castes like reddy, kamma, kapu etc have put the word "kshatriya" anywhere in the articles. Yes we have used the term "warrior" , but as I explained above warrior does not equate to kshatriya varna. We also have every right to use warrior term in the articles in question as it is a fact that these groups were warriors and rulers in their history.We in general are not "enamoured" by the word Kshatriya and we are not Kshatriya wannabes like our friends at Kurmi. I just hope we move forward in these discussions and work in a fair and balanced way because the main purpose of these articles in my opinion is to provide information about a particular social community and make a note of the community's contribution to India and Indian history, it is not to debate over an outdated , antiquated and more importantly the contentious concept of Varna.Foodie 377 (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Foodie, i agree varna should not be in infoboxes. Am not in favor of mentioning any classification in info-boxes regarding BC/OBC/SC/ST. One caste may be OBC in one area and the same caste can be a Forward Caste in another area. Such classification is a government-given status for sake of reservations and benefits; and are subject to change. If required such info can be mentioned within the article itself, not in info-boxes. People are more interested in the history of a social grouping than anything else. So providing content on that i feel will be more interesting. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Ok then I am ok with that. I propose to remove the word "Classification" from the infobox and replace it with "Traditional social roles" . Foodie 377 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: if all you want to do is to not include the info in the infobox on this or another article, you can discuss it at the article talk page. If you actually want to change what the label says, or delete the parameter entirely, you have to discuss it on the infobox's talk page, which is Template Talk:Infobox caste. Since I imagine that's not a heavily watched page, you may want to notify somewhere central, like WP:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Without going into detail, I am, in general, also in favor of removing this parameter from this infobox; whether or not it should be replaced with something else should go in that discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tags are removed. No more controversy!!Kumarrao (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tags disturbed the alignment. Can someone restore it?Kumarrao (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kumarrao, i tried to get the alignment right. But could not get it right. I think the misalignment is being caused due to the presence of this tag at the beginning of the page: "{{pp-semi}}" Please remove the pp-semi tag and see if the alignment is ok. I am unable to edit this page as it is semi-protected. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra, there is a discussion taking place at Template Talk:Infobox caste. It has been mentioned on the India project but you may not have seen that. It might be worth you taking a look. This talk page is not the place for a generalised discussion about infoboxes, but you are more than welcome to contribute your thoughts at the template talk page. In fat, I would encourage you to do so because, as Qwyrxian says, it is probably not a heavily watched page. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

KAMMANADU

let me quote few lines from the main article first

Historians surmised that by the end of 10th century Durjayas, Chodas, few sections of Chalukyas and Haihayas of Kammanadu merged into Kammas.[38][39]

Not asking for the validity of the reference. Assuming that is true, just want to ponder and ask a question on how it acually happened. Because that explains lot of things not just about kammas but also about caste system, need for a caste. Did they take census or did they already have a directory of who would be a kamma. What is the guide line to be considered a kamma? If the ruking class merged to become kamma, then were there any non warrior class at that time? Was it all by blood line? Why did not they leave of any record or document of such an important event/proceedings? If few people gather and call themselves a caste, would the other social groups agree? Should they ask some sort of permission from the King at time? Why did not they identify themselves clearly? What were the circumstances that led them to form a separate caste if they were already interbreeding with other ruling classes? KAmmanadu may hold lot of clues to the kamma caste if only we can find them and understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this really isn't the right place to ask those questions. Article talk pages are only to be used to discuss improvements to the article, not to have a scholarly debate about the subject. If any of that info has been discussed in reliable sources, let us know and we can consider including it in the article. If not, you'll need to find a site other than Wikipedia to further this discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

i dont see any objection why the questions asked about a reference will or will not improve the quality of the article. as a side observation it is really great seeing that, at last somebody is watching carefully, but not careful enough. i fail to see your role for WP, are you a cop to enforce rules or a cop to enforce quality. If it is for the content and quality I would like to know your qualifications on the subject. Again, your objection are too quick and baseless. Talking about quality, can you tell me what constitutes a valid reference to cite for this article, other than mythology, oral history, legends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no myth, legend or oral history in the article. Each and every sentence was supported by a citation. If you have problem of disagreement, discuss. Please read the sections on medieval history in "Telugu Vignana Sarvaswamu" published by Telugu University. Try to understand the social churning that took place in 10th and 11th centuries.Kumarrao (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

to 76...: Sorry, but WP:NOTFORUM is policy; we don't engage in academic debates here. It's just that simple. As for my role here, I'm acting strictly as an editor, not as an administrator. Acting as an admin means doing things like blocking people, protecting or deleting pages, etc. Since I'm an active editor on this page, I'm not allowed to use any administrative tools here whatsoever. However, any editor may, at any time, inform other editors of site policies. Furthermore, if someone declines to follow our policies, any editor may request that the disruption be stopped. So, for example, if you decided to keep treating this like a forum, I would either start removing all of the forumy comments (as any editor could do), or, if your editing was clearly being done to disrupt work on the article, then conceivably I could ask another admin to have you blocked. But there's absolutely no reason for that--now you know the rules, so there's no reason that this will continue to be a problem, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the WP:NOTFORUM. Impressed. may be they have this all along. But more impressed by editors like you trying to enforce it. I encourage that. Try to do an impartial job. And keep watching this page. I was hoping for a person like you to monitor this site for many years. This is good, although some more rules have to be incorporated on the nature and description of references. May be in the future. Last comment: can you suggest or direct on how to elevate this site from a B-Class and Low-importance to a better rating, because, a WIKI page that talks about 5% of the population of Andhrapradesh, India (which could be over a million) can not be of low importance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question, because I have no idea why this is marked as B class in the first place. This article has significant problems, most notably some major areas are unsourced, there is a significant amount of non-English included in the text, and it seems very disorganized. Personally, I'd rank it as C-class, not B. The importance, though, should never change; that is a judgment by the Wikiproject as to how important the article is to the overall topic of "India"; that wouldn't change unless the subject (Kamma caste) itself became more important in India. However, if you want to improve the article, the next step after B class is a good article. If you want to see how far the article is from achieving that, I recommend first reviewing the Good article criteria, seeing if you can improve it to that point, then ask for peer review, in which another editor will examine the article and point out things that need to get better before trying to reach Good Article status. Minor note, since it's counter-intuitive: A status is actually significantly higher than Good Article status; A status is nearly Featured Article status. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I wrote the above before you wrote the point about AP, and, in fact, your statement is exactly why it's low importance--maybe if this caste were 5% of all of India, then it might meet Mid-status. Actually, to be fair, it might be mid-status now, but, really, it doesn't matter; importance scales are all self-assessed, and the level something is at doesn't really change much of anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Note

Reddies did not become a seperate caste till late 1800s. Reddies back then were all Kapus. Reddy itself was not a caste but a title for village chieftan who happen to be Kapus. As for Kammas being landlords that didn't happen till more recent times. Even during my father's childhood they were mostly laborers. As far as I know there are rarely any Kammas in Telangana area especially Warangal. As far as I know Kamma Kapus are not Kammas but are Kapus like their Rayalseema couterpart Kamma Balijas which Kamma in those caste names is short for Kammalla (earrings). Both those castes are Kapus. It should also be noted the fourth caste is Shudra caste not Kamma as claimed by some editors. Shudras in south consists of Kapus, Reddies, Kammas and Velamas. When it came to South India the rulers were Shudras. It should be noted both Kammas and Velamas don't have the number and actions to back up their ruler claim as they were the traitors of the Kakatiya Empire. Both were opertunistic and sided with the Muslims which led to the downfall of the Kakatiya Empire. It should be noted some charateristics carryon through the generations. From what I noticed Kammas are very tight and jump on the first good oppertunity they get and rulers back then were very liberal and weighs options. They have a strong enemity towards Brahmins and rulers back then highly respected Brahmins. They are also very clanish which very obvious today even on TV. Kapus and Reddies on the other hand were the exact opposite. Rajus were similar but they looked down on BCs. But one drawback to Reddies is they commited heinois crimes against locals like Velamas did after the fall of Kakatiya Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.36.65 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As always, we'll need reliable sources to provide any of this information in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Typical examples of Kammas being mostly laborers in the past are NTR, ANR, Krishna, and L.V. Prasad. It is a historic fact that Kammas and Velamas betrayed Kakatiya dynasty. Malik Maqbool is this traitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.252.152 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, we need reliable soruces. If those acronyms are books, then please spell them out, give full details (title, authors, publishers, links if available, etc.), then we can add the info if everything is ok. .Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

yes valid references are neede. the topic is biased has no scholarly value. Regarding Kakatiya period, one can not conclude and ascribe the action of one or few individuals to a whole community. That shows clear lack of judgement in maturity. Let the focus be more on factual data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There are valid references. It will take some time to exactly cite them. It is obvious looking at several Zamindar names after the fall of Kakatiya dynasty. Any family that claims Zamindar title were traitors of Hindu kingdoms like Kakatiya Dynasty. It is historically noted many Velamas along with Kammas have become Zamindars while other castes namely Balijas were still known as Nayakas. These Nayakas feld to take down Muslim rule with the help of neighboring Hindu kingdoms. As for Kammas being mostly laborers in the past what more do you need than those well known people's backgrounds NTR was a milk delivery boy, ANR was the son of a poor farmer, Krishna couldn't affor a proper education, and LV Prasad was from a debt ridden family from a poor village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.75.33 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in being a poor farmer who rises up. Or nothing wrong for a poor farmer or a laborer to work hard get education and being successful. If education and life experiences don't bring wisdom and decency then that is something to pity about.

Besides those remarks, the point I want to make is WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THOSE OBSERVATIONS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One small note: providing a set of 4 or 5 individuals who were Kammas, and showing that they were laborers, will not provide enough evidence to show that the group in general consists/consisted of laborers. That would be like me taking the example of Obama and saying "In general, US presidents are black." Just something to think about while you are looking for references.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Order

Can you please change the order and keep Religion at the bottom. The order may be like this: Region, Populations, Sub divisions, Languages, Religion etc. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, the "template" for the infobox is a set format used across many, many caste articles. If you want to discuss changing the template, you need to open up the template itself and go to its talk page: Template talk:Infobox caste. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Politics

The Kamma caste are truly stated as belonging to the Kshatriyas verna under the British administration. Furthermore, the 12th citation clearly labels Kamma caste, along with Reddi and Velama castes, to belong to the 'upper Shudra' category. The 13th citation, further, strengthens the argument that in fact Kamma and Reddi castes do belong to the 'upper Shudra' category. I have now changed this, such that it states what is presented in citations 12 and 13. Avasek (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. The problem arose because of these POV edits a couple of days ago. Far too many IPs can't be arsed reading the osurces. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Vijayanagara founders were Kammas

According to strong sources,, Founders of vijayanagar were kammas. They were relations of kamma chieftains of kakatiya army.. It is well known fact. I've added reliable proof

The Sangama dynasty of Vijayanagara Empire founded by Harihara I & Bukka I, who were belonged to Kamma social group. Go to http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hs4cAQAAMAAJ&dq=founders&q=Harihararayalu,+and+Bukkarayalu+kammas

Any one oppose me can leave a talk on my page 8.37.228.3 (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pali999 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Classification

The page has changed quite a bit, for better. But still has caste and religion dominating. Why on earth people still give a damn about caste system and classification more than the genetic profile.

it says a lot about the editors also, useless self appointed, ignorant bunch of fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.100.82 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Genetic profiles of India populations are notoriously variable, usually small in sample size, based on self-declared caste status (ahem) and a function of a rapidly-changing technology. Pretty much useless, really. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

K. I. Dutt (1926)

I have tagged the Dutt source from 1926 as dubious. The journal in question (Andhra Historical society) has published some wayward stuff over the years and this particular article might also fall foul of WP:HISTRS. Can we not find something more recent? - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ignoramus

An ignoramus has played terrible havoc with the article in the past two years. He did not respect British historians, inscriptions, Indian history monographs, solid evidences etc. A person without an understanding of Indiam ethos and social groups has no right to play with truthful history. I hope he will restrain himself from further havoc. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.58.66 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts by appending ~~~~.

Refrain from attacking other editors on the talk page. See wp:no personal attacks.

If the IP editors persistently violate policies, the article will get protected. So, please familiarise yourselves with the Wikipedia policies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Kakatiya period

The section on the Kakatiya period was deleted by an IP editor in this edit with a good justification in the edit summary. The Talbot (2001) book, which is the only one that meets the requirements of WP:HISTRS, makes clear that there were no castes during the Kakatiya period. The castes evolved afterwards. The Durga Prasad book is not a HISTRS. And, its interpretation of the "fourth caste" as meaning "Kamma" is contradicted by numerous sources. The "fourth caste" simply means the Shudra varna. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This creates problems for the section on the Golkonda period. Is it not synthesis to assume that community = caste? Aside from Prasad, there seem to be at least two other sources still present in the article that refer to them in connection with the Kakatiya period and at least one of those would appear to meet HISTRS (the Selig one). - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the Golkonda section probably needs to be cleaned up too. There seems to be a widespread folk history claiming that many of the Nayaks in the Kakatiya- and the post-Kakatiya-period were in fact kammas. Selig Harrison, who doesn't seem to be a historian, is merely recounting this folk history (as did the "disinterested" sources of the Raj era that he cites). If Talbot didn't accept those claims, we can't state them as facts.

As for the community = caste issue, recall that the jatis are formed by a variety of criteria. The people that came from kammanadu could turn into a caste over time by just being endogamous. They are clearly not an occupational caste. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

Add the state of Telangana( Khammam and Hyderabad has considerable population)Venkatmasina (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC) also Venkatmasina (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please provide references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

see also

Please add see also *List of kammas category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madurai nayak vamsa (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This page is complete WP:OR and needs to be speedy deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Kapu reference

@Altruism: I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. What is the "modern" community of Kapus? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kautilya3:! The only point I;m trying to make here is to differentiate between the term Kapu (as used in historical texts) which refers to the agricultural/peasant community at large AND the Kapu (caste) which doesn't include all of the former. To put it simply, Kapu (caste) is probably only a sub-set of the historical Kapu (agriculturist). -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Kapu (caste)#Etymology section already explains that. This is not an instance of two different meanings of the term "Kapu". You can't say "not to be confused with". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am with Kautilya3 on this one. I don't understand the point. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)