Talk:Kaniyar

Discussion copied from User_talk:Sitush#Kaniyar_Panicker

The following is copied from User_talk:Sitush#Kaniyar_Panicker - this article talk page is the correct venue for such discussions.

******** start of copied discussion ********

Hi, I am unable to understand ,why the source reference added to the article is removed .( i.e the Book "slow flows the pamapa" By KE Varghese.) . What he narrated in his book is a mix of direct experience , historical notes and its perspective with citations . kindly guide me in this regard

                                        117.254.131.132 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing sometimes. The subtitle for the book is "socio-economic changes in a Kuttanad village in Kerala". Straight away, the implication is that this is a "micro" history, about one village rather than Kaniyans in general. If we read further then the term "Kaniyan" appears six times in the book, and the plural occurs four times. For example, on page 73 it says "The village has four Kaniyan families who are slightly superior in social status to the Izhavas. The (sic) are astrologers and are different from the taint or polluting Kaniyans ..." A couple of things stand out here:

1. there is a typographical error ("the" should be "they", and there is a double space between "taint" and "or") - not a sign of a great publisher or, at least, great proof-reading. An academic work would usually be better than this. There are similar mistakes elsewhere, eg: page 75 includes the word "Kaniyan" when it should clearly be "Kaniyans".
2. the author is referring to four families in a village, which is a minute number of people from which to draw a conclusion about the status, origins, occupations or indeed anything else regarding Kaniyans in general. Wikipedia does not permit original research, so drawing conclusions for the entire community based on a narrow example is unacceptable.

If we then try to do a search of Google Scholar, it seems to be difficult to find any reference to the author. There are plenty of citations for other people called Varghese, especially in the field of medical research, but no more than seven for K E Varghese (and some of those look to be a different person, writing about labour law). In fact, the only reasonably certain citation is this. This is not a sign of a respected, well known scholar.

I would also point out that another editor has also removed these citations from Kaniyan-related articles, and for an apparently similar reason. Sorry about this but sometimes even things we know to be true fail the tests imposed by Wikipedia. It can be very frustrating sometimes. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to update you, I have now merged Kaniyar Panicker into Kaniyar. A lot of other recently created articles have also been redirected in order to avoid unnecessary repetition etc. It is a fact, briefly discussed on the talk page of Kaniyar Panicker, that the Panicker name refers to an occupation and not the the caste as a whole. Furthermore, the Kaniyar Panicker itself was unfocussed, as it also discussed the Asan occupation. I rather think that you have edited these various pages quite heavily but are doing so using various different IP addresses etc - I would encourage you to register with a username as this will make life a lot easier for people communicating with you. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note some points. I am not sure whether they wothy of mention?

• it is undestood that in Thurston's book, the noted remark of Buchanan "very low social status of kaniyar " was a matter of 19th century(page 187).It is clear that, since 13th century, this caste were on the course of degradation in social rank as Thurston says, Marco Polo had mentioned about the social eminence of this caste as astrologers till 13th century. But their social recognition as astrologers and village school masters (teachers or Aasaan) continued through 16th and 19th century.(page 187)
• In Travancore "Asan" a corrupted sanskrit word "Acharya" (page178)
• They had learnt in "Veda"(page193) psosseed "Mantram"(page 188) and "Yantram"(page193), it points to the fact that they had learnt "Tantra"
• Panicker word from "Pani"- Military training (178) in Northern Travancore
• Nayars had obtained Kalari Form Kaniyar panickers (page180)
• Barbers of Kaniyars were known as Kani Kurup or Pothuvan (page 199).it is mentioned in the book OF KE Varghese

thanks P.Ganakan (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some are certainly worth mentioning, but some are also confusing to non-experts (eg: Mantram/Yantram is not intuitively the same as Tantra). I'll wade through them for you if you want. Anything that I consider doubtful I'll mention on the article's talk page, since that is a central place for such matters. Hope this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindly consider following inclusions.

• Regarding their (kaniyar caste) the course of down gradation in social status form eminence to very low caste( as it is indirectly evident from Thurstons writing :from 13th century through 16th and till 19th century.) may be considered .
• Though Gurukkals are Kaniyar caste in real sense, Iam yet to find a published article showing this matter in web. The matrimonial advertisements in web, are the only verifiable evidence to show this link .
• It will be nice for readrs, If we add more details about past customs , grooming and god worshipping of these people.

Thanks P.Ganakan (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Indirectly evident" is insufficient - it cannot be included as it is synthesis. If you cannot find a citation for Gurukkal then it will have to be removed. Being "nice" is not the function of an encyclopedia, nor is including too much information of a trivial nature. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be essays, fan sites etc and must not present undue weight.

Really, all of this stuff should be on the article's talk page and not here on mine. I am going to copy it over there. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

******** end of copied discussion ********

Hi

• The remark "Panicker name refers to an occupation and not the the caste as a whole" was a matter of past. Now in reality, the name Panicker in the north malabar region of Kerala (Calicut,Malappuram,Kannur,Kasarkode districts)refers to Kaniyar or kaniyar panicker only , it can be varified from the websites similarly the people of kalari panicker/kalarikurup section of kaniyar in south Malabar and north travancore region( Eranakulam and Trichur districts) of kerala is also called as panickers. Situation in central travancore (Kottaym , Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta districts)iss different this title is common among kaniyar , Nair and Ezhava community.

• More over this titles or surnames were not simply adopted by themselves.it was actually conferred by then ruling kings . but later inherited to their descendants

• Regarding Gurukkal it is a known fact that Gurukkal are kaniyan community. A notable person, Minister of kerala is also belongs to thi community

P.Ganakan (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If these things are "known facts" then please provide citations. If you cannot then they will not make the article. It is as simple as that. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, regarding your first point (it being "a matter of the past"), the article already says this. That is why the word "traditionally" is in there. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

P.Ganakan (talk) Article’s first line statement, pertaining to the origins of this caste ( from state of kerala and karnataka) is a blunder. Their traditions points to their migrated status from north India via western cost and east cost as Ganak Brahmins (a sacerdotal group of sakaldwipi astrologers) . it is comprehensible that the segregation and rivalry between the different Brahmin groups since BC era,have caused them isolated in different regions , where they proceeded with their traditional profession, but were called by different colloquial names such as Kani ,kaniyar etc. ( Exact origin of the word Kani is from Tamil . they usually misspell K for G) P.Ganakan (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And where is the proof for what you say. Honestly, you have been told time and again that unless you provide some evidence then you may as well save yourself some typing. No evidence = no change to the article, period. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

the reasons for losing high social status of Ganak brahmins has been mentioned in the book: The Indian encyclopaedia: biographical, historical, religious ..., Volume 4 edited by Subodh Kapoor; page 1018 link ( http://books.google.co.in/books?id=k2So6CEC6ZEC&pg=PA1018&lpg=PA1018&dq=Gunga-putra+or+Ghat+Brahman&source=bl&ots=lrg3OtSqDk&sig=c9xqL9v_Ix5bWSQvX6yO_LT-NCw&hl=en&ei=EHfSTaP-KoievgOCuv3ADQ) P.Ganakan (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can see nothing of that. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is for your kind perusal ...... The Traditional astrologers and exorcisers ,adopting different names, their origin and migration in India is described in the book :Ethnography (castes and tribes) by Sir Athelstane Baines. With a list of the more important works on Indian ethnography by W. Siegling . (Link http://www.archive.org/stream/ethnographycaste00bainuoft/ethnographycaste00bainuoft_djvu.txt)

P.Ganakan (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not getting it. If you think that I am going to read an entire book then you are wrong. Page numbers would be helpful. Think about how works are cited in Wikipedia, as per WP:CITE: that is the sort of detail needed. I'll warn you now that I am not happy about using Thurston as a source and probably will not be happy about the book you mention. It is far too old. If the issue is significant then I would expect it to have been referred to in much more recent publications, and preferably in academic ones. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation

Modified the categorization . Removed from indegenouss category , due to lack of evidencened sources.

P.Ganakan (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, which did a little bit more than just remove the indigenous category. I would be extremely surprised if the Kaniyars are not indigenous people. If you believe this to be the case then please could you provide some evidence of this. It is one of those situations, I feel, where the de facto position is to accept the obvious unless proven otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done the edit with good faith ,in contrast, what evidence is there to prove or support your argument?.Iin fact those people are migrant from other regions of India, which is well evident from the article itself, when read in between the lines.so please stop reverting edits un necessarily . Dont feel it as an offence.no need of worry

15:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Ganakan (talk • contribs)

"Reading between the lines" is not good enough as a proof one way or the other. We cannot expect readers to do that. I would also refer you to WP:BRD. I am again going to revert your changes and suggest that you do indeed discuss them here until a consensus is formed.

The "proof" as the article currently stands is that they are from Kerala and Karnataka as per the opening paragraph and their presence in Thurston's "Castes & Tribes of Southern India", which is cited. It is an old source but at least a source. If in fact they are not indigenous then you need to show this. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK! I agree with you, for categorizing them as ethnic people. But no reason is there .to remove them from the categories of Kerala society Malayali people

The encyclopedia is for all sorts of people or readers. Where each of them have different levels of understanding by means of context and cognition.

Again ,no logical evidence to assert for inclusion under the categories of indigenous people ,if you have proof for the same, you need to make it explicit in this talk page.so please give a specific link for your argument before being adamant on particular stand.

P.Ganakan (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already given my arguments, which frankly are mostly a matter of common sense. If I have removed them from the two categories - Kerala society & Malayali people - then please accept my apologies. I reverted your edit in good faith & perhaps missed that you had also added them to these two cats. I have no idea or indeed opinion at the moment regarding whether those categorisations are correct (Kerala society sounds a bit vague to me, but I haven't looked at the category page). - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Article does not meet the criteria for validity of Indigenous people Category talk:Indigenous Peoples-WP of India .Not Kaniyar but, the Kanyan or Kanivan tribes of Mysore region of Karnataka is approved as Indigenous people by Govt. notification. So let us reach at a consensus that this article has to be removed from indigenous people category . P.Ganakan (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your external link does not work (404 error); and I cannot work out what you were trying to do with the Wikipedia article/category/criteria but can find nothing relevant. Could you please try again. Is it an article or a category that you are trying to link to? - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience ! A pdf file is available on the web " constitution of scheduled tribes" published by ministry of law India (http://www.lawmin.nic.in/legislative/election/volume%201/rules%20&%20order%20under%20Constitution/THE%20CONSTITUTION%20(SCHEDULED%20TRIBES)%20ORDER,%201950.pdf) or "state wise scheduled tribes" by ( http://www.tribal.nic.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File1054.pdf)...hope it would work.

P.Ganakan (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that neither of those work here in the UK, which is a country that does not block content from India. Your fix to the wikilink for indigenous peoples has not worked either, as it still shows in red. Maybe post the entire URL for that & I will fix the thing? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK!! please see this link ,which works satisfactorily. [ http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf here]. P.Ganakan (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does work. Thank you. However, it has no context, is not dated & doesn't seem to be clear about who created it. It appears to be a "list of lists" gathered from various regions at various times according to various different laws. Bit of a mess, really. I am not even sure what a "scheduled tribe" is, for that matter, nor how this might differ from a "scheduled caste". It is not good enough, I am afraid. What about the other link? The "criteria for validity of indigenous people" bit you mention above? - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

well, here I put 2 links , probably those would help to find some lead in to the matter of Scheduled Tribes and scheduled castes in India along with its stand of using the term indigenous people. 1. [1] 2.[2]

P.Ganakan (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but why are you avoiding my question? Where is the wikipedia policy (or whatever it was) which you were trying to refer me to? - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not digging around for the citation. You are challenging something which seems to me to be common sense, so you need to provide the information to support that challenge. Scheduled castes/Scheduled tribes have nothing directly to do with whether a group is indigenous or not. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the presumptions if any, that Iam evading the responsibility for supporting the points of arguments which were initially put forwarded. for me ,the wikipedia editing is not a primary objective,fortunately I have a busy life with a world beyond it. But I find it interesting to make a wiki article more featured.so please wait till I come back with more resources to make it happen. WP Policy and guidelines points to the fact that the onus of producing supportive evidence to keep the edit well accepted , is rest with every editor,lest it will be corrected.

P.Ganakan (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

...Which is precisely why I corrected your edit. It was prima facie wrong, and it is for you to prove otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thunchaththu Ramanujan Ezhuthachan

The following is an extract from page 162 of the book “Origin and Development of Caste” – Book 3 of the ‘India without Misrepresentation’ series authored by Govinda Krishna Pillai, Director of the Centre of Indology, Allahabad, in 1959.

“The Kaniyan as a caste should be considered the educated group on the Malabar coast. For everything that a Hindu in other parts of India runs to a Brahmana Pandit, a Malayalee runs to a Kaniyan. They are astronomers, astrologers and physicians by profession. They are proficient in Sanskrit, in Hindu mathematics, Ayurvedic sciences, antisorcery, and literature in general. On account of their learning, they are some parts of Malabar called ‘Ezuth-achhan’, or father of letters. It was one of them, Tunchan, who rendered into Malayalam language, the Northern Epics of Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavata in a lyrical style, which may surpass even the original, in certain respects. If the people of Malabar know more about the sacred lore of the Hindus, the credit for it should go this father of letters. They perform many antisorcery rites in the style of the Vedic Rishis, and on such occasions, they don a piece of cloth in the manner of the sacred thread, of which this appears to be the predecessor.”

G.K. Pillai's observation that Thunchaththu Ramanujan Ezhuthachan was a Kaniyan is noteworthy, although Ezhuthachan's true identity and background remained a mystery for several centries, whilst many other communities also have to date claimed the legacy of Ezhuthachan. In any case the truth whatsoever should prevail. - Aaroamal (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm. How do you know that it is true? You say that other communities have claimed otherwise: why is this author right? How many people have cited that volume in academic works? Was he himself a Kaniyan? (isn't the name Pillai often connected with the Nairs?) What evidence does he provide for his statement?

There is more to providing a source than just quoting it. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have jumped to your own conclusions. Is there any mention or confirmation that the author is right? Please read the note more with an open view to plausibilities. GK Pillai is a scholar, so his own community background is not relevant to the comment. - Aaroamal (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't jumped to anything. I am querying, as I do with all proffered sources where I do not have the thing to hand. This is particularly important on articles relating to the subcontinent. You say that there are several claims to the legacy, so please can you point me to some of them. - Sitush (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do your own homework, starting from the article on Thunchaththu Ramanujan Ezhuthachan. -Aaroamal (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you expecting the general reader to "do their own homework"? Why should you expect me to do so? I'm amazed at your response. We are not even allowed to cite other WP articles in this one. - Sitush (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

...There is no doubt that village schools in every 'Kara' of Kerala in the past were conducted by kaniyans .i.e.before the introduction of British system sponsored modern schools . these schools were called Ezhuthupalli or pallikkoodam or ezhuthusala. (ezhuthu=Letter, palli=sala= institution ) Teachers of these schools were known as Asans or ezhuthu asans .(later Ezhutahchan).Those institutions were the only source for non brahmins to learn sanskrit, gramar, literature etc. Though Thunchat ramanujan ezhuthachan belonged to Kaniyan class. descendants of the families his non brahmins caste disciples had later adopted this name as a caste group (Ezhuthachan).Many of whom belonged to Chakkala Nair, Kadupotten castes. Refusal to admit the fact that Ramanuajan ezhuthachan is a Kaniyan, is no way justifiable.

see this article for some lead [[3]] page 27-29

The task of translating Great Hindu epics to malayalam was begun by memebers of Kaniyan caste.(EX:Rama Katha Pattu by Ayyappili Asan of Kovalam in 14 th century) So they all have contributed a lot to the development of malayalm language. Unfortunately,the other castes having large mass had patronized these great people.

P.Ganakan (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tradtional astrologers community: titles/names

Tradtional astrologer community in India is known by different titles or names in sanskri such as Acharya, Ganak, Jyothishi Tradtional astrologer community in kerala is known by Malayalam corruption of such sanskrit words ( Asan, Kaniyan(ganithan),Jyolsian ) and even ganaka acharya as kaniyan asan OR Kanisan Similarly in north east India and central india they are known by the names Ganak brahmins , Acharya, Graha Bipra, Joshi etc

P.Ganakan (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism / Jainism lineage

Many authors/ historians have mentioned the buddhism/ janism lineage of Kaniyan or Ganaka caste in South india

Can anyone bring up valid information on this matter ?

points in favour of this assertion are

Budhist/ Jains monks were the people who popularized the Kalari practice(martial training).Till then, the tribal warrior people depended on the method of bow and arrow for fighting enemies.

Panicker/Kurup of Kaniyars were the real kalari perceptors of ancient warrior tribal people such as Nair and Ezhava( Event though at some localities,during the British alienation era, few ruthless non grateful Nair and Ezhava people had forcibly taken over and kept in possession of some Kalaris,almost all Kalari panicker/ Kaniyar panicker families keep their Kalari name and some still maintain their Kalaris functional)

Budhists/ jains had conducted sramana pallys and were agents of civilising the tribals by teaching them to learn letters including sanskrit.

Asans among Kaniyans were otherwise as known as Eluthachan(father of letters) who helped the local inhabitants to read and write letters ,by conducting ezhthu palli or Pallikkodams

Budhists/Ajivakas/jains were great astrologers, astronomers,ayurveda physicians

Ganaka or Kaniyan of kerala had practiced all these profession and their clients had no bounds of castes and creed.(unfortunately in the feudal period of caste hierarchism and opression,ranked them as lower cast)

Budhists/janists were great intellectuals and had made many contribution in literature and for the development of language

Arguments still follows about Kaniyan punkurar of sangham age in Tamil nadu as whether he was a budhist or jainist

Thunchat Ramanujan Euzhthachan , Ayyappilli asan who wrote Ramakathappattu were all belonged to Kaniyar caste.

Many astrologers,astronomers and ayurveda physicians of ancient India were brahmins converted to heterodox (Ajivakas. Buddhists,Jainists)

In Kerala Budhists and jains were extremely tortured by ruling clasess during feudal era. many had taken the course of low ranked castes

The subtle and overt inherent behavioural characteristics of Kaniyar or Ganaka people are still appear to be in line with that of old Budhism janism traits.

Studies in Indian history: with special reference to Tamil Nādu by Kolappa Pillay Kanakasabhapathi Pillay;Madras : , 1979

Journal of religious studies, Volume 31. Dept. of Religious Studies, Punjabi University., 2000 - Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5 By Encyclopaedia Britannica (India)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Ganakan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 

You say that many authors/historians have mentioned this, so why do you need to ask? You must have read them to make the statement. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Community Dialect

An in caste dialect among Kaniyar was widely prevalent till few decades back. Members of old generation of this community still use this spoken language privately in their family. Most of the words of this dialect are sanskrit. usage of this special spoken languiage has been reported by some publication from University of Kerala. Dept. of Linguistics.

P.Ganakan (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not good enough, I am afraid. We would need to know what publication. Please could you revert your edit until you have the details available. - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush,please be patient , the statement is true , no need of revert. It is sure that none could challenge it with opposing evidence.One of the supporting sources for this statement is from "International journal of Dravidian linguistics: IJDL., Volume 21" from University of Kerala. Dept. of Linguistics 1992. P.Ganakan (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case then you need to add the citation. Is the source available online? - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

online view of this article in full, is not available at present

P.Ganakan (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, then WP:OFFLINE probably kicks in. You should provide a quote that supports the statement that you have inserted in the article. While not always necessary, this is likely to be a controversial one & so a quote is a "must". You will also need to include the page number, author name(s), issue number, date etc from the IJDL. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

96-98, University of Kerala. Dept. of Linguistics, Volume 21,1992 25 Mar 2011 (International journal of Dravidian linguistics) for original copy contact : PUBLICATION OFFICER INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF DRAVIDIAN LINGUISTICS V.I. SUBRAMONIAM MEMORIAL ISDL COMPLEX ST. XAVIER’S COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 586 KERALA, INDIA P.Ganakan (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Phone: 91 0471 2704953, 2704951, 2704282 ijdlisdl@gmail.com P.Ganakan (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contact info & the more specific details of the journal, but what is the quote? This is 20 years' old and I would have thought that someone else would have commented on it in a book or another journal by now. The website for the IJDL looks a little "home made", so I am wondering if this might be a fringe theory. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

please note:: The caste dialect of kerala was investigated in detail by the Department of Linguistics, Universty of Kerala The statement of V.I.Subramanyam (1974) from the Dialect survey in Malayalam (1972) quoted in the IJDL volume 21 on page 96 is as follows “The astrologer community of Panikkar used Sanskritized high caste language in their professional life, but switched on to their own dialect in everyday life”. P.Ganakan (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of me seeing a copy of that page, and perhaps the one before and after it? - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable people

Ramachandran Kadannapally , an ex minister of Kerala(Dewasom minister) is from kaniyar community. though I had mentioned it earlier, could not produce any published article as source of reference. his ancestors including his father were known as Gurukkal, he belongs to Edakkad in Kannur district of kerala.

source : Link, Volume 13, Part 3 page 14 United India Periodicals, 1971 ,the University of Virginia

http://www.niyamasabha.org/codes/cmin.htm

news letter may 20119malayalam) www.kalary.com

P.Ganakan (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Organisations/Establishments

one of the online accessible base resources is "Census of India", 1961, Volume 11, Manager of Publications, 1962 Drishta (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable People

Athamanada Swami

Atmananda Swami was a scholar.His name was Rama Panicker.He belonged to a Kaniyar family of North malabar.

Sree Narayana Guru had a well established affiliation with him, which enabled Guru to enrich his knowledge and expand strategic activities focused on social reforms. There after he was known as Athmanada sawmi.(1870- 1969)

http://www.keralatourism.org/varkala/saint-disciples--atmananda--swami.php Rest is given in my talk page; 117.254.120.231 (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that the source you provide does not appear to mention he status as a Kaniyar. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the best evidences how some important personalities get deliberately dwarfed and dumped by historians having biased interests.

Some more books and links have listed down, mentioning about Athmananda swami. R. Raman Nair and L. Sulochana Devi, Chattampi Swami: An Intellectual Biography - page 188.(http://books.google.com/books?id=K-JRfipEdV0C&pg=PA188&dq=atmananda+swami+ganaka&hl=en&ei=UnfETuvqKonqrAem7oX-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=atmananda%20swami%20ganaka&f=false) S. Omana,The philosophy of Sree Narayana Guru, Narayana Gurukula, 1984 - Religion - page 29 (http://books.google.com/books?ei=UnfETuvqKonqrAem7oX-Cw&ct=result&id=1F0qAAAAYAAJ&dq=atmananda+swami+ganaka&q=ganaka#search_anchor) -swami athmanada

http://www.sreenarayanaguru.in/content/atmananda-swami Poorvika (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem remains, in my opinion. These sources are all related to a Narayana Guru advocacy group. As with, for example, Scientology, there are a lot of "house" publications produced and they may well be seen as incredibly good by the body's followers. But they are effectively self-published sources and we have to be careful how we use such things. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Balyaya = Kaniyar in south Canara region of Karnataka

documented evidences

• Census of India, 1901 . Volume 15. IndiaCensus Commissioner, Edward Albert Gait Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1902, page.144

• Land and people of Indian states and union territories. 13. Karnataka

edited by Gopal K. Bhargava, S. C. Bhatt

• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangalore/Balayaya-Sangha-to-get-new-building/iplarticleshow/5955387.cms
• http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7197&Itemid=70
• http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16107&Itemid=70

Poorvika (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That will do nicely, thanks! Do you know how to cite sources? Why not have a go? - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Occupations &Padayani

There is no evidence available that Padayani is an occupation of Kaniyar for their livelihood. This dance is performed by people from Nair community. About the bracketed comment "( Nair Had a higher social rank )", it is irrelevant and derogatory in this era of modern age. Iam afraid that the editor is taken for a ride by the sources written by someone, who seemed to have never applied their mind while writing the history. Corindia (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced, and if you read the statement correctly then you'll realise that it does indeed say that the dance is a Nair thing and that the costumes are made by the Kaniyars. As for the relevant social status, that reflects why the Kaniyars were - for want of a better phrase - the labourers in this exercise. We are not censored, and Jack Goody is an excellent source. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

probably at some point of time , some of the Kaniyar people have had suffered oppression in social pecking order. But many sources have reported that they were of purely learnt class of community like brahmins and not befitting to their enforced social status in the last centuries.The source you quoted is not a good historical account,but only a contemporary cross sectional picture given by someone of last centuries.

Corindia (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And your sources are? - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources are there in your article itself ( ex: Malabar - Volume 1 of william Logan,History of Kerala: vol-3 by Krishnat P. Padmanabha Menon, etc etc) Corindia (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we certainly should not be using Logan at all but if we let that slide for now then we'd still need to know what pages you are proposing to cite in order to support your statement that "they were of purely learnt class of community like brahmins and not befitting to their enforced social status in the last centuries". - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Many sources are there, mentioning the cultural and educational status of the Kaniyars of the past, we have to make an active look out for that. ex page no 26 of a book published in 1982, authored by Parameswaran Raman Gopinathan Nair Titled "Primary education, population growth, and socio-economic change: a comparative study with particular reference to Kerala" see the statement in it ....Those belonging to the Ganaka (or astrologer) caste - were educationally as advanced as any other higher caste like Brahmans...

Corindia (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GANAKA BELONG TO SAKALDWIPIYA

GANAKA community in Kerala belong to Sakaldwipiya, They are the descendent of Sakaldwipiya Brahmins. For more details refer the book. Global Encyclopaedia of the Brahamana Ethnography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.188.101 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaniyar and Kalari Panicker

The customs and tradition of Kalari Panicker and Kaniyar is totally different. Also each Kalari Panicker family has an associated Kalari, which the Kaniyar doesnt have. All the customs even today are associated with the Kalari. The Kerala Government also identifies Kalari Panicker / Kalari Kurup as a different caste as per the list of Other Backward Classes. Hence Kalari Panicker should not be referred within the Kaniyar community. Deepeshd (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Differences are clearly mentioned in the first paragraph itself. rest are regarding their origin and course . the information given in the article is from several reliable historical notes published by various authors . Article is not meant for giving a self description of any particular community or class

if any reliable  sources ( other than original research) are available  to prove  any of the  statements  as inappropriate , please provide them to validate the reason for deletion.

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial Ritesmart (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to the matter raised on the talk page instead of posting well-known Wikipedia content. KPSC OBC list mentions Kalari Panicker or Kalari Kurup as a separate community (Sl no. 25) other than Kaniyar (Sl no. 28), then why it should be on Kaniyar page? In a note on the Kaniyans of the Cochin State, Mr. L. K. Anantha Krishna Iyer writes that “there was some difference in the social status between the Kaniyans of the southern, and the Kalari Panikkans of the northern parts of the State. The latter profess a kind of superiority in status, on the ground that the former have no kalaris. It is also said by the latter that the occupation of the former was once that of umbrella-making, and that astrology as a profession has been recently adopted by them. There is at present neither intermarriage, nor interdining between them. The Kaniyans pollute the Kalari Panikkans by touch.” If Kaniyans could even pollute the Kalari Panicker by touch, how can they be categorised in the same community? Anyways this has to abide by the latest status on the Government of Kerala categorisation as mentioned earlier. Deepeshd (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, iam not concerned with any class or caste of that locality ( Kerala). After going though all the available (verifiable )sources of information, we can well conclude that they, the traditional astrologer class of Kerala , were of an homogenous group of people but with a few sub sects having different names.

The book Tribes and Castes of Cochin written by Anantha Krishna Iyer primarily focus on the people who lived in the central part of Kerala. His information on people of rest of the part of state was from secondary sources ,particularly from the inhabitants of Cochin state,so some biases might had crept in his book.

This article is not to give every details about their past social circumstances

First of all, let me say i have no conflict of interest in this article its irrelevant to give a report of all internal beliefs and practices they had as it was a matter of past.

This article is about a class of people, the traditional Astrologers of Kerala, who had a significant role in the society contrary to their varying levels of status in the social pecking order of the past

please see that the few statements in the article are extracts from the description given by the author, Ananth Krishna Iyer. His notes elaborates on some past cultural traditions of that caste ( regional variations in the cultural practices, social status, naming, titles etc among the same sect of people). such social phenomina were universal in nature and not an uncommon thing across the world .

Almost all sources reports that the traditional astrologer caste of kerala had several different names and title across kerala such as Kaniyar panicker, Kalari panicker , Ganaka, kanisan kaniyan etc. it can be lucidly understood from the description that Kaniyan class had further subsects like Polluting kaniyan( Tinta) among them . it seems the The chief occupation of Tinta kaniyan was not astrology, but making of shields , cudgels and palmira umbrellas etc.

The differences in social status and cultural practices had been chiefly noted between the two sects of Kaniyar . They were Kaniyar proper (astrologers) and Tinta kaniyan (Polluting ). It seems these differences were gradually faded off over the past century . Another dispute was about the prestige among families of kaniyar proper . It seems in those days the families conducted kalaris had asserted themselves that they were superior over those who had no kalaris. The book the does not give any detailed and reliable ethnographic description of families of travancore. Although in certain region of central travancore there were few families of kaniyar ,who had conducted kalaris, it seems the book omitted such information. The regional variations of cultural practices and customs are not worthy of mentioning in the WP article .

The differences in practices and beliefs may be possible among families and individuals ,so there is no merit in writing information of family conflicts and personal disputes in this article.

The present status of government listing of them are well stated in the introductory part of the article. Encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view without any POV push or emotional bias .Conform with the principles of Wikipedia policy, while editing this information.

  Ritesmart (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your response in this regard. Well this article is about Kaniyar, and not about all traditional astrologers of Kerala, as there are even other sects even among Brahmins who traditionally practised astrology. I mentioned Brahmins because as per your comment the social status doesn't matter.

The origins of Kalari Panicker has never been stated to be with astrology. They were well known as fencing masters to other communities like Nairs, Ezhavas, etc. This has been stated by Anantha Krishna Iyer himself, and this could be found in most of the anthropological references including the books from Duarte Barbosa (Portugal), Kathleen Gough, Elamkulam Kunjan Pillai, William Logan, Castaneda (Dutch). Let me know if you need the exact book and page/sections as some of them are not available online. Ever since practising in Kalari with weaponry was abolished in the early 19th century the community faced huge financial crisis. This is when Kalari Panicker got involved more into astrology, medicine, teaching based on their expertise. Anantha Krishna Iyer terms it as "After Nairs and other caste-men ceased to be soldiers, their occupation was chiefly confined to the training of young men in athletic sports and in dramatic performances, in addition to their profession of astrology. Gradually the former was less cared for, and astrology became their chief occupation and it is by it that they are in these days earning their livelihood", Pg 226 in Cochin tribes and castes.

Anantha Krishna Iyer always mentions Kalari Panicker and Kaniyan separately even though it is put under the Kaniyar section. Also he notes that "My own investigations lead me to believe that they (Kaniyar and Kalari Panicker) are one and the same people, the difference in the social status probably due to the absence of association owing to distance and local environments." Pg 192 in Cochin tribes and castes. So this is on his own discretion that Kalari Panicker was included as part of Kaniyar, which could as well be wrong and not a final judgement.

There are more differences than similarities between these communities, and even today they stand socially separated. Finally as I have repeated earlier, the Kerala Government doesn't recognise both to be the same community. Or else let me know your opinion why it is so. Deepeshd (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ritesmart, please let me know if you are ok to remove the reference to Kalari Panicker on the Kaniyar Page. Deepeshd (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

After going through the whole text of this book, it is understood that they are all one and the same with different regional names.The Scondary sources have already confirmed it . Present state of Listing and delisting by governments have nothing to do with their common origin and traditions. Separate listing of could be due to reasons from either political favouritism or appeals from individuals or groups . After all the secondary and and tertiary sources have well accorded this fact.which is more reliable asper Wikipedia policy. This article does not cover anything about their(Kaniyar) present affairs but the traditions of origin and occupation only.. Introductory statements are true according to the source of reference

Justicequalmodern (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"Anantha Krishna Iyer notes that "My own investigations lead me to believe that they (Kaniyar and Kalari Panicker) are one and the same people, the difference in the social status probably due to the absence of association owing to distance and local environments." Pg 192 in Cochin tribes and castes."...... the matter in this excerpt has been repeatedly validated by many other anthropologists and historians...

Several authors says, in their books, that earlier the Kalary training duty was assigned to Kaniyans , there by they got the title Panikkar or Panicker. it is an undisputed fact .so there is no need to doubt the facts provided in the article.

Justicequalmodern (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not trivialise the listing by the Government of Kerala as it is formed after detailed anthropological study and findings. Also the Kalari Panicker/Kurup are very less in numbers compared to most other castes (including Kaniyans) which minimises the political favouritism as you mentioned. Any appeal from individuals or groups has to be based on proper justifications, the same if any can be obtained through RTI.

You mentioned about the common origins and Anantha Krishna Iyer himself quotes in Pg 188 of his book that Kalari Panicker has different accounts of origin of the caste. The castes are primarily formed based on their traditional occupation which has been up-keeping their Kalaries for the Kalari Panicker. Kaniyans then and now dont own Kalaries.

This article is about Kaniyar and not the 'history' or 'traditions of origin and occupation only', else the title should be changed accordingly. It can cover the past, present or future of the caste. Anantha Krishna Iyer notes about his 'own investigations' about being the same, but does contradict with all the differences he mentions in the Kaniyar section. I have seen other authors referring to Anantha Krishna Iyer about this, but nowhere seen validating the same. Any such validation has to be with proper findings indicating they both are one and same. Please present the validation as per Wikipedia policy.

Several present day kalaries themselves prove the fact that Kalari Panicker/Kurup have been doing the mastery of Kalari training. If its only a title given to Kaniyans there would not have been mention of the Kalari Panicker or Panikkan by any of the different authors I mentioned before, nor by the Government of Kerala. So please do present proper justifications or material while mentioning about undisputed facts.

Deepeshd (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The points you put forwarded are seems to be nothing but Idiosyncratic beliefs of certain individuals .Such erroneous and emotionally grounded beliefs should not be used to cover up facts and distort the truthful information available from historical evidences and remnants. so such false and misleading thoughts are not at all noteworthy of mentioning in the encyclopedic article .Losing and gaining assets are part of natural social life so do kalaries. .... it is well evident that Several proper Kaniyar families might had lost OR abandoned their Kalaries in the event of social crisis or in the course of inevitable social changes .. same time at certain regions , several other Kaniyar families might had got the fortunate privilege and opportunty to sustain their kalaries and titles for a while . There is no ground to dispel the fact that kaniyar were/are known by different local names , and none of them are separate sects but a part of single caste. The different hereditary titles conferred by local rulers and various local callings of kaniyar may not mean such families with alternative names are originated from different categories or independent castes .... post independent day classification or listing of castes and classes by governments is not an exact indicator of the facts, it is done for the purpose of granting reservations to social classes who had known to have undergone some kind of social disadvantages for a while during the pre-independence era.. more over certain regional social group demands also might had put some political pressures to make such listings by government.

Justicequalmodern (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

In response to what you said "Please do not trivialise the listing by the Government of Kerala as it is formed after detailed anthropological study and findings."... what i could find in a latest published document of government of Kerala is that the facts given in the WP article are undisputably correct .

It seems the state government has recently corrected its past illogical Listings ,and published it though a notification on the List of Communities selected for OEC educational assistance subjected to a maximum of Rs. 6 Lakh annual income as per G.O.(Ms) 10/2014/BCDD dated 23.05.2014 . where the differnt regional names of Kaniyar are given properly under one sub heading . But it seems still they left out one name (Baleyya) from that list ?

Eventhough there had several evidences that two divisions were existed among Kaniyans ( kaniyan proper and Tinta(polluting)) the latter sect's name is seldom seen elsewhere in the recent sources of information. How have they vanished?.. but I think such informatiosn are of low importance to include in the article. Justicequalmodern (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

kaniyans are astrologers .In the northern part of cochin they are termed kalari panikkan on account of their having been in charge of kalari(gymnastic or milatary school) the two are however the same caste and are called Ganikans, panikkans ,Kurup,Asans and kaniyans excerpt from a 1954 Journal:science page 169.... kalari panikkan who belonged to the kaniyan caste, who kept kalaris and gymnastic and military schools.. from the Book of Duarte Barbosa: An Account of the Countries Bordering ..., Volume 1 page 40.. see foot note.

From the above mentioned evidences( various sources of information) now it is well confirmed that Kalari panicker is only a regional name of proper kaniyar or kaniyan caste .

So there is no point in making any further arguments about this matter.. Justicequalmodern (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There are no emotionally grounded beliefs here. What I want to point out is just because one historian (L K AnanthaKrishna Iyer) 'believes' that both are one and the same, it may not be true. These communities have co-existed and have been socially separated due to real reasons. Categorising to a single caste group has to be based on common origins, customs and traditions, occupation etc. This does not apply here and that is the primary basis of my debate.

The List of OEC educational assistance should be categorised as a politically motivated one, because that is only for reservations. OEC are the communities which are recommended to be included in SC/ST. Kalari Panicker/Kurup is not eligible for the same. There was a P P Gopi Commission report from Government of Kerala which clearly mentions the recommended OEC list cannot be entertained, and confirms that it is indeed politically motivated. There was an appeal raised against the inclusion of Kalari Panicker/Kurup along with Kaniyar and the same has been acknowledged by the Government of Kerala and it will be corrected in the subsequent publication. Also the OBC list with Kalari Panicker/Kurup as a separate community is approved by the Central Government of India and its not just a state government affair.

Glad that you referred to Duarte Barbosa. The foot notes which you see there is again referring to the book from AnanthaKrishna Iyer and Thurston which is again refferring to the same (please check the reference indicated on the same foot note). Barbosa has indicated Panicker (Panical as he refers) to be fencing masters. He mentions about Kaniyan on Page 61 of the same book as 'Canaquas' (the foot notes give the details). He mentions their traditional occupation as buckler and umbrella making and that they were great astrologers. However this is not mentioned in the main article under the traditional occupation. The description of the two in the book with respect to their culture and privileges makes it clear that they do not fall in the same category.

Kalari Panicker is no where stated to do Kaniyan Pattu in their folklore, which distinguishes the Kaniyans. The houses of the Kalari Panicker are named as per the Kalari which they belong to unlike the Kaniyans. I can list several other differences which shows that it is not just different names called for the same community.

Deepeshd (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to achieve some personal agenda ..Arguing on your circular reasoning based on false premises ,is a futile exercise.. i have already given a good clarification to your queries. All the sources available till the day does not match with your idiosyncratic beliefs or personal wishes if any .. what we needed here is reliable sources ... after going though all those available sources ,what we can understand is that kaniyar proper were generally known as Panicker and Asan...Panickers were involved with martial art training and teaching of reading and writing.. Among Panickers , those who could maintain their kalaris were known as kalari panicker. rest were known as kaniyar panicker ... the southern group, the Kana aJan (Asan) were masters of village schools ( ezhuthu kalari). at some places particularly towards northern Malabar, they had the name kanisan . Few internal behavioural differences ( cultural) among the regional groups is not a ground for negating their common inheritance ...another endogamous group ,polluting kaniyans(Tinta) had also inhabited in that region.. it is evident that the authors had been frequently using a common term Kaniyan, in their reports ,to mention all groups of Kaniyars other than the Panicker groups . what we see in their reports is that for comparative descriptions of the regional groups who had Kalaris and those who without it , they had used the names, kalari panicker and Kaniyan to allude them. Sources had found that except very few differences in their internal behaviours( which is naturally possible with any class of local groups ) almost all cultural characteristics were exactly same.

I think the latest record on listing of Kaniyar groups by any Government source ,is the one which published by state government of Kerala ,for including them in the OEC list for educational reservation .Where all of their regional names are mentioned and listed without any separation.

Above all ,you cannot change a truth ( unitary status of all groups of Kaniyar inspite of having different regional names) with some fallacies or imaginative false theories of certain individuals, because the earlier evidences of their common heritage ,which had been attested by almost all sources , cannot be wiped off easly . .. it seems the sources who had given us the information on Kaniyar groups had taken a view point somewhat neutral , again which makes their data more reliable.

Justicequalmodern (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it looks like this discussion is going in circles. It is true that the Kaniyar had different regional names. But Kalari Panicker is not one of the regional names because it has different origins, occupation, tradition and customs which form the basis of categorising into a common caste. This also has been clearly concluded in the Malayalam history book published by the State Institute of Languages, Kerala Page 196-228 under section 'Ezhudapedatha Naravamsha Charitram' which translates to 'Unwritten Community History'. The author lists all references including the views of L K Ananthakrishna Iyer, origins and traditions of the communities and why it should not be termed under the same category.

I think we have to go for a WP:3O else there would not be a conclusion. I will summarize the points below and request for a Third Opinion.

Deepeshd (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The concern raised in this section is regarding Kalari Panicker put into the category of Kaniyar, although it is a separate community even in the present situation. Points raised are as below:

 1. Kalari Panicker has different origins, occupation, traditions and customs. Almost everything relates to their Kalari (small training place as well as place of worship). Kaniyans do not have Kalaris. Kalari Panickers were well known as fencing masters, teaching martial arts to other communities.
 2. The book Cochin Tribes and Castes by L K Anantha Krishna Iyer  describes both Kaniyans and Kalari Panicker under the Kaniyan section. He does provide different mention for both the communities. However he concludes with 'My own investigations lead me to believe that they are one and the same people, the difference in the social status probably due to the absence of association owing to distance and local environments.' Note that he doesn't establish that both are the same, but it is his own belief. 
 3. The major similarity between the communities is astrology. However the Kalari Panicker started practising astrology more in the early 19th century only after the British abolished martial arts with weaponry in their Kalaris. (ref. Iyer)
 4. Older books like the one from Duarte Barbosa during Portugal colonisation mentions Kalari Panicker as fencing masters and it has another section to describe Kaniyans (as indicated in the discussions above). There is interpretation linking both in the footnotes, but that is again referred from Iyer's book. Such reference to Iyer's book does come in a few books, as historians dont tend to argue what a prominent anthropologist has mentioned.
 5. The State and Central Government of India lists Kalari Panicker/Kurup as an independent community under the OBC list. This has been the case since the formation of the state of Kerala.
 6. Recent list of reservation for OEC educational assistance from Backward Classes Development department of Kerala, groups Kalari Panicker along with the Kaniyar. An appeal was raised against this by the parent organisation for the community, Kerala Kalari Panicker Kalari Kurup Sangham  and the government responded that as a mistake and will be corrected. This can be obtained on request from the organisation.
  7. A malayalam book on Kerala history 'Kerala Charitram - Kalariyum Kalarupangalum by Mukundan Kurup' discusses this topic on the differences of Kalari Panicker with Kaniyans and concludes that both are different communities. This is a university level book published by the State Institute of Languages, Kerala. The book is not available online, but the pages of the book can be displayed if needed (in Malayalam).

Finally I do not mind mentioning the wordings of Iyer or any standard historical books in the main article. But that should not establish Kalari Panicker to be a sub caste of Kaniyar, as that is not the ground reality. Wikipedia policy is to avoid any controversial matter, hence my suggestion would be to remove the association of the Kalari Panicker caste in the Kaniyar page.

Deepeshd (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

it seems you have some hidden agenda. pushing false propagandas. so there is no point in your circular argument . you are arguing for someonelse's false and idiosyncratic assumptions . We have already well clarified the matter ( that kalari panicker was one of the regional names of Kaniyar) by citing several reliable sources. see the route of the facts they found . In the olden days ,the Kaniyar proper caste was assigned with the role of martial art trainers (naalpatheeradi kalari training to young fighters). So they got a title of their office Panicker ( pronounced as panikkar, panical, panikker etc) They were primarily inhabited in the cochin -Malabar region. they says that rest of them( kaniyar proper sect) from southern Travancore had the title Asan ,in view of their past engagement with Ezhuthu kalaris ,where they were the teachers of reading ,writing and reciting .Such kaniyar Families who chiefly concentrated on kalari training in the region of old country of Cochi were later known as kalari panicker. Even after the abolishment of the fencing practice by British, some of the families had preserved the remnants of the kalaris attached with their houses. some sources say these people have several community organisations than one which you have mentioned . more over you should understand that during the late medieval period, the state of kerala had witnessed several changes , where kalari training was rampant across the state, particularly in the central and northern regions so apart from kaniyar families the kalari teaching had been taken up by several other communities such as Nair, Ezhava etc so they too had the kalaris .. head of the troops of fighters were also conferred with the Title Panicker and their masters as Kurup. Justicequalmodern (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC) I In order to understand the fact that Kalari panicker was one of the regional name of Kaniyar please go through the whole text of the articles from the sources , rather than quoting, by out of context , few statements from them. you are misleading us. Idiosyncratic bias of original research is least reliable as per wikipedia policy.

1.  Kaniyans had Kalaris. it was  whom,the local rulers of ancient karala  had entrusted to teach fencing to fighting classes. The title Kalari Panickers/ panickers are derived from such origin. so they are some families among them who had sustained such kalaris till the era of British ruling. See a picture of Nalpatheeradi kalari given in the book  Cochin tribes and castes ( its title is  Kaniyan's kalari   not as kalari Panicker's kalari) 

 2 The book Cochin Tribes and Castes by L K Anantha Krishna Iyer describes the kaniyans of that region  mentioned its diffrent groups under diffrent names , and not  the kalari panikkans as a separate community from kaniyans .. he says that their families in the northern region were known as Kalari panicker and points out  few differences of the cultural practices between  those families with kalaris and their brothren  in the south region without kalaris. kalari panickens claimed their origin to some legend that they were descendants of brahman Ganaka rishi, who was cursed for his prediction to sudras in unclean state. kaniyars of southern most region of the kerala state believed that they were the descendants of a brahman sage Kani.  Another legendary account spread across the country is that kaniyar are descendants of one brahman astrologer  Thalakkulatoor bhattathiri.

3. Chief occupation of the kaniayr proper community was astrology.   But those families ,who were engaged with other avocations like training fencing ( panicker) and teaching(Asan) had been  focusing  more upon their respective practices ,rather than on the occupation of astrology. once the abolishment of kalari training and depreciation of sanskrit teaching had occurred , they began returning to their major occupation, the Astrology. kalari panickens claimed that they were the real astrologers of ancient kerala and their southern group  had learnt it lately from them. Infact it seems the the Tinta endogamous sect of kaniyan , who did learn the  astrology as a late profession

4 There is no need of any confusion in the descriptions of Older books like the one from Duarte Barbosa. kalari panicken as fencing teachers of malabar  at the time of portughese invasion and  among them  those familes without kalaris were pure astrologers 

5. Different listing in central and state notification is actually a matter ,after the  the formation of the state of Kerala. it is quite coomon that demands of regional groups are accepted and reflected in the listings  without taking into consideration  of their historical accounts. 

 6.You are citing a web page of some regional organisations.it seems there are several organisations for this community 
 
7. It seems you are  using wikipedia for giving  advertisement for some nonsense book. The  book you mentioned is full of analysis or synthesis of some published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Most of the statements are mere idiosyncratic beliefs with glaring subjective biases ,book is not a reliable source. Its author is neither an Academician nor a  Historian/Anthropologist by profession. Never merited to be included under the class of any scholarly source.  Primary focus  of its publisher is seemed to be  more on popularising the local language rather than verifying the factual veracity of the contents of the books they publish.    
 

Justicequalmodern (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The user User:Justicequalmodern repeatedly mentions idiosyncrasy, agendas, emotions. I rather chose not to respond to that as it doesn't help the discussion in any way. All the points presented by me are with proper references as needed by Wikipedia and the point of my disagreement is also clear. However I found him/her showing huge disrespect towards the author of the book on point #7, which does show incivility and breaches a healthy discussion. The author has been awarded by the Folklore academy of the Government of Kerala for his contributions and the user is commenting on his personal traits here which is unfortunate. I need not give advertisement for any book, neither do I intend to, but the book which you are referring to is used by one of the renowned universities (Calicut University) as I mentioned, and doesn't need any advertisement whatsoever. Refer Page 14, item 14

Deepeshd (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding my response to User:Justicequalmodern

1. Please do not mislead saying Kaniyar had Kalaris. Yes, Iyer in his book has put Kaniyan's Kalari as the title of the picture. However he also mentioned 'The Kaniyans of the south had no Kalaris and their occupation has long been confined to casting horoscopes, making predictions and also teaching children.' As the name implies and as Iyer also mentioned 'For every such village in the northern part of the state, there was also a Kalari Panikkan with a kalari (gymnastic or military school)'. It is clear and understood that Iyer 'believes' both are same and that is the reason why he has put the title.

2. Iyer has provided several differences in the nature of Kaniyan and Kalari Panicker, but he has not scientifically provided justification why he believes both are same.

3. Please note that Iyer has not mentioned about 'returning' to astrology. As per him after Nairs and others ceased to be soldiers, Kalari Panikkans were confined to training in sports, dramatic performances and astrology. Later astrology became their chief occupation as that was fetching money. However it is to be noted that astrology has been one of the occupation adopted and later became prevalent.

4. The families without Kalaris do not categorise as Kalari Panicker because then and now all Kalari Panicker is associated with a Kalari.

5. The existence of different listing from as long as 1954 which is more than 60 years does prove that they have been identified separately. Also there has to be strong reasons for separate listing, just regional groups doesn't make sense on a sensitive categorisation.

6. The web page of the organisation was mentioned to prove that such a registered organisation (from 1954) exists and is bound to follow the law of the land. 

7. I have put the article on 3O and its up to the individuals to decide if its a valid reference. I have put my points of verifiablity in my previous post. But my humble request is to refrain from consciously degrading any book or author.

Deepeshd (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

With all points mentioned, the Kaniyar and Kalari Panicker should not be grouped together in the same category, but the current language does satisfy that point. Secondly, all facts from the book mentioned should be cited, and if no citing can be found, it should be removed. The article has been removed from WP:3O JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

JAZHAZHANDZWIKI, Thank you very much for your opinion. The first paragraph in the article mentions 'There are regional variations in the name used to define them. But the Kerala Public Service Commission considers Kaniyar Panicker (otherwise known as Kaniyan, Kanisu, Ganaka, Kanisan, Kamnan, and Kani) as one group, and Kalari Panicker (otherwise referred to as Kalari Kurup) to be another.[1]'. I have objection against this as it does emphasise that Kalari Panicker is a regional variation of Kaniyar.

Deepeshd (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Deepeshd, Okay, I see your point there. Best call would be to find a way to change the wording, for example "There are many regional variations, but the Kaniyar Panicker (otherwise known as Kaniyan, Kanisu, Ganka, Kanisan, Kamnan, and Kani) are regognized by the Kerala Public Service Commision as a singular group compared to others." But I'll leave that to consensus, I'll still be watching this page if anyone needs me! JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

hey Deepeshd, again warn you against disruptive editing . you JAZHAZHANDZWIKI, too should note that wikipedia policy is to disallow misnformation. The points raised by Deepeshd has no corroborative evidences .So they are not acceptable for wikipedia content. please refrain from distorting the well known facts by disruptive editing

Ritesmart (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ritesmart please note we are following the official Wikipedia process. JAZHAZHANDZWIKI is here as part of the WP:3O and we should appreciate the user for taking time out for resolution. All the points I have mentioned here is with evidences. Please be clear what point you are missing and what you are looking for, or else I request you to adhere to the wiki process.

Deepeshd (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deepeshd you are distorting the content without any source references .. please refrain from it .

Ritesmart (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear user, you see all the discussions happened here, don't you? If not I request you to go through them before commenting and doing any edit wars. I see that what you are doing here is disruptive editing. Do follow the process as per Wikipedia.

Deepeshd (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Deepeshd you are distorting the content without any reliable sources of references .. please refrain from it . There is no historical evidence says that kalari panikkans are not kaniyans . if you search for these two words , All authors of the past point out that they are one and the same caste. If you have any source showing contrary to that you may cite , but that should be verifiable, should not be an original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritesmart (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ritesmart with your comment its clear that you have not gone through the discussion. Its waste of time to repeat the same thing again. All the evidences and references you are looking for has been mentioned above and you can ask specific questions on it other than such generic queries. And clarify before doing the edits again.

Deepeshd (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there any historical evidence showing that kalari pankkans are not kaniyans ? so refrain from unnecessarily distorting the content I have gone through the whole dicussion in this talk page . now it is convinced that your argument is invalid. Ritesmart (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

read this https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Castes_and_Tribes_of_Southern_India/Kaniyan Ritesmart (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Again I see Ritesmart citing references of Anantha Krishna Iyer, which is well debated on why his views are challenged. I don't see the user having gone through the discussion, and doesn't provide any clarity on what point the user is disagreeing. If this behaviour continues I will have to report for wikipedia conduct issues.

Deepeshd (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Deepeshd you are defiantly repeating the disruptive editing.. softly warning you to refrain from such activities. I urge you to go through the sources and learn the fact that the kalari panickens are kaniayar caste. for ex see it .this is an excerpt from an article published in the year 1954 (post independence) “The kaniyans are astrologers. In the northern part of Cochin they are termed kalaripanikkan on account of their having been in charge of Kalari (gymnastic military schools) The two are however , of the same caste and are called ganikans,panikkan,kurups,Asans,kaniyan" .... source _Science, Volumes 20-23 Asiatic Society (Calcutta, India) PAGE 169. all main sources cited under the WP article vouches it. there were no mention of kalari panickens as separate caste or tribe ,instead historians found kalari panickens as one of the a regional groups of kaniyan . In both books, the Tribes and castes of south india and the Cochin tribes and castes ,this fact is well recorded .so there is no reason to remove the statement on Kalari panicker from the article.

Ritesmart (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ritesmart please be noted that Journal:Science Volumes 20-23 Asicatic Society again refers to the same book from Anantha Krishna Iyer. So what I see that you are repeating the same thing again and again without trying to understand what has been discussed so far and what all points were put out and also gone though the WP:3O project. Its high time now that I report this conduct as in-spite of multiple warnings, I dont see a corrective action. Deepeshd (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I reported the issue and Ritesmart is blocked indefinitely, being a sock-puppet of Justicequalmodern. Its unfortunate and I had to do this to hold up the Wikipedia policies. We assume and expect good faith to prevail in Wikipedia. Deepeshd (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Revert

I tried to read the last section but it makes my eyes bleed. I have reverted to a "last good version" of this article. Subsequently, numerous unreliable sources have been added. Those sources include stuff from the British Raj era and one volume of the "states" series of The People of India, neither of which are reliable by long-standing consensus. S. N. Sadasivan was another poor source used - he was an amateur historian and has also long since been considered unreliable here. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The statement The ritual art form padayani has been known to be related with this community. may be ok. I'm not sure whether the citation is referring to page 335 or is saying there are 335 pages in the book. If someone can clarify at what page the information is actually stated, perhaps it is worth including. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Sitush, I had raised an objection on the inclusion of Kalari Panicker / Kalari Kurup under the Kaniyar title, details of which I had mentioned in the last section. I agree thats a lot of discussion, but that went through several days of effort and also had to go through the Wiki Third Opinion project for conclusion. Would appreciate validating my concern and consider removing the reference of Kalari Panicker in the title paragraph. Deepeshd (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepeshd I can see you, Ritesmart and Justiceequalmodern in the discussion above. Which one of you is the third opinion? It really doesn't make much sense to me. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The third opinion came from user JAZHAZHANDZWIKI. Deepeshd (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Found them, thanks. Still a bit concerned but will have yet another go at reading through it. Right now, I have no opinion for or against but the Kerala PSC link seems to have been hijacked and the Wayback Machine seems to be malfunctioning. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I see someone else above had an issue with Panikkar as far back as 2011 but it seems not to have been resolved. - Sitush (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. There are three of you discussing and then JAZHAZHANDZWIKI gets involved as the supposed third opinion. That is not how WP:3O works - am I missing something? - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently both Ritesmart and Justiceequalmodern were sockpupets of the same user. Even I was not aware until the very end of the discussion. Yeah, I read that WP:3O could kick in when the discussion is between two people or in a few cases even if there is some third person involvement, sorry I am not an expert in this, so feel free to correct me. And yeah this talk page is a wiki on its own, I saw discussions as early as 2011 as you mentioned. Not all has been tracked or concluded and not reflected in the main article. Deepeshd (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, socks on a caste article - who would have thought it? <g> Any chance of a potted summary? The giver of the third opinion had way more patience than I do if they waded through that lot! - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a summary put in the discussion, may be you could check with this timestamp 'Deepeshd (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)'. Deepeshd (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Found it, thanks. That was a very poor decision, I feel. For example, Iyer and Barbosa not reliable and nor are the state caste lists & any petitions thereto. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Good thing about those references are the time in history when those were written, although may not be fully neutral. These castes have very few references unfortunately. Could be because of their small numbers. I saw you have revised the main article. I am ok with as it is now, but very brief and wish someone add more reliable information to that. Thanks, Deepeshd (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is actually nothing good about the Raj sources - see User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see why you mentioned those references are not good for Wikipedia. Also this article is well compiled, great work and thanks for sharing! Deepeshd (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)