Jump to content

User talk:Vivin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Nair article

If it is obvious vandalism, you can post a message in WP:AIV. If it is a content dispute (as in this case), WP:ANI will be the right place. But the most efficient way would be to contact an Indian admin (preferably one from the South, who may understand the issue better) and request him to mediate. Re. Ravi Achan, can you please enable your email. Would like to discuss something off-line. Tintin 07:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nambiar

Hello Vivin! I see that you have altered the Nambiar article. I agree with you that Nambiars are a category of Nayars. There is one problem I have with your edits. You say that Nayars were classified as Shudras, that is because some sects of Nayars undertook menial labor work in the past, and also because the Nambuthris considered themselves so high that people below them were "shudra", including Varmas and other Rajahs. Even other Brahmins were considered lower by the Nambuthris. The problem with clubbing all Nayar subcastes under the broad banner of "Nayar" is that the various nuances between the subcastes are ignored. For example there are very wealthy and aristocratic Nambiar families from North Malabar who are Rajahs and some which have a poonul. They are mixed with the Kolathiri Rajahs. There are other Nayars who are Rajahs in other kingdoms, as there were also Nambuthri rulers. The point I am trying to make is that when you join these Nayars (Samanthanmar and Kiriyathil Nayars) with Nayars who were palanquin bearers or servants at Nambuthri residences, there is a problem. I am not saying that one caste or subcaste is higher than the other, nor do I support the caste system, which I see as a disease which plagued our country in bygone eras; but I nonetheless believe that each subcaste of Nayars should be treated upon its merits. Classifying Nambiars and other Kiriyathil Nayars as "shudras" is incorrect. The Manusmriti clearly states that it is one's Karma that determines one's Varna: "As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya" (X: 65)). Like all things devised by man, the system became corrupt, and caste became hereditary. The concept of the "Varna" is clearly explained in the Manusmriti. I find it quite amusing that people who refer to the Manusmriti and label Kiriyathil Nayars as "shudras", are in fact contradicting the very essence of its teachings. It's true: some subcastes of Nayars undertook menial labor, and could come under the classification of "shudra", however the other Nayars were rulers/warriors by birth and acts (Kshatriya dharma). Labelling the majority of Nayars as "shudras" was just another way for the puritan Nambuthris to further demonstrate their position as the highest caste. This proved useful as they replaced Nayars as the topmost caste of Kerala. "Pure shudra Nayar" was used as a derogatory term, not one which carried any historically significant value. I don't see the need to continue this act of demeaning Nayars and perpetuating prejudices by using terms that were thrown about in the past as one caste strived to maintain superiority over another caste. The Manusmriti deems Kiriyathil Nayars to be Kshatriyas. It is irrelevant what the Nambuthris called them. Kshatriya Knight

Hello Kshatriya Knight, if you can provide references to support your claim, then by all means you are welcome to add the information. But like you said, some Nambiars were supposedly Kshatriyas and some weren't. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but with all the information available to me so far, I can see that Nairs were classified as Sudras by the Namboothiris. Even O. Chandumenon states this in his novel Indulekha. I know that the Dharmashastras say that one's actions determine one's caste more than one's birth, but here we are only reporting facts. Not prejudices (as you seem to think). This isn't about superiority. Nambiars are classified as being under Nairs, which means they were also classified as Sudra. But, like I said, if you can find information to the contrary, and that too, referenced and cited information, please include this in the article. Hearsay is not enough. Can you show me the exact location in the Manusmriti where it says that Kirayathil Nairs were Kshatriyas? Many Nairs families, my own being an example, regardless of their classification, were feudal lords and ruled over areas of Kerala. I have heard from my grandmother and grandaunts that our family is descended from the Villarvattom Royal Family and that our karmas are all Kshatriya karmas (since we are, supposedly, the descendants of a King, and therefore a Kshatriya). But I have only heard it - nowhere have I seen factual evidence for it. There may be some truth to what you are saying, but without facts or references to support your view the information cannot hold its own. I hope you understand. That being said, I invite you to provide references to support your point of view. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്) 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Vivin, I'm glad we can discuss this in a civilised manner (which I was unfortunately not possible with others). Nayars were not known to those who composed the Manusmriti, therefore nowhere in the work does it make references to them, either as Shudras or as Kshatriyas. What we can do is to match up the qualifications of Nayars with the prescribed qualities mentioned in the Manusmriti to determine the caste of Nayars. Here are some relevant quotes from the Manusmriti with citations:
"As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya" (X: 65))
In other words, caste is not supposed to be hereditary, it is based upon one's Karma, as further highlighted in the next quote:
"A Dwija as well as his children who, instead of studying the Veda, wastes his time in doing other things soon goes down to the level of a Shudra" (II: 168)) (Since the karma of the child is not dedicated to studies, he becomes a Shudra)
What I am saying is that its is totally insignificant when others such as Nambuthris or even Nayars like O. Chandumenon call Nayars "Shudras" because they are contradicting the Manusmriti. From what I know, as I said, the brahminical caste had labelled Nayars, who were previously the highest Jati of Kerala, as "Shudras" (servants) as a means of asserting their dominance. This was also the case in North India when the Kambojas (Scythian foreigners) where labelled as Shudras as well. It was a means of solidifying the social heirarchy. I can not think of any other examples when Kiriyathil Nayars did the "Shudra" karma, could it be that serving the community by ruling is an act of a Shudra? If that was the case then Brahmins too would be Shudras, since they were serving the community through conducting worship! I know Illathu Nayars served Nambuthris, but not Kiriyathil Nayars.
I think it is about time also that the concept of Social groups currently having "caste" be abolished from Wikipedia, for the simple reason that people from hereditary "castes" pursue occupations that are not hereditary anymore. "Nayar" is just a name today, and someone who is a Nayar may no longer be a Kshatriya anymore. I think suitable corrections should be made to articles, such as "The ancestors of the Nayars were Kshatriyas". This is just a suggestion. I know that I myself sometimes forget this. --Kshatriyan 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Kshatriyan, I am glad as well! Also, I agree with everything you say. The reason that I have Nairs as Sudras, is that there are facts to show this. I know by facts, I mean that this is what the Namboothiris called the Nairs, and this was, exactly like you said, to assert their dominance over the Nairs. As far as actions go, Nairs were very much like Kshatriyas - they ruled the land and warfare was their profession. They also came second only to the Namboothiris. However, the problem comes when you consider that for a Namboothiri, a Nair was untouchable. Secondly, Nairs have no sacred thread. Now you might wonder why I would pick the similarities to Sudras over the similarities to Kshatriyas. The only reason is that throughout Kerala history, Nairs were known as Sudras to the Namboothiris. There was no four-fold caste system in Kerala. There were the Namboothiris, and then there was everyone else (Sudras). I have even heard from my grandparents and granduncles and grandaunts that Nairs were essentially Sudras. In an earlier incarnation of the article, I had a "Classification Controversy" section that discussed whether Nairs were Sudras or Kshatriyas. After some discussion, this section was deemed unnecessary. Finally, after I found actual written evidence that Nairs were Sudras, I added the information to the article. While, like you say, it is true that Nairs did many things like the Kshatriyas, there is no evidence that they were called as such. You said that this was not the case for the Nambiars, that they were actual Kshatriyas. Were you able to find any information to substantiate that? Kshatriyan, I understand where you are coming from, but at Wikipedia everything essentially comes down to fact, and not opinion. While I completely agree with you that in actions the Nairs were like Kshatriyas, I have to look at the fact that they were still known as Sudras. You suggest that we should put something saying that the ancestors of the Nairs were Kshatriyas. Aside from the Nagavamsh myth, I haven't seen anything concrete. Agreed that this whole caste business is a vestige of an ugly past, but ugly or not, we have to represent the truth here, warts and all. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്) 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. But what I meant was that just because people call a social group something, it doesn't make it fact. For example, if the Catholic Church declared that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and everybody in Europe followed it, it wouldn't actually make the Earth the centre of the universe. Just because Nambuthris called Nayars "Shudras" it doesn't make them Shudras, because it is not up to them to decide. Secondly, in Kerala in the past Namboothiris classed everyone below them as "shudras". The Varmas, Rajahs were all classified as "Shudra". Yet there are Varmas and Rajahs (who came under the umbrella of "Nayar") and other semi-royal Nayars who wore a poonul. But yes, the majority of Nayars and Nambiars do not wear poonuls, like the Kambojas and Marathas of Northern India, who were also classed as "shudra", since these people, like the Nayars, were slow to pick up on Hinduism, or refused to accept Brahmin hegemony.
What I suggest is to class "Nayar" as a "social group originating from Kerala who were in the past were Warriors/Rulers/Landlords". It should be noted that "Nayars undertook the Kshatriya dharma, but were called "shudra" by the puritan Nambuthris". It is most important that this is stressed, simply because those who have little understanding of the condition of the caste system in Kerala will assume that Nayars were literally "Shudra" and were servants and laboring workers in the past. Using terms like "Shudra" breeds this misconception. As you say, Wikipedia is about facts, not about opinion, and by reinstating ill-conceived opinions (i.e. using term "Shudra"), we are doing little to describe the true nature of Nayars. --Kshatriyan 23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you said Nairs were Sudras in an isolated context, that might lead to misconception. But the Nair article states that they were feudal lords and warriors. Please take a look at the comments on the talk page for the Nair article. I have suggested removing the infobox and adding a statement like the following "The Nairs were feudal lords and warriors, although they were called Sudras (Pure Sudras of Malayala) by the Namboothiris". Perhaps the same can be done for the Nambiar article? --vi5in[talk] 08:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the first time I heard about Nambiars/Nayars being "Shudra" was on Wikipedia! Having known several Nambuthris and learnt a deal about Nayars from others I had only learnt that they were Kshatriyas. After reading articles and doing research I found that they had been branded as "Shudras". Vivin, I suggest the Nayar article should be moulded in the same way as the Sakas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas articles, since the classification of these groups is also contentious. Here is a reference from the Kshatriya article about this:
The Manusmriti, written about 200 AD states that the Sakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Ionian, Indo-Greeks), Kambojas (Central Asians), Paradas (Sinkiang), Pahlavas (Persians), Kiratas (Nepal, Assam), Dravidas (Tamil), and Daradas were originally noble Kshatriyas but were relegated to the Barbaric (Vrishala) status due to their neglect of the Brahmanas as well as due to their non-observance of the sacred Brahmanical codes (X/43-44).
In other words, because Nayars, Kamboja, etc. did not immediately accept Brahminical hegemony, they were classed as "Shudras" and people who "mistreated" Brahmins. We have to put this in a historical context. Nambuthris arrived in Kerala some time from 2nd-7th century AD, to a predominantly Buddhist/Nature worshiping Dravidian Kerala. Nayars, as you know, were the uppermost class in those days, and naturally a confrontation ensued, especially as the Nambuthris began to gain more power and Nayars began to accept subordination. The social groups that I have mentioned were not of the Indo-Aryan Hindu stock, they were foreigners as far as the Brahmins were concerned, they were "Shudras". This is why many of the Nayars do not have a poonul, because of their "neglect of sacred Brahminical codes".
Now in relation to your comment about the classification box, I would suggest the term "Martial race" or "Warrior/Ruler", which is 100% accurate. I see there are a lot of people out there who are adamant that Nayars are "Shudras". I would also suggest a title in the article (like the one in Kamboja) which highlights the Kshatriya nature of Nayars, but also that they were labelled as "shudras" and the relevant quote from the Manusmriti, that I have written above, to prove why it was the case. --Kshatriyan 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Nairs were initially the topmost caste, but were relegated to the status of Sudras by Namboothiris. This is why I proposed adding a sentence saying as such. I don't think that we need to overstate the similarity of Nairs to Kshatriyas as that wouldn't serve any purpose. I still feel that a single sentence is enough. We could add a section that discusses the position of Nairs in the caste hierarchy, but that could cause more problems. What do you think? Also, could you take a look at the ongoing discussion (regarding this very issue) in the talk page for the Nair article? --vi5in[talk] 11:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vivin, I have read the (quite lengthy) discussion on the Nayar article, where both pro-Kshatriyas and pro-Sudras have made comments. As I have already recommended, the infobox can remain, but classification be "Warrior/Administrater", something that no one can possibly argue with. Also following the layout of the Kamboja, Pahlava, Saka and Yavana articles, since these groups have a classification controversy identical to that of the Nayars. Subtitles should be created, highlighting the Kshatriya dharma of the Nayars (but I suspect that many of those who are intent on labelling Nayars as Shudras will not appreciate this), but also another subtitle covering the fact that Nambuthris called Nayars Shudras and a reason for this labelling. We'll present the history of Nayars, warts and all, but sure that we don't play down the true duty of Nayars in our "Shudra" frenzy. This is my recommendation. Tell me what you think. Kshatriyan 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want any of this to devolve into a caste-war, which is where it seems like it is going now. The infobox has been removed, and the consensus was just to add text stating that the Namboothiris considered the Nairs to be Sudras. This is a historical fact. No one considered the Nairs to be Kshatriyas, not even the Nairs themselves. The article does state that the Nairs were (and continued to be after the arrival of the Namboothiris) feudal lords and warriors. However, the pro-Kshatriya, and the pro-Sudra sides are intent on only displaying one side. --vi5in[talk] 06:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem there is some caste conflict. It would interest you that in fact in the Ezhava article they are talking about Ezhavas being brahmin/kshatriya/vaisha/shudra due to the occupations that they followed (I support them in stating that these occupations were followed...vaishya dharma, etc.). It also seems that it is just us (Nayar article) who are experiencing such a problem...with Kambojas, Rajput, even Marathas (who were specifically classed as Shudra) are not facing the same level controversy as this. My contributions seem to have been in vain. However, just as it is an accepted truth that Nambuthris called Nayars "shudra", it was common knowledge (much more common knowledge) that Nayars were warriors, landlords, rulers, etc. How can this be left out? Kshatriyan 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I will take a look at the Ezhava article. But let's not turn this into a matter of ego? Like I said in the Nair article, at no point in history were Nairs referred to as Kshatriyas, so there's no point making that reference. The article already points out that they were rulers and administrators. --vi5in[talk] 17:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vivin, I see that you have edited out the infobox on the Nambiar article. Sure, Nambiars are "Nayars" but just because a resolution has been reached in the Nair discussion page, it doesn't mean that it applies to all articles related to the Nair page. The reason for the removal of the infobox on the Nayar page was due to too much conflict. This has not occured on the Nambiar page. The classifications on the Nambiar page are also appropriate: Warrior/Administrator/Ruler. I am not trying to be stubborn, but it is a loss to leave out the infobox (which features on other articles on Indian Social Groups) Kshatriyan 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kshatriyan, while I agree with the information in the caste box, I don't think it serves any purpose of clarifying the article. But at any rate, I guess it's alright as long as there are no claims of Nairs being Kshatriyas - I just have an issue with that because there is no historical precedent. --vi5in[talk] 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Latin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Latin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nair

The article is readable now, and 's certainly a lot more authentic than it was.Bhattathirippadu 08:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On who's authority? You haven't provided any sources. There wasn't any issue with the readability of the article before. You haven't made any significant changes affecting readability (for better or worse). All you're doing is adding one section over and over again. --vi5in[talk] 09:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a message from you. Please specify which part did I remove from the list of Nairs. I had wanted, instead to add a few names, since I am sure that Changampuzha Krishna Pillai is a more famous personality than luminaries like Chandran Nair, Singapore and Poothampallil KrishnaMenon, Advocate.I hope you will take the trouble to add these as well. If you have not heard of these people, please confirm from eminent men of letters. There are many other omissions too.Let me see first, what you intend to do with these.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Us army national guard seal.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Us army national guard seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deepujoseph

Well, I doubt it is compromised though I am keeping a watch on the contributions. No idea what happened. Will try to email him as well. BTW, the talk link in your signature doesnt work — Lost(talk) 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Message moved from user page

What's so uncivil about this? How can you use that term when you have been stubborn about inserting a phrase such as "nambuthiris considered the Nair as sudra" "as a historical fact" . You have been maintaining the refrain all the while that "it does not really matter if egos are hurt, or if someone is offended by facts etc.". Your response on the discussion pages indicate your hurt; the struck out sentence beneath one of the edits does not exactly conform to what'so civil by any standards. Who are you to ask me to grow up? And what do you mean by growing up? My edit was an example of what people would normally avoid mentioning for the sake of not hurting someone else. Why should you be so offended by comments on paliathachan? Ask yourself this question. Can you refute the veracity of those statements? You have to accept that people are free to view a historical fact ( lrt's take the case of Paliathachan's premiership, for example) in an infinite number of ways, as long as the basic fact remains the same. One of those facts here was that the Paliath Achan was subservient to the Kochin King,and the caste of the former was the reason he could not elevate himself any further.( In any caser your Talk page is the place I would like to discuss my opinions.) Why should you be offended if someone states that fact? Your being offended should be of no consequence, is n't it so? It would have been civil to demand substantiation for the statement. (You would n't certainly ask for testimony as regards the form or mode of interaction between the Achan and the king; nor would you dispute the indescribable haughtiness of children from nambuthiri and Raja households towards people from other castes, irrespective of age!)That's beside the point. What hurt you - let me reiterate - was the "inappropriateness" of publishing those facts, even though they were presented to illustrate the clear demarcations between "Khsatriya" and "Nair". I would suggest- I you have conveyed to me innumerable times- that you retain the bare facts while ignoring the aspersions, if indeed you consider them so. --Palattu Koman

Re:Some help

Hi, you seem to have a very long running content dispute with these users. I am unable to help you as I am not online often these days and also I dont have much knowledge about the subject. Now that Deepu is gone, may you would like asking for some help from the mediation cabal... — Lost(talk) 08:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Palattu Koman

Your "talk" link was n't working.

My "user name" was blocked. It was n't that I was trying to write from 59.93.... for the sake of anonymity. I do not know why you bring in phrases such as "the spirit behind writing" wt al. That would be equivalent to bringing in the good old "ego" question.I have n't fudged the facts. I do not have a personal agenda as well.I do not understand what you mean by "trying to a get a rise out of you". I have already replied to your other accusations and do not wish to repeat.

Like I said, you should know WHY your username was blocked. It's quite simply because of your conduct. You may wish to feign ignorance, but your conduct speaks for itself. At the risk or repeating myself, you weren't trying to engage in a constructive discussion. You were simply trying to attack me personally to prove a point. It's quite immature. --vi5in[talk] 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Travancore State Manual

Hey Vivin...you can get a copy of all the Travancore Manuals or also the Cochin state manual from the KCHR (Kerala Council for Historic Research) office at Vylopilly Sanskriti Bhavan, Nalanda, Trivandrum...since i dont stay in Kerala i gut my copy by VPP whereby we pay only after the product reaches us...its a little more expensive though...nevertheless its worth it...the entire transaction was through email...kchrtvm@gmail.com... i am actually interested in ordering a couple of other books as well and so i emailed them a few days back...I was given a number by PJ Cherian, the director...You can contact the man who deals with orders, a certain Mr Sivanandan at 0471 2310409 as well. Hope this info helps!!

Manu

Hey Vivin, glad the info could help...anyways did u notice the changes made in the marriage section of the Nair article...i didnt really read thru the info but it seemed damn shabby and so i reverted to the old article...jus check out the edits made by kcsnambiar in the history of the article...Manu

keralite americans

The Tamil cat is now up for CFD as well.Bakaman 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

India-Israel relations

Since you had contributed to this article earlier, perhaps you can respond to issues raised by a user [1] who is trying to paint Indians as Jew haters[2]. Triedsolve 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vivin/Archive_2&oldid=1146417252"