Talk:Nadar (caste)/Archive 4

credibility of sources to validate article claims
Hmmmmmmm it does not seem that the "source" actually has content to support claims in article.

Well these books you have recommended are not accessible. But the book by rajni kothari DOES in fact contain the claims in this article. If you would go through pages 101-120, you will find out. Might I know why it is unreliable!! If there are other users please do join in,coz someone is playing GOD here.Lindamd90 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,u re quite right I ll search for the references. Hold on..Lindamd90 (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed kshariya nadar reference
Hi,nadars never referred to as Kshatriya which is a fact.infact even the term nadar is of recent origin.The community was originally called Shanaar and and a certain subcaste among them who owned little bit of land were called nadan if i am not wrong and one thing is confusing how many caste will came descent from the pandyans.The thevar's claim descent from pandyan chera and chola kingdom.This confusion needs to be cleared thank You and please make good edits.Linguisticgeek (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How sweet?You are working day and night to improve this page..and you want us to believe your naive story.we haveprovided the "so called" third party sourceswikipedia asked for.If wiki is supporting fools,who want their caste pages to look superior to other caste pages.Go edit bunt articles.You are trying to start a fight between nadars and thevars..aren't you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.253.129 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well why dont you show us the ref which is not neutral!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.105.47 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NADAR community - tamil website
www.nadarworld.com

NESAM - Nadar Educational and Social Awareness Movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunavelg (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nadars are Kshatriyas
Hi Folks

Nadars are Kshatriyas, particularly in and around old Madurai district [current Madurai, Theni, Virudunagar, Ramnad, Dindugal districts] golden days Pandiyan regions you will find lot of kshatriya nadar clan societies [Uravin Murai]. The scools run by these clan societies are famous around these localities for their merit and reputation. Good examples are

PANDIYAKULA KSHATRIYA NADAR SCHOOL, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

KSHATRIYA NADARS MIDDLE SCHOOL, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

KSHATRIYA NADAR H.S. SCHOOL, Kamuthi, Ramnad District. 

ILLUPAIYUR NADAR KSHATRIYA VIDYASALA, Illupaiyur, Pallimadam Taluk, Ramnad District. 

VALLIAPPA NADAR KSHATRIYA VIDYALAYA, Periyakulam, Madurai District. 

SAIVA BHANU KSHATRIYA COLLEGE, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 

KSHATRIYA VIDYALAYA, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 

There are also lot of Court records mentioning about these Kshatriya nadar clan societies.

Chennai High Court record talking about Kshatriya Nadar clan society [Uravin murai] in Usilampatti, Madurai District dated 1949

Supreme Court record talking to quash the inclusion of Hindu Nadars who belongs to Kshatriya Caste from the list of Backward Classes in Sch.1 of the KSSS Rules, 1958 in the State of Kerala. 

PK Nadan (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Pandyan was nadar? I am willing to learn. From Kun to Sundara pandiyan and beyond, they bore the the title Maravar-man and some of the korkai kings had Mar(va)ar as last name. Dont point to nadar sangam website please. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasisekar (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheran Villavar kon in silapadikaram implies Cheras are Villavar but even though Maravarman Sundara pandiyan and the likes have taken the pain to add Maravar-man to their name, Pandyas are Nadaraa. Enna koduma saravanaa? setupati udaiyan escape ayitaaru. I shudder to think what might have been if the ramnad kings were not part of recent written history. they would have been nadars as well and maravars would have just been called savages i suppose. kaligaalam Sasisekar (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nadan was the earlier title used by Pandian kings. Maravars, Kallars, Servais were soldiers in the Pandian Army. If you come from Thanjavur towards Kanyakumari the old Pandian territory, you will see Kallars forming the first line of defence [initiating fights by stealing], followed by Maravars [head-on assult], followed by Servai [police force] and finally Nadars in Thirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari. Their dominance in these respective tier districts prove this point. other castes are sprayed in between. When Nadans were no longer in power, Maravars and Servais become feudal chiefs. They even joined the Pandian enemy, VijayaNagara chiefs to establish themselves as kings of their locale. Sethupathi's legacy is a proof of this. Cholas too bore the title thevar and that doesnot mean they are from Maravar, Kallar or Servai castes. Thevar aka deva is the title give to those who protected hinduism and its temples during Muslim/British invations. Maruthu's legacy is a fact to this point. - Sasisekar, before you took pain to redefine the meaning of maravarman, you should study the relationship and affliation between Nadars and Thevar communities in terms of the same village, guard, amman deities and why they fall apart. PK Nadan (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maveran Karathe SELVIN NADAR ,Tirunelveli
valla karathe selvin

valarka karathe selvin pugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.140.98 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Raghavshree, 8 August 2010
Sir, Renowned Tamil Scholar Solomon Papaiah is not a Nadar. He is from Christian Kaikolar (Mudaliar) Community. Kindly make necessary changes.

Raghavshree (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done at List of Nadars. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Reteesh, 30 August 2010
\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\shiv nadar.jpg


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  07:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.164.236.126, 31 August 2010
editsemiprotected

The claim of Pandian Lineage by nadars is ridiculous.They dont have any evidence to prove it.The references provided are of not more than 100 years of chronology.They just updated their name as nadars only in 1924.Their real name was shanars,which is derived from sattraar(mean toddy producers). Also,nadar doesnt come from the name Nadalvar,it is derived from the name Nadavi(tag or rope used by toddy tappers for palm climbing.Also,they are not kshatriyas or rulers at any time.The article is misleading the readers.

122.164.236.126 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't in the form of a request, and you provide no references to back up your claim? -- Crazysane (T/C\D) 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My recent edits
   My recent edits were based on these 3 books. Two of them are government materials. Either refer these books accordingly or refrain from editing. Thank uLindamd90 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent edits
   My recent edits were based on these 3 books. Two of them are government materials. Either refer these books accordingly or refrain from editing.Lindamd90 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

dispued tag on front page is for the pandyan claim.also the controversial tag has been there on the talk page since a long time therefore it being on the front page is legitimate.also before undoing edits remember the three revert rule. Linguistic '''Geek 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

u r wastin time linda i know geek guy.He is User:Anandks007 this idiot spoil sivakasi riot page also.nadar kula makkale target anand nair. i know surely.inform nadar guys in orkut and everywhere.also see this page he is mohammmed abdullah also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.148.106 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute
Great my page gets vandalized.which in wikipedia means you are usually doing the right thing.a lot of caste related articles are full of pov.but the most ridiculous claims are those made by various tamil castes whcih ofcourse includes the Nadar alias shanan alias shanar of being pandyans which of course is a big joke.any student of history knows this clearly.and about NPOV well i am going to quote from the Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurston which is considered a standard on the subject.you can read the book Here Shanan. — The great toddy-drawing caste of the Tamil country, which, a few years ago, came into special prominence owing to the Tinnevelly riots in 1899. "These were," the Inspector-General of Police writes," due to the pretensions of the Shanans to a much higher position in the religio-social scale than the other castes are willing to allow. Among other things, they claimed admission to Hindu temples

'''Apparently," the Census Superintendent continues, "judging from the Shanan's own published statements of their case, they rest their claims chiefly upon etymo- logical derivations of their caste name Shanan, and of Nadan and Gramani, their two usual titles. Caste titles and names are, however, of recent origin, and little can be inferred from them, whatever their meaning may be shown to be. Brahmans, for example, appear to have borne the titles of Pillai and Mudali, which are now only used by Sudras, and the Nayak kings, on the other hand, called themselves Aiyar, which is now exclusively the title of Saivite Brahmans. To this day the cultivating Vellalas, the weaving Kaikolars, and the semi-civilised hill tribe of the Jatapus use equally the title of Mudali, and the Balijas and Telagas call them- selves Rao, which is properly the title of Mahratta Brahmans. Regarding the derivation of the words Shanan, Nadan and Gramani, much ingenuity has been exercised. Shanan is not found in the earlier Tamil literature at all. In the inscriptions of Rajaraja Chola (A.D. 984-1013) toddy-drawers are referred to as Iluvans. According to Pingalandai, a dictionary of the loth or nth century, the names of the toddy-drawer castes are Palaiyar, Tuvasar, and Paduvar. To these the Chuda- mani Nikandu, a Tamil dictionary of the i6th century, adds Saundigar. Apparently, therefore, the Sanskrit word Saundigar must have been introduced (probably by the Brahmans) between the nth and i6th centuries, and is a Sanskrit rendering of the word Iluvan. From Saundigar to Shanan is not a long step in the corruption of words. The Shanans say that Shanan is derived from the Tamil word Sanrar or Sanror, which means the learned or the noble. But it does not appear that the Shanans were ever called Sanrar or Sanror in any of the Tamil works. The two words Nadan and Gramani mean the same thing, namely, ruler of a country or of a village, the former being a Tamil, and the latter a Sanskrit word. Nadan, on the other hand, means a man who lives in the country, as opposed to Uran, the man who resides in a village. The title of the caste is Niidan, and it seems most probable that it refers to the feet that the Iluvan ancestors of the caste lived outside the villages. (South Indian Inscriptions, vol. II, part I.) But. even if Nadan and Gramani both mean rulers, it does not give those who bear these titles any claim to be Kshatriyas. If it did, all the descendants of the many South Indian Poligars, or petty chiefs, would be Kshatriyas.'''

'''The whole story of the claims and pretensions of the Shanans is set out at length in the judgment in the Kamudi temple case (1898) which was heard on appeal before the High Court of Madras. And I may appro- priately quote from the judgment. " There is no sort of proof, nothing, we may say, that even suggests a probability that the Shanars are descendants from the Kshatriya or warrior castes of Hindus, or from the Pandiya, Chola or Chera race of kings. Nor is there any distinction to be drawn between the Nadars and the Shanars. Shanar is the general name of the caste, just as Vellala and Maravar designate castes. * Nadar ' is a mere title, more or less honorific, assumed by certain members or families of the caste, just as Brahmins are called Aiyars, Aiyangars, and Raos. All * Nadars ' are Shanars by caste, unless indeed they have abandoned caste, as many of them have by becoming Christians. The Shanars have, as a class, from time immemorial, been devoted to the cultivation of the palmyra palm, and to the collection of the juice, and manufacture of liquor from it. There are no grounds whatever for regarding them as of Aryan origin. Their worship was a form of demonology, and their position in general social estima- tion appears to have been just above that of Pallas, Pariahs, and Chucklies (Chakkiliyans), who are on all hands regarded as unclean, and prohibited from the use of the Hindu temples, and below that of Vellalas, Mara- vans, and other classes admittedly free to worship in the Hindu temples. In process of time, many of the Shaniirs took to cultivating, trade, and money-lending, and to-day there is a numerous and prosperous body of Shanars, who have no immediate concern with the immemorial calling of their caste. In many villages they own much of the land, and monopolise the bulk of the trade and wealth. With the increase of wealth they have, not unnaturally, sought for social recognition, and to be treated on a footing of equality in religious matters. The conclusion of the Sub-Judge is that, according to the Aofama Shastras which are received as authoritative by worshippers of Siva in the Madura district, entry into a temple, where the ritual prescribed by these Shastras is observed, is prohibited to all those whose profession is the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and the climb- ing of palmyra and cocoanut trees. No argument was addressed to us to show that this finding is incorrect, and we see no reason to think that it is so. . . . No doubt many of the Shanars have abandoned their heredi- tary occupation, and have won for themselves by educa- tion, industry and frugality, respectable positions as traders and merchants, and even as vakils (law pleaders) and clerks ; and it is natural to feel sympathy for their efforts to obtain social recognition, and to rise to what is regarded as a higher form of religious worship ; but such sympathy will not be increased by unreasonable and unfounded pretensions, and, in the effort to rise, the Shanars must not invade the established rights of other castes. They have temples of their own, and are numer- ous enough, and strong enough in wealth and education, to rise along their own lines, and without appropriatingthe institutions or infringing the rights of others, and in so doing they will have the sympathy of all right-minded men, and, if necessary, the protection of the Courts.'''

Now tell me shouldn't the disputed tag be there on the front page.which i am going to add in the wiki spirit even if i get death threats from ahem Nadar(Shanar) sangham ROFL.btwn i am just a genuine editor not a pov pusher with caste affiliations.Linguistic '''Geek 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that I didnt read this book?? Why dont you read the article about the kallars(mukkulathores) in this book?? The Mukkalathores were one of the first communities ever to resist the British. As per the Tamil history they were patriots etc. But Edgar Thurston claims that they were theives. I ll scan the actual contents of the gazeetteer of tuticorin(Government manual) and post them in a about an hour or 2. If you are really so interested in helping dont do anything till then. Or else it means you really not here to help. Thank youLindamd90 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

first my page gets vandalized and then you start comparing with other communities.the kallars were classified as a criminial tribe due to their rebellious nature it is well documentened.i don't know know how thats related to the dispute in this article.also thurston is not writing his personal views he is quoting the high court judgement.btwn people who are here to indulge in pov pushing and only edit their caste related articles don't need to lecture me on wikipedia rules .Linguistic '''Geek 03:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What you mean your page?? This is an wikipedia article! Criminal tribe.. Ya right. Yes the kallars are not relevant to the nadars. I am just trying to tell you that Edgar was never ever considering the point of view of the indians or the specific caste. Which makes the claims of Edgar quite not so NPOV. And his claims are more than 100 years old. You are definetely not here to help. You are saying that I am vandalizing this page! I am tryin to include the point of the view of the nadars and the point of view other anthropologists to make it NPOV. And then you suddenly come in and claim that the entire article is false. I am not even through writtin the article. Court judgment? What are you talking about?? According to this link here, the court judgment went in favor of the Nadars. Does that mean the Nadars are the descendants of ancient pandyan kings. Pay close attention to the article I have written. I never confirmed that the pandya king was in fact a nadar. And I still have a lot write. The dispute tag was used unnecessarily. You never went through the links I posted. And you dont have any intention to improve this page. These links I am going to post is for the knowledge of other wiki editors besides Linguisticgeek. Lindamd90 (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

thurston views are pov haha and nadar point of view.well by that standards i am the emperor of the world!.btwn i seriously don't think it's worth engaging with anyone who thinks thurston's work is pov.four marine organisms are named after that chap.you can't get any more more credible work than his.since dispute tag is being vandalized thurston views deserves a place in the main article to make it npov.btwn caste pov is not a problem with just nadar article it seems to be with every tamil caste article.even pallar and paravas claim to be pandya.maybe because people want to run away from the truth and their not so glorious past.Linguistic '''Geek  08:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Its like I am talking to a child, who doesnt want to accept that he is wrong. Then go sue the government. Stop bothering me. Stop posting irrelevant wikipedia rules on my user page which claim that I ll lose my account if I dont revert a person's edits without a reason. I am a lawyer myself and I am very familiar with the rules of wiki. Yeah right. Edgar's book is 100 years old and maybe it seems pov to you(as you are obviously someone against this article or lindamd90, I dont know). Oh so you are almighty and you know everything,duh! Run away from what truth?! You are really losing it, please refrain from editing this page. Thank you.Lindamd90 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i am least bothered abt what you do for a living.wikipedia should and will not be used for caste based promotions.and i am here to see to that.Linguistic '''Geek 13:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * well, There is so much going on here and i am assuming the argument is about including the Pandyan lineage. Edgar Thurston writes the opinion of the judge and the census superintendent. The high court judge who presided over the kamudi case seems to be the most bigoted one, quoting him "but such sympathy will not be increased by unreasonable and unfounded pretensions, and, in the effort to rise, the Shanars must not invade the established rights of other castes." Who decides what is pretension and who has the right to go where? a judge? a judge and superintendent's opinion by no means has any authority other than it is just their opinion. Edgar Thurston's book is reliable only to the opinion of the two men. In general, I would recommend we keep any information about Pandyan lineage out of any caste article until some solid real evidence comes up. -- Car Tick  13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Car this pandyan claim is the biggest nonsense i have ever heard.ever tamil caste right from the pallar,parava and nadar(shanar) claim to be pandyans.this is just a social mobility game.nothing seriously is known about who the pandyans are.yes cut that pandyan thing from all tamil castes claiming it.the paravas article is also full of pov and original research and synthesis.thankfully the templates i have added there haven't been vandalized.Linguistic '''Geek 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Fine gentlemen. Wikipedia is indeed run by a mob. I never included any conclusion regarding the identity of the pandyans. And I was abt to edit other articles also. Caste what? So you think I am a nadar. Isnt it? IF you have (which you dont ofcourse)the guts to meet me in person I ll prove you that I am not a Nadar. I was fed up with the users of wiki and was about to quit. Right? Wikipedia is no place caste promotion... And neither the place for imbeciles who think their God here. I ll return with concrete solid proofs just to insult idiots such as yourself. Out of the two editors geek and cartick. Geek is surely a racist. If there are honest editors in wiki, just contemplate the way he reverted all my edits to practice caste discrimination here. Next time you call me a nadar, make sure you meet me in person. So you two are confirming that the nadars have no history because one book written by edgar,eh.Fine. I ll see what I can do. So Gods farewell. Caste mobility,eh. The next proof I bring in... You wont sound so cocky. So the government article is not NPOV,eh. Lets see. Lindamd90 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Linda, i dont see the reason to be hyper upset about this. I am just restating what i just said above. i recommend all caste articles to remove the Pandya claim until any one of them can come up with a solid reference. somebody, may be, Geek should go ahead and remove the similar claims from other caste articles too. -- Car Tick  19:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pages from Gazetteer of India: Thoothukudi district Published in 2007
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The copyright for this book is right here. These gazetteers also contain the information of other tamil castes. These books are from the government archives and seem NPOV. The new topics I ve appended to the nadar article are also taken from the books written by Hardgrave and other anthropologists. Thank you.Lindamd90 (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing the title pandyan from these caste articles may create greater probs cartick. I dont think its the best way to solve this dispute. No offence. These gazetteers also give a clear description of other prominent communities. I ll try posting them as well after finishing this article.Lindamd90 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The tradition of the nadars varied according to their location. In the regions around Tiruchendhur the actual origin of the nadars, where they formed the majority, they were not treated as a defiling caste at all(they were just not allowed to enter temples). This happened only in regions around travancore and regions north of tirunelveli, where there were few nadars. The traditional aristocrats of the caste known as Nadan,were very dominant in the Tiruchendhur region and also had authority over other castes such as Vellalar etc. So the line you introduced into the first para cant be applied to the whole community. There is also another misunderstanding. The nadar women of travancore were not allowed to wear their upper cloth(a small section excluding the nadans of travancore). This is practice is however not at all familiar to the nadars of tamil nadu. Whatever I said is in the hardgrave book below. I can post the rest of the article of the Thoothukudi district gazetteer and from other books,but these are copyrighted materials. What should I do? Could you find these books yourself? Or should I get them for you somehow? Thanks HardgraveLindamd90 (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is gov book not a scholar one. In this book it tells only what Nadars claim... See books written by proper scholars:


 * 1 Bishop Stephen Neill: from Edinburgh to South India By Dyron B. Daughrity


 * 2 The northern Nadars of Tamil Nadu:an Indian caste in the process of change "The Nadars are a low Indian caste"


 * 3 Changing patterns of caste & class relations in South India: social ... By L. Thara Bhai


 * 4 India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot


 * 5 Colonialism and its forms of knowledge: the British in India By Bernard S. Cohn
 * 6 Sociology of religion in India By Rowena Robinson


 * There are many, many books like these which tell about status of the Nadars. If Nadars are high caste, why so many, many scholars tell the contrary ??... Why ???... Why ???... Find multiple proper scholars refs to support your claim.83.202.182.67 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Poda geek mottapayale where other writers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.87.184 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

who are you to upgrade our caste? we are not low caste.we r from begining itself dominating caste of thiruchendur.mind ur word mootal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.88.190 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The nadar are dominant race in thiruchendur u idiot refer any book malayala naye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.82.46 (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

all these book r relate to edgar madaya remove the sentence nadar once not allowed to near upper castes.if they not go near how they trade.majority are not like dat. so mention this happen to minority of nadar.not all... dat malayale fault.nadar makkale.vitradinga ! this topic everywher in orkut.wait malayale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.84.42 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

High court judge
well, it is not just common sense. violates so many wikipedia rules. WP:Undue is just the most obvious and blatant. -- Car Tick  14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

wow wikipedia allows freak racists to do editing by excluding common folks.how did the nadar people trade then if they r not go to near upper castes.did the nadar and customer play baseball.the customer must hav caught the product wid baseball gloves!o n its legal to buy frm a defiled caste.is wikipedia always dis funny.Hardgraveas per dis book dis kinda oppression only hapeened to very few nadars.refer pg22 n 90to100.posting it not explicitly is called racism.the nadar r not a subject of mockery.make it specific o delete it.we would luv to meet dis racist in person.dying to see  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.163.217 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MUST CHASE EVERY NANDRI KETTA MALAYALA TEA SHOP PUNDAIS OUT WIKIPEDIA SUCK REALLLLLLLY!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.219.26 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

considering that i am being abused in tamil by anon ips who talk of guts lol.don't think this page which is a serious mess is ever gonna be cleaned.the dispute tag remains on the front page.Linguistic '''Geek 16:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the talk page can be semi-protected. since you added the dispute tag, i hope u will take steps to address what the disputes are. -- Car Tick  16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

edit request from Dass
I d be obliged if the line from the 1st para which says that t'he nadars were not allowed to go  too near an upper caste would be removed or made more specific'.The article  is actually an interview of Ganesh, who is a prominent businessmen.It should be noted that these are his general point of views about the nadars .As per the book by Hardgrave(refer pg22 and 90-100),it is evident that this kind of oppression happened to a minor section of nadars of northern tirunelveli and travancore(someone already said that).The nadars would not have made it this far if the majority of nadars were as low as the dalits.I would be obliged if the sentence would be corrected and made more appropriate. I kindly ask the expert wikipedia user to look into this. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.133.150 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

dispute
Geek, you have to either participate in resolution or stay away from the article. -- Car Tick  11:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

from abuse now a threat.see wikipedia is not for pushing pov.dispute resolution well some ip from paris has added enough scholarly citation about the social status of nadar.shouldn't that be included.also remember the rule of no ownership of page.Linguistic '''Geek 11:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * it is not a threat, if you can type the word "dispute: you should be able to explain what you meant and work to resolve a compromise wording. just common sense. -- Car Tick  11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the dispute firstly is the so called pandyan claim which most ethnographers have dismissed.second the low social status of the nadars in pre independent india which needs to be added since words like aristocrats and dominant are being used.such claims are clearly untrue which this ip from france 83.202.182.67 has pointed out.<font color="#AA22CC">Linguistic '''<font color="#2B18BA">Geek 11:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * social status is discussed in Nadars of the 19th century. you can include the references from the IP and elaborate on that. Pandya claim has many references, so i just dont want to remove it outright as i havent read through them. but the article also says that there is little evidence for the Pandya claim. we have to figure out the reliability and authenticity of the claims and counter claims. I am assuming you have read all the references already in the article. -- Car Tick  12:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the pandyan claim should go outright.because if claims are included then stuff like sivakasi riots,the reaction of upper caste Vellalar and maravar and such should be added for they are important.some caste promoters wouldn't like that.anyways the talk page is a magnet for them.btwn the claims abt being pandyans are neither reliable or scholarly.they are just to put it mildly Wild Claims<font color="#AA22CC">Linguistic '''<font color="#2B18BA">Geek 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * unlike you, i notice two POV here. one, of course, the pro-caste warriors and the other being an opposite group ticked off by the progress Nadars have made in independent India and may be the NY times coverage most recently. I agree Pandyan claims are most likely unscholarly. It can be said so. As long as it is attributed to Nadar historians, i dont see a POV problem there. But i see, it is voluminous and so it can and should be reduced. I would support the inclusion of Upper cloth revolt and sivakasi riots. go for it. -- Car Tick  12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

well caste progress is not just a nadar phenomenon.i think you haven't read any stuff about non tamil castes namely the Yadav and their political clout in northern india.coming back to the topic since you are so very interested in the topic go ahead and include sivakasi riots and stuff as well as some points the ip has pointed out.you can remove the dispute tag if you are adding those stuff.<font color="#AA22CC">Linguistic '''<font color="#2B18BA">Geek 12:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sure Yadav article attracts its fair share of pro- and anti-Yadav POVs. a of summary Sivakasi riots and UCR can be added. It is not just including it some place and somehow. It needs to be contextualised. There is a lot of scholarly work written about Nadar caste. I hope you will hang around and improve the article. -- Car Tick  12:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

i am always there to remove pov.you can count my support on that.also if you some scholarly reference than why not create a section on cuisine and traditional attire.btwn begin the edits enough of talking.<font color="#AA22CC">Linguistic '''<font color="#2B18BA">Geek 12:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * you are funny. I have a busy week ahead. The same people who appreciate me now (see below) used to disparage me. See the talk page of Upper cloth revolt. I used to want to work on this article, but was discouraged after the resistance i received when i wrote that article. These days, i stick to additions which doesnt require a lot of thinking and reading. as you also seem to be interested in the article and if you stick around, working together with somebody else can be motivating. i really hope u will hang around not just for POV fighting also for improving. -- Car Tick  13:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the reason y we made it so far is because we never believed dat we wer low.if geek considers us low by referring court judgements and interviews,we dont care a damn abt this article at all.i dont understand y the contents of government gazetteer wud be unfit.d majority of us were not discriminated.i think dat line u included shoul be added to the nadars of 19 th century category.And this line should be added to the first para'The Nadars were traditionally cultivators of palmyra trees, including the production of toddy and were therefore considered lower than other middle castes, but relatively higher than the low castes in the 19th Century.'i think the first para should b concerned with the majority of the nadars.we really appreciate ur help cartick.thanks again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.147.16 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Government Gazetteer can be reliable for some information but not necessarily for all. here is why. a government which represents all people (including Nadars) have a responsibility to please all its subjects. therefore, it doesnt necessarily care about truth in matters and issues which are sensitive to its subject. On the other hand, the same gazetteer can be reliably used for non controversial information such as, let us say, "Dam X was built in x year in x place". -- Car Tick  13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.maybe.if dats d case the government could jus include a few lines abt pd andyan ancestry of the nadars n get over it.y wud dey include inscriptions etc n claim somethin irrelevant.boostin a community widout any reasons may induce newer probs.but u may say the nadars could hav bribed the government. :)nyways i hav no proofs to backup my claims n so do u.i ll c wat i can do.let the dispute tag remain den.if u r gonna include articles like upper cloth i recommend u should also topics like present status of the nadars today,their success in politics,their position in d hindu society today,etc etc; which is very unlikely to happen for d time being coz out of the many references attached to dis article very few of them speaks of their present status. widout these d article wud luk simply derogatory.no offence.dis is an encyclopedia not newspaper.d article shud be explicit n clear.i ll c if i can get appropriate references.i asked u small favour yesterday.k ill make it more clear.if u can tell us wat is pov n wat is not more clearly we ll get wat ever refs u want.der r many notpov refes abt the nadars.i agree wid u dat this ll take time n thinkin.the nadar community history is strange.we ll help u if u want122.178.159.21 (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * exactly. Government can be bribed and we know that happens a lot in our country. inscriptions are good evidences. but the problem with inscriptions is it is subject to interpretation. As inscriptions are not normally clearly understandable to mere mortals like you and me, it can be interpreted wrongly by people with bias. Therefore, if you can find a scholarly article (written by an academic whom we can argue has no personal interest in Nadars) which discusses the same inscriptions and draws same conclusions like the Government Gazetteer.


 * In general, please bear in mind, wikipedia does not give much credit to and discourages the use of self-published sources. Please see WP:POORSRC and WP:SELFPUBLISH. In this context, historical information written by Nadar historians wouldnt have much value. It can be used, but it should be explicitly attributed to Nadar historians.


 * Another important wikipedia policy is WP:Undue. This policy says that when you discuss multiple viewpoints about a subject, you should give appropriate weightage in proportion to the prevalence of the viewpoint in reliable sources. For example, let us say, 70% of the available sources say X is the case and 30 % of the sources say Y is the case and 10% of the sources say Z is the case. Now, it would be wrong if 70% of the text discusses about case Z and and only 10% about case X.


 * Please also remember that WP:NPOV is, point of view of various scholars in the field. it never means your and my point of view. our opinion has no value in wikipedia.


 * In summary, information from books and articles written by pro- and anti-Nadar writers will have very little value if any. It will be easy to include the same information if you can find them in books written by scholars who are known to be reliable and have no personal stake in hyping or downplaying Nadar history. please feel free to ask if you may have need any clarification. -- Car Tick  14:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

hmm.it seems like u cut short the pandyan lineage part a lil too short(u even exluded the hindu ref n ref by rajani kothari.we have time dude.i think caste discrimination part should be included into the nadars of 19th century(coz it concerns very lil nadars).i think u shud read the book hardgrave to get the bigger picture.caste discrimination happened to a very few nadars n dats y they were able to succeed.in virudhunagar they had vellalar accountants to work for them and also had other privileges(same in tiruchendur).the nadars were jus not allowed to enter temples coz of their association wid toddy.including this in the first para makes it look weird.watever i am tellin u is in the book hardgrave. their confrontation wid nairs looks even stranger.this confrontation happened between the very few nadars who migrated to kerala n nairs of kerala.the present status is also very important.the community which was not allowed to enter hindu temples is the very community now which administers many important hindu temples of tn.u can also writ abt nadar mahajana sagham.etc shiv nadar the richest south indian.no offence.everythin is upside down now.i dont know if u can write a lot abt their present status coz there r very few articles relevant to their present status on net.we ll do it slowly gather info n den we ll post d big topics like sivakasi riot upper cloth etc.the maravars wer jus abov the nadars(this made them their greatest rivals).other than that the article looks pretty fine.thank u..122.178.168.23 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

the fight between nadar n thevar is not bcuz discrimination.it was rivalry.see nadars of 6town hardgrave.--Siva88 (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

edit request frm anonymous
I kindly ask u to remov the sentence the nadars were discriminated frm the first para n be included into the nadars of 19thcentury category.i believe the first para should represent the status of the majority of nadars.it looks a lil derogatory.please write somethin which is more appropraite to the whole community.thank u..122.178.159.21 (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

subcastes
the user above is right.i suppose u know the reason behind the sivakasi riots.the nadars were the first to strike.the nadars burnt the few maravar houses in sivakasi n chased them away.the result was the sivakasi riots.the maravars were jus above the nadars n the nadars were rivalin their position in the society.(refer nadars of the six towns in the book by hardgrave).{ also go thru the chapter nadars of 6town by hardgrave}

i see u hav writen many articles relevant to our nadar page.thank u!!i wud like to share a very important info wid u.subcastes.The Nadar community is not a singular caste, but an assortment of sub-castes and classes of different origins, which in course of time, came under the single banner Nadar.this is frm the gazeetteer.n its very true.as i said only a few nadars of northern tirunelveli,ramanathapuram and salem n travancore were discriminated;{57-70 hardgrave&pg24} these nadars were known as pannayeri nadars(o nadars who climb trees).they constitute the major population of today's nadar community.they were also in southeastern tirunelveli(tiruchendur) but unlike their counterparts they were not discriminated.the majority of todays nadar population come frm southeastern tirulnelveli.this subsect is known as pannayeri nadar.unlike the billavas and ezhavas(who were entirely a community of toddytappers/climbers)there were nadars who were never toddy-tappers.they r nelamaikkarars,mel nattar,nattathi n mukkandhar.these nadars were wealthy land lords n moneylenders.some of these nadars were even zamindars.all these subcastes i mentioned come under the category southeastern nadars(tiruchendhur nadars).r u wid me still.

now lets talk abt the next major subsect. right after the erection of the nadar mahajana sagham,11yrs after the famous sivakasi riots,the nadars of today's virudhunagar district, those who came frm southeastern tirunelveli, n northern tirunelveli decided to fuse all the endogamanous subcastes of today's virudhunagar district into one caste.i.e,make all the subsects exogamaous.these nadars were also known famously known as 'northern nadars' o 'nadars of six towns'or 'nadar merchants'.this was the first ever known attempt by the nadars to become one caste.this process is known as caste fusion(the same happened to thevars n vanniars or vanniyakulakshtriyas).however this caste fusion didnt happen to the nadars of southeastern tirunelveli(tiruchenhur nadars).the tiruchendhur nadars remained according to their traditions n as a matter of fact were not as successful(excluding ofcourse nelamaikkarar,nattathi n mukkandhar) as the northern nadars(virudhunagar nadars)untilt the independence. the northern nadars n tiruchendhur nadar still to this day remain as 2endogamanous groups.the virudhunagar nadars claim dat they r superior n the nelamaikkarar nadars claim dat they r the true aristocrats.for instance,iam a tiruchendhur nelamaikarrar.iam not supposed to mary a northern nadar girl.even if i do marry(love marriage)i ll be considered derogatory and as a puluka nadar(cow-dung nadar).it ll be difficult for a northern nadar to identify a specific nadar's clan.but not for a tiruchendhur nadar.we all know dat sarathkumar is a nadar.but as a traditional tiruchendhur nadar i know dat he is puluka nadar(coz his father is northern nadar and his mother nelamakkarar nadar).which means i cant marry varalaxmi sarathkumar! :(. i hope u can understand these concepts.u wud hav to read the whole hardgrave's book to understand dis concept.dats y i made it simple for u.please dont be hesitant to ask for help.i ll help u.thanks for ur fine contributions!!122.178.165.141 (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * sounds reasonable to me. I think I have read about it but i cant say with certainity if all of what you say is accurate. I hope you dont mind that i added fact tag to most of the sentences above. the reason being that if you provide references to each sentence with page number, i will also be able to verify them myself and we can include this in a new subcastes header in the article. once you give me those reference information, i will have to go to library to look for the books and we will go from there. Please be patient, i also have lot of other things to do in real life. -- Car  Tick  14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, cartick searching for the right content usin googlebooks is very time consuming,i ll give u the details tomorrow,sunday.Cya122.178.176.62 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

take your own time.we also need time.--Siva88 (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

recent edits by Linguistic Geek
could you pls write down your concerns here. get a consensus first. -- Car Tick  11:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

hey dude.new sentences in the first para eh.nice,nice.did u go thru pg57-70 of hardgrave.i posted it to let u know dat there were also nadans in travancore n they were not discriminated(dey were allowed to wear their uppercloth)!confused,eh.he he.it is damn difficult to find the right content usin googlebooks.it jus allows me to preview the hardgrave buk. pg32-38 hardgrave speaks of the 5prominent subsects of the nadars.however hardgrave claims dat the nadars today hav no knowledge of their past subsects.i think hardgrave is speakin abt the northern nadars as it is very well known fact dat there r still subsects among the tiruchendhur nadars.dude i did read a page which speaks of the disunity among the tiruchendhur nadar coz of these subsects in hardgrave.i dont know where.dis page is frm d gazeetteer.look at the para below sirukudi shanar para.it says dat the subsect culture doesnt exist among d northern nadars.i dont hav to lie abt my culture n i see no reasony the gazeetteer of thuthukudi wud lie abt dis subsect culture either.still not satisfied.let me know.

and the line abt discrimination n the nadans is almost everywhere.inthe first sect,subcaste sect n nadars of 19th century sect also.luks very weird.dis only happened to few pannayeri nadars. not even to the karukkupattayathar pannayeri nadar(those pannayeri nadars who worked for nadan landlords)read the pages i asked u read for sure.take ur own time.lcya122.178.169.85 (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nadalvar of Pandyan Kingdom
Nadar or Nadalvar  acquired the title as the Villavar aristocracy of Pandya Kingdom mentioned in Mahabharatam. The Villavar king of Pandya kingdom was called Saranga Dwajan (King with Bow flag) in Mahabharatam. The Villavar mixed with their ancient twin community Meenavar (now replaced by Naga invaders) to acquire the title Nadalvar. The Nadalvars of Alupas Pandyan Kingdom  of Karnataka were called  Nadavas (now a subcaste of  Bunt (community) ). At Sri Lanka Nadalvars were called Nalavar. Billava of Tulunadu also are Villavars. Some dominent subgroups of Ezhava (Sri Lanka)  comnunity of Kerala are also called Channar (Alappey District). Asan and Panikkar titles were shared by both Malayali Nadar and Ezhava. Eyinar (Archer) or Enadhi (Eyinan+Adhi= Ancient archer) also a title of Nadars. Kalithokai mentions a fierce battle between the combined forces of Villavar and Meenavar against Nagas their arch enemies from North India. Nagas were the first enemies of Pandya Nadalvars. Many Nagas were integrated into Pandyan Kingdom in the later period. Kalabhra were another people who defeated Pandyas and ruled Tamilakam. Though Pandyas regained control Nagas and Kalabhras formed the rival faction. Some Kalabhras slowly became agriculturists. After the invasion of Malik Kafur in 1310 the Pandyan imperial days were over and all the Villavar people were pushed to a lower stratum. Nagas and Kalabhras joined the enemy Naicker (Vaduga) invaders. All these enemies of Pandya Nadalvar now strive to remove the Pandyan title from Nadar community.

Southindia (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

message to wikipedia
As per the book hardgrave, it is evident that the nadars were a successful b4 the independence.i.,e before the indian constitution was even framed.Linguisticgeek is obviously trying to soil the reputation of the nadars(first he tried to forcefully include a court judgement into the article and claimed dat it was for the sake of NPOV). Cartick shouldnt even be compared with geek! He is tryin to be constructive n this geek is trying to make the article as derogatory possible. Cartick understands,thinks and most importantly HE LISTENS.He is definetely not I KNOW EVERYTHING KINDA GUY(unlike many users,unlike geek)! When cartick reduced the pandian lineage section,i was a lil mad(this pandian lineage thing was my fav bedtime story n the core belief of any nadar).But cartick explained explicitly(decently) y it shouldnt b there.Geek doesnt listen,doesnt discuss and always trying to jump to the conclusion which is ofcourse something derogatory o idiotic. Wikipedia admins.Dont think.Cartick is in and geek leaves. the nadars were a success ful group even b4 the independence. Period. Even a baby knows this! Get this lunatic geek outta here.We have a lot of guts, but we dont have time for small fries such as urself(bein the most powerful community in tamilnad n all).If you have a problem why dont u stop hiding behind ur stupid username and come at us directly.I ll even arrange wid sivanthi adithan if u want,i am a man of my word.122.178.176.62 (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with anony. I am never going to edit an article which has Geek's involvement!! The guy is scary. I ll just assist cartick.Lindamd90 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

we are here bcuz we heard dat sum nair idiot is tryin to vandalize our page v dont care if wiki is for d world or not v dont hav to contribute to a site which allows d nair page to display fancy titles such as kshatriya wen dey r actualy a buncho f sudras.y is wiki not payin attention to such lame articles bcuz der r many jobless editors to play d ‘majority rules’ concept to support non sense like southindian kshatriyas y is the term v wer discriminated all ov’r d nadar aricle even a brahmin wil b discriminated if he is in a area fraught wid d dalits y take dis article for instance’ the minority brahmins showed deference to d nadan landlords wat does dat means it means majority rules ,d nadars of sivakasi had vellalar acountants n maravars to lift their palanquins. bcuz v wer majority in sivakasi.how convenient! The nair editors use d loop holes of wiki to practice racism but v wont just sit here n watch our page be discriminated just bcuz we wer very successful dis is not a toy for nairs to play wid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.138.82 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request frm anonymous
The article is far from finished.I would be obliged if the wikipedia users would guide us and tell us what we should do inorder complete this article.The conflict happened mainly due to the user linguisticgeek who tried to vandalize the contents of this page right from the beginning and has also excluded a lot of contents which we derived from the gazetteer of tamilnadu.We would kindly ask wikipedia to remove the fully protection tag and let reasonable users like cartick to continue editing this page or provide us with another option which will allow us to complete this page and make it more reasonable.Thank you.122.178.155.47 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i am just curious how many of you guys are out there. wikipedia does not take anonymous users and user accounts which are created for the sole advocacy of one article or articles about one related issue. It is easy to identify such an user as all our contributions are available to see not only for all the wikipedia users but for the entire world. Wikipedia has an essay which discusses about these type of users. Please see WP:Single purpose account. As a lot of Tamil Nadu related articles require the attention of many more active editors, why dont you guys create an account and contribute to other articles as well and help wikipedia.


 * A quick glance at the article tell me that the article can be improved on the following lines. Please add both flattering and unflattering information to maintain NPOV. You can create a draft in your own user subpage (for example User:CarTick/Sandbox) before. Some of the information is already mentioned but needs to be expanded.


 * 1) Legends about Nadar origin. Popular legends may be acceptable here as long as it is explicitly mentioned that it is only legend.
 * 2) Expand on any recorded history. please use only high quality sources.
 * 3) Expand the subcastes section. apparently, some subs seem to be missing
 * 4) Expand in detail about how other castes viewed Nadars and how Nadars viewed themselves. why and how Nadars never accepted their position in Hindu heirarchy.
 * 5) Discuss in detail about why and how the economical progress made by Nadars caused friction with other castes.
 * 6) Discuss in detail about how Nadars overcame the pressure and restrictions placed by other communities.
 * 7) Apparently a large percentage of Nadars are Christians. Discuss about how all of these happened and the Nadars interaction with Christian missionaries.
 * 8) references are missing for the customs section completely. please remember to add page numbers always. -- Car Tick  14:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

have ordered the book by hardgrave.will do wen i get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.26.87 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

edit request frm mayan302
I kindly ask the users to take a look at my draftUser:Mayan302/sandbox and edit the nadar article accordingly.The references I have used for my draft is mostly from the renowned book about the Nadars by Hardgrave.I have also removed this link from my model page as it is an interview given by a nadar businessman and it seems quite inappropriate and also very inaccurate. I ask the wikipedia users to exclude it from the article(most of the contents of the Newyork times article are alredy in the nadar article).Please look into it.Thank you. I also have a lot write. The draft article is far from completion n i ll complete it wen i find time. Mayan302 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nadar were shudras and untouchables til the 19th century
Nadar were shudras and untouchables till the 19th century

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11caste.html

Social movements in India: a review of the literature by Ghanshyam Shah, Ghanshyam Shah - Caste, caste conflict, and reservations by Ishwarlal Pragji Desai, Ishwarlal Pragji Desai -

clearly states that Nadars were shudras under the hindu varna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be corrected. There is no neutrality and missing many facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that the article lacks neutrality - it clearly states that, for example, the Nadar were below the Maravar and that the Nadar claimed a kshatriya status as part of the sanskritisation process (which we all know led generally to a series of bogus claims by numerous communities). However, it certainly does not mention the varna specifically and there is no reason why it should not do so.
 * The problem is, the New York Times - which says "Tamil Nadu’s Nadars belong to a community in the middle of India’s caste system, occupying a place barely above the untouchables" - is not a great source for info such as this, and I cannot actually find the page in Social movements that calls them either shudra or dalit/untouchable. Perhaps you can let us know? - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * pages 22&23 of hardgrave speaks abt their ritual ranking.Mayan302 (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see that bit. I may have to take you up on your offer. Just as a general comment, I've spent a bit of time this morning tidying up the article and my gut feeling is that it is really not too bad at all in terms of accuracy/content etc. I have not actually checked any refs but I have done a fair amount of work in this subject area & have come across the Nadars before in that context. I'll continue to fiddle with the wording etc, which rather let the thing down, but if there are any issues of dispute then I would hope that we can resolve them on this talk page without engaging in edit wars etc. As long as people provide decent sourcing for any points of contention, things should be ok. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I follow the rules of wiki very well.u don't have to worry about edit wars.jus because i only edit nadar pages doesnt mean i wont follow rules of wiki.:)how ::::do i send u the book??i actually myself wanted to expand the article.Mayan302 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SITUSH. Some references which clearly state the social economic standing of Nadar ( shanar ).


 * 1) Socio-religious reform movements in British India, Part 3, Volume 1  By Kenneth W. Jones page 159. The last para of page 159 clearly states that the Nadars were considered as untouchable caste.
 * 2) Christians and public life in colonial South India, 1863-1937: contending ... By Chandra Mallampalli  Page 247 ,  states that "Nadars formerly referred to as Shanars are a semi-untouchable community".
 * 3) The untouchables of India by Robert Deliege Page 17 clearly states how the word Shanar was used in a derogatory manner.
 * 4) Social movements in India: a review of the literature by Ghanshyam Shah. page 110 States that the Shanar or Nadar were considered as untouchables in the past.
 * 5) Conversion to Islam: untouchables' strategy for protest in India by Abdul Malik Mujahid page 27 States that Nadars were an untouchable caste

The article is missing the part were the Shanars/Nadars were considered as untouchables by the hindu caste society in the past. probably its just putting the right words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the above. I've had a long day but will take a look at it all tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

the books mentioned by sharma is more about relgion than caste.at the same time it doesnt properly explain the exact position held by the nadars in the caste system.hardgrave and the books below state that they were above the untouchables.u might also wanna take a look at Nadar climber and Nadan article.i separated these article to make the article less confusing.if its appropriate u can merge the two article with the nadar main.also u should consider the various subcastes within the community.back then these subcastes acted like different communities n had different traditions.there r also many christian missionary books written by caldwell etc to prove dis pt .but i did'nt wanna include them as they are not very anthropological n they don't go very deep into this topic.even the books below r not as good as hardgrave.the caste system in kerala was entirely different.a nair cant touch a nambudri in kerala.i can very well understand dat user:sharma is not new to this page o wiki.i wonder y he is pretendin to be a newbie.please 'sign' ur posts.
 * 1) By Christophe Jaffrelot Page 166.
 * 2) By Y.Ashok Kumar Pg 55-56
 * 3) By Dennis Templeman Pg 34&78.(.i think.snippet view here!i don't hav access to this book.hope u do.but the line is somewhere there)
 * 4) By Rajni Kothari Page 99

Rather than goin through these books it will be less confusing to go through Hardgrave.the book is entirely abt the nadars.most importantly the tamil middle castes were regarded 'shudras'.Mayan302 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that is not how we do things, sorry. If there is more than one point of view then we We have to show them all, not just one. Always assuming that the sources are reliable, not a fringe theory etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth's book just uses the nadar history as a case study to analyse the impact religion had on a caste.whereas hardgrave uses anthropological techniques to study the actual history of the nadars.more ever keneth backs his theory by using hardgrave's which is awkward.I am sorry ur judgement is wrong.could tell me of a untouchable caste which had zamindars n landlords.


 * Look, let me read up on the subject. I am pretty experienced at this sort of thing. By the way, I do not appreciate your insinuation about Sharma007007 above. I thought you had said that you knew "the wiki way", in which case you should know that your comments here should be confined to improving the article rather than taking pot shots at people. You may wish to retract that bit. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SITUSH for the valuable comments.

More sources which explain about the untouchable status of Nadars.


 * 1) Mission reader: historical models for wholistic mission in the Indian context By Samuel Jayakumar page 148 Clearly explains the untouchable status of Shanars
 * 2) Mission and Tamil society: social and religious change in South India by By Henriette Bugge, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Page 86 clearly explains the untouchable status of Shanars ( Nadars ).
 * 3) Social and cultural history of India since 1556 by By N. Jayapalan Page 163 clearly explains the Shanar ( Nadar ) as untouchable.
 * 4) The political career of K Kamaraj by P. Kandaswamy page 20 clearly explains the Nadar as an untouchable community.
 * 5) Anthropologica 2004 by Canadian Anthropology society. page 259 clearly explains the Nadar as an untouchable community.

There are probably many reliable resources which state that Nadars/Shanar were an untouchable community. Please make changes to the article based on these references provided. sharma007007 (talk)

One more thing I am new to this article and I am just bringing out the reliable resources. sharma007007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

More books i wil be back wid more books.i m a little sick today.as far as i know edgar is a very old bookMayan302 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Bishop Stephen Neill: from Edinburgh to South India By Dyron B. Daughrity Pg 77 this book quotes the contents of caldwell.however caldwell was no antropologist.he was a christian missionary.
 * 2) Caste and race in India By G.S. Ghurye Pg 380


 * Yes, Edgar Thurston is old stuff and not a great source. Same applies to Herbert Hope Risley, Horace Arthur Rose, Denzil Ibbetson and others of that period - I wrote most of those articles. Get yourself well: nothing is going to happen to the article for a few days yet. No rush. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ) i think the article will never be complete without templeman.i wil some how buy the book within this week.kothari's book quotes the lines frm caldwell's.Mayan302 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't go mad! If you can pin down the relevant bits of Templeman then we could try WP:RX - there are some really helpful people there. I agree that he could be useful, having seen his intro to the 2nd edition of Hardgrave. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you should ever come across any info about William Crooke that is not already in that article then please could you let me know on my talk page. I wrote that one also, but there are gaps in it. - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My University has Templeman. I can get scans but it will be a few weeks, as they are closed for winter break. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JD. It seems from my talk page that Mayan would like to own a copy of the book in any event. Although there is still stuff to go through, I am beginning to think that we need to show both points of view here. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * both pts of view?i dont know how long it will take me to get this book.u can ask mr.jd to get the copy of pg 21 for the time being..Mayan302 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i think i ve provided u wid all the good refs i know of.nadar subcastes can be the most difficult concept to comprehend.for instance few subsects like the nelamaikkaras(nadans) wer respected by high rankin communities n enjoyed most of the privileges of the tamil middle castes whereas nadar climbers of the tranvancore region and regions where they formed a minority population were discriminated.the nadar traders were protected by their uravinmurais.nadars today are a fusion of so many subsects.for instance the gramanis,a caste of toddy tappers of northern tamil nadu, are completely irrelevant to the nadars.however they are today a part of the nadar community.there r even subsects even i dont know of.the subsect culture still however exists in regions around south of tamirabharini accordin to the tuticorin gazetteer.untouchablility in tamil nad was different frm kerala.in tamil nad,communities like parayas n pallas were considered as untouchables.wheras in kerala it was an entirely different concept,as u already know.as far as i know hardgrave's book is the only book which can answer these questions precisely.so if u r goin to include the term untouchable in the article it may be appropriate to describe some subsects.however it wont be appropriate to describe subsects like the nadans.watever i am sayin is already in the hardgravebook.so dats abt it.my problem is dat i get sick very often n at the same time i hav a lotta work in my real life.i can check on this article once everyday.i hope my contributions were useful.thank u.Mayan302 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More sources.

The Pearson Indian History Manual for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary ... by Singh page C 78 clearly mentions the Shanars were considered untouchables.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wsiXwh_tIGkC&pg=RA2-PA78&dq=NADAR+UNTOUCHABLE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eEUFT4PQJ8GSiQLnqKCtDg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBDgy#v=onepage&q=NADAR%20UNTOUCHABLE&f=false

Averting the Apocalypse: social movements in India today by Arthur Bonner Page 323 also mentions the nadars as untouchables.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxJlAgRemHgC&pg=PA322&dq=NADAR+UNTOUCHABLE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-UUFT7bgFaXaiQLrlqS6Dg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwATg8#v=snippet&q=untouchable&f=false

sharma007007 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Sitush probably you can reword the article based on resources provided which indicate the social standing of Shanars/nadars. sharma007007 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Still reading Hardgrave, cover to cover, but I will sort something out after that. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * the dennis templeman book is not available in india.however it is available in a govt library.hopefully i ll get the book in abt a week or two.pages 21 n 22 of templeman r relevant to this discusiion.Mayan302 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitush comments on sources provided above
'''If you want to add any more then can you please do so above this subsection. Thanks. For anyone who is in doubt about my background knowledge, among other things I am the major contributor to Nair and to Caste system of Kerala. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From
 * 1 - Kenneth Jones. Reliable source, reliable publisher. Book appears to do what it says, ie: is discussing socio-religious stuff. That is bang on target for use in this article, and he is clear that they were regarded as untouchable by at least some other communities.
 * 2 - Mallampalli. I have not bothered to check out the author's credentials. The relevant point is made in a footnote and therefore is pretty much a "passing mention". It is rarely a good idea to use such things, especially if the point could be contentious.
 * 3 - Robert Deliege. I cannot really comment on this one because I can only see a snippet view and therefore I lack any sense of context. If anyone really thinks this is an important source then perhaps you could provide a copy of the page, plus a few pages either side of it.
 * 4 - Shah. Same problem as for Deliege.
 * 5 - Mujahid. Ditto. This is unfortunate, since the snippets of this, (3) and (4) do seem to indicate support for the pro-untouchable "argument" - but context is always important, sorry.
 * 1 (second batch) - Jayakumar. I'd rather not rely on it, but we can keep it in reserve. I get a little worried about books produced by or for religious groups because they usually have a message that they want to put across and they are often blinkered in their research. This one may be different but I note that the source is Hardgrave, so we should be able to avoid using this. I've never heard of the publisher, OCMS, before - but that might say more about me than them!
 * 2 - Bugge. I suspect that this is saying pretty much what Hardgrave says, but time will tell. Gist is, they were untouchable until the Christian missionaries got involved & then, like so many others, started to self-promote. It's an ok source, certainly. Cited by quite a few people, though not published by a university press (odd, that, since it seems to be the book version of her PhD thesis).
 * 3 - Jayapalan. I've never been wonderfully happy about stuff published by Atlantic - their output tends to be a little hit-and-miss. In this instance, the relevant section pretty much starts by saying the the move from alleged untouchability happened with the 1901 census. There is no doubt that the (methodologically poor) 1901 census was affected by such self-assertions of caste etc, but so too were the 1891 and 1881 censuses. Given that the other sources seem to date any change to a time before 1901, and couple that eminently verifiable point with this being an Atlantic publication, I am not particularly encouraged. Who is/was Jayapalan, in terms of academic qualifications etc?
 * 4 - Kandaswamy. No. sorry. This is a "passing mention". It lacks authority. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 - Anthropologica. Again, this seems to me to be a passing mention. And in this case the author does not even provide any sort of comment on it, merely relates the hearsay. It is not good enough. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From
 * 1 - Jafrrelot. I know that author well! We do not really need this: there is nothing wrong with it at all but he is just quoting Hardgrave, whom we already have.
 * 2 - Y. Ashok Kumar. Sorry, but we cannot possibly use this as a source. It is published by Gyan, which is fatal in itself, and even on one page (56) it contradicts itself. It refers to "near-Untouchables" near to the top of that page, and then near to the bottom says that "no other Untouchable caste could ...". It is nonsense, as is usual with a lot of stuff from Gyan.
 * 3 - Templeman. I, too, can only see snippet view and as such the same issues arise that I have referred to above. Page 21 seems to mention something about the situation, citing Caldwell and Thurston, but the situation is very unclear since it seems to say that some community was the lowest of the shudra but that the Adi Dravida were untouchable. I guess that we could always check what Caldwell and Thurston say themselves?
 * 4 - Kothari. I cannot even see a snippet view. You would have to get hold of the relevant pages.
 * ? - Hardgrave. Classic study by a political scientist/anthropologist (similar job description to Jaffrelot).Seeing them as being in a social limbo between untouchable and shudra, he studies "the relationship between political sentiment and behaviour, on the one hand, and the structure of society, on the other". I need to read this one right through because it is a seminal work. I have some questions in my head already, but hopefully the book will resolve them.
 * 1 (second batch) - Daughrity. This is not completely useless. Yes, it takes a lot from Caldwell but it does so in the manner of a critique. Daughrity appears to be a respected historian of religion and its relationship to society, and Christian missions in particular. Page 80 pretty much says what our article shows now, but unfortunately there are some pages unavailable to me. I'll see what I can do about that - sometimes using GBooks with a proxy gets alternate results. I will also check on the publisher.
 * More comments to follow. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is enough reference to indicate that the nadars/shanars were an untouchble caste till the 19th century.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=Gns1T-eHNIjvmAW0mo2BAg&id=CvIvAQAAIAAJ&dq=nadar+untouchable&q=nadar++ Page 40 published by tata mcgrawhill

http://books.google.com/books?id=H4q0DHGMcjEC&pg=PA106&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I3w1T_q-KMyimQWImLmiAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=nadar%20untouchable&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gt9PQ-mjzRoC&pg=PA140&dq=nadar+untouchable&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SXw1T5L6HcjHmQX8-umcAg&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=untouchables&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)