Talk:Nair/Archive 11

The invasion of Kerala by Banapperumal who led a Nair army
Kerlolpathi mentions the invasion of Kerala by a Banapperumal or Palli Banapperumal, from Karnataka, the brother of ruler of Tulunadu Kavirasa Singhan. According to Keralolpathi this Banapperumal was send by Krishnaraya the Aryan king ( Rashtrakuta][[Krishna III] with a huge Nair army three and half lakh strong. This Banapperumal assumed the title Cherman Perumal and became the ruler of Ezhimala whose descendents became the Kolathiris. According to this legend the arrival of Nairs in Kerala could be 960 AD when Krishna invaded Kerala and occupied Chitrakoodam mentioned in Keralolpathi. Nativedravidan (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Native dravidians are vaanaperummals rather than Banapperumal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.30.208 (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence for existence of Nairs in the time of Adi Shankaracharya (7th century), in fact it was Adi Shankaracharya who made the 64 Anacharams, which include that only the eldest Nambudiri can marry a Brahmin, and also that Nairs shall perform funeral rites for their maternal uncles.121.214.135.4 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda & self glorification
Nairs are the most important caste of Kerala, yet this page is really hopeless, nobody can understand what is written, all writers are trying to humiliate the caste, nothing more, contains lot of irreleant info such as what they eat, how they dress etc. Actually does it in anyway differentiate from other castes of Kerala? Are Nairs Brahmins? Then who were Varmas? Were all Nairs of aristocratic and martial lineage, then why Jenmis and Soldiers were Nairs? Were Chekavars Nairs or Sudras? If Sudras, then Dalits are also martial caste. Were Nairs forward castes, then why were they allowed to enter Sudra houses? As per certain theory in Kerala only Namboodiris, Nairs and Vermas were considered to have a caste, others were casteless i.e. Shudras (including most of Iyers and its various sub castes). Please try to give info in NPOV format neatly I am trying to do that  Sarvagyana guru (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A user has stated that Nairs are Kshatriyas of Nagvanshi order and he has sourced this info from follwing source and it is as follows. Ram Swarup Joon: History of the Jats, Rohtak, India (1938, 1967), Kishori Lal Faujdar: Uttar Pradesh ke Madhyakalin Jatvansh aur Rajya, Jat Samaj, Monthly Magazine, Agra, September-October 1999. It is quite obvious that most of the Kings in Kerala were Nairs. Raja Ravi Varma, Moolam Thirunal Maharajah, Balarama Varma Avittam Thirunal, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, Moolam Thirunal Maharajah were Brahmins and not Nairs. Only relation they had with Nairs was through Sambandam. Please give reputed and verified reference materials and don't make Wikipedia a source of propaganda. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that Nairs are not Kshatriyas since the Nambuthiris didn't recognozed them a such, then every single caste in India except the Nambuthiri caste will be casteless and there will be no Kshatriyas in India, as Nambuthiris considered every single caste except theirs as casteless. If there is some modification to do here, Nairs will do it their selves. Axxn (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Propaganda & self glorification" against vandalism and anti Forward caste sentiments? If you are so sure that castes like Jats, Marathas and Chhetris are Sudras, then why can't you talk with those people in their talk page? The reference given here is from a valid source. As stated, Nambuthiris, who were the "Super Brahmins" of India, treated every other caste to be outside the caste system, even other Brahmins. So.. why can't you concentrate more on articles related to your caste? Sooraj Menon (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sooraj & Axxn, It does not matter what caste or community I belong to, what matters is fact and only facts. I too feel Nairs are a very important caste of not only Kerala but of India. But sadly the quality of this page does not come anywhere close that. Instead of giving simple information about Nairs in plain simple english you have converted this page into a forum trying to make people think that Nairs are something like a race rather than a caste. As you are from Nair community, you must be knowing quite well that unlike for e.g. Marwaris or Brahmins or Baniyas or Kayasth, the Nairs were not a homogenous people. Various Nairs were well educated, owned huge amount of land and very influential, at the same time many Nairs were even worse off than many other disadvantaged castes of Kerala. In some regions of Kerala even barbers, elephant mahouts and washermen is categorised under some sub-sect of Nairs. It may be true that many Nairs were very influential but the fact is Nairs were only next to Namboodiris and Embranthiris and were allowed to enter their houses or kitchen. Many Nairs had a successful military career and that does make them a martial race. Other fantastic claims is that Nairs are of Suryavamshi clan related to Rajputs. (btw Rajputs have been given OBC status in some states). A few of the Nairs in Kerala are short and dark, while most of them are tall and light skinned, then how can anyone buy this theory of Nairs being Suryavamshis from North or of Scythian origins. Does it mean to say there are two types of Nairs tall and light skinned and other short & dark skinned?? My intention is not to demean any community but I would like that article be written without any superlatives in a crisp manner so that any other person reads feels it easy to understand and not like a Rajinikant movie where hero can do no wrong. I am not an expert in caste matters but I object to the quality of this article (both its language and content). This article is not a bio-data for selecting the best caste of India.Hope I have clarified myself very clearlySarvagyana guru (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss more about chaturvarnya here. Even I’ve not heard anything like Nagavanshi Kshathriya and that word is superfluous. At the same time, since Namboothiris have classified someone including other Brahmins as ‘Sudra’, doesn’t mean that they are indeed Sudras. No one would doubt by any yardstick that Nairs were not the Kshathriya caste by the definition of the word ‘Kshathriya’. However, since a few of the Nairs are not Aryans and since ‘Kshathriya’ is an Aryan term they may not fall into that category. Nairs were a heterogeneous group which included servants also, but most of them were warriors and the word ‘Nair’ was synonym to ‘warrior’ in ancient kerala. The mahouts, barbers were all a minority (who still are classified as ‘vilakithala’ and are OBCs) hence there is no question of including them in this category of Nairs. The definition of Nairs in the encyclopedia britianica is “Hindu Caste of the Indian State of Kerala. Before the British conquest i.e. 1792, the region contained small feudal Kingdoms in each of which the royal and noble lineages, the militia and most land managers were drawn from Nairs and related caste. During British rule, Nairs became prominent in position, Government Service, Medicine, Education and Law.” ..And this is what Robin Jaffery (who is probably the most profound writer on this caste in recent years) had to say about Nairs “Nairs are the Savarna Hindus who constituted the warriors, landed gentry and yeoman of Kerala. Nayars are the second largest and one of the most important section of the society of Kerala. They were the lords of the country and guardian of public weal. ” All these definitions go to say that most of the Nairs were indeed on the upper crest of the society and were warriors and kings. Hence there is no doubt about their role in the social system. They were a martial class and are a forward caste anywhere in India. So you could go by any of the above definitions and there is no need to add the word ‘Kshathriya’ in the page. Also putting some hard facts in the introduction is not something any community would encourage and that is natural. The details of subcastes can be put in the subcaste section and not in the introduction.

The Scythian theory is very valid and definitely a major segment of Nairs have a different appearance compared to other Hindus of Kerala like Ezhavas and other OBC/SC/ST sections. I know many instances where people outside Kerala thought Nairs were indeed from Northern part of india. A major chunk of them could be Nagas who mixed with the Scythian clans. This seem to be a strong possibility. By looks, Nairs (and Bunts) stand apart from all other castes of South India including even the other forward castes..Keraleeyan  —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC).
 * There is a lot of unnecessary boasting of Nair pride. To answer the questions: There is no evidence that Nairs are Suryavanshi, and I have NEVER heard my father, grandfather or any relative speak about Suryavanshi Kshatriya. However, there is a theory that Nayar is a variation of Nagar, and possibly related to the Naga people, although there is no conclusive evidence for this either (similarly, there is no conclusive evidence for Nambudiri migration into Kerala, or therefore Aryan status, and the only known migrations that ever took place were by Iyers and Tulu Brahmins into Kerala). Nairs are not Brahmin, but they are Dwija. Varmas were Kshatriyas as well and their true name is Samanta Kshatriya, meaning "Equal" (Sama) "Distance" (Anta) since the same rules of caste pollution occurred when Nairs and Samantas were amongst Brahmin Nambudiris, and the rituals of Varmas is identical to that of Nairs, except that they are Vegetarian and have recently acquired the Poonul. Varmas have no Gotra or Vamsha unlike proper Dwijas, and follow the matrilinear system. Nambudiris refused Varmas Brahmin status, that is why Tulu Brahmins were used to perform Hiranyagarbha in the 16th century. Therefore Varmas have just as much right to Kshatriya status as a Nair who performs Hiranyagarbha. That is the fact. However, the Varmas are still lower than Nairs on the caste scale, and Varmas are not Nairs, and marriage between the two is like an upper-subcaste Nair marrying a lower-subcaste Nair (unheard of in the past, but becoming more frequent). There were Nairs in all walks of life, and lower-subcastes of Nairs were servants in the houses of upper-subcaste Nairs and Nambudiris. Even today, marriage between these subcastes is frowned upon. The situation is similar to that in the Brahmin community where aristocratic Adhyan Nambudiripads are considered more elite than Othilaatha Nambudiris (poorer Nambudiris who had no right to learn the Vedas), who in turn have a higher position to Tamil Brahmins, Elayathu, Chakyars, etc. despite the fact that all of these communities wear the Poonul and are technically Dwija Brahmin. The Chakala Nair and Barber Nairs adopted the Nair status name quite recently, and are not considered proper Nair by other Nairs, and most Nairs consider marriage with them to be intercaste marriage. The same is true of Nair families with a Jenmi history marrying non-Jenmi Nairs, although this is difference has become eroded since the Land Reform Ordinance, now that all Nairs and Nambudiris have lost their hereditary landlord status.Especially in Malabar, Nambiar families are reluctant to allow their daughters to be married to Nair men, the exact reason for this is unknown. Similarly I have heard that Thiyyas in Malabar do not intermarry with Ezhavas of the south. Chekavars were Thiyya, not Nair, and had a social status equal to that of the lower-Nairs. The famed Aromal Chekavar,etc were Thiyya, but most of the fighters in the Mamankam festival were Nair. However, Thiyyas were mainly agricultural peasants and most were involved in toddy tapping, although there were ayurvedic physicians, etc, amongst them. Therefore Thiyya were not a martial caste, only that many Thiyyas had a martial background, the majority of them had no hereditary status as warriors. However, the Nairs were a martial caste since the martial tradition of Kalari lay at the core of the Nayar ethos (at least up until the invasion by Haider Ali, and subsequent loss of traditions under the British ban of Kalari), although there were Nayar peasants as well. This situation is similar to that of Rajputs, where occupations range from being a poor farmer to that of Generals and Maharajahs, but both proudly declared oneself as a warrior Rajput. This is similar to the spectrum of the Nairs: from poor Nair servants, to martial Nairs, to aristocrat Nairs, to royal Nairs (Raja of Kadathanadu, Zamorin, etc.) Nairs were allowed to enter the Illam of Brahmins, and in certain large Illams and Manas, areas of the Naalukettu were allocated for Nairs to stay. This is particularly true in the case of Kathakali actors, many who were Nairs, to stay and perform in Nambudiri households. The only restriction was that Nair women were not allowed into the kitchen of the Mana to cook for Nambudiris. Nambudiris temporarily staying with their Nair wives in the Nair Tharavadu often brought a Brahmin cook with them.Jamnesh (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And, the reason why Nairs are called Non-Brahmin by Nambudiris, is not because they are non-Nambudiri, but because Nairs do not have the Punul and follow a Non-vegetarian diet. Also there may have been a period where Nairs and Nambudiris were battling for supremacy, and Nairs, refusing to yield power to Nambudiris, were slandered as non-Brahmins. Remember Samanta Kshatriyas are also non-Brahmins, and must "elevate" themselves before coronation. If anything they are as much Non-Brahmins as Nairs are (if Nairs decided to undergo Hiranyagarbha and become Brahmins this argument would stop). Also don't forget, during the invasions of Tippu Sultan, it was the Non-Brahmin Nairs and Avarna Thiyyas who fought against Tippu's armies, while the real "Emporers" (Varmas) along with Nambudiris fled to Travancore. The only Samanta Kshatriya who was a warrior was Pazhassi Raja (who incidently had an army behind him of...you guessed it- Nairs!)Jamnesh (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Nairs are a caste with martial tradition but they were Considered as Brahmins, The fact is Clear from many books for eg; 1. Malabar manual By william Logan 2. Castes and tribes of southern India by Edgar Thurston etc There are many more books other than the above mentioned apart from many reports and jounnels like 1. Cochin census Report 1901 2. Pceedings of the church missonary society for africa and the east etc which shows the status of nairs as Brahmins. so at least in the interest of History dont Show false claims in the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.15.192 (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding my two cents here. There are no reliable sources that state that Nairs were Kshatriyas. The caste system in Kerala is extremely different from the four-fold Hindu caste system followed in the rest of India. In fact, it is so convoluted that it prompted Swami Vivekananda to say that Kerala is a 'mad house of casteism'. After the arrival of the Namboothiris, the caste system was reworked, with the Namboothiris on the top as Brahmins, and everyone else as Sudras. This is why even though the Nairs are a martial/warrior caste, they do not wear the sacred thread (poonul). This is because they are not Kshatriyas in the true sense. Being martial doesn't automatically grant 'Kshatriyahood'. The references provided are insufficient. They merely link to a journal and a magazine. I'd appreciate it if the person who added the actual references can give me exact quotes from the sources. -- vi5in [talk] 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Koyas of Malabar
Koyas of Malabar were originally Nairs belonging to the royal caste of Malabar. This should be added to the article. See "Koyas of Calicut: a distinctive matrilineal social group" (P.M. Shiyaali Koya, Professor of Sociology, retd, Zamorins Guruvayurappan College) Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

KOYAS ARE DESENDENTS OF MUKKUVAS=FISHER MEN. Zmorian a Nair king had a large navy but nairs didnt go to sea since it was considered as a taboo ancient time. zamorian could not use mukkuvas to man his navy because they were considered very low in the caste hirarchy hense for the pourpose os manning his navy there where orders of zamorian like one or two male children of every mukkuva(fisher men)parents should be brought up as mappila these people are the main ansisters of Koyas. Even now after many koyas going to gulf and becoming rich if You go to calicut fish market you can see koyas dominating there and also in the fishing industry in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.115.69 (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

statistics show that during 1820 and 1880 more than 50 percent of people belonging to cheruma and pulaya camunity converted to islam that means more than 10 percent of the total population which means more than 25 percent of muslim genes who constitute 40 percent of calicut population are from cheruma and pulaya. but still they are mainly decendents of fishermen even though they have arab, cheruma, pulaya genes and koyas still live near costal areas of malabar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.115.69 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources prove otherwise. According to the 1846 census of Malabar, 30% of the population were Nair. But this decreased to 15% in 50 years. The reason was that many of the aristocratic Nair families converted to Islam and received the title Koya. It is proven that more than 50% of the Malabar Muslims are having Nair / Arab / Brahmin origin. And regarding the decrease in Cheruma / Pulaya population, the famines and epidemics which were common in Malabar during the 2nd half of 19th century resulted in the decrease in population. Another factor is that, almost 99% of the Koyas are very fair skinned. This proves that Koyas (as well as other Malabaris) does not have any lower caste blood. It is a huge hoax that the majority of the Malabar Muslims are descended from lower castes. If it was the case, then why 90% of them are fair skinned? Before independance, Malabar Muslims were considered as Savarna and lower caste people were not allowed to touch them. Then how can any lower caste Hindu be converted to Islam? Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is absolute rubbish saying that the Koyas are descended from the fisherman. Historical evidence points that most of them were from the warrior and ruler sections of Nairs and Arabs. The Koyas constituted most of the landlords and priests (like Panakkad Sayeed Mohammedali Shihab Thangal, Shihabuddin Imbichi Koya Thangal & Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal) in Malabar. Although the caste system has vanished in Malabar, it is still strong in Lakshadweep and the Koyas constitute the top most class there. The lower caste Malabar Muslims were desecended from the Pulayas, not the Koyas. See . As far as I know none of the Koyas work in fish markets. Also here, it is stated that "It was the Koya said above, provided assistance to the Zamorin to conquer Tirunavaya from the Valluvanad Raja. This victory secured for him the proud position of Raksha Purusha at the Mamankam festival. Muslims supproted the Zamorin to extend his authority over Valluvanad and as a reward for this, the king gave the right of fire works during the festivals to Koya of Kozhikode. Later Koya was accorded all the privileges which a Nair chieftain got." Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is recorded in many history books that the Mukuva families used to convert to Islam and become part of the Zamorin’s navy. But nowhere it is stated that they are the Koyas. It may not be true as most of such converts had the title ‘Marikkar’ and not ‘Koya’. It may be noted that ‘Kunjali Marikkar’ was the chief of Zamorin’s navy. It is also mentioned in certain books that the Koyas were in fact the Nair nobles who got converted during Tipu’s onslaught. Though Tipu considered Nairs as his Enemy no.1, he was convinced that without Nair support he can’t do anything in Malabar. For this he made an offer to all Nairs who convert, that their arms and status will be reinstated and also offered them the title ‘Koya’, to recognize the proud lot. Malabar Manual says that many nobles accepted this offer. The matrilineal family structure of the Koyas gives credence to this theory. Also many Nairs would have got converted along with the Arakkal clan of Kannur. Hyder Ali after capturing north Malabar converted and enslaved many Nair soldiers, Shaikh Ayaaz khan, the fieriest and noblest among Hyder’s chieftains was a such a Nair convert. Logan says Hyder preferred Ayaaz Khan as his successor ahead of own son Tipu. However, Malabar Muslims are predominantly dalit converts, the dalit presence in Malappuram and Calicut is the lowest in the state, most of them got converted during the mapilah mutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Many koyas claim to be the decendants of nairs and arabs but Koyas are not a caste like nairs. mappilas marry with out looking wheather the bride or groom is a marrikar or a koya or a fisher man muslim but the case is different regarding Thangal Who are considered desendants of arabs with native women(wemen could be from any caste)thangal marry thangal only (but thangals of kerala dont recognise thangal of lakshadweep). Hence you can claim koyas are desendents of nairs, mukkuvas and dalitts just like any other mappila and majority of their ansisters were mukkuvas and dalits .Thangals where and are  rich mappilas but most of the mappilas incuding koyas  where poor living in poverty untill the gulf money started folwing to calicut. And nobody knows where these decendent of dalits converts and mukkuva converts are gone even though they constitute the major gene pool among mappilas because every mappilla claim including muslim writers claim mappilas to be the decendants of arabs or nair only the various commissions appointed by the govenment says mappilas including koyas are mainly coverts of dalits and backward classes and reservation should be increased in jobs and schools and for information sake even marrikar claim that they are decendents of arabs not mukkuvas. Tippu coverted not just nairs but people belongiing to every hindu caste and may be mappilas starting imitating nair coustum just like ezhavas did to gain respect because zamorians army mainly consists of nairs.and also for information Koyas are OBC in the reservation list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.112.175 (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you dont know any koyya selling fish take a walk in to ANY FISH MARKET in calicut ANY DAY and just see your self or you just go to any fishing harbor or some thing like that in calicut you will see the reality just explain where the mukkuvas converts who where given high position and status in the zamorians navy are gone they were also rich had high position in the socity as generals and soldiers and leaders of the muslim population. May be they now call themselve decendants of nairs not the decendants of mukkuvas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.128.136 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Koyas are not the fisherman in Calicut, the Marikkars are the fishermen and fish sellers there. The Mukkuva and other lower castes converts are known as Marikkar, while the Nair converts are known as Koya. Most of the Koya families in Lakshadweep (and a few in Malabar) can trace their roots to Nair tharavaads. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ANCIENT TIME WHEN NAIR LADIES WERE OUT CASTED THEY WERE GIVEN AWAY TO MUKKUVAS IN THAT SENSE MANY MUKKUVAS COULD CLAIM TO BE THE DECENDANTS OF NAIRS JUST LIKE OBC KOYAS. KOYAS LIKE MUKKUVAS MAY HAVE NAIR ANSISTERS BUT MAJORITY OF THEIR ANSISTERS ARE MUKKUVAS AND DALITS. KOYAS MARRY ANY MUSLIM SAY MARRIKAR OR FISHER MEN MUSLIMS FOR GENERATION AND YOU CLAIM THEY ARE NAIR CONVERTS. DONT JUST DO TRACING(propaganda trcing for gaining respect) TO NAIR THARAVADS DO SOME TRACING OF THE MAJORITY ANSISTERS TO MUKKUVA HOUSE OF CALICUT AND ANOTHER MAJOR GROUP OF ANSISTERS TO DALIT HUTS OF MALABAR.

EACH AND EVERY MAPPILA OF MALABAR WHEATER KOYA OR MARRIKAR OR FISHER MAN MAPPILA DO TRACING(propaganda to gain respect) TO NAIR THARAVAD OR TO ARABS. KOYAS JUST LIKE MARIKAR SELLS FISH IN EVERY FISH MARKET OF CALICUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.133.153 (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nair and Nambudiri nobles were both converted by Tippu Sultan, and blended with the Mappila community, some received titles, others did not. A Muslim from Kerala could have Dalit, Nambudiri, Nair or Arab ancestry. Regardless, they are not Nairs, Nambudiris or Arabs, just because they have some ancestry; for the same reason that Nairs are not Brahmin although they have Nambudiri ancestors. According to Reservation policy, both Mappila and Mukkuvar are classed as OBC. Please take this argument to the Mappila talk page if necessary.121.214.93.194 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Despite my best efforts to destroy the article about Nairs, I am disappointed that I could not convince some people to avoid reverting the vandalisms, Removing sourced data that is pro-Nair. I just wanted this article to be used for Marxist propaganda, but unfortunately this article contains pro-Hindu information only gibberish stating that why Nairs should be considered the protectors of Hinduism in Kerala.

Let people who think they love extremist Hindu community spoil this article further. This page is like VHP propaganda. (If anybody has cared to read, as per Hindus all inventions and worthwhile discoveries have been made by Hindu scientists and others have just copied from them. Such as whole world knows radio was invented by Marconi but as per Hindus it is Lord Vishnu. In Hindu textbooks there is no Raman Effect, they claim it was first discovered by Hindus).

All the best. Lal Salam. Down with Hinduism —Preceding talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 August 2009


 * Help wiki to give authentic information the world 116.75.43.73 (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by unconfirmed users
Some sections was deleted by an Ip user/unconfirmed user....Pls do not spoil the article....

 ARUN KUMAR P.R  Talk 08:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion
Some user is adding polemic text which may inflammate religious animosities, under the subtitle: Religion. What that person has added has no approved reference value. Anything written in a book or article by religious fanatics should not be included in an objective place like Wikipedia. Nairs are a brave and cosmopolitan group. This kind of attitude is not Nair-like. This person with a communal agenda should be debarred from changing text to suit his views. user:som123

Religion: Fanatic again attacks
The fanatic user who is bent upon making communal disharmony is adding non-sensical materials under the subhead: Religion. Again I have deleted the unfortunate comments. Nairs are proud Hindus who want the pristine glory of Hinduism and India to be upheld. This person is totally biased and he should be debarred from using the Wikipedia for his own communal and divisive agenda. Please take note of this; otherwise these intrusions are to be reported. Nov 9, 2009 user:som123 —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Religion, Voting Pattern, etc.
I am not a communist or Marxist as Anandks007 alleges. But I do not want this Nair page to be a launching pad for Nair-Christian or Nair-Muslim polemics. This is unhealthy practice which can never be tolerated. The references given are not well-accepted. Anything which is printed and published as a book is not to be considered the truth. The accepted writings which are authenticated by university-approved research only can be considered as refernces. There is no authentic report on the number of Nairs killed by Muslims or on the number of Muslims killed by Nairs. So we cannot accept that account in any case. Anandks007 has a hidden agenda. When I say the main protoganists of the Communist parties are Nairs, it is historically true. When Mannathu Padmanabhan's leadership of the Vimochana Samaram is highlighted, it is true historically. But a casual comment of P. Govinda Pillai is quoted, it is not worthy to be added in Wikipedia, since many such allegations and counter -allegations are rampant and all these cannot ber included in this Wikipage of Nair.

About the voting pattern as quoted in the Hindu cannot become part of the Wikipedia, since all such surveys and opinion polls have no scientific value. So I have done the right thing in deleting the Opinion Poll Part. Truth can be always added; but not partisan views and agendas. Nairs are proud social reformers and they fought for the under-privileged people at all times. They were the leaders in all such activities. They were against all divisive agendas. We are proud that Congress Party, Communist Parties, the Socialist Parties and the Bharatiya janata Party are all initiated by Nair leaders. ==Som123 (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are not listening to what I am saying. Each and every edit I have made here is properly referenced and sourced. I am having no intention of creating a communal divide here. But at the same time, I have to write the truth devoid of political correctness crap. I am having a very good knowledge of history and if you were having the same, you wouldn't have questioned me on this article. It is a sad truth that the Nairs were targeted by the Muslims under Tippu sultan (Who was invited to Malabar by a number of Malabari Muslims who complained to him that they faced discrimination) during the 1789-1791 period. It has been very comprehensively documented and the cases of forced conversions and massacres has been properly recorded. A few cases reported during the British times state that Nairs were in the forefront of the deconversion of Cherumars who converted to Islam in Malabar (Check the case of Kunhambu Nair who was attacked by Muslims for encouraging 2 Cherumars to deconvert). Also, if you check the colonial documents, you can make sure that the Moplah riots were targeted against the Nair landlords. So why can't you go to your nearest public library and check the sources I have given instead of hurling personal abuse at me? And finally, if it was my intention to create a communal divide here, then I would have detailed the mass circumcisions done by Tippu and the mutilation of Nair women committed by his soldiers. Although there are verified sources, I refrained from adding them. Axxn (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction required
The original definition of Nairs in Encyclopedia Britanica doesn't include the words "like maarans" and has been added by some edotors. This is wrong info as Marars even today are considered as a different social group. They were confined to temples and never ruled or fought wars. They have their own 'Marar Samajam' and are ambalavasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.9.13.137 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Caste definition differs in Travancore and Malabar. According to Jati Nirnayam by Nagam Aiya, Maaran ranks 9th among the 20 main Nair castes. See the article The Internal Structure of the Nayar Caste by Christopher John Fuller in Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 283-312. (Published by: University of New Mexico).


 * The Full text is as follows: "In a Malayalam text entitled the Jatinirnayam, which, as Iyer (1912:15) explained, is a "work of some authority, which gives an account of Malayali castes, " Eighteen Nayar subdivisions are listed (with their traditional occupations) in order of rank: (1) Kiriyam; (2) Illam; (3) Svarupam; (4) Padamangalam; (5) Tamil Padam; (6) Itasseri (herdsmen); (7) Maran (drummers); (8) Chempukotti (coppersmiths); (9) Otattu (tilemakers); (10) Pallicchan (palanquin-bearers); (11) Matavan or Puliyath (servants to Brahmans and Ambalavasis); (12) Kalamkotti or Anduran (potters); (13) Vattakkatan or Chakkala (oilmongers); (14) Asthikkuracchi or Chitikan (funeral priests); (15) Chetti (traders); (16) Chaliyan (weavers); (17) Veluttetan (washermen); and (18) Vilakkittalavan (barbers) (K. P. P. Menon 1933:192-195).


 * Also, see the text in the next page: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Samanta Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Samanta Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions.(Such a view was not, of course, shared by the authors of publications sponsored by the royal governments of Travancore and Cochin.)"


 * If we consider the above said two castes as part of Nair supergroup, then Maaran actually ranks 9th instead of 7th in Caste Hierarchy. When the Census of Travancore was conducted in 1854, only the castes from #1 to #6 were considered to be Nair and #7 (Maaran) to #18 (Vilakkithalavan) were counted as separate castes lower in hierarchy to Nair. It was only from 1881 onwards, lower castes like Chakkalans were counted as Nair. However with the invention of affirmative action, castes from #7 to #18 are once again enumerated separately from the Nair caste. Axxn (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Marar may be considered same in the caste hierarchy but they are not Nairs and they different in the socio-functional aspects which is given in the definition of Nairs.. Are we not restricting the Nair page to the ‘malayala kshathriya’ group of Nairs..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.161.106 (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the text which I had given above it is clearly stated "Eighteen Nayar subdivisions". So in Travancore, Marars were considered to be Nairs and in Malabar they were considered non-Nair. And secondly, the top ranking Nair clans (who are having martial/priestly descent) resented the inclusion of lower ranked clans like the Chakkalas and Vilakkithalavans as Nairs. They were included in the census only because the Iyer census takers (Arya Pattars), who were fuming with anger due to their own degraded caste status (they were considered to be Sudras in Travancore by the Namboothiris and were not allowed to conduct the priestly functions) wanted to show that Nairs are below them in social status. This was supported by the Maharajah of Travancore, who wanted to hide his own Nair origin and despite the recommendation of British anthropologists and sociologists to count the two royal subdivisions (Samanta Kshatriyas and Samantans) as a part of the Nair caste (Details given above in the 2nd paragraph), counted them as separate full fledged castes. It should be remembered that the Maharajah of Cochin insulted the Zamorin (Who was at the time only an ordinary Nair) by calling him a cowherd, provoking Zamorin's invasion of Cochin.


 * Also, the Padamangalam Nairs (a high ranking Nair clan with a few hundred members concentrated in Travancore) are very similar to the Marars in occupation and they are still considered to be Nairs and not as Ambalavasis (despite their occupation as supporters of the Nambuthiri priests and partial Tamil origin). According to NSS, all the Nair subdivisions (not only the higher ranking ones) should be treated as proper Nair and Mannathu Padmanabhan campaigned widely to end the discrimination against lower ranked Nairs by the higher ranking ones. So I don't think the article should be limited only to the higher ranking subdivisions (Although they form 95% of the population).


 * Text taken from A social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan:

"In course of time a number of occupational castes sought their way in to the Nayars by proversion, but they could only be successful nominally. They are: Champukotti (copper smith), Chendakotti or Marar (drummer), Kalamkotti (potter), Chakkala (oil monger), Pallichan (palanquin bearers), Chitikan (performers of obsequies) etc. Even the Veluthedan (washerman) and the Vilakkithalavan (barber) staked their claims for being Nayars. Marriages between the first five divisions (Kiryathil, Illathu, Swaroopathil, Padamangalakkar & Tamilpadakkar) and the occupational groups endeavouring to provert themselves to be Nayars are forbidden. " Axxn (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of the main reasons why Nambiars in Malabar do not marry those with the title "Nair" or Nairs from South Kerala. As far as they are concerned a Nambiar was either a Jenmi, or had a martial heritage, and had Sambandham with Nambudiris and Samantanmar. Even today, only the top 2 in the above list are considered as "Nambiar", and Malabar Nairs only marry those. All the others are considered either Maarar or Avarna.121.214.135.4 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nambiar is not a separate Subcaste. It is a title originally bestowed upon some clans inside the Kiryathil Nair subcaste. Some members later became Ambalavasi Brahmin, while some families elevated their status to Samanthan Nair (For eg. Raja of Kadathanadu, Raja of Iruvalinadu.etc were Nambiar). The title Nambiar is considered equivalent to other titles like Pillai, Kartha, Kaimal, Mannadiar.etc  Axxn (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nambiars who doesn't marry Nairs are ambalavasi Nambiars. The other Nambiars are only Nairs. There is no Nambiar caste per se. Title is different and sub caste is different. It is true that the Illakkar and Kiryath (which constitute almost 80 % of Nairs) never used to marry from the ranks below. Today noone even know who belong to what sub caste and noone is even bothered to know till the 6th rank. However, those below Maaran are treated seperately for all reasons even today. They are OBC and have concessions in the govt. records. Historically they never were part of the warrior sects which include the maarans as well. As mentioned in the book, it was a futile attempt by some groups to get into the Nair fold. This process still continues and I have seen many malayali folks who just add a 'Nair' title when they cross the borders of Kerala. Many are today 'original' Nairs and are part of many Nair organizations outside Kerala. They just sneak in at the comfort of anonymity while gen next of the 'original' Nairs are highly getting 'mixed' through marriages outside the caste. A strange irony of caste swapping !User:Keraleeyan —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Quotes from different sources
Kshatriyas other than some subdivisions of Rajputs never wear sacred thread. This is the case with most of the Pahari Rajputs, Marathas, Meiteis, Chhetris, Gorkhas, Khatris.etc. Even the Cochin Maharajah, who is the topmost "Samanta Kshatriya" in Kerala was not recognized as a true Kshatriya by Azhvanchery Thamprakkal. This is because some sections of Namboothiris believe that Kshatriya race became extinct during Treta Yuga. Nairs were never classified according to the fourfold varna system before 17th century. The varna system in Kerala was different. There were only 3 varnas: Namboothiri, Savarna and Avarna. Most of the works made by Indian authors during 17th and 18th century classifies Nair as Kshatriya. However the ruling class reverted the varna system to the four fold one during the census of 1836 and continued it after that. Since the varna classification is neither clear, nor undisputed in Kerala, the original varna status should be used for Nairs, who are the descendants of Nagvanshi Kshatriyas who migrated to Kerala from Ahikshetra (Although Ram Swarup John specifically mentions only the Kiryathil and Nambiar subcastes, the remaining 3 top most ranks should be included as they are also same ethnically). As pointed out by several British sociologists and anthropologists like Fuller and Logan, the caste definition during census was modified to suit the interests of the ruling elite. For example see this. Of the historical records which actually classify Nairs as Kshatriya, some are the following:


 * Downfall of Hindu India By Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya. Page:278.
 * "and Nair (Nagara) Kshatriyas sent out a religious invasion under Sankara which subjugated the whole of India. The history of Kerala goes hack to the"


 * The Jana Sangh; a biography of an Indian political party By Craig Baxter. Page:336.
 * "Nair (Kerala Kshatriya caste): NN Menon, PM Menon. Maratha (Maharashtra Kshatriya caste): Patil. Bania (or Vaishya) : Goel (A), Pitti"


 * Proceedings of the 24th annual conference, Issue 18 By National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions (U.S.). Conference, South Indian History Congress. Conference. Page:144.
 * "Therefore the eldest Namboothiri son used to marry from the community, while the other members carried on Sambandham with Nair-Kshatriya ladies, without any obligation"


 * Fragments of a life: a family archive By Mythily Sivaraman. Page:005
 * "The annual arattu - taking the image of god for a final purifying bath in a procession headed by his majesty with his Nair (Kshatriya) officers with drawn swords must have been an awe-inspiring sight"


 * The Kerala mid term election of 1960: the Communist Party's conquest of new Positions By K. P. Bhagat. Page:60.
 * "In the presence of a Namboodiri (Brahmin), an Ezhava (an untouchable) had to stand 36 feet away and in the presence of a Nair (Kshatriya) he had to stand 16 feet away."


 * Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5 By Asiatic Society of Bombay. Page:40.
 * "for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid the Kshatriya (Nair) rulers, against the rebellious natives of the province"


 * The British Commission to India By MN Pavithran. Page:92
 * "All this was done by Nair- Kshatriyas under orders of Adiyodi. This chamber is called the Aryan Smoke Chamber."


 * Communalism vs communism: a study of the socio-religious communities By P. M. Mammen. Page:002
 * "the bulk of those who carried on the Kshatriya profession (ie warfare) were drawn from the Nair caste which combined in itself the functions of the"


 * The Suma oriental of Tomé Pires: an account of the East (Volume 2) By Tomé Pires, Francisco Rodrigues. Page:67
 * "Nayar is the caste corresponding to the Kshatriyas, second in importance to the Brahmans. At present, Nair or Nayar is a title added to nearly all the names of the race, and it is, like Mister or Esquire, assumed as a birthright by any"


 * BJP today, Volume 12. Page:20
 * "Gen.Candeth was very proud of his ancestry. "I am a Nair from Kerala. I am a Kshatriya", he had told this reporter at the time of the interview. Here are the milestones in the life of the"

122.177.196.222 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinion by Nambuthiri scholars. Quoted by Manu. "Suresh Namboodiri, Kollam told me various things regarding the nairs. He told me that parasuram got a group of brahmins and settled them at madhya thiruvidhamkur...later they migrated to the north and south..of these only 64 families were given the right to be priests as they were the elite among those brahmins....the remaining were to assist them and were called ambalavasis...they are semi brahmins....similarly the people associated with military, ruling, and administration were called nair, similar to nayak, naik, naikar etc...he also clarified the sudra doubt about the nairs....he said that the nairs were sudra only for the orthodox namboodiri...and tht the term doesnt indicate they belong to the sudra caste...the namboodiris considered themselves so high that for them the nairs (and every other caste, including other brahmins) were sudra....but he said the nairs are not of sudra caste and would be members of the kshatriya militia....so much for that....straight from a namboodiri scholar". 122.177.225.162 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care about your orthodox Nambuthiri definition. Nayar is regarded as a Kshatriya community by majority of the historians. The Nambuthiri claim that Kshatriyas became extinct is supported by very few.

See these:


 * "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras." (The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society)


 * "In the southern parts of the peninsula, the Nairs (a species of country nobility rather than a distinct tribe) are considered to belong to the warrior caste. Whether they are the dispersed remnants of the old Kshatriyas, is not yet sufficiently ascertained." (Historical researches into the politics)


 * "None of these people, except possibly the Nairs of Kerala and the Rajus of Andhra, have been viewed by some as Kshatriya." (Christianity in India: from beginnings to the present)


 * "Some changes in this calculation has become necessary. The Nairs of Kerala, Mudaliars of Tamilnad, Reddys of Andhra are backward only in the sense of sacred thread. But for all practical purposes they are equal to the Kshatriya - Vaishya of the North." (Caste and democratic politics in India)


 * "Mention is also made of an expedition in to Malabar to assist the Kshatriya rulers, the Nairs, against the insurrection of the natives." (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, Volume 15)


 * "The Bhataraka was probably his father in law and the Kshatriyas (Nairs) against whom the aboriginal Malabar has revolted." (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5 )


 * "Nair or Menon caste are considered equivalent to Kshatriya or the warrior caste." (Kudiyattam Theatre and the Actor's Consciousness)


 * "The war-like Nairs once lorded over the famous state, Kerala. They were of Kshatriya blood, possessed of all the attributes suggested by the name."


 * "The Kshatriya or soldier caste is practically identical with the Rajputs of North Central India, and the Nairs of the south. Outside the three " twice- born castes, the whole of the mass of the Indian people were classed as Sudras." (The Great Pioneer in India, Ceylon, Bhutan & Tibet)


 * "The warrior caste, the Nairs, who claimed to be the equivalent of the Kshatriyas in other parts of India now came into being. Racially they were half Aryan." (India's dances: their history, technique, and repertoire) - Axxn (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Turkey Connection? The "Nairi" disappeared there and "Nair appears in south India, ? by sea.
Can any one comment if the the Assyrian name Nairi (KUR.KUR Na-i-ri, also Na-'i-ru) for a region / people of eastern Anatolia, roughly corresponding to the modern Van and Hakkâri provinces of Turkey. During the Bronze Age collapse (13th to 12th centuries BC), tribes settling in this region were considered a force strong enough to contend with both Assyria. The Nairi was thought to be incorporated into Urartu during the 10th century BC.

Did they have any connection with the present day nairs? The last name Nair is still common in Turkey and Armenia see Nairi_(Armenian_usages). comment added by 98.217.129.62 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They might be having some remote connection since Nairs are of Indo-Scythian origin. Nairs are also known as Nairi.


 * South India and Ceylon By Kolappa Pillay Kanakasabhapathi Pillay P.18
 * "Nayars has been the descendants of an ancient tribe of Western Asia called the Nairi."


 * Asia in the making of Europe, Volume 3, Book 2 By Donald F. Lach P.896
 * "The second great caste is that of the soldiers called "Nairi" (Nayar) in Malabar". Axxn (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Genetic testing has shown that the original Nairs consist of gene type R1a strain M17 (See here). The M17 gene is the Mediterranean type. The M17 gene is believed to have originated from Eastern Europe. Turkey is in Eastern Europe. --Zero.vishnu (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nayars of Malabar
Does´nt Nayars of Malabar deserve a subsection ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is required,their customs and traditions are a little bit more like Bunts thats it,otherwise same as rest of the nairs.Linguisticgeek (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What next? Separate articles for Nairs of Palakkad, Nairs of Coimbatore, Nairs of Sreekariyam, Nairs of Kuthiravattom........... Axxn (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nairs of Malabar have always regarded themselves different from the bulk of nayars in other parts of Kerala and have several unique customs and practices. Please read anthropologists and historians such as Kathleen Glough and Fawcett.

Like i said before nairs of malabar are a little bit more like bunts thats it.no sub section required.Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Linguisticgeek. Axxn (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

hmm..strange, after reading much about nayars, i've not heard anything like nayars of malabar having different customs as of nairs from other areas. In ancient terms, nairs of malabar is referred generally as Nairs of entire kerala as most of the travellers mentioned Kerala as Malabar (Kerala is a term that came up in 1950s.) So what has been mentioned could be that the nairs of malabar (kerala) has common customes as that of bunts of tulunadu. Also as a Nair with relatives across kasargode to kanyakumari, i haven't noticed any difference in the customs or rituals w.r.t marriage, death etc except for certain trivial observations like Nairs of nothern districts eating non-veg during festivals while travancore and kochi areas observe strict vegetarian menu during festivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.188.23 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just ego problems with Nairs from Malabar. The Nambiars think that they are the top most in caste hierarchy compared to other Nairs (which is wrong, as Samantans like Thampis and others like Menons and Pillais are on the top). Also, Nairs from South Kerala seldom intermarry with Nairs of North Kerala, as many in the North eat beef. But as noted above, other than this, there is hardly any differences in customs and traditions. Anthropologically, Malabar Nairs are regarded as pure Nairs, while those in South are regarded as having some admixture with the Tamils. And usually Malabar Nairs are fair skinned compared to Travancore Nairs. Axxn (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This trivial discussion started by by sanam does not require anymore space.Northern nayars do have certain customs especially related to marriage ones a little different from nairs in the south and anand stating they consume beef is something i have never seen or heard.eating beef and pork is both sin and drinking of alcohol traditionally prohibited among all nairs,bunts and the tulu jains.though nowadays in india people can do wahtever they want.skin colour debate is also a bit nonsensical there are few relatively darker nairs and even bunts in all parts where they inhabit(north south(kerala) and tulu nadu).it is not region specific.what makes nairs and bunts different from other communities is south india is their sharp feautures parrot like nose,silky hair and presence of blue and green iris in many individuals right from travancore uptil kundapura in karnataka.that is what written in the books by foreign observers of india especially during the british india time.many genetic studies also say that these communities are similar to the Mediterranean race subsection of caucasians.Linguisticgeek (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This Sanam guy is here to provoke infighting within the Nairs. The references he has given here, like those written by SN Sadasivan proves that he is heavily influenced by Anti-Nair communist propaganda. He is saying that the Menons are accountants, even when there is proof that in South Malabar and Cochin, Menons constituted the vast majority of the aristocracy and army. He is also totally ignorant about the Caste descriptions put forward by the Nambuthiris. According to Nambuthiris, children born to Kshatriya parents are Samantan and not Kshatriya. Only those children born to Kshatriya mothers and Brahmin fathers were regarded as Samanta Kshatriya by the Nambuthiris. (This suits him well, as he claims that he is Nambiar. Nambiars are descendant from Nair women and Brahmin men). Axxn (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Malabar Nairs do not eat beef. The only variation in customs is with regards to vegetarian food during special occasions, and even this varies in Malabar. Apart from that Malabar Nairs will only marry amongst themselves, and only now have started to marry from the South (for various reasons, most probably due to the language accent difference as well as the distance required to travel). Even amongst Malabar Nairs there are certain distinctions in subcaste which was not traditionally crossed: Nambiar families marry amongst Nambiars, and avoid marriage to those with the "Nair" surname (even though the caste as a whole is "Nair"). However this is not universal, since famous families such as "Kodoth Nair", are one of the highest ranking Nambiar families. In terms of skin colour, etc there is no scientific evidence of racial difference, and if such a claim is to be presented, DNA analysis is required. The Malabar-Travancore "divide" is also mirrored by the Thiyyas and Ezhavas.124.181.79.163 (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nambiars have Nambuthiri & Kiryathil blood. Thus they are actually a caste of brahma kshatriyas (like parashurama's caste, although this is not acknowledged), and this rightfully places them among the highest of the Nairs. The proof of this is the Nambuthiris still intermarry with them, but not with the Kiryathil Nairs.


 * But seriously, who cares anymore? Why are you guys arguing about stupid stuff like this? User Axxn's behavior is like the indignant behavior of the Thiyas/Ezavas when speaking about caste hierarchy. And no, Nairs of Malabar do not need their own section. Grow up, you silly Indians.--115.133.232.154 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)--115.133.232.154 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "indignant behavior of the Thiyas/Ezavas when speaking about caste hierarchy".... I didn't abused anyone. I was just irritated by the user Sanam's behaviour. By the way, you are wrong in one aspect. Nambiars are a part of the Kiryathil Nair caste and 90% of the Kiryathils are Nambiars. Still, I agree with you that we don't need any infighting here. Nairs are famous for fighting amongst each other, which causes the degradation of their own caste. I don't want to repeat history. So now onwards, even if someone from Nair subdivisions like Nambiars claim that they are superior to the other Nairs, I am not going to respond. If I offended anyone, I am sorry for that. Axxn (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks that they are superior nairs, it is pure ignorance and height of rigidity. God Save them. Nairs who nurture such thoughts are not the Nairs whom the world admires. Nairs are admired for their high intellect and magnanimity; they make the world feel that they are superiors rather than claiming superiority for talking in a specific accent or for being born a few miles towards this side or even worse, for being born to a Nambuthiri. Come on guys, grow up. My interest in this page is purely an enthusiasm to know the past, I don't carry this forward, the world is ever evolving and be part of the change than to clinch and cosset in the dead past. For god’s sake, don’t initiate or feed such crap discussions anymore..Keraleeyan —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Keraleeyan is right, we are all human beings, caste is something of the past. This is very similar to Varmas and Samantanmar trying to distance themselves from Nairs, when in fact they are of the same heritage. Nambudiris intermarried with Illathu Nairs as well as Variars, Nambeesans, Poduvals, etc, and it was not any more common amongst Nambiars than it was amongst Travancore Nairs (except perhaps it was more common amongst Samantanmar, who were Nayanars). The only subcastes which are different are Chakkala, Tamil, Chaliyan, Veluthudathu "Nairs", simply because they were given the status so that they were fit to serve in Nair and Nambudiri households, or they bestowed the title upon themselves for social gain. Apart from these groups, the Nair community is one. But honestly, who really cares? It's time to leave all this behind and move on with real life.121.220.75.80 (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Landlord Status
There should be more information about Nair landlord families such as the Vengayil Nayanars who owned 200,000 acres (more than the Chirakkal Raja) and the Kalliat Jenmi who had 36,779 acres. This is not to say the list of every Nair tharavad should be made, but those such as Vengayil, Kalliat and other major landlord families should be included (provided there is a valid reference).124.180.148.29 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit doubtful about the amount of land owned by Vengayil Nayanar. 200,000 acres is almost 800 sq.kms and equivalent to almost half of Kannur district. And moreover, only in North Malabar (Kasaragod, Kannur, Mananthavady Taluk of Wayanad, Vadakara Taluk of Kozhikode), Nambiars and Nayanars owned substantial amount of land. In Malabar proper (Wayanad except Mananthavady Taluk, Kozhikode except Vadakara Taluk, Malappuram, a part of Palakkad and a part of Thrissur), most of the jenmis were Nambuthiris. Axxn (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

you can't mention all the landlord families in this article,before the landforms most land was with the nairs or nambis.you can't mention every family that held land.i suggest keep it to royalty and chieftain warriors. Linguisticgeek (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, not all landowning families can be mentioned only the major ones. The Vengayil Nayanar family were the largest landlords of Malabar, and their vast estate included much forest land. The reference for the claim that they held 200,000 acres, is valid and cited by the article. I'm sure colonial title deeds would attest to this as well. (http://dsal.uchicago.edu/books/socialscientist/pager.html?objectid=HN681.S597_56_007.gif"Organised Struggles of Malabar Peasantry 1934-1940")It doesn't matter if Nambudiris were the major landlords in other parts, for the purposes of this article the major Nair landowners can be cited. I suggest the qualification of a "major landowner" to be that the size and wealth of the family was such that they have been cited as landowners in verified articles, and colonial documents, etc. In other words, if there is no valid reference to back up the claim of a landlord family, it shouldn't be put up! (standard Wikipedia policy)124.181.119.244 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ezhavathy
Just letting you all know, that a user has started an article Ezhavathy which describes a fictional caste of Brahmins in Kerala known as Ezhavathy. Please help in getting this article deleted by commenting on its deletion page. Thankyou.121.214.112.101 (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ezhavathy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ezhavathy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axxn (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusive definition for the Nayar community
To be anthroplogically, culturally and socially correct one must include a definition of Nayar that encompasses from Kiriyathil sub-division to the Valinjan Nair. Wikipedia is a source of information that we must strive to use language that avoids, class-prejudice, names dropping and peacock terms. Whether a person is a Kiriyattil nayar like Adiyodi or a "thana" (low) nair like Valinjan Nair, it can all be mentioned under structure of Nayar society. The primary definition should be all inclusive and anthropologically accurate. I sincerely request members involved in maintaing this article to help in this endeavour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Groups like Veluthedans were never considered a part of Nair. So stop your vandalism. Axxn (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And also, before changing anything and filling them with your own inventions, reach a consensus here.Axxn (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The E. thurston, kathleen glough, Fawcett and all anthropologists and historians note that nayar is a general term applied to lineages professing a wide range of professions. It would be inaccurate to under represent any section of the society in the umbrella definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Give accurate sources to suggest that Nair is not a martial community. Censuses conducted by the British as well as The Internal Structure of Nayar caste by CJ Fuller defines Nair as an exclusively martial society. Talk about historians like Fuller and Fawcett who has studied Nairs in detail, not some biased Britishers like Thurston and Gough. Axxn (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I am warning you to not engage in edit war and 3RR. Axxn (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kindly read anthropologists and historians Edgar Thurston provides the most exhaustive definition of south Indian communities. Kathleen glough represents a social scientis who has studied and appreciated nayar customs most exhaustively. Fawcett and Logan represent individuals who has documented nayars meticulously, Refer these studies before engaging in socially-misrepresenting ego satisfying chauvinism. For instance refer how edgar Thurston refers to Nayars. http://www.archive.org/details/castestribesofso05thuruoft Everybody accepts nayars have a military history however that is not all nayars are, the chakkala are as much a nayar as a nambiar is these are only stratification within the structure of the nayar society
 * Thats what I am asking you. First read The Internal Structure of Nayar caste by CJ Fuller, which is defined as the most comprehensive work about Nairs. Copy pasting everything from Castes and Tribes by Thurston does not make you a scholar. Axxn (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The groups which Sanam is referring like Chaliyan, Chakkala and Veluthedan were considered to be non-Nair at least untill the 19th century. And even now, in 21st century these castes consider themselves separate from Nair and the Kerala govt. as well as NSS recognizes them as castes separate from Nair. Axxn (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can refer the 1836 and 1854 census of Travancore. Castes like Chakkala are given separate from Nair.Axxn (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the interna structure by fuller and read it yourself in case you are falsely claiming you have read it http://www.jstor.org/pss/3629883

He clearly describes the broadness of the nair occupational categories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are again and again refusing my request to reach a consensus here before changing anything. Since this is the 3rd revert you have made in a few minutes, I have to report you for WP:3RR. Axxn (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"He clearly describes the broadness of the nair occupational categories" explain it here. Axxn (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Read the entire article you will understand. Wikipedia should be a source of information that is accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the entire article. Now you can point out. Axxn (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kindly refer avoid ego satisfying definitions and be anthropologicallyaccurate when you define nayars. Donot engage in edit wars for personalsatisfaction strive to keep Wikipedia a unprejudiced objective source ofinformation. Read CJ fuller completely. Donot claim to have read it when youhave´nt.Nayars have a broad range of occupations and constitute a broad rangeof racial admixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am once again asking you to point out the page number and paragraph where he describes "the broadness of the nair occupational categories" ... bcoz I can't find them. Axxn (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The community also includes members integrated from successive waves of immigration of castes and tribes brought from the Canarese and Tamil speaking territories adjacent to Kerala as well as classes of individuals raised to this rank by local Rajas and chieftains for their meritorious service" Give proof to this. I know there are a few occasions, but that is true with almost every single caste. So give proof that significant amount of Nairs are foreigners. Axxn (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not able to find the definition you provided from Malabar Manual. Please provide the page number as well. Axxn (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out on Tamil padam nayars you will understand I quote fuller in internal structure of nayar caste '''Some of the latter were subdivisions of Nayars residing outside Malabar, for only 128 were enumerated in Malabar itself (Census 1891e:380). ... with their traditional occupations in order of rank: (1) Kiriyam; (2) Illam; (3) Svarupam; (4) Padamangalam; (5) Tamil Padam; (6) ...." so read articles'''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know the entire population of Tamilpadam Nairs don't exceed a few hundred? Also, there were a lot of errors in the 1891 census, as Iyers, Maarars, Tamils as well as many lower castes entered their caste wrongly as Nair. (This was a temporary phenomenon, as many of them returned to their own separate castes during the next census). If you want to get a clear picture, look at the 1836 and 1854 census reports. Axxn (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I once again repeat that you are just copy pasting the freely available archive works here without even checking for their accuracy. For your kind information, Nair history dates back to 345 AD and not from 1860 AD as you think. Try to read some travelogues and Sanskrit works written during the middle ages. Axxn (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nayar is a wide community
Anandksoo7 and a few others seem to be interested in maintaining inaccurate and incomprehensive definition of nayars and promoting and maintaining anthropologically inaccurate defenitions. The present definition of nayars in incomprehensive and inadequate and does not representative of the entire nayar society. I repeat Kindly read the articles of all the above mentioned authors and make the definition as comprehensive as possible. He and a few others has been engaging in similar behavior in the menon article, Samanthan Nair article etc. donot engage in edit wars for the purpose of ego-satisfaction.Every historian and anthropologist will agree "Nayars are a broad community encompassing lineages with several professions" and that "nairs have a military history and that many ruling elites have been derived from the nayar stock". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still not answering to my questions.
 * (1) If lower castes like Chakkala were a part of Nair, then why they were counted separately in the census?
 * (2) Why you are so interested in caste definitions of 1850s, when as early as 16th century, various foreign travellers described Nair as a martial race? Read the travelogues by Portuguese and Arab travellers during 16th and 17th century and point out just one work which claims Nair as a barber race.
 * (3) Why the so called lower castes are not Nair according to the current government definition? Axxn (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Please read census reports of Kerala before and your answers for your questions will come by itself. Kindly refer the communities that are presently recognized by the state government as Nayar. This has been the case before and even today it is only the dynamics within the heirarchy of nayar clans to push "fringe subdivisions" in fuller´s language. So keep the discussion focuused, Nayars represent a wide range of occupations and caste admixture.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to give me any sourced answers to my question or are you just wasting my time here? Kerala government recognizes only one community as Nair. That is the Forward Caste Nair.
 * Also, I find your invention that "Nairs tried to push lower castes outside" laughable. Castes like Maarar first claimed Nair status during the census of 1881. Before that they were not even claiming the Nair status. And no one pushed them outside. When reservation system was introduced, they themselves separated. Even during 1881-1951 no one really recognized them as Nair. "Please read census reports of Kerala". I have read all available census reports from 1836 onwards, and there is not much information in them except for the hierarchy and population. Why you are still arguing rather than giving some proof? You can just give me a proof written by some travellers or Sanksrit scholars during 15th, 16th, 17th or even 18th century which describes about barber Nairs and fisherman nairs, and there by proving my understanding on this issue is wrong. Axxn (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are reverting instead of talking, I am stopping the discussion here. Axxn (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and Economic Change Among the Nayars of Malabar E. Kathleen Gough'''

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2844041

See first page last paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference you have provided here is of 1952. And it is full of errors. Gough describes Nairs as a "Hindu caste of landholders with a matrilineal kinship system" and not as a group of barbers and fishermen as you are claiming here. '''Also no one is blind here. You don't need to use the bold characters.''' Axxn (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am reverting the edits made by Sanam since,
 * (1) He is unable to prove that castes like Chakkala and Vilakkithala are a part of the Nair community
 * (2) He is unable to prove that a significant portion of the Nairs are either foreigners or those who got promoted
 * (3) Even the references he has given (for eg. Castes and tribes of Southern India, Volume 7 By Edgar Thurston, K. Rangachari, p.251) explicitly states that Nairs are a martial community.
 * (4) Rather than talking and reaching a consensus here, he is busy editing the article.
 * (5) The reference he has given above, from Gough, states that "all of the Nair subcastes provided soldiers to the Maharajah, but in addition to them there were some smaller subcastes who did servant duties" Even Gough is doubting the relation between lower castes and Nairs.
 * Thanks. Axxn (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See page 2 of your reference (Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and Economic Change Among the Nayars of Malabar by Gough). She states that not much is known about the lower subcastes and her article deals only with the major Nair subcastes, i.e which are martial castes. Also see the Map given in page 19, which is titled: "The Nayar Kingdoms of the Malabar Coast", in which a map of the local kingdoms are given. Kolattunad, Kottayam, Kadattunad, Kurumbranad, Zamorin's Kingdom, Walluvand, Palghat, Cochin and Travancore are labelled as "Nayar Kingdoms" by Gough, although out of these kingdoms Kolattunad, Kottayam and Cochin are described by majority of the scholars as Non-Nayar or having doubtful Nayar origin.

The conclusions can be made is that Gough is not aware of the relation between the non-Nayar lower castes and wasn't aware of their names. Your reference can't be taken as a serious study. Axxn (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kindly donot make a fool of yourself by stating that anthropologist and historians like K.glough and Fuller cannot be taken as a serious study. '''Reference-1 Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and Economic Change Among the Nayars of Malabar E. Kathleen Gough'''

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2844041

'''In essence nobody refutes that the ruling elite of nads were higher sub-divisions of nairs or Samantha Kshatriya who derive their ancestry from sudra stock. However it is the proportion of nayars that were ruling elite and nayars that had other professions that is the issue to be considered while framing a definition for nayars. Nayars professed wide variety of professions.To be precise, what K.Glough notes is that not much is known about the traditional kinship among servant classes of nayars and not that they are not recognized as Nayars. Also kindly read properly maintaining your objectivity and not taking things too personal. See page 2 para 1 on left where she gives the distribution frequency of nayar profession based sub-clans in a representative proportion. Now you will understand that the proportion of lineages that are retainers, oil-mongerers , pot makers or funeral priests are in proportions higher than the chiefly lineages and that mutual ritual ranking between is  clear (not unequivocal). '''

'''Reference -2 The Internal Structure of the Nayar Caste, CJ Fuller

“eighteen Nayar subdivisions are listed (with their traditional occupations) in order of rank……………………”'''

'''Akattu charna nayars (clerks, domestics and scribes), Urali nayars/ Maniyani (masons) , Pallichan (palanquin bearer), Chembu-kotti (copper-smith), Chakkala nayar, Vattakadu nayar (oil mongerer), Vilakkithala nayar (barber), Veluthedathu nair (Washer-man), Attikurisssi nayar (funeral priests) are all nayar castes only different in their ritualistic ranking from the ruling elite or mercenary/soldier ranks. Do not overlook these professional divisions and ego-based claim that all nayars are ruling elite. It is anthropologically and historically incorrect. Kindly read documents and research articles more objectively.'''

'''Again you seem to be ignorant about NSS. Although many divisions of nayars are lower ritual rank, the NSS also accepts them as nayars. You can contact the following members of NSS.''' Sri.P.V.Neelakanta Pillai, Advocate President Nalanda, Kottiyode, Attingla-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram District. Phone 0470-2622368 (Residence), 0470-2622248 (Office) Narayana Panicker.P.K., General Secretary Lekshmyvilas Bunglow, Vazhappally, Changanassery. Phone:0481-24220330 (Residence), 0481-2410566 (Office) 3. In essence, nayars used to profess a wide variety of professions and requires that this fact is emcompassed to keep the primary description generic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * These issues were discussed in great detail earlier as well. No one is objecting the fact that there are certain self-claimed and servile groups added within the ‘Nair’ umbrella. However, they are, till now considered separately by Nairs and even by those communities. Oil Mongers are Ezhuthassan community, Marran have marar samajam, chalias are Padmasaliyas. Similarly vilakkithala and vannars have their own social groups and entity. Most of these sects are OBCs and are NEVER considered as Nairs. NSS is against any kind of caste based discriminations and thus anyone can become a member of NSS including other caste people. Hence, no change is required in the article.Keraleeyan —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC).
 * This is exactly what I've been trying to say. User Sanam001 was apparently evading from my questions and was editing the article without any consensus. When I told him that NSS does not recognizes servant castes as Nairs, he gave me the phone numbers of the NSS president and gen. secretary and told me to call them. Is this the way to solve a dispute? Axxn (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have once again reverted vandalism by Sanam, as he is not obeying the basic rules of wikipedia. Axxn (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A neutral solution for dispute resolution
dear mr varma... thanks for such a prompt reply to my query!... that explains the diversity among nairs especially the north malabar variety, but one doubt still lingers.. that of GSB'S assimilating into nairs ... as far as i know they have been a fairly closed community !.. without much inclination to absorb into a dominant community like nairs...regards vivviki117.192.224.124 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There were two types of foreign Brahmin immigration in to Kerala. One type was of small individual group of Brahmins arriving in Kerala due to religious persecution in their native places (like GSBs) or economic hardship (like Kerala Iyers). The second type was those rich Brahmin groups who were encouraged to immigrate in to Kerala by the local kings. The first type, suffered much hardship, as they could not find any jobs (Nambuthiris prohibited them from performing priestly duties) and were forced to assimilate themselves in to lower ranking Nair and Ambalavasi groups. In places like Cochin and Cherthala, where larger Konkani speaking communities were established, GSBs were able to maintain their identity. But in most other places, they simply assimilated in to the dominant ethnic groups. 130.60.68.45 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is for mr suresh varma..... you have written about castes like GSB'S and pisharody's assuming the title 'nair' or pillai' as well as marathas, bunts and arya vaishyas...but is there any reference for this statement.... kindly reply... vivwiki..Vivwiki (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pillai was a very common surname among Trivandrum Iyers, before the later immigrants chose to retain their original surname ("Iyen" or "Iyer"). Ambalavasis like Variar, Pothuval and Kurukkal were recruited in to the Nair Army and therefore received surname "Pillai". Arya Vaishyas in Palakkad claimed Nair status (successful to some extent) and were assimilated in to the Ravari Nair subcaste. Descendants of Bunt and Maratha mercenaries in the Kolathiri's army are known as Urali Nair. (Different from Uralan Nair). If you check the 1871 census report for Malabar, out of the close to 330,000 Nairs, around 800 are listed as of subcastes having doubtful origin (Including 362 "Rajputs" (Marathas ?) and 142 Maravar) Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Dispute : Nayar is an umbrella term for a community that traditionally profess different occupations and encompasses several distinct un-connected lineages with different hereditary occupation. This has to be there in primary description and not peacock terms'''. We should strive to keep Information about a community in an open source information database like Wikipedia to be based on the definition of social scientists and not based on what as a few individuals would like to portray it as.

1. First, when social scientists and respective community representative organizations (NSS: contacting NSS personnel telephonically is oftent the fastest and direct procedure to get confirmation of facts) both unanimously confirm that they are  ranks within the nayar class, individual ego based efforts to portray  nayar identity as only ruling elite  becomes  incorrect and a peacock tendency of certain users.
 * No. You are wrong. They don't "unanimously confirm". See the talk archives for proof, as this has been discussed in detail before. Axxn (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do

'''2. Second, even if we forget Vilakkithala, Chakkala etc for a moment. The clerks, scribes, domestics and external servants within royal and nambudiri household (charna nayars), migrated (Tamil padam)  are all classes  of nayars with middle ritual rank within the nayar society and their professions are not mentioned too in the present generic definition .Even  the divisions like illathu and swaroopathil are domestic serviles who later became retainer-class. The servile classes form the bulk of nayar identity. According to the 1891 Travancore census 18.92% of the total population were classified as Nair “excluding Samanthan Nair” and in  1941 it was 17.53%. In Travancore in 1931, the Samanthan Nair population was  only 97. In Cochin in 1931, the populations was only 571 (0.05%). In Malabar in 1931, the Samanthan Nair population was only 0.15%. So overlooking the professions of a large proportion of the nayar society as domestic serviles and mercenaries and trying to represent the image of the entire nayar society only as ruling elite and aristocracy is characteristically peacock.'''
 * Charna Nair is a military class famous for Chavers during Mamankam. Other subcastes: Illathu, Kiryathil, Swaroopathil & Tamil Padam were all martial castes. Axxn (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Charna nairs fall into two categories Akattu and Purattu who inside and outside attendant serviles of royal households. Menon (an akattu charna nair) is a typical example of a scribe -a public servant who rendered internal services within royal households.

'''3. It is a historical fact that a number of comparatively low-status groups were absorbed into the Nair community and the cases of the Veluthedathu Nair and Vilakkithala Nair are only the most apparent among them. For instance the chempu-kotti was elevated with social sanction as nayar when the requirement for roofing of temples with copper tiles arose. The Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam included them as Nairs and the present  census reports includes them too. It is only in the intermediary period (1800s and early 1900s) when higher divisions of nayar society was playing sub-caste politics to provort themselves so as to eventually make exodus from nayar by claiming Samantha status that census during these periods tended to enumerate these lowest ranks of nayars as separate castes. Now if you want to consider Itasseri and Chakkala, or the Pallicchan, Vattakkatan, and Asthikkuracchi as non-nayar professions it is a casteist behavior and members who are behaving in a way are no different from a Nambudiri who calls nayars strictly sudra (Lexicographers like P.Narayana Panicker and Sanskrit authorities like Kanippayoor says the concealed meaning of nair – nai : the totem dog “suna-eva-vritty”  dog-like-loyalty exhibiting serviles but not derogatory when used in a totemic sense like in purusha-pungava or bull-man and not the much publicized glorifying etymology involving the Sanskrit word Nayaka or leader (anyway that’s irrelevant to the point of this discussion here). Today one cannot identify a Pallichan, illakkar or swaroopathil nair who have no separate titles. The only ones you can distinguish are nairs who have distinguishing titles.'''
 * They might have "elevated themselves". But they were never considered by others as Nair. As I wrote above, see the talk archives. Axxn (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since (1) community organizations like NSS agree that they are Nairs (2) Namboothiris sanction them so as in Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam (3) Social scientists agree they are nairs with lower rirtual rank. Thus politically, traditionally and scientifically they are considered nairs today. An effort note not-to recognize this is sub-casteism. Almost 15% of Kerala population is Nair and to say all of this were only landlords and ruling elite and serviles nairs were a small fraction is incorrect

4. Therefore if you feel ashamed to specifically mention barber or washer personnel due to image problem (ego), the closest we can work out is to avoid the “kshatriya” peacocking (I have seen a number of unscientific and non-productive discussions here)  and say
 * I am not ashamed of anything. So stop the personal attacks. If you have any strong reasons to change the introductory paragraph, then state it here. Axxn (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

'''“Nayar, is a wide and general honorific appellation for a heterogenous matrilineal Hindu community, from Kerala, India, with a strong military tradition and several distinct elements professing different occupations. The Nayar caste encompasses several distinct un-connected lineages who, by hereditary occupation, included ruling feudal elite, retainers of land, soldiers, mercenaries, indoor and outdoor servile classes and integrated migrants from Canarese and Tamil speaking territories adjacent to Kerala"'''

In this way you can avoid peacocking, be factual, anthropologically and historically correct and avoid “instigate” sub-casteist or caste chauvinist users vandaling quality of Wikipedia articles with peacock terms and substantiating them with un-scientific and unfocussed polemics.
 * Point out the "factual, anthropologically and historically" incorrect information already here. And most importantly, if you accuse me a caste chauvinist once again, I am going to report to the admins.Axxn (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing personal against you, however your arguments are not scientific and based on heresay and feelings, if you are so confident why don´t you co-operate for a moderation with a social scientist as a moderator.


 * Based on the census, an overwhelming 80% of the population are Nairs belonging to the Malayala Kshatriya division. The rest (20%) are usually not considered as proper Nairs, and now they have been separated in the Indian reservation policy from the "proper" Nairs. Although their names are in the 1891 census, this does not mean they are the same group of people. It is very obvious from looking at the physical features.


 * I believe it comes down to copyright. The original owners of the name "Nair" and their Malabar/Bunt counterparts are the ones who can make the claim to the name, not journal or research written by foreigners.


 * Suggested Solution: Put a section for "Non Nair clans who adopted the Nair surname" and include their jobs there (barbers or whatever, some people are so intent in putting this in!). That way it doesn't offend the other clans.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even during the 1891 census, castes like Vilakkithalavan and Veluthedan were counted separately. 90% of the Nairs counted in 1891 belonged to the Kshatriya divisions. The remaining 10% were caste groups wrongly claiming the Nair status. Moreover, the 1891 census in Kerala was conducted by Iyer Brahmins, who had a deep seated resentment towards Nairs (Iyers were treated much below Illathu Nair and Swaroopathil Nair in Travancore caste system and they were not allowed to perform priestly functions). Since all the original castes composing the Nair supergroup were Kshatriya and none of the historians considered the primary occupation of Nairs anything other than being soldiers, there is no reason to change the introductory phrase. As pointed out in the reference, the Nairs were commonly referred as Kshatriyas (whether it is accurate or not is another question) by historians. KN Panikker, probably the most famous historian from Kerala, calls them "a Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas". Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya calls them "Nagara Kshatriyas" in his book Downfall of Hindu India. The question is not whether the much researched Nagvanshi origin is accurate or not. It is whether Nairs were known as Kshatriya during the last millenium. And the answer is yes, from multiple sources.


 * However the caste system is the most complex in India, and this is the reason why Swami Vivekananda called Kerala a mental assylum. In Kerala, the son of a King can never be a Kshatriya, as according to Nambuthiri beliefs, a Kshatriya should have a Brahmin father and Kshatriya mother. This is the reason why the so called four "Suryavanshi" dynasties of Kerala always married off their females to Nambuthiris. These clans were known as Samanta Kshatriya and were regarded as equivalent to Kshatriya by the Nambuthiris. It should be noted that the Nambuthiris considered every other caste as Sudra, even the other Brahmin communities. The pollution time period (pula) gives an indication to this. Nambuthiris observed 10 days of pula (6 days in some places). The caste which is immediate next to them, the Samanta Kshatriyas observed 11 days of pula. Top most ranked Ambalavasi Brahmin communities like Elayath and Moosad (unlike other Ambalavasi Brahmins like Maarar, these two castes were recognized by the Nambuthiris as a part of Brahmin community) observed 12 days of pula. This means that the position of Samanta Kshatriya was intermediate between Nambuthiri Brahmin and Ambalavasi Brahmin. The next higher ranking ones were some insignificant divisions of local Brahmins like Pushpaka Brahmins, who observed a pula ranging from 13 to 15 days. Higher ranking Chandravanshi and Nagvanshi Nair groups (all of the Samantans, most of the Kiryathils and most of Illathils) observed a pula of 15 days. Lower ranking Nairs (like Swaroopathil and Charna Nair) observed a pula of 16 days, so did Iyers and lower ranking Ambalavasis like Maarars in Trivandrum (In Palghat Iyers never observed any pula traditions and were independent on their own).


 * Regarding the claim that people were granted the Nair title, I don't think a sufficiently large number of people belonging to other castes were granted the Nair title. A few occurrences are there in Travancore, where during the 18th century a very small number of Iyers were granted the Illath Nair status. During the 18th and 19th century a small number of Vellala and Maravar people were granted Nair status. Other than that there has been absolutely no "conversion of caste". The Portuguese record an incident, during 16th century when a Portuguese captain asked the Cochin King to elevate the status of some lower castes to Nair, the King told him that even the highest ranking Emperor does not have that power. During the end of 19th century, however as the Nair dominance was on a steep decline, a number of servant castes asked the Iyer census takers to count them as Nair, which they happily obeyed. And for a brief period, some of them even added "Nair" or "Pillai" to their surname, until the Kerala government nullified affirmative action benefits to all those who are having such a surname. These groups came not only from the Sudra division, but also from other divisions. These groups included Brahmins like Maarars, GSBs and Pisharodys (In Travancore, where Ambalavasis are having a lower status), Vaishyas like Chettys (in Travancore) and Arya Vaishyas (in Malabar) and even other Kshatriya communities like Marathas and Bunts. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a non issue. User Sanam is wasting others time by indulging in meaningless arguments. If he is that much insistent, then we can add a separate section for castes which temporarily adopted the Nair surname like Zero Vishnu said. But I don't think there is a need for that here. A debate should be two-sided. If Sanam is not willing to listen what others are saying, then he should not disrupt other's work. 116.74.15.88 (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what the historian Francois Pyrard says about Nairs: "As for the Nairs, they are all nobles and meddle with neither handicraft nor trade, nor any other exercise, but that of arms, which they always carry."  Axxn (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely an issue. The days of observance of pula-vaalaima or asoucham or hygiene practices is inversely proportinal to the ritual status and precisely proves that the nair society encompassed distinct ranks and not just nobles and lords. The definition needs to be more comprehensive and devoid of kshatriya peacocking. I myself am a Nambiar by birth and hence a Nayar, however that does not mean we as Nayars try to feed wikipedia with socially incorrect definitions. Wikiepdia is an opensource encyclopedia to be factual is our duty to readers.Sociologists agree that as Kerala caste names are inherited matrilinially and the sambandham unions were morganistic in nature, the mother has to be Kshatriya (dwija) and the nature of her marriage Anuloma if the progeny is to be recognized as Kshatriya. Samantha Kshatriya is threaded because after the mahadanam is performed a Samanthan is no more a glorifiried-sudra and becomes Kshatriya and threaded (dwija). Thus the samantha Kshatriya becomes higher in status during his period of status-tenure to the non-threaded section of Antarala jati /Ambalavasi. In contrast, Samantha is not a dwija and non-threaded and simply a Nayar with higher ritual-rank and is below in rank of Ambalavasi. You can see how pula and Valaima days were combined to denote a spectrum of ritual ranks even within the heterogenous Nayar community User:Sanam001.
 * No need to yell out again and again that you are a "Nambiyar". Everyone here knows who you are. Axxn (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are pushing Namboothiri ideology which is different from conventional hindhuism. Nairs rank above Iyer brahmins? How is that logical in Hindhuism? While this page agrees that Namboothiris are superior, it does not condone such nonsense like other castes including other brahmins as Shudra, or glorified Shudra, or whatever ideology you are tying to insert. Either you follow conventional Hindhuism, or back off.
 * I have already proposed a neutral solution, and some of the wikipedians here have agreed to it just to entertain your nonsense. You can also create a new page called "Namboothiri ideology" if you want and put all your ideology there.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to incite communal tension
Some user has been trying to incite communal tension by calling Ezhava and Nair ladies concubines as he did here. Please refrain from inciting ethnic hatred. Axxn (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted on my talk page, this is old news. You must stop citing things said over a month ago, as if anything, you're inciting issues by dredging things back up. Stop the nonsense (both of you) and sort the issue to that consensus wording can be added and the page unprotected. NJA (t/ c)  12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. You can delete this section if you want. Axxn (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here he calls Nairs "dogs". Is there no one here to ban this guy? Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't call Nairs "dogs". He was just suggesting how the name might have originated from loyalty being a quality of the Nairs. Don't let your strong feelings dominate your logic.--Josettpat (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Josettpat, these are not his words. He quoted it from the 16th century works by Kanippayyur Namputhiri, who is regarded as a racist bigot throughout Kerala. Actually I was angry about his sourcing from such parochial works.  Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly try to discuss issues rather than trying character assasination. Lexicographers agree that this usage is totemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Another content dispute resolution option
If the administrator finds it suitable i am wiling to participate in a consensus/dispute resolution that can be reached on the basis of any wikipedia administrator who is a student or researcher of anthropology and  may volunteer to mediate the validity of the arguments of either parties placed and can comment on the merit and scientific validity of the following three expert studies.

1. Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic changes among the nayars of Malabar by E Kathleen Glough in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 1

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2844041?cookieSet=1

2. The internal structure of the nayar caste by C.J Fuller in the Journal of anthropological research 1975

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3629883

3. Nayars of Malabar by Fawcett

http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=eF-pMrcqw5UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA191&dq=nayars+of+malabar&ots=IT5QtHk_sx&sig=XWu7jPVp5mClwUYJn0GMukiTr9Q#v=onepage&q=nayars%20of%20malabar&f=false

Thanks by Sanam001
 * Why can't you use your login instead of IP? Axxn (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the discussion is not following objective practices and looks like we should have a moderation committe of expert anthroplogists to resolve the issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be great if you could quit wikipedia altogether and leave the articles free of your vandalism. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to arrive at a dispute resolution.Hwever since discussions and efforts to third party opinion to reach dispute resolution is not solving the dispute, we should follow the normal course and ask for an arbitration committe--Sanam001 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Yeah, people are tired of your rampant vandalism. We will be asking the admins to ban you from Wikipedia. Axxn (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why dont you want to co-operate to dispute resolution through an arbitration committee if you are so confident that your content version is right ? I am still open to the idea.--Sanam001 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

where can you get the book- history of the NSS?
dear all, where can i get hold of the book-" history of the nair service society"( title may be in malayalam)117.192.224.124 (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no such book. You can contact G.Sukumaran Nair, who is the Asst. Sec.y (email: gsn@nss.org.in, Ph: 91-481-2420944). Axxn (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Just call them and enquire abt it. 116.74.9.200 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for formal mediation
since 30 and mult-party discussion has failed reach a consensus between disputed parties and since the issue is complex and sensitive and content discussions detouring into personal attacks and mudslinging, the only option for maintaining genuineness of article will be review of content by an expert committee. I therefore kindly request Anandks007 and Suresh.Varma 123 to kindly co-operate to formal mediation of the content dispute existing between us. In this was we will have an expert committee commenting and we can avoid accusing one another of vandalism and edit wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/_Nayar-content_dispute-3O_and_consensus_failed

Thanking you in advance--Sanam001 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute here and at least 5 users have voiced against the vandalism ongoing here committed by Sanam. Sanam is indluging in mudslinging against the Nair community in the name of anthropology and this will lead to very serious side effects even outside wikipedia. I urge the admins to ban Sanam for inciting ethnic hatred. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if the ratio is 5:1 it means a consensus has not been reached by multi-party discussion on the content. So we have to amicably resolve the issue by request for formal request for mediation as next step of dispute resolution. It is the normal course of dispute resoution, you are encouraged to participate--Sanam001 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that your edits has been identified as pure vandalism and POV pushing by fellow editors. If you want you can complain, but we are not going to waste any more of our time in arguing with hate-mongers like you. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute i voice my protest against sanam's inclusion which are borderline vandalizations and misleading information.Linguisticgeek (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Linguist here. If any admins are having doubt about this, then they can check the edits made by Sanam. Axxn (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Count me in. Sanam is trying to push away authentic references in favour of his own research. He has no authority to say that the page is wrong simply because he still clings to old Nambuthiri ideology. I have check and verified most of the references myself.--Zero.vishnu (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanam’s view points are highly malicious, distorted and half-baked with clear intentions. People who believe and quote bigoted authors like Kanipapayur are exposing themselves here. They are not fit to make any intelligent, meaningful and sensible discussions. No more time to waste for Sanam.(Keraleeyan)

Administrators agree that content dispute is not vandalism. It always takes more than one to create an edit war. Wikipedia strongly discourages the policy of actively recruiting and directing people with similar view points towards a common topic as it is an unhealthy practice in resolving content disputes. I will continue to strive towards maintaining Wikipedia free of peacock terms and claims. Even if the ratio is 5:1 it simply means that a consensus on content dispute has not been reached by all parties with dispute. I am still open to the idea of dispute resolution through an independent committee who are experts in the field of anthropology to validate the scientific accuracy of cited references of either parties. Our focus should be the genuiness of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is true. Admins agree that content dispute is not vandalism. But what you are talking about is not known as "content dispute". It is known as "hurling ethnic abuse", "hate mongering", "POV pushing".etc. Since people like me, the common wiki user is busy with our daily schedule and are not having enough time to waste on arguing with a professional paid vandal like you, that does not mean that we are going to accept whatever BS you write here. Axxn (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep calm and focus on the content of dispute and assume good faith of your opponent in a content dispute as such methods are encouraged by wikipedia.Sanam001 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is so funny. Sanam here talking about "methods encouraged by wikipedia". Your tricks are out Sanam. Find some other place to vandalize. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanam001, please understand that what you want to write is
 * 1) based on Brahmanical POV (--> Wikipedia is not a place to support Brahmin POV)


 * 2) wich was Supported by Western colonial POV (in order to prevent the wake up of the ancient ruling castes); it was in their interest to support the Brahmin POV and portray themselves as 'Super Brahmins'. The British conquest of Bharat was not only through weapons but also through mind, psychology (which is the only way the maintain a long term domination)... Therefore books based on colonial POV such as the one written more than 100 years ago by Thurston cannot be used to deal with castes like Nairs...


 * 3) Indian society, culture, civilisation is the most ancient and complex in the world, a whole life is not enough to understand it. It is very difficult for an Indian expert to understand it, how can a western guy (be it an expert or not), with his colonial, western/christian POV, understanding, vision can be accurate on such complex things ?


 * 4) You claim that you want to write articles in a scientific, objective way; and for that, you use old Hindu sources, texts, and tell things such as "Kshatriya is a Vedic-professional category to which a community is assigned only through certain ritualistic activity like upanayana and samskaras of dwijas is mandatory to maintain this claim." The pb is that old Hindu texts tell also that Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Chinese (...) are Kshatriyas whereas they were never Hindus... You can't write such things based on old Hindu texts because there are too much contradictions, ambiguities.


 * 5) You must understand that the great majority of wiki users (involved in these pages) can't accept your POV because they have clear evidences that Nairs were originally a ruling, military caste, linked to Naga Kshatriyas.90.46.32.29 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, Sanam is not interested in "writing the articles in a scientific and objective way". His only aim is to hurl racial abuse and he is driven by just one thing - hatred. It is useless to argue with such a guy, as we have seen from his past posts. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles should be written with scientific proof and should be misleading people as wiki is been used by a large number of people. But whatever you have written is quite personal imaginations and not facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.112.143 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Well the problem is only as long as you want to specifically use the sanskrit word "kshatriya". Then it has to be true to its meaning and intent. However if you refrain from "Kshatriya" to people with strong martial tradition, i will have no content dispute.''' --Sanam001 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The usage here is true to its meaning and intent as far as I can see. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth
'''You may benefit from checking the following PhD thesis from the Department of History at MG university. It describes Nayar regulation Act, Travancore Kshatriya Act etc and provides extensive information of the legal distinction between the two communities.You will realise by yourself legitimacy of your POV pushing of Nayars as Malayala Kshatriya

Title: History of Social legistlation in Travancore state'''

http://www.mgutheses.in/page/?q=T%201251&search=&page=&rad=#38

'''Also you may want to check on the workings of organizations of Kshatriya Kshema Sabha of Kerala, Kshatriya Sabha, Samantha Mahasabha etc and check out with NSS their relation-ship with these parallel organization.Truth will be self evident.

Kindly donot attack the MG university, history department :-))) ''' --Sanam001 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism by Sanam001
As Sanam is pushing on with his POV despite the warning from several users here, I request all users to revert his edits without further wastage of time. The Kshatriya / Sudra issue has been discussed in detail years ago and if user Sanam is having any doubts he can check the archives. It is clear that Sanam, rather than reaching a consensus on his edits is repeating his blatant POV pushing citing some irrelevant and obsolete arguments. Let's keep wikipedia free of racist hatred and POV. I am listing his most favorite targets:
 * Malayala Sudra
 * Malayala Kshatriya
 * Nair subcastes
 * Menon (Nair subcaste) -  Axxn (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may first want to pursue understanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Truth

N number of POV and propaganda and manipulating wikipedia is not going to change facts. Infact these discussions will be part of input data for existing academic research on "changing social mobility strategies of malayala shudras in post democratic india" soon to be published in a high impact factor research journal. Infact interesting patterns emerge on comparison of web-based propaganda and data collected through interviews of more than 2000 nairs on the same issue. In web-based platform offering anonimity the pretentious propaganda is higher. For every nayar in the sample case study of 2000 interviewed interesting patterns are emerging between nayars of erstwhile malabar district and Travancore-cochin and between those born before and after Abolishment of matriliniality in 1970s. --Sanam001 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have the power to vandlize the journals, then go ahead. We don't care. If journals are allowing people like you to research about my people, then I am going to complain about this to the journal. First give me your details so that we will be able to file a complaint against your racism. Axxn (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Anand, don't fall in to the trap. This guy does not have anything to do with Research or any journals. No educated person will use the filthy language he used here. As for his personal attack in the paragraph below, I request you to ignore it. I sincerely thank your effort for helping in maintaining a neutral and politically correct version of Nair related article. Ignore the personal abuse, just treat it like desperate acts by some loser. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Don´t worry, i intend to strive towards keeping wiki clean of POV on grounds of moral public responsibility to keep information faithful from POV. As for research articles, they are peer reviewed by experts and you will see it in the coming years once study is complete. As for racism i am sure the peer review, the objectivity of the analysis and the fact that i myself am a nair/nambiar any recepient of such a complaint would be easily be able to ascertain the genuiness of such a complaint. I implore you in the spirit of collective knowledge tradition of a great institution like IIT from where you claim to have graduated (for i was a research student at IISc myself and have had the oppurtunity to see IIT students) that you help me in maintaing POV free articles. The natural dignity of the nayar race is proverbial in several travelogues and as one member to another within the community my sincere suggestion to you would be that let us maintain it by showing our integrity.Let us strive to keep wiki clean of peacock terms and POV. On a different note one of the legitimate Malayala kshatriya community member ( a member of the palli division of the kolathiri family was amused by my study when i met him as part of teams approaching him because the stanis of malabar had to interact with our thampuran how to deal the issue of MDB stripping of our dignities ) and said that you (I)are true in the spirit of intergrity of your lineage (my matrilinial line are officially ooralars/stanis (official dignities) in one of the temples under chirakkal taluk and we even today  look upon the sanction of  the thampuran for our sthanan vilichu chollal ceremony. Being a sat-sudra has never been a shame for me but rather a matter of my natural dignity and has never affected my judgement of analysing anthropological material pertaining to my own community. I beleive in a POV free nayar image--Sanam001 (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really believe in a "POV free Nair image", then first you should listen to what other people are saying and stop abusing Nair people as a whole. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to strive towards keeping wiki clean of a POV free nair image- articles that do not reek of Kshatriya peacocking.--Sanam001 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Sanam it doesn't matter whether u are a nambiar,namboodiri,ezhava or pulayar(no contributor questioned ur background and lineage).all u need to be a wiki contributor is to be neutral,provide verifiable information and not insert pov(in your case the namboodiri line) and ofcourse not indulge in abuse which u are doing so often.in wikipedia it really doesn't matter if u are a passout from iit or iisc or harvard,so i would be very happy if u edit some science related articles based on your self proclaimed knowledgde than consistently distort articles related to malayali communities.thank you.Linguisticgeek (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing by Sanam
Why POV pushing by Sanam is based on irrelevant and obsolete data? Let us take a look. (First a warning to you Sanam. Don't vandalize my post my posting in between. If you want to post your opinion, write them below the entire post)
 * (1) Sanam's claim supported by Nambuthiri Brahmins, but not by the other Brahmins, who constitute 99.9% of the Brahmin population: Nambuthiris believe that no pure Kshatriyas and Vaishyas exist as per Vedic sense. They believe that only Brahmins and Sudras exist. Therefore they proclaim every other caste to be Sudra (which is not supported by anyone with normal mental health). The only other Brahmin community which can touch a Nambuthiri is an Embraanthiri (Tulu speaking Brahmin), as they also follow the codex specified by Adi Sankara. But even Embraanthiris are considered by the Nambuthiris to be non-Brahmin and there is a pollution called Embraan Sudham if an Embraanthiri touches a Nambuthiri. Let us take the case of Iyer. Iyer is considered by Nambuthiri to be Sat-Sudra. An Iyer is not allowed to touch a Nambuthiri or eat with him. Does that mean that Sanam will go to the Kerala Iyer page and write there that they are Sudra? The answer is no. Because Sanam hates only Nairs.


 * And regarding the other higher caste people who were labelled by Nambuthiris as Sudra, like Rajputs and Nair. There are very few Rajputs in Kerala (a few, around 400 were counted under the category "Paradesi Sudra" during the 1875 census of Malabar, after that they were assimilated in to higher ranking Nair castes or emigrated) Does that mean Rajputs are considered Sudra by Sanam? The answer is no. Because Sanam hates only Nairs. "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras." (The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society)


 * Another interesting fact is that Sanam views the "Samanta Kshatriya" subdivision of Nair as Kshatriya, while the remaining as Sudra. How does this happened? We all know Nambuthiris view all Nairs as Sudra. But some Nambuthiris coronated the Nair kings according to the Kshatriya rites after performing a ceremony called Hiranyagarbha. According to this ritual, a Sudra passes through the mouth of a golden cow to emerge from the backside, there by having a "birth" again, and therefore becoming a Dwija, i.e Kshatriya (Since he now becomes a Kshatriya, he is allowed to touch and have food with a Nambuthiri). Now the questions. Are the Samanta Kshatriyas really Nairs? Yes. According to most of the historians and ethnologists (Fuller clearly states that they are Nair and says that almost all other historians as well as ethnologists are having the same opinion). So the next question. Are they recognized as Kshatriya by Nambuthiris? The answer is no. He is regarded as a Sudra, who got promoted to the Kshatriya status. Now the most important question: Is this classification according to the ethics of Hinduism? The answer is no. As 99% of the Brahmins and 100% of the other Hindus state that this procedure is just a trick by Nambuthiris to divide and rule the Kshatriyas. No one else, except the Nambuthiris will recognize this system.


 * Now let us take a look at the census reports which are frequently sited by Sanam. Census reports of 1836 to 1875 frequently puts even Brahmins in to the category of "Sudra". Does that mean they are Sudra? The answer is no. Even Rajput and Maratha is mentioned as Sudra in census report. If you take a close look at the first census, it actually places Nairs above the Konkani Brahmins, since they were considered to be "Asat Sudra". Does that mean that the Konkani Brahmins are Sudra? No. Now let us take a look at the census reports from 1881 onwards, which were composed by the Iyer Brahmins. In these census reports, they are getting an elevation to "Foreign Brahmin" (without the recognition by Nambuthiris). Also if we take a close look at the "Kshatriya" category of Travancore, it includes clans such as Thampuran, Thampi, Eradi and Nedungadi who were considered to be Sudra by Nambuthiri. So what is the basis of the "Kshatriya" definition here? The answer is that the entire census is flawed.


 * Now let us see the compatibility of Sanam's definition - According to the Nambuthiri, a Samanta Kshatriya (a Sudra who got rebirth as a Kshatriya) should have a Brahmin father and a Samanta Kshatriya mother. If he is born to two Samanta Kshatriya parents, he will be recognized as a Sudra (which is against every ethics of Hinduism and against commonsense). A Sudra can do the Hiranyagarbha yagna (bribing the Nambuthiri) to get his status converted to Kshatriya. This obscene practise is condemned and ridiculed by normal Brahmins all around the world. Even if Sanam still clings to this arrogant nonsense, the fact remains that there are no Kshatriyas according to the Nambuthiri definition now in Kerala. That is because the sambandhams with Nambuthiris were discontinued and the Nambuthiri caste definition was thrown out during the early 20th century. No Samanta Kshatriya female is having a sambandham with a Nambuthiri now, and there fore, according to Sanam, there are no Kshatriyas now. (But for facts unknown to me, Sanam still thinks that this is 19th century and claims that these people are still recognized as Kshatriya by Nambuthiris). Another thing, the last Hiranyagarbha performed in Travancore royal family (which was never recognized as Kshatriya by the Nambuthiris) was in 1858 (if I am not wrong). After that the British never allowed anyone to carry out the yagna. Does that means that the Travancore Maharajah is a Sudra? So what I am saying is that Sanam's definition lacks logic. Even if we goes by his own definition, the explanation he gives is wrong.


 * (2) Now let us take a look at Sanam's main weapons (i.e Colonial POV written by British Military Officers and such). Gough states that the Samanta Kshatriya are originally Nair. Thurston who did extensive research work about Nairs never mentions Nairs as Sudra. He only mentions a definition by "some" N. Subramani Aiyar (who is this ?) that "They are known as Sudra", which is adhering to the Brahminical POV. I had given many reputed sources by Indian authors like Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, Narendra Pal Singh, Ghanshyam Shah as well as quotes from reputed foreign jornals like Penney Cyclopedia, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland and Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, as well as quotes from reputed British authors like Robert Eric Frykenberg to prove that Nairs are considered as Kshatriya. But User Sanam is not willing to have a look at them. Why so? Because Sanam believes that if the neutral view is used as a source, then he won't be able to use the colonial POV pushed by him.


 * (3) Third rate language and racial hatred used by Sanam: This has been discussed in detail above, and I don't want to elaborate.


 * (4) Sanam insists that Nairs are barbers and fishermen. Is this true? It is true, but only in Sanam's dreams. Nairs first arrived in Kerala around 700 AD. For almost one millenium, Nairs were an exclusive martial community as can be read from dozens of travelogues. (A few of them given here in the talk page itself). And all of them clearly states that being a soldier was the sole occupation of the Nair. Only after the British banned the right of the Nair to carry the sword with him (which was mandatory for Nairs, like the Sikhs carrying Kripans), did some of them shifted to other professions. And still Sanam thinks they are Barbers and fishermen? It is true that some barbers claimed to be Nairs when the 1891 census was conducted, but no one really took their claim seriously (Perhaps with the exception of Sanam himslef, as he lives in the 19th cen.)


 * (5) One more thing. I am myslef a Samanta Kshatriya from Mavelikkara Kovilakam. (My father is a Varma, my mother is a Pillai. Both from Mavelikkara). Everyone of my relatives consider me as a Kshatriya and I don't need your permission to proclaim that I am a Kshatriya. And regarding your efforts to divide the Nayar community by stating that Samanta Kshatriyas are different from Nairs, I have only one thing to say. Your dirty ambitions will never succeed.


 * (6) Definition from NSS: Mannathu Padmanabhan never recognized any of the Brahminical nonsense and asserted that Nairs are indeed one of the very few Kshatriya ethnic groups in India (This claim is supported by a very large number of historians, as many have proved the Indo-Scythian and Nagvanshi origin of Nairs). Mannam was arrested for entering the Subramania Swamy temple in Perunna, on the 13th day of the death of his uncle. He told the temple authorities that he is a Kshatriya and there for his death pollution runs only for 12 days. He was arrested and produced before the local court. He argued that Nairs are indeed Kshatriya and won the court case. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has two points.

1. nayar definition is not generic and gives the impression that all nairs are ruling elite thereby undermining and descriminating all other traditional occupations of nayars. Nayar is not a single entity with a single lineage therefore i am ready to compromise by individually not mentioning the barber, washer women but they are reduced just to serviles so the neutral definition should include "distinct lineages" with " distinct´professions" (parisha) and mention ruling elite, soldiers, peasants and serviles.

2. The use of the word "kshatriya" and claiming kshatriya status is incorrect. nayars are sat-sudras. However as stated earlier i will not emphasise on the sat-sudra point as a comprimising neutral solution provided nayar and all nayar related pages are completely devoid of the word "kshatriya" and any sentences in whatsoever form infering a kshatriya peacocking. We should strive that wikipedia should not provide false information even if it cannot provide all information.

These are the only two acceptable neutral solution. Otherwise the dispute exists still and dispute resolution taken to next level.

As for Mr. Suresh Varma identifying himself as a Kshatriya, i have no problem as it is his personal decision and i have no moral authority to interfere in your personal choice and i am obliged to respect it. I can only provide how my cousins mananged as they were faced with similar predicaments because of aunts being married to uncles from alladam swaroopam (neeleshwaram), puranattu swaroopam (kottayam of Malabar)  and chirakkal kovilagam (kannur)   in post matriliniality abolished society,  it was therefore discussed whether they were varmas or nambiars by the family. We were all realistically practicing patriliniality but we all had virtual matrilinial identity due to the issue of sthanam title and pula-valaima observance. So we live patrilinially and our titles and customs go matrilinially and it was a predicament. Every family has its way of handling such issues and in my family they were given choice although strictly only if your mother is a malayala kshatriya and father equivalent or higher in ritual rank can the offspring claim the mothers title. This predicament did not exist before 1975 and it was an unsusual situation then. So decision was given to individual children as a compromise. Those who adopted the varma title underwent the upanayanam with the sanction of their fathers and Nambudiris agreed to it as there will not be anyone else to do antyeshti rituals of the father especially if the father had no ananthiravan (Nambudiris are flexible if you present predicaments along their logic, you have to tell them). However these children took up kshatriya identity and practice the shodasha samsakaram and forgo all ritualistic sthanam titles and rights to ooraima (hereditary trustee ship of family temples) inherited matrilinially. They also observed pula-valaima patrilinially and not matrilinially. Those who chose Nayar identity and hence sat-sudra could retain their claims to ooraima but has to identify themselves as sat-sudra and observe pula-valaima matrilinially even while living patrilinially. The choice was personal and was respected by all family members as long as the child did not take up the best of both worlds and maintained fidelity to one system given the unusual circumstances. Therefore at a personal level i am obliged to respect the choice of suresh varma if he has decided to take up the kshatriya identity. The greatest atrocity perpetrated on the nayar community by government legislation in the past is putting sthani nayars in unusual predicaments. However if one has the will one can survive it. In a nut shell one cannot take up kshatriya and nayar identity at the same time. --Sanam001 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just stop your rubbish Sanam. Evidence has been put here to prove that your are pushing POV. Now stop your vandalism and vandalize some other wiki page. Axxn (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanam is trying to divert the topic and run away as usual. As we have seen in the last 2-3 months, this has been his only defense. After all the evidence here to prove that this guy is vandalizing the topics just because he dislikes a particular group of people, he still insists the BS propagated by him is supported by common people and historians. Sanam's POV pushing is based on OR and he does not have any answers to my questions. Being someone paid to insult other castes (as pointed out by someone else earlier), I anyway expected this. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the PhD thesis link stated earlier ? Have you tried to find out about Kshatriya Sabha ? The truth is very evident. I dispute the content as long as there is pretentious Kshatriya peacocking which is incorrect and will contrinue to work towards maintaining wikipedia free of false information.Try to focus on the content and when a content dispute arises discuss logically assuming good faith of the opponent.--Sanam001 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop your diversion tactics and Kshatriya Sabha. You are the one who is propagating false information in the name of research. Your POV just got torn in to pieces by Suresh. So stop harassing people and quit from Wiki. Axxn (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As stated earlier repeatedly i have suggested two neutral solutions. if you are not amenable to it, then i still have a dispute. Focus - Focus on the content- avoid POV pushing vis a vis kshatriya peacocking.Avoid indulging in co-ercing other users to join discussion on to support your ideology. Wiki strongly discourages it. remeber that i am not casuing edit wars. It takes two to create an edit war. So think upon the neutral solution and let me know the opinion.--Sanam001 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want to do and refrain from threatening other users. What do you think you are? Every single user here is against your POV and wikipedia is not the medium to push forward your racist ideology. Axxn (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be only one compromise. User Sanam should stop vandalizing the articles and he should shed his hatred for Nairs. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Varma,a samantha kshatriya says he has Nair(nagavanshi) origin and the Nairs are his kshatriya brethren so the dispute ends there sanam,as far as kshatriya sabha in kerala is concerned,there is also something called the bunt sangha in kasaragod,these two communities have certain customs and traditions different hence their own organisations that doesn't mean they have separate organisations because they don't share common ancestry or do not have the same varna status of kshatriya.also sanam's opinions are strange i once pointed out to him(see my talk page archive and his for details) that travancore royals or the kolathiri don't have sambandam with namboodiris or do hiranyagarbha.he replies to me saying the travancore royal family are nothing but elevated sudras(sat sudra in his words) but now accepts the kshatriya status of Mr.Varma who has no namboodiri connection.point is proven mr sanam you are a hypocrite.Linguisticgeek (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanam is not a hypocrite, he is a professional vandal and hate monger. First he claims that he is a Nambiar, which was proven wrong here. Second he claimed that he is a researcher. Going through some of his posts, I am sure that any one with such pathetic knowledge of English have never been to a recognized University of any sort. Third he claims that in web based interface, because of anonymity, false claims are prominent. If this is the factor to be used here, then the only one who is pushing on with false propaganda is Sanam himself, as myself and Suresh are using our real identities here. Axxn (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Anand,even I don't use my real identity(I prefer anonymity),hope u don't think the same about me as you do of sanam.:-).Linguisticgeek (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I was just pointing out just one fact among Sanam's never ending list of hypocrisies :-) -  Axxn (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a joke Anand,anyways one more thing what rubbish is sanam talking matrilineality has been abolished and Nairs have turned patrilineal.neither the N.S.S or the kshatriya sabha have passed any resolotuion to that effect.you can say nairs today have nuclear families,but every nair samantha kshatriya and a bunt still identifies with the tharavadu of their mothers(matrilineal) and attach great pride to it.Kinship,family relation and lineages among all the nagavanshis is still based on marumakkatayam though property inheritance today is based on the modern Hindu laws of Independent India where both son and daughters get equal share.Linguisticgeek (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Primary statement: The point is a PhD thesis under the supervision of PJ cherian and various anthropological journal citations could not convince you. Similarly your citations and methods of citation fail to convince me.In addition two alternate dispute resolution solution options presented by me is non acceptable by you. Therefore the dispute is not resolved.

Peripheral statement: In case you donot know "The Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 by the Kerala State Legislature" stopped Marumakkathayam inheritance. However sthanis are still passing ritual title by moopumura matrilinially. Except in north malabar ( matrilinial virilocal), all others had matilinial uxorilocal which stopped after the enactment of law a.Pula Vaalaima is practiced matrilinially even now. People live patrilinially. In nut shell, nayars today live patrilinially with a concept of virual  matrilinial family for assumption of title and practice of pula-valaima. The problem is more acute in North Malabar than other areas because sthanam dignities had becomee non-existent or symbolic mostly in the south due to early well established Devaswom boards. 1600 temples under 6 districts of Kerala are now under the jurisdiction of newly formed MDB from 2009 threatening the life style of erstwhile sthanis of Malabar who are predominantly Nayars.Anyways i had expected this ignorance because principal component analysis and clustering analysis of data show that identities who embark on pretentious kshatriya claims in a web-based platform correspond to ones with "distorted perception of rituals"  and  this was one of the component that captured maximaum variability distinguishing this subset from the subset of nayars who embark on such claims using non web-based platform for social mobility'''.--Sanam001 (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your colonial POV failed to convince the wiki users here. Now you are talking about some unknown college professor? Just answer the questions which were put forward to you. If you can't then leave these articles free of your POV and find some other job. Axxn (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Unfortunate. Donot engage in content dispute on topics where academic knowledge is minimum. Dr. PJ cherian is an internationally acclaimed research historian and director of Kerala Council for Historical Research (KCHR).He guides several PhDs in Kerala history.

Check out: http://keralahistory.ac.in/news.htm'''--Sanam001 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanam please read Hindu Succession Act, 1956 thats how inheritance takes place in india.it's neither patrilineal or matrilineal and stop your OS and frankly can't make out what are u a student of history science or communist propaganda(i really can't make out).Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

and calling established wiki contributors as ignorant is desperate frankly and what social mobility,nairs are a forward caste.Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kerala Council of Historical Research. has been dissolved according to the link provided by sanam,lol an internationally acclaimed P.J.Cherian(Sanam's words,i don't believe) is a director of a defunct organisation.Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am quite irritated by Sanam001's behaviour. From the talk section above, it is clear that his views has been rejected by almost every user and even Sanam001 himself is unable to explain his views properly. Looks like this guy is just here to provocate others. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what researcher Velerie LeGrand quoted-

I have been on the subject of the Nairs of Kerala for the last one decade and hence am some sort of authority on the same. At least better read than most Indians on the subject and at least most Nairs.

The origins of the Nairs are shrouded in mystery, but from most ancient accounts, cultures and customs, it can be safely inferred that the Nairs are Scythian of descent. The fact that recent tests indicate presence of the warrior gene 'dopamine' in them as in case of other Scythians attests to this fact.

As a race they are distinct from the prevailing Aryan or Dravidian races of India. The classic chaturvarna as it exists in North India never applied in the South and hence any later caste classification is a work of fiction or more truly non-sense. Warfare was the chief occupation of the Nairs since the last two millenia plus. Most ancient works give a very credible account of the Nairs as the martial nobility of the land. Even the French Captain Mahe De La Bourdeannis, an accomplished warrior himself speaks very highly of the fighting spirit of the Nairs. The above is inspite of the fact that the French fleet was defeated by local Nairs and hence had to take refuge in modern day Tamil nadu.

The most important fact attesting to their noble military virtues is the fact that for over two thousand years they were able to maintain the integrity and security of their land and culture unlike the rest of India. The only race to have decisively defeated the Nairs are the British. The British hence colluded with the neo-converts to suppress these inherently rebellious traditional warlords and succeeded.

Most Indian history is communism inspired or secualrism inspired or worst of all; a thoughtless copy of English history. The British Army (not native infantry) performed poorly against the Nair warlords and the Nairs considered it below their dignity to serve under the British and hence most Nair history in Kerala and India is blanched out. Otherwise what explains grand celebrations of the 1857 revolt wherein a single intoxicated Mangal Pandey took no significant British casualty & yet is considered a national hero. The subsequent attack on the English residency was a military fiasco. Later reinforcements of the British and Sikh troops destroyed every ounce of Indian military muscle. The humiliation and crushing were complete. The Indian lossess were large and shameful. Victory, if any clearly was with the British. The Indians were impaled or hung and the females raped by rapacious native troops.Not much to celebrate about. Maybe, it would make more sense to look for celebrations down south where the Fussiladers and the other English highlanders fared poorly against Nair chieftans as also Moslem Moplahs. The toll the Nairs took on the British is much higher than any recorded in Hindoostan of those times.

Indian culture is much more than hip gyrating dances and semi-nudes. Look around. You see it & yet miss it. Pity. Absolute Pity.

- 130.60.68.45 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on Dispute resolution options-reiteration
As stated earlier-these are the only two acceptable neutral solution. Otherwise the dispute exists.

1.	Nayar is not a single entity with a single lineage therefore i am ready to compromise by individually not mentioning the barber, washer women but they are reduced just to serviles so the neutral definition should include "distinct lineages" with " distinctprofessions" and mention ruling elite, soldiers, peasants and serviles and mentioning “integration from migrants”. Eg:

''Nayar, is a wide and general honorific appellation for a heterogenous matrilineal Hindu community, from Kerala, India, with a strong military tradition and several distinct elements professing different occupations. The Nayar caste encompasses several distinct un-connected lineages who, by hereditary occupation, included ruling feudal elite, retainers of land, soldiers, mercenaries, indoor and outdoor servile classes and integrated migrants from Canarese and Tamil speaking territories adjacent to Kerala''

2.	The use of the Sanskrit word "kshatriya" and claiming kshatriya status is incorrect and should be relaced by “strong martial tradition”. However as stated earlier i will not emphasise on the sat-sudra point as a comprimising neutral solution provided nayar and all nayar related pages are completely devoid of the word "kshatriya" and any sentences in whatsoever form infering a kshatriya peacocking. We should strive that wikipedia should not provide false information even if it cannot provide all information.

PS: The 1956 act was insufficient to solve the problems of property claims along the matrilineal descent in Kerala. Therefore the government passed THE KERALA JOINT HINDU FAMILY SYTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1975 to realistically effect matriliniaty and completely stop it as a property inheritance mode in Kerala. Refer http://kmmathew.com/art003h.html.

The burden of education - As for PJ Cherian

http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/ - institute page

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thirupuram/KCHR-receives-C-P-Matthens-papers-/articleshow/5094523.cms - News on PJ cherian --Sanam001 (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Sanam's POV pushing, as consensus reached above that Sanam's views are irrelevant and racist. Axxn (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To Mr.Sanam who dislikes established wikipedia editors whom he implies to be a collective mafia as evidently stated on his page.


 * 1.As i stated earlier the joint family system was abandoned by nairs long before the implementation of the Hindu succesion act,1956 and THE KERALA JOINT HINDU FAMILY SYTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1975,nairs like rest of hindus follow the relevant Indian laws to property which favour neither patrilineality or matrilineality(your assertion nairs have become patrilineal is proven wrong)
 * 2.The matrilineal system is still relevant for nairs in kinship and relationship as well as claiming lineages.
 * 3.the term kshatriya means a warrior and nairs are a warrior class which you finally accept(i wouldn't like to state what you have called nairs before)
 * 4.P.J.Cherian is not a internationally acclaimed historian which you claimed earlier,(this is ironically proven by the links provided by you)the council was put out of business once which shows how important his research is considered.
 * 5.accept no more replies from any of the editors whom you love to abuse cause their patience is running out.Thank you.Linguisticgeek (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Kshatriya according to Encyclopaedia Britannica
second highest in ritual status of the four varnas, or social classes, of Hindu India, traditionally the military or ruling class.

The earliest Vedic texts listed the Kshatriya (holders of kshatra, or authority) as first in rank, then the Brahmans (priests and teachers of law), next the Vaishya (merchant-traders), and finally the Sudra (artisans and labourers). Movements of individuals and groups from one class to another, both upward and downward, were not uncommon; a rise in status even to the rank of Kshatriya was a recognized reward for outstanding service to the rulers of the day. The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers. Brahmanic texts such as the Manu-smrti (a book of Hindu law) and most other dharmashastras (works of jurisprudence) report a Brahman victory, but epic texts often offer a different account, and it is likely that in social reality rulers have usually ranked first. The persistent representation of deities (especially Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama) as rulers underscores the point, as does the elaborate series of ritual roles and privileges pertaining to kings through most of Hindu history. These largely buttress the image of a ruler as preserver of dharma (religious and moral law) and auspicious wealth. In modern times, the Kshatriya varna includes a broad class of caste groups, differing considerably in status and function but united by their claims to rulership, the pursuit of war, or the possession of land .90.46.32.29 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a general definition of what is a Kshatriya. The Nairs and this article respect this definition.90.46.32.29 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly place edits and comments only at the end to conserve cohesiveness for better understanding.

The definition of Nair in encyclopedia Britannica does not include the word “Kshatriya” in definition. I will try to explain it from your handle of arguments: Here it is:

According to expert historians, anthropologists, sociologists and indologists and sanskrit scholars- A Kshatriya is simply a Varna-rank and this Sanskrit terminology confering legitimate claims to rulership can only be used to define  members provided they practice specific rules of conduct (dharma)  and importantly adhere to a personal life following all sixteen consecrations or tenets (Shodasha samskaram) while simultaneously being recognized/legitimized  by the regulators of moral-codes (Brahmanas/priests) based on their jurisprudence of consideration of suitability. This is because the consideration of the suitability of a group to be defined by the Vedic  terminology Kshatriya rank has two main outcomes, one having to do with responsibility, the other with privilege (jura gentium), and one concerning the perpetrators of crime and the other its victims. While judging this system we should bear in mind that we are certainly not dealing with a social model based on any notion of equality, but equally it is not simple notion based on privilege (jura gentium). Varnas (perhaps the most explosive topic in Hinduism ) derived their basis from the Purushasukta (Rig Veda) in dividing mankind into four socially separate interdependent categories/terminologies (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and Shudra). Varna system was essentially an inequal stratified vertical structure based on the principle of 'Division of Labour' and most importantly the suitability of the different groups for the different categories of occupations. Caste-fanatics manipulated this model to discriminate. Anthropologists observed that in contrast to other Brahmins, the Brahmins of Kerala and Tulunadu follow the canon of “Poorva mimamsa “ to enquire and interpret  the nature of dharma based on close hermeneutics of the Vedas. The Poorva Mimamsa school traces the source of the knowledge of dharma (rules of conduct or duty) neither to sense-experience nor inference, but to verbal cognition according to Vedas. Now, the terminology “Shudra” included individuals who performed services or serviles and encompassed manual and agricultural labourers, artisans, masons, land-holders,  mercenary-warriors and even some times Kings. Historians, sociologists and anthropologists observe that except Sudras, all the other three categories were called as Dwija or twice born. The meaning of twice born is that after a birth the three  categories (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) are again born with the investiture with the sacred thread, the symbol of a child’s admittance to membership to the elite-category-dwija after which he is trained through subsequent samskara consecrations  to attain maturity to handle his privilege. Neither Kerala or Tulu Brahmins who are custodians of jurisprudence of dharma in Kerala nor other Brahmin of India have recognized/legitimized nayar-bulk for consideration of suitability to be defined by the term Kshatriya as we Nayars are essentially a compilation of distinct lineages professing distinct occupations with a strong martial tradition but devoid of the spiritual training associated with Kshatra-dharma and most importantly we nayars donot maintain in our personal life Garbhadana samskara, Pumsavana samskara, Upanayana samskara, Samavartana samskara, Vivaha samskara (as per vedic rites), Panchamahayajna samskara, Vanaprastha samskara and thus does not adhere 7 out of 16 tenets. Niether have we Nayars been investituted with any identifying Vedic gotra or Pravara to artificially connect us to Vedic Gotra system of Dwijas. Now let us look at social mobility strategies of castes in India. In exceptional events of outstanding contributions to protection of Hindu-dharma (Rajputs)  or as a compromise or deal during socio-political rivalry between Brahmin and non-Brahmin power structures,  members of Sudra stock have been provorted as Kshatriya permanently (Neeleshwaram, Kolathiri, Cochin) or leased temporally (Thiruvathamkoor) in Kerala under the conditions that  specific rules of conduct and importantly personal adherence to all sixteen consecrations or tenets be observed by them. In additions they had to shed their old identity and accept their new identity through practice and observance of these conducts (like a neaveux rich training his daughter in a finishing school for exorbitant fee to ensure an aristocratic husband). In other words, social mobility was not attained through pretentious propaganda but exploiting loop-holes because for pretentious propaganda if pursued damages social relationships irreversibly. We Nayars cannot use the terminology Kshatriya to describe ourselves and are defined under the category sat-shudra or clean serviles. Shudra as perceived by the Pan-Indian “great culture” interacts with social environment peculiar to Kerala history-the “little culture” to evolve the Sudra identity of nayar in a non derogatory sense and purely totemic. Historians observe that the malayalam sudras of which the better class are called nayars are the bulk of the respectable population-servants, land holders, farmers, mercenary soldiers, officials and even kings and are a remarkable group. Nayars have been always driven by maryada or Acharam based social rules. In addition the bulk of Nair community encompassed members that professed hereditarily laborours, small land-holders and mercenary soldiers as opposed to the minority fraction that were sudra-ruling elite (Samanthan). The primary definition is non representative of the bulk lineages and discriminative. A subset of my own community armed with inadequate information uses the web-based platform trying to supplant the natural dignity of my community as sat-sudra with shame and mis-represents information in an encyclopedia by peacocking with in-appropriate terminology to generate a POV nayar  image. As stated earlier repeatedly i have suggested two neutral solutions. if you are not amenable to it, then i still have a dispute. Focus on the content- avoid POV pushing vis a vis kshatriya peacocking. Avoid indulging in co-ercing other users to join discussion on to support your ideology. Wiki strongly discourages it. Remeber that i am not casuing edit wars- It takes two to create an edit war. So think upon the neutral solution assuming good faith and let me know the opinion on these two neutral solutions.--Sanam001 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop your OR and POV. You have been exposed to be a highly disruptive vandal. If you are not willing to listen what others have to say and engage in discussions, then just get out of here. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Britannica definition is a general definition of what is a Kshatriya whether you like or not; read it, read it again, read it hundred times if needed but you must accept it; who are you to go against this definition ???.... You're using a very specific definition of Kshatriya and want others accept, use it ???... Britannica tells clearly this: "'In modern times, the Kshatriya varna includes a broad class of caste groups, differing considerably in status and function but united by their claims to rulership, the pursuit of war, or the possession of land". Add this sentence into your brain.


 * 1) "According to expert historians, anthropologists, sociologists and indologists and sanskrit scholars..." --> Again your POV, not at all every scholars; ex: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya".


 * 2) "A Kshatriya is simply a Varna-rank and this Sanskrit terminology confering legitimate claims to rulership can only be used to define  members provided they practice specific rules of conduct (dharma)  and importantly adhere to a personal life following all sixteen consecrations or tenets (Shodasha samskaram)" --> again a POV, as I already told you, in old Hindu texts, Greeks, Chinese (...) were described as kshatriyas... WHY ???... WHY ???... Tell Me... Tell Me...


 * 3) "...while simultaneously being recognized/legitimized by the regulators of moral-codes (Brahmanas/priests) based on their jurisprudence of consideration of suitability" --> Once again Your & Brahmanical POV... 90.46.32.29 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already sufficient information with regards to links to research articles, thesis, and perspectives in these talk pages that these questions and issues are redundant. So kindly refer earlier discussions and your queries will be answered. In a discussion when two oppenents are unwilling to accept the reliability of each others citations then the phase of acheiving a dispute resolution through convincing one another has failed and passed. Then, the best way to acheive it is to see what is the middle point that is possible. I have already stated mine above in earlier posts. Kindly use this next phase to evaluate the realistic translatability.--Sanam001 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. There is already sufficient information provided by others to prove that your views are racist, irrelevant and obsolete. So kindly refer earlier discussions and stop wasting other's time. There is no dispute here as I have stated. Pure vandalism can't be categorized as a content dispute. I can go to Muhammad Ali Jinnah's article and state that he was a Hindu. Things like these are not content dispute. They are known as spam, hoax, vandalism and so on. You have failed to convince other users and similarly, failed to answer their queries. Unless you can do both, there is no scope for you here. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * NO USER SANAM 001, YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED TO MY QUESTIONS BEFORE, YOU ARE A LIAR. FIRST ANSWER THIS QUESTION: you stated that "A Kshatriya is simply a Varna-rank and this Sanskrit terminology confering legitimate claims to rulership can only be used to define  members provided they practice specific rules of conduct (dharma)  and importantly adhere to a personal life following all sixteen consecrations or tenets (Shodasha samskaram) while simultaneously being recognized/legitimized  by the regulators of moral-codes (Brahmanas/priests) based on their jurisprudence of consideration of suitability"; THE PB IS THAT IN OLD HINDU TEXTS GREEKS, PERSIANS, CHINESE (...) WERE CALLED KSHATRIYAS WHEREAS THEY WERE NOT HINDU, DID NOT SPEAK SANSKRIT AND BRAHMINS WERE NOT THEIR PRIESTS... THERE IS A BIG BIG CONTRADICTION BETWEEN WHAT YOU WROTE AND THIS FACT... TELL ME WHY ???... WHY???... WHY???...90.46.156.230 (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting funny. Do you really think Sanam will answer your questions? For the last 3 months he has been evading questions asked to him by the users here (look at the sections above). I think he is a divine personality who can't be questioned. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a research student from the Warwick University specializing in Visual Cultures and History. I have done extensive research on the History, religion and Caste system in India. I can honestly state that Nayar of Kerala is a Kshatriya community according to the most widely recognized definition of the term "Kshatriya". Rajput of North India is considered to be the equivalent of Nayar in South India. These two communities are considered to be Kshatriya proper, although there are several other communities having their claims to Kshatriya status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.192.27 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-think about the middle way
Go through the middle points i have suggested (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So go through the middle solution I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes more than one to cause an edit war and meat puppetry is strongly discouraged by wikipedia. Assuming good faith, and providing oppurtunity to re-think, you may take this time to go through the middle point i have suggested earlier.You may un-wittingly be part of, so check what cabal means--Sanam001 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nayars
Nayars are not Kshatriyas, nor Vaishyas, nor Shudras. The caste is "Nayar". The Kerala Caste system is Nambudiri, Nayar, Ambalavasi, etc, etc. Apart from Nambudiris who were undisputed Brahmins, no other caste fits into the Chaturvarna system. Take the example of Ambalavasi, they are by no means Brahmins, and not Kshatriyas or anything else either.121.214.117.235 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should note that User Sanam is having problems only when Nairs are stating their Kshatriya status. Here he claims that Rajputs and Samanta Kshatriya are Kshatriya, although they were regarded as Sudra by the Brahmins. This is what I have pointed out many times before. Sanam is parochial and uses Colonial POV to attack a specific community. He does not have any problem when other communities claim they are Kshatriya. He even supports them. But when Nairs state that they are Kshatriya supported by a large number of well known references), Sanam gets irritated. Unless he can explain this behavior, no one is going to get convinced here. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambalavasis and Iyers are Brrahmins. They don't become Sudra just because Nambuthiris branded them so. Similarly Nairs who are Kshatriya, does not becfome Sudra, just because Nambuthiris branded them so. Axxn (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

'''The practical translatability of the line of thought of user 121.214.117.235 is welcomed and may help in maintaining all community articles relating to Kerala castes free of varna terminology. I am not interested in emphasising varna terminology in nair or any nair related articles either. As stated earlier the neutral point that we could realistcally acheive would be (1) not to use either the term sudra or kshatriya in original nayar article, any of the articles of nayar sub-divisions like menon etc and the article nair subcastes (2) Remove the malayala sudra page in exchange for removing the sentences in malayala kshatriya page or samantha kshatriya page that may imply that nayars or nayar sub-divisions are known by Kshatriya terminology or nayars are kshatriya in any derivatory implying. A term - "a body politic with strong military tradition is acceptable in the original nair article and is suggested in exchange for removing varna terminology in the original nair article''' Sanam001 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can clearly see here in the talk page that no one is further interested in wasting their time by talking to you. It will be great if you can concentrate on some other topic. Also talking about castes other than Nambuthiri, Kerala Iyers are given as Brahmins in their article and similar definition is given for most of the caste articles. Why should we remove the Kshatriya definition which is properly referenced because of the threats and bullying here by Sanam? Sanam's blackmailing that he will remove Malayala Sudra "in exchange" is not going to work. - Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been his sole aim for the last 3 months. Because of the edit wars perpetrated by this guy, I am unable to make any useful contribution to the wikipedia for the last several months (However since he stopped edit wars for the last 2-3 days, I was able to create some collages which I was planning to do 3 months ago). The definition of Kshatriya was debated on the Kshatriya talk page and even there, no one agreed with Sanam's views. Axxn (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. Specific users seems to have rejected the WP: NPOV and not used the time given to them in good faith for retropspection of the middel solution stated above.''' Sanam001 (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your statement should be changed to "Specific users seems to have rejected the WP: POV". Axxn (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

'''The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that are all editors are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance- we must do our best to step back and characterize the content dispute with each new controversial point being stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views - it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal. You have rejected the WP: NPOV and not used the time given to you in good faith for retropspection of the middle solution'''Sanam001 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanam are you seriously interested in editing wikipedia,because frankly all you seem to have done(i just checked your edit history) is put namboodiri pov in articles related to malayali communities nairs specifically and also in the ezhava article.apart from this you seem to have developed some personal enimity with Axxn and have been constantly harrasing him by reverting his edits.This isn't good faith and frankly you don't seem to listen to other people's views,not one but many users have cited your edits as POV.Why Don't you make a self introspection rather than implying established wikipedia contributors as some sort of mafia as evidently stated on yourUser page.Thank you Linguisticgeek (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

'''My dispute is only for the content of nayar and nayar related articles as there has been a concerted effort to POV forking and not addrressing WP:NPOV. I am assuming that User: Anandks007 and others are all editors are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it.The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So go through the middle solution I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article. Assuming good faith, and providing oppurtunity to re-think, you may take this time to go through the middle point i have suggested earlier.'''--Sanam001 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Sanam001 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia as a source of information for the past many many years, but I never considered signing up or contributing to Wikipedia. But after watching what is going on here for the last few days, I am compelled to do so. I live outside India and therefore rely on wikipedia for information on topics in which I am not having enough knowledge. But after reading what Sanam001 writing here, it seems that wikipedia is fast becoming a paradise for spammers and extremists. I consider my self to be quite knowledgeable as far as history and culture of Kerala is considered, but the things Sanam001 writing here is beyond my understanding and commonsense. Sanam001 is posting completely false and biased information, and everyone seems to be agree that his info is unreliable. But unfortunately he is still continuing with his misinformed edits and I am at a lose to explain why. Even as a newbie I am able to understand the motives behind Sanam001's posts, but why the so called experienced posters here are unable to do so? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the NPOV points as suggested earlier Sanam001 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He must be a Brahmin and/or a Marxist.90.46.211.67 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User sanam has shown enormous evidence which shows nairs are not kshathriyas. The attitude of users like Axxn and suresh varma are ridiculous. People like Axxn, suresh varma etc are trying to write history according to their wish unfortunately for them there is enough historical documents which clearly shows nairs are not kshathriyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.150.169 (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to support Sanam, then go ahead. But before that, answer the questions raised in above sections. Axxn (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By sanam's own admission the present maharaja of travancore is a Shudra,Therefore by that logic he shouldn't be the guradian of the Padmanabha swami temple and does not have any claim on the throne.and please annoymous ips create your own wikipedia id before commenting would be so much better.the logic sanam puts forth is ridiculous.His Namboodiri POV is not just limited to Nairs he has stated that ezhava women were mistresses of British Men(just found out while while checking his edit history and couldn't stop laughing)and therefore some ezhavas are fair,now no serious student of anthrophology would make such ridiculous comments.Even Edgar Thurston suggests Nairs are a warrior class in his caste and tribes book,but sanam has stated before that they are not.and what evidences has sanam put forth,some theories not even peer reviewed by P.J.Cherian,the head of organisation that was once put out of business.And one more question Sanam agrees that Rajputs are kshatriyas while northern brahmins just like namboodiris say about nairs is that rajputs are shudras.so isn't this double standards.All i can conclude is that sanam has some serious grudge against the Nairs and most importantly the travancore royal family(Maybe because in Travancore the Namboodiris are not allowed to conduct ceremonies but Tulu speaking Embrandiri Brahmins perform most religious ceremonies) which brings me to another question is sanam a namboodiri,(which i suspect though no proof to claim so i will leave it there) and even if he is,there is no problem as far he does not push POV and contributes to wikipedia constructively.All contributors are welcome if they adhere to policies.Linguisticgeek (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Thank you for your comments user 202.164.150.169. but unfortunately inadequacy on subject nature and content of certain individual users have remained the reason for not being able to acheive NPOV. For instance allmost every academic historian involved in research in Kerala society is aware of the work of P.J Cherian. Well acclaimed Edgar thurston becomes colonial POV when it comes to "Kshatriya" peacocking issue but the same Edgar Thurston is used as Reference 63 when it is needed to show unwarranted casteism (see reference 63 of the Nair article and the context in which it is used !!!! Shocking !!!). In addition an NPOV suggestion to remove all varna terminology both nayar - both sudra and Kshatriya was not taken up.So the wider intention of POV forking is more than self evident. I have tried to convince many things from several perspectives however when good faith does not exist in response and williness to NPOV does not exist, the point of such engagements are far gone. Unethical practices such as meat puppetry seeing existing users taking up the cause of edit wars and sudden recruitment of IP 90.46.211.67 was also seen. Therefore a formal mediation for NPOV seems the next level, till then my dispute exists and i will exert my rights as any wikipedian to do maintain the authenticity of articles''' Sanam001 (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

Firstly Sanam ur link is about a book by P.J.cherian and does not support your earlier claim that P.j.Cherian is a acclaimed historian.also using excessive bolds won't make your statements more trsutworthy.Using the word Kshatriya is not POV.It is legitimate sanskrit word for a warrior Hindu community which the nayars are.Some of Edgar thurston statements in the book are ofcourse colonial pov(only a blinded person would say they are not) but his works are largely unbiased unlike your views.secondly there is no dispute only you are involved in pov pushing (eg the travancore royal family are shudra,the children of a namboodiri and nair are kshatriya(the dharmashastras calls such progeny worse than shudras).and as far as i.p.s are concerned their views should not taken into consideration even i can accuse you that the ip from calicut which supports your POV views is your sock puppet.Linguisticgeek (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, Nair caste was never classified as Kshatriya. Even Varmas were elevated to Kshatriyahood. Varmas may be of Nair origin, but that wouldn't imply Nair's are Kshatriyas. For eg, in your family there are 10 members. One person is an IAS officer and rest all clerks. Can all of the 10 members claim to be IAS officers?
 * Wikipedia is the first place where I am seeing Nairs being portrayed as Kshatriyas. In fact they were referred to as Sudra (or may be Sat-sudras) by nambuthiris, Varmas and Ambalavasis, even though there were warriors from the community. It is also worthwhile noting that there were warriors from other comunities too(Avarnas, Christians, Muslims), who were part of the kings army. Going by the profession all these communities can also claim Kshatriyahood.
 * Mate, if you are in Defence force I agree you are a Kshatritya, whatever caste or religion you are from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.170.205 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See the links provided above. Also, Nambuthiri definition is not follwed anywhere else. For example, Ezhavas were classified as Avarna (Dalit). Does that mean that they are Dalit? Anyway, if you are sure, you can try to answer the questions raised here. Axxn (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why it is always said that it takes only one intelligent person to start a war. User Sanam was obviously trying to divide the two communities (Nair, Ezhava) and posted hateful provocations on the articles belonging to both the communities. Rather than trying to fight the person who did this, idiots like Axxn and 110.33.170.205 are falling in to the trap and are fighting each other. To 110.33.170.205: Nairs are Kshatriya according to the true definition of Kshatriya. To Axxn: Ezhavas were not Dalits, they held a position very near to that of Nair in Kerala. 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop personal attacks. I didn't called anyone Dalit. Infact it was me who cleared the Ezhava page of vandalism when some POV pushers stated that Ezhavas were Dalit (You can check the history). Axxn (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No more discussion is required on this talk page about kshatriya status and origin of nairs,it is proven that nairs are scythians and are a warrior caste.user sanam has been blocked for his disruptive edits.and one more thing people writing about samanta kshatriyas origin don't read history books.Samantha kshatriya atleast two families (the travancore and kolathiri) which do not intermarry with nambudiris have direct descent from Kulashekara Bunt dynasty from Tulu Nadu(Bunts are traditionally endogamous).whereas other samantha families have direct descent from the ordinary warrior nairs eg the cochin family.The Bunts claim only nagavanshi descent and so do most nair clans.it is only the cochin family who underwent hiranyagarbha who claim chandravashi descent(a lineage given by nambudiris) but even they are nagas.the fact is Bunts,Nairs,samantha kshatriya,the namboodiris as well as the Tuluva brahmins all are ethnically from the same stock scythians with aryan mixture from Ahichatra in Uttar pradesh according to genetic studies on these communities.This ethnic similarity is also evident from the fact that the namboodiri brahmins in Payyanur are also matrilineal like nairs and bunts which historians say is proof that nambudiri and tuluva brahmins might be warrior scythian naga clans who were elevated to brahmin status.Some nairs and Bunts might have mixture with previous ruling clans of the south precisely the Velirs(the highest of Vellalas) the title pillai among nairs and a bunt surname Ballal(corruption of Vellala) point towards that.But then again the Velirs have their own legends of north indian origins and claim to kshatriya status from chandravanshi clan(Might be a reason why the cochin royals call themselves chandravanshis).But anyways can today any community claim they have maintained their varna status.Brahmins were forbidden from travelling through the oceans,So many nambudiris in the gulf.according to the dharmashastra they have lost their varna.and one more thing in kaliyuga according to the dharmashastras no varna exists because dharma is lost.therefore by that definition all Hindus today and progeny of brahmins,kshatriya,vaishyas and shudras.but they themselves can't claim any varna because they don't do the prescribed duties to be within a varna.Linguisticgeek (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rajputs Shudras? Rajputs were not and are not considered Shudras, in either North or South India. I think you are getting confused with Jatts and Marathas who were warriors, but considered to be Shudra and ineligible for the Upanayanam. Rajputs undergo an Upanayanam, and always have. By strict definition, in this present Yuga, there are no Vaishyas or Kshatriyas, only Brahmins and Shudras. But for all intents and purposes, Rajputs were Kshatriyas, and Nayars were de facto Kshatriyas (like the Rajputs they were Warriors or Farmers). Regardless, Nairs are by definition Shudras, since they do not have the Upanayanam, and they could achieve the status of Kshatriya by performing Upanayanam (a Hiranyagarbha ceremony is not required, since it was more of a money making venture). As well as that Nairs have Brahmin lineage, since nearly every Nair would have a paternal Nambudiri ancestor, due to the widespread nature of Sambandham. With regards to Ambalavasis, they are not Brahmin since not all have the Upanayanam, and those that do have the Upanayanam (eg. Nambissan) are considered Ardha-Brahmana (Half-Brahmin), similar to Niyogi Brahmins, Chitpavan Brahmins and Mohyals since they did not have the right to learn Vedam or conduct rituals.124.176.193.74 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Rajputs are considered to be Sudra by the most orthodox Brahmins (like Nambuthiris) as they think the entire Kshatriya race is extinct. Only a small minority among the Rajputs do upanayana. Most of the Rajputs in Rajastan and Gujarat undergo this process. A significant number of the Thakurs in UP and Haryana also do the same. But the vast majority of the Rajputs in Uttaranchal, Himachal, Jammu and Nepal don't undergo upanayana. The Tripuri Kshatriya and Manipuri Kshatriya undergo upanayaana, but their case is different. Axxn (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Nambudiris traditionally would not have known about the existence of Rajputs. Jatts and Marathas, though warriors are in a similar status to Nairs, and do not undergo Upanayanam; while most Rajputs do have the Thread. Although Nambudiris do not accept proper Kshatriya status, they still acknowledge "Samanta Kshatriya" (of equal status to Kshatriya, but not quite!) which are the Varmas. Nairs who would want this status would need to undergo Upanayanam (as I have mentioned Hiranyagarbha is not necessary, and nearly all Nairs would certainly have paternal Nambudiri ancestors, so therefore have the right to take part in a Vedic ceremonies), and that's how the first Samanta Kshatriyas came into being! The question is, does it really make a difference in this day and age whether you are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Sudra?124.181.116.41 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if they knew about the existence of the Rajputs, it will not make any difference, as for them the entire race is extinct. Also there is a difference between a Rajput of royal lineage and an ordinary Rajput. In Rajastan and UP, where Rajputs make up 8% and 7.2% of the population respectively, they do wear the sacred thread. But in Punjab (where I live), and in Uttaranchal and Himachal (where Rajputs make up the majority of the population) I haven't seen any Rajput with the thread. See this ("The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras"). Jats and Marathas are peasant races, of whom a very small minority were warriors. (Jats make up the majority of the population in both Haryana and Punjab, while Marathas are close to one third of the population in Maharashtra). As for the Varmas, the majority of them were nairs accorded higher status, although some (like the cochin Raja) were originally Brahmins. If you go to caste pages like Yadav, it is given that they are Kshatriya. Then why can't Nairs (one of the only two truly martial races in India, along with the Rajputs) claim the Kshatriya status? Francois Pyrard says about Nairs in his book The Voyage: "As for the Nairs, they are all nobles and meddle with neither handicraft nor trade, nor any other exercise, but that of arms, which they always carry." And most importantly, the Kerala High Court ruled about 100 years ago during the Perunna Subramania Swamy incident that Nairs are Kshatriya. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should add in that reference to the article, since it is a credible source. See this ("The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras"). Furthermore I think the origin of Nairs should be investigated in more detail (Scythian origin?). Essentially it is troublesome to declare Nairs as Kshatriyas, that's the problem. Furthermore, Nairs are rarely referred to as, and rarely refer to themselves, as "Kshatriya", they usually just say that they are "Nair" or "Menon", etc. Same way an Ezhava says they are "Ezhava" while the caste includes "Kshatriya" Chekavars (the famed warriors of Malabar Unniyarcha and Aaromal Unni were Thiyya). True status of Kshatriya is unachievable in this Yuga, but one can get closer to it by performing the Upanayanam ceremony, and so far the only Nairs to do so were the Varmas. Then again, one must consider, is it worth doing the whole Upanayanam ceremony, just to achieve Kshatriya status? (even at that "Samanta Kshatriya", or "equal" status but not quite a Kshatriya!)58.165.57.120 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article about the Scythian origin of Nairs (Scythian origin of Nayars, Malabar Quarterly 1904) is available in the net. It can be accessed only through the libraries. There is a section about it in the 1901 census report by the Indian Census Commissioner, but not in much detail. Also, upanayanam can't be set as a standard for the Kshatriya status, since it is not followed everywhere. Anyway in the article, it is not stated that Nairs are Kshatriya. It is stated that Nairs are known as Kshatriya, which can be seen from the links discussed here. 143.205.176.60 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wearing the sacred thread does not make one a dwija. In Trivandrum, Marars wear the sacred thread, but Illakkars (like Pillais and Thampis) does not undergo upanayana. But Marars are considered much inferior to Illakkars and are not allowed to eat with them. Also, the death pollution for a Kshatriya is 12 days and for a Sudra, it is 16 days. But for Samanta Kshatriya, it is 11 days (between the 10 day requirement for a Nambuthiri and 12 for an Ilayath). For Nairs, it varies from caste to caste, as Nambiars are having a death pollution of 13 days, Eratis 14 days and lower ranking martial castes are having a death pollution of 15 days. Those who rank at the bottom amongst the Nairs have a death pollution of 16 days. (Mannathu Pdmanabhan urged NSS to change the requirement to 12 days, but I don't think it is followed everywhere). The Marars also have a death pollution of 16 days.
 * Also, the diet is an important factor. Illakkar and Nambiars are not allowed to consume non-vegetarian food and therefore rank above Ambalavasis. (The case in South Travancore and North Malabar). But in other parts (South Malabar, Cochin & North Travancore), most of the Nairs are non-vegetarian and therefore rank below Ambalavasis. It seems that when both are similar in diet (i.e if both are pure vegetarian, then Nairs are ranking higher than Ambalavasi). It should be reminded that Ambalavasis are descendants of Brahmins who were not allowed the rights to conduct priestly duties by Parasurama (He selected only a small number of Brahmins as high enough to perform priestly functions and labelled them as Nambuthiri, while the remaining ones were labelled as Ambalavasi). 130.60.68.45 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Nairs
Any Lead about the Ethnicity of Nairs?They,along with Syrian Christians and Some Mappila Muslims in calicut region does not looks like Dravidians.I've found a link where a DNA Test Proved Nairs have Middle Eastern Ancestory Found ,Especially in Central and Northern Travancore.For eg: A Nair from Kottayam looks much fairer and large built than from Thrissur District(Ottapalam,,,etc).Is Nair ,a Term Collectively to Cover Different Races in kerala? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.33.48 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nairs were originally of Indo-Scythian ancestry who migrated to Kerala around 7th Century AD. Once in Kerala, their genepool got mixed with Aryan and Dravidian elements. For more information, you can refer the paper "Scythian origin for the Nayars" -Malabar Quarterly Review Vol.1 Number 2 1902. Also in physical anthropological studies the Nair is taller than both the Tamil Brahmin and the native Nambuthiri of Kerala. 122.177.188.80 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Malabar Quarterly Review does not seem to be available online. It would be great if someone could add quotes and further references from this scholarly article.121.214.146.112 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have access to public libraries, try to read this article. I think it proves the connection of Nairs to Scythians by studying the Dopamine receptor D4 exon 3 genetic trait. Axxn (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

New Collage for Nairs
I have added a new image map for the front page image by adding a few more images. I think this is better than the previous image, as the captions can be avoided. If any more copyright free images are available, please replace some of the unimportant images and upload it again. Axxn (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work. Could you please add EK Nayanar, Satish Nambiar, Achyutha Menon and Madhavan Nair? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A few big shots missing.... but thanks a lot for creating it. 150.164.255.201 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kris Gopalakrishnan is not from Nair caste. He is a tamil Brahmin from Trivandrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.5.100 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

article references require editing
dear friends ...in the main article on nairs, there is a reference of ram swarup joon's " history of jats" having mentioned the nagavanshi origin of the nairs... well i bought the book and read it thoroughly .... not only is there no mention of nairs anywhere in his book.... he claims jats are chandravanshis... so the message here is not to blindly take references... also the other books by jat historians, like lal pradaman singh and kishori lal faujdar need to be verified bfore we can include them in the references. Vivwiki (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The works by Joon was based on the 1901 Census Report, which describes Nairs as "probably descendant from Nagavanshis who immigrated from the present day Rohilkhand or Newar". Faujdar's works were based on the earlier book by Joon. I haven't read Joon's book, so can't comment on that, but Faujdar clearly lists Nambiar (Kiryathil Nair) among the Nagavanshi clans. On the other hand, according to the 1901 Census report, no Jat clans are described as having even remote connection with Nagavanshis. So I am at a loss to explain how the Jat clans listed in Joon's works claim the status. Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya in his book "Downfall of Hindu India‎" describes Nair as Nagavanshi Kshatriya, but that book was published in 1986, much later than the works of Joon. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks, mr varma... for clarifying, any idea where the books by faujdar /lal pradaman singh( history of nagavansh- are available?...the book by ram sarup joon is by turns both informative and amateurish....he claims jats were founders of italy and scandinavia?!!!!.. jats are a vibrant and hardy race, but this may be taking it too far!!!!!!Vivwiki (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in for removing them. What'd u say? Axxn (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hi, axxn.... yes perhaps the reference of ram sarup joon... have gone through the book... nothing about nagavanshis or nairs...keep the faujdar and lal pradaman sing references, until proved fallacious117.192.239.63 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I have removed Joon's reference. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Faujdars's book, it is not a "book" at all. It is an article written in the magazine "Jat Samaj". Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Nair Kshatriya?
It is seen that there is a lot of discussion going on regarding whether Nair is Kshathriya or not. But in the article, it is written whith out doubt that Nair is kshatriya. My opinion is that such a claim should be removed from the article. It doesnt matter whether Nair is kshathriya or not. Such a claim, which is not sure, is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I know almost all nairs will prefer to be a Kshathriya. There are more important things. The spelling of Nair is corrupted from the beginning itself. According to the actual pronounciation, it is Nayar. A term used in poojakabahuvachana. Its singular is Nayan (in Malayalam). The etymological resemblence with Naga should also not be avoided. There were Naga worship in Kerala and Tamilnadu. Nagarcoil, in kanyakumari district of tamilnadu. Snnair (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for OR and POV. Axxn (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let us give the details such as classificationof nair in separate section. Let the article be readable with. The first sentence itself was a mess - a biased one. Why are you reverting without any discussion? There are many sub-sects in Nairs which are not Khshathriyas. So a separate section is needed distinguishing this. It is necessary for the article to be neutral. If you are so curious with the purity of the artile read the Etymology section. From months it says in its very first sentence that "The word Nair lends itself to two etymological interpretations". But only one interpretation is given there.Where is the second one?. The second was there very long back. But the majority kshathriya-biased nair wikipedians removed it. However they forget to remove the first sentence of this section. The article is totally biased with inappropriate sections. A complete clean-up is required. The term "Malayala Kshathriya" surprised me a lot. Have you heard any where in kerala such a term in common use? Snnair (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I REPEAT - NAIRS ARE NOT KSHATRIYAS

Let us go through some reliable resources:


 * 1) Malabar Manual by William Logan.  It is writen by Logan while he was the Collector of Malabar. It gives a wonderful description of the old Malabar giving the details of the geography, flora and fauna, people and culture while he travelled extensively.  In this book the term nayar is used almost as a synonym for the term Sudra.
 * 2) See Page 92.
 * 3) See Page 239
 * 4) See page 542.


 * 1) The Travancore state manual, Volume 1 By V. Nagam Aiya, Kerala (India). Gazetteers Dept.
 * 2) See Page 846

Snnair (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed in detail many many times. If you have anything new to say, then state it here. Else just stay out of this article and take your POV to somewhere else. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are rising the same issue very frequently and asking the same questions, I'll redirect you towards the archive than allowing you to waste others' time. First have a look at this. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Axxn, Shannon1488 and Suresh.Varma.123. This has been discussed already and we've reached a conclusion. So there is no need to start a separate discussion. If you want, you can renew the discussion here. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may say so, "reaching a conclusion" is not equivalent to promoting a correct picture. All reliable sources clearly show that the Nairs are a separate group from Malayala Kshatriyas. Similarly, they were classed as Sudras and Illathu Nair was synonymous with Sudran Nair. Terms like "Samanthan Nair" are entirely new and (although I cannot remember the date), an early 20th century Madras High Court ruling showed clearly that Samanthans were Malayala Kshatriyas and not Nairs. But as someone stated earlier, this has all been discussed before. But the article remains in a mess in so far as the caste position is concerned Manu rocks (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Nair page
Dear Johnuniq, thank you for the information regarding edit war in Nair page. In that page it is stated that Nairs are Malayala Kshatriyas. The terminology Malayala Kshatriya itself is a new one, you may find it only in wikipedia. Not in Britannica or other encyclopedias. The term Malayala Kshatriya itslef is fake. So I want to edit it. I tried to make the article neutral by stating that this is only a claim. But it got reverted soon. I asked a many times to the user Anand Krishnan to discuss on this matter. But without any discussion, he continued reverting. Now I noticed that he had maid the a comment in your talk page saying that he will be staying out of the article for the next 24 hours. Let the other users give their opinion and handle this issue. But the major problem is that a majority of editors from Kerala are nairs, and they will prefer the Kshatriya status (eventhough it has no meaning now a days). The truth is far behind than the opinion of majority. A nair can claim Kshathriya status because of his martial history. But all nairs are not Kshatriyas. There are different sub-sects which cannot claim such a status. All these factors should be mentioned in the article. The references provided in the article are also biased ones. Even if I make a discussion, the majority can quote too many such references and argue. Unless I get succeed the falls message will remain in the article (It will be very difficult to get a consensus among the editors of nair page). Is that you want? Presently the article is not neutral. What one can do in such a situation? Should we adopt the wish/opinion of a majority as truth? I wish to proceed with my editing. Please give reply in my talk page. Thank you. Snnair (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving a detailed explanation and not repeating the change in Nair. Please understand that content disputes are very common and the only way to proceed is to patiently make your case on the talk page of the article (Talk:Nair). Because "anyone can edit", one of the very firm rules on Wikipedia is that edit wars are prohibited: it is unacceptable to argue by repeating changes to an article (and everyone involved in such a case, when not covered by one of the exceptions mentioned at that link, are usually blocked for 24 hours initially, with longer blocks if repeated). I am mentioning this because your contributions indicate that you have been an editor for one day, although you seem to be fairly aware of how the system works. The information that you want to change appears to have been in the article for some time, and there does not appear to be an urgent need to implement your changes. Accordingly, you should calmly explain why the current text is unsatisfactory and why changes are needed at the article talk page. If, say, a few days of intermittent discussion do not resolve the issue, you can investigate dispute resolution. If you want my opinion on a procedural matter, please ask, but I have no expertise in the subject of the article and am unlikely to be much use with the content. Ultimately, material on Wikipedia is retained if it can be verified by reliable sources. Material which cannot be verified should be removed as a breach of no original research (but you need consensus to do that, possibly after dispute resolution). Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The falls claim in the Nair page stating that Nair are Kshatriyas, not Sudras continues there in the article for more than two years. I tried to explain a number of times.  Since the majority of editors are Nairs, they doesn't want to reveal the truth.  I am not an editor for one day.  This is a new identity created by me. The information that I wanted to change have been there in the article for more than two years.  But that information is wrong.  The editors wishes to propagate that wrong message. They will not allow anything against it.  Atleast making the article neutral is not allowed.  So there is an urgent need to implement my changes.  You may not have expertise in the subject, but I request you to go through the content, arguments in the talk page etc. and give your opinion.  It may be surprising for you that the reference quoted in the article now itslef clearly states that all nairs are not khstriyas.  In the Malabar Manual by William Logan (note: It is already there in the refernce list of Nair page) the term nayar is used almost as a synonym with term Sudra. (See page 92., page 239), and page 542.).  But the article claims that Nairs are Kshatriyas not Sudras.  Such a false claim started from the beginning of the birth of the article and still continues.  A lot of readers alreaded started believing this also. So there is an URGENT need of correction.  The present editors will not allow such a change.  They will continue reversion.  Also I wish to bring the fact that the term Malayala Kshatriya is coined by wikipedians only.  This is a fake terminology.  Keralites never used such a term to denote caste.  Anyway from now onwards I will proceed with editing in talk page.  I hope you can do something in making the article neutral.  Please take this as urgent.  Thank you Snnair (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are clearly concerned, yet the editors with a different opinion also have strong views. It is simply impossible in such a situation for anything to happen quickly. I strongly recommend that you express yourself calmly and do not suggest that the matter is "urgent", because that is one point that uninformed onlookers can see is wrong (there are some errors that need urgent correction in Wikipedia, mainly concerned with potential libel regarding living people, but a possible error in Nair is not urgent). While the issue in question may be important or even urgent to you, I am afraid that it does not have the same significance to other editors (if you look at WP:ANI you will see reports of many disputes everyday). I cannot get involved in the content dispute because of the difficulty of an outsider trying to understand the issues. Perhaps you could make a user subpage like User:Snnair/Nair and on that page make a section with the part of the current text that you want to remove, including any references. Then explain what the problem with the current text is. You could have another section with what you think the text should be, with some references and explanations. Link to your text from the article talk page, and investigate the options at WP:DR. I did have a quick look at the links in your above message, but for some reason each shows me the cover of a book rather than the particular page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to summarize a few things before moving this section to the Nair talk page.


 * By his own admission User:X has been indulging in vandalism on Nair article for the past 2 years by committing edit-war, POV pushing, name calling, adding defamatory information and section blanking.


 * Not satisfied with the results with his own original user account, User:X creates a sock puppet to use exclusively for vandalizing the Nair related articles


 * User:X tried to cheat other users by naming his sock "Snnair", threby trying to give an impression that he is a Nair (although we know from his last 2 years of editing that he is an Ezhava).


 * Immediately after creating his sock account, User:X tries to vandalize the Nair article by indulging in adding defamatory POV and removing well sourced paragraphs.


 * His sole aim for the last 2 years has been to slander the Nairs as "Sudra" ( a highly derogatory term, which if used in public would land the offender in prison). The colonial POV which he is siting is irrelevant and biased as can be seen from the consensus reached on the talk pages. For example, in the Judaism article, no one will add that "Jews were also known as Kik*s". Like this in the African-American page, no one will add that "African Americans are Negroes" just because they were known as such during the 19th century.


 * The points which he is repeatedly pointing out has been discussed in detail in the past, as can be seen from the archives on the talk page. But User:X has been unwilling to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.


 * The amount of abuse he is hurling at the Nair community is inflaming racial tensions and I sincerely advice User:X to target a particular ethnic group just because he does not like them.

There fore these are my suggestions to User:X -


 * You can create a user subpage and fill it with whatever pejoratives and vulgarities you like. You can read the "enlightened" article after every 5 minutes and get multiple orgasms by going through it.


 * You can concentrate more on articles related to your own ethnic group and stop targeting other ethnic groups.

Thanks. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Third rate behavior. It is not the sock puppetry which angers me. The fact that he disguised as a Nair to vandalise the Nair article is what making me crazy. What is the need for such cheating? See his edits here. There he says "I admit Nairs are Kshatriyas". Here he says something else. Also, I can see that he hurled personal abuse at the user who reverted his vandalism and vandalised his userpage. For a wikipedian who has been active for 2 years now, this sort of behavior is somewhat...... appalling.  Shannon1488 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The tolerance shown here towards Mr.SnEzhava is very surprising. He must have been banned a long time ago. On the other hand, I would like to state some important facts. In caste related discussions, opinion by Ezhavas are not widely sought after, as they are well known for Bhoshku parachil (slandering against higher castes). Things have progressed to such an extent that Bhoshku parachil, along with Pulabhyam vili and Pooram kali are now regarded as indigenous art forms of South Malabar and are patronized under both SNDP and CPI (M). 163.10.0.68 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear friends, I am user Snnair. I write this only because you are mistaken (Afterall the entire life is a collection of mistakes).  I am nithar an Ezhava nor the user referred by you people as user X.  I edited this article because I had my own genuine reasons.  I have no relation with user X.  I also noticed the edits by the person whom you are referring as user X. Dont think that I am the same person.  Anyhow, now I am using my account with sir name Nair.  because I found no alternative use for this sir name.  It neither helps me for my livelyhood nor for my status in society.  So why should I claim to be a Kshatriya.  Let the user X take your comments.  I am not that user.  Thank you for your comments.  Snnair (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.SN, I thought you will have atleast some minimum commonsense. After reading your comments here, will any sane person really believe that you are a Nair? Your plans were disastrous and idiotic from the very beginning. Hope you will learn from your mistakes next time. Also note one thing. Almost all the editors (including me) you will find here decided to join Wikipedia just because vandals like you were continuously abusing the Nair caste without any reason. If you refrain from such attacks it will be good for both of us, and if not, it is going to be bad for both of us. No one is going to gain anything by spreading communal hatred. And I don't think people will think positively of someone who frequently abuse others. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, Mr, it does not matter whether your are a Nair or a Pulaya. I have only one thing to say. Never under estimate your opponents. If you are still wondering why you were busted from the very beginning, I strongly advice you to read the posts you have made very carefully once more. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to the vandals targeting this article
Since Ezhavas are targeting this article without any provocation, I'd suggest adding the following facts to the Ezhava article:


 * State that Ezhavas are Untouchables (Avarna) in the introductory paragraph. Ezhavas were not allowed within 24 feet of a Nair and 36 feet of a Nambuthiri. See the following reference:

"in the presence of a Namboodiri (Brahmin) an Ezhava ( an untouchable ) had to stand 36 feet away and in the presence of a Nair (Kshatriya) he had to stand 24 feet away" - Google Ebook 1

If you doubt about the validity of this reference, you can search in the net about Dr. K.P. Bhagat. He was the former principal of the Hislop Education Society. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * State that the major occupation of the Ezhavas were Arrack brewing and toddy trapping.

Google Ebook 2

I'll give more references later. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)