Talk:Nair/Archive 14

Misinformation campaign
It is noted that User:CarTick is targeting this article with his POV pushing and misinformation campaign. I urge the users here to check his edit history in Nair and Nadar pages. 203.180.31.94 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to diffs of this alleged POV pushing, to prove what you're saying? Silver  seren C 17:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at his edit history on Nair. Not even one edit is positive. Each and every edit is made trying to portray the community in a bad light. At the same time he is busy adding false info glorifying the Nadar community. I urge the admins to control this guy before the Nairs get offended. Note that CarTick himself wrote the Polyandry in India article. I became aware  of the fighting here after reading an Orkut post. Stop this before this gets worse. Donkey999 (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except the Polyandry in India article is completely valid and rather well-referenced. Silver  seren C 17:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that the article is not referenced. The problem is when a user uses certain irrelevant points to attack another community. To tell the complete story, the practice of polyandry amongst Nairs is a very controversial topic. Some scholars argue that it existed, while some others argue that it was nonexistent and the former misunderstood the complex social practices prevalent during that time. Donkey999 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, clearly, both sides of that issue need to be stated in the article, with adequate referencing for both. Silver  seren C 18:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some advice for you, since you seem to be a new user, please try and not call other users names or insult them, like you did there at the end. We have a no personal attacks policy. Silver  seren C 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry for that. Donkey999 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to fight Nadar POV warriors when I created Upper cloth revolt and was featured in DYK. That article was offensive to Nadars. you will see that in the article's talk page when I used to be User:Docku. I gave up fighting on that article and it is completely altered now by POV pushers. The problem is that what is factual, notable and academically interesting to a group of people is offensive to some. These interesting information will always be unreachable to wikipedia readers unless wikipedia changes the way it works now where a dedicated group of people with strong POV can have their way. -- Car Tick  18:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

this is what happens when people use google scholar to push their POV and biases and try to be wannabe ethnographers.silver seren there is an excellent and rather lengthy description of this complex social practice of nairs which was limited to the aristocratic clans in a thesis of Kathleen Gough in the harvard university library.though i doubt if it is available online.when i was there at widener few years back i had to obtain prior permission to read it and i could only go through half of it.if anyone lives in the U.S. right now or has access to them can help.also i agree a separate article on this subject is very relevant since this practice doesn't exactly fit the textbook definition of Polyandry since the relations were never stable as nair women had the right to divorce. Linguistic ''' Geek 06:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * well, there is a difference between google and google scholar. JSTOR is even different. how interesting, you say exactly the same thing that the existence of polyandry is controversial and debated as I have proposed to include earlier and yet you wouldnt want to include it including the lead. why do you keep suggesting ways to keep the information out (apart from a fly-by mention of the word) instead of modifying the text in a way you think is appropriate. Kathleen Gough is not the only person ever discussed about Nair polyandry. FYI, unpublished thesis is less reliable than published articles.
 * I agree with you Nair polyandry is more complex and was not practiced by everyone. There were different types in different parts of modern kerala. I am listing some of the peer-reviewed publications below (not only Kathleen Gough). These references are more reliable than most used presently in the article. -- Car Tick  20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bhrashtu, by Maadampu Kunjukuttan Namboothiri, as you all know, is centred on the circumstances which led to Smaartha Vicharam culminating in the ritual divestment of caste or Bhrashtu of Kuriyedathu Thaatri or Savitri, (the much-wronged,beautiful and scholarly Namboothiri woman from an Illam in Central Kerala). The book relates incidents of the early decades of the twentieth century. Apart from the literary merit, the book has great relevance as an authentically reconstructed record of the customs of the upper class society of Kerala then. The relevance of recalling the book here is that it portrays accurately the polyandrous cult prevalent in the Royal Family of Cochin at the time, though such polyandry was confined to matrimony with Namboothiri men alone. (The custom was known as Koottirippu- literal translation being keeping or providing company- and the opportunity for such liason was eagerly sought by men from impoverished illams or Malayala Brahmin households.)Thus, the custom was not unique to Nairs, and was practised at length by the aristocracy -barring the (polygamous)Malayala Brahmins in whose case even the widows did not have the right to remarry. As has been discussed several times in these pages earlier, several warrior communities (Kshatriya), like the Nairs, were polyandrous, possibly because frequent internecine warfare reduced considerably the average life expectancy of the menfolk.Bhattathirippadu (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since User CarTick is using the half baked truths to tarnish the Nair community, I don't think he will respond to this positively. And as far as I know, of the Royal households, only the Brahminized ones (Samanta Kshatriyas) resorted to polyandry with Nambuthiris. The Samanthan Nair clans like the Travancore Royal family were following strictly singular marital unions. Also, the type of marriage varied from place to place, not from caste to caste. To say that polyandry was practised mainly by Nairs is pure rubbish. Ezhavas, Arayars and Kammalars were practicing it. Almost 90% of the population practiced either polygamy or polyandry.
 * "Indeed, polyandry had prevailed until very recent times in Kerala. It was customary amongst the blacksmiths and carpenters for a number of brothers to have one wife. There were places where this was prevalent among the Ezhavas".
 * "Of the 600 families studied from this village in Kerala, 6 families were practising polyandry. Of them, there are three Ezhavas".
 * "In a message to the SNDP Yogam in 1908 he said that polyandry and polygamy practised by some Ezhavas should be strictly forbidden."
 * So evidence shows three things (1) Nairs were not the major practitioners of polyandry. (2) Polyandry was not something which was unique to any particular caste in Kerala. (3) CarTick's own Ezhava-Nadar caste were the major practitioners of polyandry in Kerala, and practiced it till the early 20th century.
 * Even after users pointing out these facts, User CarTick has so far refused to listen to them. Using polyandry as a tool by OBCs to tarnish Nairs is like a completely blind person trying to mock a myopic one for his visual handicap. Robynhood.Pandey (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It would be wrong to conclude that the lower castes were all strictly monogamous! It cannot be true. The problem here is the absence of recorded evidence, since the unfortunate occupants of the lower orders in caste hierarchy and the outcastes never courted enough attention so that there could be chronicles proper of their social behaviour. (I wish one did not sound impolite.) The poor things were exposed to the vagaries of the economy, again determined by the oppressive system, and probably could not have much of a say in choosing this class of sexual union or that. However, it is well known that Kammalars (Karuvan?)and Ezhavas practised polyandry.

While on the subject I would also like to draw attention to the matriarchal system in the Cochin Royal Family, wherein the Amma Thampuraan or the senior matriarch- often the Valiya Thampuraan's sister-, ran the household and would hand-pick the prospective Koottirippu for her daughters and nieces from a number of aspirants.The koottirippu had to be solemnised, at times, by the Valiya Thampuran or King who would also regularise the benefits and allowances drawn from the Royal Treasury on this count. The important thing to note is that the Amma Thampuran's decisions in the matter prevailed, whereas the Netyaramma or the King's Nair Consort had little or no say in the matter. (In fact the latter's role was confined to attending to the Valiya Thampuran, on whose demise, the Netyaramma and her brood would have to leave the palace for good!) The comparison with Nair matriarchy is striking, and lends credence to the contention that the Royales of Kerala evolved from prominent Nair families.

Did the princesses of the Travancore Royal Clan follow strictly singular marital unions? Perhaps. However, the position of Koyithampurans- generally princes from Kilimanoor and Mavelikkara who married the Travancore Princesses- was often precarious, since the matriarchal traditions of the Royales predominated.There were even instances of Koyithampurans being kept under House arrest.(Was it during the reign of Regent Sethulakshmi Bai?)

To sum up, granted the governance of the region was through a ruling elite of matriarchal households, it was not surprising that polyandry was very much part of the system.Bhattathirippadu (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for both Bhattathirippadu and Robinhood for discussing valuable points here. I'd like to add a few more. As per customs which were prevalent in pre-independent Kerala, the castes who practiced polyandry as a rule were the lowest layer of Caste-Hindu population. This was necessitated by the practice of morganatic marriage and matriarchy. These castes were Kammalars, Thachans.etc. But sections among Samantha Kshatriyas and Illathu Nairs also practiced polyandry, which was mostly fueled by financial concerns, although these cases were too few (Nambuthiris engaged in polyandrous marital unions with ruling families for getting dowry). Polyandry was widely practiced among Ezhavas of Travancore, while Thiyya of Malabar were polygamous.


 * Taking a look at the system of morganatic marriage prevailed in Kerala, it is not difficult to find out why polyandry was practiced. Aphan Nambuthiri married multiple Nambuthiri women (often 70 and 80 year old men married teenage girls). Other Nambuthiri men married Ambalavasi / Illathu Nair / Samantha Kshatriya women, which resulted in a lack of availability of women in these castes for their men. Since widow remarriage is prohibited for them, the polygamous Nambuthiri women produced a very small number of children and their population declined (currently 0.3% of Keralites). Illathu Nair men engaged in marital union with Swaroopathil women. Samantha Kshatriyas did the same with Unnithans / Valiathans, while Samanthan Nairs of North married Nambiars and those in the South married Thampis. For Ambalavasis, since they were vegetarian and having less power compared to Illathu Nairs (the other vegetarian caste) the shortage of women remained a big problem and this resulted in the decline of their population (Currently 0.2% of Keralites). Now the middle ranking castes (Swaroopathil, Padamangalam.etc) had to marry women outside their caste (often Nair Inferior, i.e castes like Pallichan, Chakkala.etc). Here the problem arises. The Nair inferior population is much less than the martial Nair population. Since there were too few women available, castes from Chakkala onwards began to practice polyandry.


 * You are right in saying that marriage customs among the lower castes are not much documented. But valuable information can be obtained from Barbosa's works. See the 3rd paragraph here and here-1st Para states that Shanars (he states that they are same as Thiyyas) didn't engaged in any form of marriage and details of their unions are given. Francois Pyrard also states the same here-2nd Para. In The book of Duarte Barbosa, it is stated that no marital unions, either polygamous or monogamous were prevalent among them here. He there states that morganatic marriage existed between Nair men and Caleti (Chaliya) women.


 * And I don't think this was confined only to Hindus. Here is what Dr.Francis Day says about the origin of Moplahs.


 * Also, one should take a look at what Barbosa wrote about the Shanar women here-1st Para. He states that almost all of them either practiced either polygamy or polyandry. Polygamy was practiced by richer sections who could afford expensive marital unions. The poorer men (usually brothers) shared the women, since they couldn't afford the expenses. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

section break
All right gentlemen. i discern from your comments that we all are in agreement that polyandry existed among Nairs. Please be aware that this talk page can be used only for the improvement of Nair page and feel free to take your discussion to relevant talk pages to discuss polyandry among Ezhavas or Shanars. Make sure you have more than one reliable source which says so. It certainly is an interesting discussion how polyandry originated and existed only in some socalled upper castes like Nairs and some so called lower castes like Todas. I am not sure what is the purpose of the discussion here. If you are guys just chatting, please take your chatting to your personal talk pages or blogs. please read WP:NOTBLOG. Please also remember the talk pages are meant for the improvement of the articles, Talk page guidelines. If the eventual goal is to improve the article by including a text as to how polyandry originated among Nairs, I am looking forward to it. I will also look for references and sure will help you guys. i remember some of the references i have listed below touch that topic. -- Car Tick  00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid using the imperative, Car Tick. It's quite impolite to do so. Pulayan Punchapadam (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I request Mr.Bhattathirippadu to consider this. Literal meaning of 'polyandry' as per the Oxford English Dictionary is 'The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time '. (poly= many and andre (greek) = male). In other words, a woman who discontinues a relationship with one male and carries on with another cannot be polyandrous, since she's not having more than one husband at the same time. Such a situation applies in the case of Koottirippu that you have cited as having been practised by the Royal Ladies of Cochin or the custom of Sambandham in which ladies from aristocratic Nair families had the freedom to select mates of their choice from Nair or upper castes. Neither of these conforms to the definition of polyandry above.(As the story goes, if the Nair lady decided to transfer loyalties to another favourite of hers, the rejected lover would find his rival's 'Methiyadi' or footwear outside the bedroom! The relationship that began with a formal gift of 'Mundu' and 'Neriyathu' to his beloved, comes to an end, then and there!) Well, as far as I understand, if such a relationship is classified as polyandry all post-divorce marital lives of modern day ladies too would have to be termed polyandrous. The custom of polyandry did exist among the Tibetans, Todas and certainly among the lower orders of society in several castes including the Nairs, when several men (generally not exceeding two),brothers or unrelated, maintained a common wife, presumably driven to do so for reasons of economy or undivided landed property. In fact, the custom does exist in the mainstream society of Western UttarPradesh, Punjab and Haryana albeit in an unofficial manner so that one does not come across documented cases of polyandry -except under risk of injury to the person of the 'investigator'. I would still like to know whether anyone here has researched into this matter and can cite references.86.155.192.27 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a strong case there, in the assertion that the matrimonial practices under consideration do not qualify for being classified as polyandrous, in the strict sense of the term. Accordingly, a reference to polyandry can be made in the article only if there was a statistically significant number of cases of a woman cohabiting with many males at the same time (as an accepted social norm). The question is, where to look for such data. Are the references cited based on objective evidence? If not, are there ways and means of gathering such evidence? Also, it is worth reviewing published opinions, if any, of celebrated anthropologists like Claude Levi Strauss and Elias Canetti ( Literature Nobel winning author of 'Crowds and Power') on the marital alliances and culture of Malabar, and on polyandry in general.Bhattathirippadu (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * unfortunately we are not allowed to make WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. it doesnt matter even if we all disagree whether it fits the precise definition of polyandry. Please see the references below, there are multiple peer-reviewed articles that call it polyandry. -- Car Tick  20:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is talking of original research here? As far as I understand, Bhattathirippadu was suggesting inclusion of additional references, albeit more authentic. I would also like to know what's 'peer reviewed'. One of the references cited below runs like this: Although I have never met a Nayar woman whom I have definitely known to be polyandrous, I heard, from Nayar, of several cases of non-fraternal polyandry in recent times both from Wallu- vanad and from the Trichur taluk of Cochin- in other words the author makes a statement that 's founded on hearsay!

There are thousands of research papers and articles published every day. I am not sure whether each and every one of these would qualify as authentic resource for an encyclopaedia. As Bhattathirippadu has suggested, it is important to review opinions of distinguished anthropologists of Claude Levi Strauss's standing. It is also important to review research material produced closer home. What'll suffer otherwise is the credibility of the article.S R K MENON (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peer review. In summary, in academia and research, when people do research and write an article, they send it to journals for publication. The journals will then send the article to several peers in the same field who will review the article for novelty, accuracy, and several other parameters. The article can be published only if the experts decide that the article meets all the criteria. JSTOR maintains archive of several of such academically published articles from many journals. All the references i have cited below are from such academic journals and archived in JSTOR. This itself gives it a great level of credibility as opposed to a lot of the books often published by publishers who pays no or little attention to accuracies. Again, not all books are bad. There are several publishing companies which have a reputation for fact checking. Websites are even worse, they have no academic oversight whatsover.
 * I dont have a problem including multiple viewpoints from notable anthropologists including Claude Levi Strauss. Please prepare a text and propose here and we will include it in the article. -- Car Tick  20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonder what people are trying to prove here. To get to the source of truth, do you need to dig into so many research books and find out whether a custom was 'really' practiesd in old malayalam countries. In this case, the best way to prove is to talk to the community members. There are millions of them, and find out whether any of them or their last 4 generations have read/wrote/heard/practised such a thing. In the case of Todas and other such communities, it is still prevelent and everyone knows it. But why the million plus nair community mebers today (forget about practising, haven't even heard of such a thing in the past. Then there is something distroted, probably the definition. As far as I know (having known many 3-4 generations of Nairs), the so called "polyandry" practised among Nairs was quite different from the definition. The Nair women had the authority to accept or reject men at their disposal by accepting a 'mundu' or reject by throwing away their methiyadi. This started sometime during the 100 years of Chola war, due to the heavy loss of men folk. However the relations were sequential. Once a warrior leave his home, noone knows whether he is alive or will ever come back and hence the ladies had the freedom to choose another man. There were rare cases when the soldier returns. Also certain rituals like chid marriage practised among Nairs and Chekava Thiyas, were mistaken as polyandry as the women on attaining puberty married someone other than the 'child husband', all these would have amounted to 'polyandry' for a western researcher.Finally I don't think this disputed item requires so much of imporatance in the main article. The article is about Nairs and not about 'polyandry' (to include multiple viewpoints) whatever is already mentioned in the article looks fair enough. - Sudheer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Abolutely so. The article is not about polyandry. Is there a need to provide a link to the polyandry website? Is it done in the Wiki/ online articles on every community in the world which the 'researchers' have defined as polyandrous? The norm the less said the better applies to Wiki articles also. That is to say, when you are not sure about a thing, save grace and do not mention it.Bhattathirippadu (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * you may find a needle in a haystack, but don't call the haystack a needle store, clubbing the polyandry page to this article is unacceptable since polyandry or the exact form in which it existed is not established seamlessly. Even the reference shown here is not convincing "heard from a nayar" is definitely not encyclopedic stuff. If added, the loser will be the authenticity of the page and no one else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.206.28 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand polyandry being practised by the agricultural societies in Western UP and Haryana, where the sex ratio is abysmally distorted, one reason being female foeticide carried to the extreme. In fact Haryanvi men are taking brides from Northern Kerala. The situation in our state is quite the reverse. Penmalayalam as the Tamils would put it, had no dearth of female charms from times imemmorial. Under these circumstances one would not be surprised if polygamy was rampant, and it has been so, as a matter of course, all the while. After all, the Nair male shown the door by his beloved would not vacillate (whatever would have been the root cause for such rejection) forever and would soon find another girl to live with. Polygamy was the norm in rural and urban Kerala at least during the last two generations- a fact that I can personally vouch for, from a consideration of my own family history. The question remains: why does n't the article include a pointer to the Wiki site on polygamy, just as it celebrates Nair Polyandry by means of a much touted link?

As another user has pointed out earlier, why do our editors target the Wiki article on Nairs alone?

Shariat or Islamic Law allows a Muslim male to marry four times- a clear case of Polygamy. Have n't any Wiki editors obsessed with Polyandry and Polygamy heard of this? If so why don't they make haste and add the necessary links to the Islamic websites?

When you want to be nasty, and has found it's possible to get away with being nasty, -particularly since all the action here's confined to the annonymity of Cyber World, you would stretch the limits of possibilities, am I right?

I wish people had better things to do! Thankappan Pillai (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I can see from the arguments is that there is an unanimous agreement here that polyandry is not noticeable enough to mention in this article . Therefore, I am removing the link from the page. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * it is all anonymous editors. it could all be the same editors. please read Meat. removal will be reported. -- Car Tick  03:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think anyone is using more than one account, then proceed to Sockpuppet investigations. People here are tired of your POV pushing and I don't see a single editor here supporting your bad faith edits. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * all are single purpose accounts and appear to have been off-wiki canvassed. -- Car Tick  04:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everyone who is arguing against you are socks. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * or meats. -- Car Tick  04:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove your allegation or face the consequences. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Wars
Since there is no other solution, let the admins take a decision. See: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nairs and Nadars
It may be interesting to investigate the relative social standing and relationship of Nairs and Nadars, two prominent communities of South Travancore. It is notable that men from both castes were experts in Kalaripayattu of the southern genre. However, Nairs alone served in the Travancore Army for several Centuries, though there are instances of Nairs and the princes of the Travancore Royal Family employing the services of a Nadar Martial arts expert as trainer and physician (marmaani).Perhaps the Nadars must have joined cause with Marthanda Varma during the civil war of the early 18th Century, and it has always occurred to me that CV's (C V Raman Pillai)Bhranthan Channan or Anantha Padmanabhan in disguise, who fights the Ettuveedan Nairs brought out the true tensions in society then. As Nadars were confined to the lower echelons of the Hindu fold, it was rather an easy task for the Christian Missionaries to gather them into the Gospel's Way, so that 90 % of the Nadar community today are Christians. The estrangement, however, did a wealth of good to the Nadar community during British rule that elevated several among them through education and professional training to prominent roles in society.The vast majority remained poor though, and were largely subservient to the Nairs.The tensions between the two communities escalated, however, during the formation of the Kerala State in 1956, when Kanyakumari was conceded to Tamilnadu. It is said that thousands of Nadars had to leave their homeland in Kerala, dead or alive by the truck load, as a result of a hasty repatriation programme authored by Pattom Thanu Pillai, Chief Minister.Pichaiyan Nadar (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr.Nadar, are you having any psychiatric issues? To say something like "Pattom Thanu Pillai deported thousands of Nadars" and "Thousands of Nadars dead or alive by Truckload were forced out of Kerala" is something only people with serious mental issues would say. Do you have any idea about the history of Travancore? If all the Nadars were killed or deported, then how come they became the second largest community in Trivandrum district after the Nairs? Even the Ezhavas number less than Nadars in the district. As a former resident of North Travancore, I am unaware of any Nair-Nadar tensions which had arisen during 1956. Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress clashed with the Travancore Police and a few dozen people died. Terming it as a Nair-Nadar clash would mean that all the Keralites are Nairs and all the Tamils are Nadars. "Thousands of Nadars dead by truckloads"..... talk about a genocide or better..... a "HOLOCAUST" now. Robynhood.Pandey (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nairs and Parasuraman
It is stated under 'Theories of Origin' that ''Nairs (Nagars) are the descendants of the serpent caste soldiers sent by the Nāga Kingdom for taking part in the battle at Kurukshetra during Mahabharatha (Sources list a total of eight serpents - Vasuki, Ananta, Takshak, Sangapala, Gulika, Mahapadma, Sarkota and Karkotaka. Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is of special significance to the Nairs as it is believed to be the abode of Ananta and Nairs claim special powers due to the temple[21][22]). After the war, they encountered Parasurama who vowed to exterminate the Nāgas, since they were Kshatriya. The Nāgas transformed themselves to humans, ripped off their sacred chords, and fled the battlefield.''

Now, Parasuraman is an Avatar of Vishnu that appeared in the Treta Yug, whereas the Battle of Kurukshetra mentioned in the Mahabharata took place in the Dwapara Yug when Lord Krishna- the much adored Yadava Chief and adept lover who was also euologised as an avatar of Vishnu and included in the Hindu pantheon of gods,- had his sway. Parasuram 's vow to exterminate the Kshatriyas and its eventual execution are legends from Treta Yuga. This being the case, how can the Nagas- who, as is claimed, were to transform themselves to Nairs sooner or later- have a meeting with Parasuraman after the battle?

(Parasuraman is not a Chiranjeevi like Hanuman, Asvatdhama and other dignitaries whose ife spans, according to mythology, extend to the end of Kalpa or Kalpaanthakalam) Kamamohini Mathews Kamathipura (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Both are different events and you are confusing users by using them together. Mahabharatha war happened during Dwapara Yuga. During Dwapara Yuga, Lord Arjuna destroyed Khandava forest, the original Naga kingdom. A few Nagas who managed to escape found their own small kingdoms, like Takshasila (established by Takshak). Serpents like Vasuki and Anantha (Adisesha) migrated southwards to meet Lord Vishnu, while some others like Takshak migrated towards North to meet Lord Siva. L Krishna Iyer in his book Social History of Kerala mentions of a small Nair clan in Mannarasala, who till today claims that they are the descendants of Vasuki (another serpent god). The Naga kingdom of Ahikshetra participated in the Mahabharatha war and fought on the Kaurava side. They were defeated and were forced to migrate southwards and probably founded the kingdom of Nayarkhanda (Prakrit name for Nagarkhanda). The extermination of vedic Kshatriyas happened later, but the exact time period is unknown. Parasurama exterminated the male Kshatriyas 21 times starting in the Dwapara Yuga, and finishing in Treta Yuga (link). And there is a doubt that Brahmins invented this story to argue that there are no more Kshatriyas left on earth. Kshatriya.Knight (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement 'later in Treta Yuga' is wrong, since Treta Yuga precedes Dwapara Yuga. The order is Satya, Treta, Dwapara and Kali- there are four of them. It was in Treta Yuga that Parasurama is supposed to have lived, and that 's in a period before the Mahabharata and not after. My question remains unanswered. I request Mr.Bhattathirippad to comment on this. Kamamohini Mathews Kamathipura (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving a reason to interfere in this topic

Before all, the names of Eight serpents which is to be in theories of origin are ANANTHA, VASUKI, PADMANAABHA, KAMBALA, SHANGHAPAALA, DHAARTHARASHTRA, THAKSHAKA, AND KAALIYA. The sanskrit sloka from Bhagavatha purana is cited at archive 13, section 6; in the discussions. The beginning of Serpent dynasty is not from mahabharatha. It is one point among many where nagavanshi clan get their reference.

Next, let us consider the discussion topic

following is the sanskrit sloka which states the names of seven chiranjeevis

अश्वत्थामा बली व्यासो हनुमान च विभीषण:

कृप: परशुरामश्च सप्तैते चिरञ्जीविन:

Ashwatdhama Bali Vyaso Hanuman cha Vibheeshana: Kripa: Parasuraamascha sapthaithe chiranjeevina:

therefore Parasurama comes under the description of chiranjeevi we can verify this with any brahmin pandit

let us consider the matter in an analytical way

1st point is chronological order of indian system of time.

That is krithayuga, threthayuga, dwaparayuga, and kaliyuga

each yuga is comprised of multiples of 420000 years

kritayuga is      420000*4=1680000

thretayuga is     420000*3=1260000

dwaparayuga is    420000*2=840000

kaliyuga is       420000*1=420000

therefore in total one mahayuga is 4200000(42 lac) human years

According to astronomical calculations the yoga alignment of nine celestial bodies have been found on BC 3102 February 17th Saturday, this says kaliyuga has started on BC3102. Other archeological and astronomic evidences say that the kurukshetra battle has taken place around BC3140. Now see the difference of time to connect with thretayuga and kaliyuga. So we can conclude Parasurama's personality as a puranic imaginary personality or otherwise a series of real persons having similar charecteristics and has been elevated as Parasurama. The second option among these does have some valid consideration. The fourth point I am discussing here will give some light over this regard.

2nd point is, the puranaanas and ithihaasas say that Parasurama came to SriRaama(threthayuga) at the occasion of Seethaswayamvaram also, and Parasurama couldnt do anything there. At mahabharatha era (dwaparayuga), Parasurama countered with Bheeshma according to princess Amba's marriage issue. In this occasion Parasurama used Brahmastra against Bheeshma and Bheeshma has taken down Brahmastra with a weapon called Praswaapanaastra. Here also Parasurama couldnt do anything. The point is that Parasuraama is not described as an unbeatable person anywhere.

3rd point is, Parasuraama's father is brahmin and mother is kshatriya. According to the inheritance laws followed by prominent brahmin gothras, if any of the spouse belongs to neechavarna then the child also would be considered as the lower sect among the two. The practice which namboodiri brahmins adapted by means of marriage with nair woman is the best evidence. The children are considered as saamanthakshatriya, not brahmin. Therefore how to rebut that Parasurama is not kshatriya. And there is an occasion in Mahabharatha, just after Kurukshetra battle, Dharmaputra says to Krishna that he is the cause of death of thousands of warriors, so he wanted to giveup his worldly life and wanted to pursue a sage's life. Krishna replied if you are giving up your responsibilities after this great war, you are committing adharma and if you rule the land which the battle has affected, the sin for killing these many people will not affect you. These are the words from SriKrishna. We know Parasurama never ruled any region. And another point for nairs, Parasurama's brothers gave their life for saving their mother and Parasurama saved his life by killing his mother.

the 4th point is little more important according to the existence of Parasurama

Parasurama has done his martial academics from Agasthya Rishi. He began to utilize his warrior abilities against kings with reason. Where ever he went he won the battle because of his expertise in weapons, except the south part of Kerala. At Thiruvananthapuram, he has been defeated and captured by Pallichal Pillai warriors taking care not to bleed any drop of blood of a Brahmin - there are two great houses with name vilangaruthala and Kattaamam still today.

Vilangaruthala means "vilangu-handcuff", "aruthala - has broken", he was again captured by the nair family at Kottaamam and they fastened him with a rope made with 'hay'. "Katta" means rope made from haystack and "aamam means handcuff".

After this again Parasurama was released - as he claimed to be Brahmin, nairs were not able to execute or punish Parasurama. Again in far south of Kerala after 12 kms from Pallichal, the places (1).Dhanuvachapuram, (2).Vaalvachakoshtam, (3).Parasuvaykal (4).Idichakkaplamoodu (5).and another Kattaamam again are there even today as main town centers. Around these places, the warriors from Kurunkutti Nair family has obstructed him again. After heavy struggle, the nair warriors snatched his Dhanu (dhanu - the weapon bow) at Dhanuvachapuram, he again has been released because of being Brahmin. He made fight challenges at the place Valvachakoshtam, the in-land warriors snatched his sword at that place(vaal-sword, vacha-surrendered, koshtam-place). Parasurama came back to a nearby place to Dhanuvachapuram, called "Idichakkaplamoodu" at that place Nair warriors captured him and beaten with idichakka (a kind of small jackfruit, it has thorns but it will not cause bleeding). After these much events Nair lords convinced Parasurama to surrender by himself and there he surrendered his master weapon "Parasu The Great Axe", this place is known as "ParasuVaykal." Parasu means Axe and Vaykal means surrendering. All the above mentioned places are existing and are well known Nair dominant areas in Thiruvananthapuram. Countable reasonablenesses are following: 1.Nairs are also having the proficiency in martial arts directly from Agasthya Rishi, 2.Nairs are very sensitive to their relationship with mother and Parasurama was known for his matricide. Upto the period of enactment of Land Reforms act, general transfer of property and inheritance laws for Hindu communities, Nairs were following strict matriarchial family system and matrilineal inheritance.

Also we may consider an event in purana where Parasurama goes to Shiva and counters with Ganesha, there he breaks one tusk of Ganesha and Parvathi Devi was about to finish Parasurama and the matter was settled by surrendering the Great Axe before Parvathi Devi. We should not map the puranic stories with actual events. This is why puranas are treated as stories only.

It 's okay if Parasuraman is a Chiranjeevi too. Thanks for the sloka. Kamamohini Mathews Kamathipura (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

VikruAliyan Kalakki. Enthoram vivaravaa! Aliyanenna,Alpam 'Veesi'yechaanno kayariye, internetilottu?Kochu Thomman Kottappadi (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

socks blocked
,, and  have been blocked as socks. Using socks and meats to do off-wiki Canvassing to sway consensus is not acceptable in wikipedia.-- Car Tick  12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
In the ANI, user CarTick ran away from each one of the questions asked by other users. There was no consensus reached there. Also, I think if a POV tag is needed, then it should be added by an Admin, not someone with a strong bias like CarTick. Therefore I am removing the tag. If admins think the tag is needed, then they can add it. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents - Shannon1488 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vekramaditya 20:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

compromise
From ANI thread. I hope you guys read and understood the comments by User:TFOWR. i would recommend we do the following


 * 1) Though this article Nair ceremonies and customs exists, a small paragraph summarising the contents needs to be included in the main article. If a section is split from the original article, a summary section should be left in the original ("main") article
 * 2) The summary section can include the different types of marriages historically practiced by Nairs. -- Car Tick  18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Polyandry
Discuss whether we should keep the link related to polyandry in the article or not. In my opinion, the link is not relevant to the article and should be removed. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i hope u understood what User:TFOWR meant. -- Car Tick  18:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I well understood what he meant. I don't think u did the same. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * so, what did u understand? i wrote what i understood in my previous section. -- Car Tick  18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you behave in the same arrogant and rude way, then there will be no compromise. I am trying for a compromise here and if you don't want that, then start the edit wars all over again. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * what is your compromise? remove all reference to Polyandry? -- Car Tick  18:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the admins asked for a compromise, I have temporarily added back the link to polyandry. But it is for users to decide whether the link should stay there or not. If you are having any problems with that, then you are free to quit. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * removing the link is not a compromise. it is having your way. The compromise would be 1) how much detail needs to be included 2) mentioning that it was not practicied by all people (percentage) 3) mentioning that it does not exist any more 4) are there other viewpoints about what many academics call polyandry. -- Car Tick  18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am telling you again. If majority of the users feels that the link is appropriate, then it will stay here. And you are not going to dictate things here. If you are here for a compromise, then listen to what others say. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i am not going to abide by "majoity" of users who are going to soon join here by orkut invitation. i know you have made up your mind that you can sway consensus by "number" at the end of the day. if you are going to remove the link, please add the POV tag and i will start the RFC. -- Car Tick  18:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to remove the link (remembering you once again, it was me who added the link). If users here reach a consensus on removing the link, then it will be done after informing an admin and getting his permission. Anyway reaching a consensus will take some time (2-3 days) and I think it will be better to wait till then for your POV tag. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you don't stop throwing mud at me by making false accusations, I will be forced to complain to the admins about personal attacks. Shannon1488 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread
Below my comments are the responses from two uninvolved administrators after the ANI thread. Link here.


 * 1) User:EdJohnston also thinks that there appears to be off-site canvassing and suggests we work out what needs to be added in the talk page by WP:RFC.
 * 2) User:DGG says "I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV."

I am going to add a POV tag until a solution can be worked out here. Inaapropriate comments by anonymous socks, meats and single purpose accounts will be reported to administrators. -- Car Tick  12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. -I am surprised a comment such a this is made by  DGG. What does he mean by those who know a very little about Nairs, know about this? How does he hope to substantiate a statement such as this? (Through peer reviewed references, again?)This is the traditional position taken by people (Ezhavas, Pulayas, Christians and the like) who poke fun at Nairs and their custom of Sambandham. I do not know whether  DGG belongs to one of these. It's immaterial, though. What 's most alarming is the fact that  DGG holds responsibilities of Administrator, impartial investigator etc. It 's my considered opinion that it 's not befitting for people who occupy such positions in Wikipedia to make offhand remarks like this and continue to function as Administrators, Investigators, Arbitrators etc.86.138.58.157 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, no, the issue of polyandry being removed from this article is common-knowledge that has been going on for quite a while, that's what he meant. Furthermore, it is indeed common knowledge that Nairs practiced polyandry, which isn't a bad thing (which I hope you aren't trying to imply). The constant removal of it from this page is indeed a violation of NPOV, because it is something that should be mentioned. DGG is one of the best administrators on the project and I would ask that you look at his comments with that in mind and try to not immediately assume bad faith. Silver  seren C 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling that users Car Tick and Siver Seren are socks. Can someone investigate?Pulayan Punchapadam (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why Nair not allowed to come within 108 feet?
unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.139.142 (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

second ANI thread
Link to the first comment made by User:TFOWR.

This is the link where User:TFOWR commented second time quoting User:DGG and User:EdJohnston's comments. Following is the last part of his comment. --CarTick (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Scale
I would rather ignore the foregoing discussions centred on the 'link' as another case of 'Much a Do About Nothing'. I have maintained all the while that there was n't really a need for such a 'link'; however I do not have the time to spend on pursuing the matter; nor do I believe it 's worth the while to engage 'adversaries' from the internet suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder about denigrating Nairs and other upper castes. That said, I would draw the Editors' attention to the fact that the article on Nairs is still classed as 'B-Graded'on the quality scale, in spite of it that there have been numerous editors over the years, i.e. since 2004/2005. Why so? What 's to be done so that the quality of the article can be improved? On the first place, what makes it B-Graded? What's lacking, in other words? What are the attributes of an A-Graded article? How can we go about improving? I am sure that my friends here will not disagree if I state that improving the article is the avowed objective of the discussion pages. It is high time, therefore, that we gave a thorough review of the article's contents, and take upon ourselves the task of bringing about changes for the better.Thankappan Pillai (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this view.

Above view insult car Tick sir only. Edit no good only? Car Tick Sir things good change.No insult Car Tick Sir.Poonkothai Moonchulingam Nadaar (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been suggested and proposed for importance assessment. I have placed to top-importance tag for the article along with Indian history work group tag. The disputed link has been removed for this purpose.


 * I have fixed the importance scale for the article. The article importance for different project varies, Mid importance for WikiProject India (India as a whole) & Indian history, But Top importance for WikiProject Kerala.  The quality scale of any article is like Stub->Start->B->GA->A->FA . There is a formal review for any quality assessment for GA ( Good Article ) or above. See if the article matches Good article criteria of Wikipedia. If yes, please nominate it as per the instructions on the page.  --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Regret having to point out that there are several inconsistencies in the article on Nairs and those on other communities. For example, a statement in the main article here is It is not clear whether the Cheras themselves were Nairs, or if the Cheras employed the Nairs as a warrior class.[48].

At the same time the Wiki article on Ezhavas say They (i.e Ezhavas, are considered to be descendants of Villavar the founders of ancient Tamil Chera Dynasty who once ruled parts of southern India. . [No reference] How do these statements compare? The logical conclusion would be that Nairs were in the employ of the Ezhava Cheras. One wonders why there was a change in the scenario, sooner or later.

Similiarly, Wiki Ezhava Article contains the statement that ''Ezhava folk songs, the Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, described military exploits of Ezhava heroes. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin.[20][21][22], whereas the Nair Wiki Article declares Only Nairs were recruited into the Thiruvithamkoor Nair Pattalam (Travancore State Nair Army), until 1935 when non-Nairs were admitted.[21]''. Does it mean that the Ezhava claims are false?

Also, the statement in Nair Wiki Article that The Samanta Kshatriya Kolathiri and Travancore kingdoms have Nair heritage[22] Herbert Wigram states that the Chirakkal Raja and the Travancore Raja belongs to branches of the same family and are representatives of the ancient Nāyar kings, perhaps the oldest aristocracy in the world.[23] The Zamorin Raja was a Samanthan Nair and the Arakkal kingdom of Kannur, which was the only Muslim kingdom in the Kerala region, also had Nair origins.[24][25][26] suggests if at all Ezhavas were employed by anyone, it was only by the Nairs, since the Kings like the Zamorin were originally Nairs!! Also, Nairs claim they defeated the Villavars- presumably the ancestors of present day Ezhavas, as declared in the Ezhava Wiki Article. In short did the invading Nairs defeat the villavar-Cheras and re-employ them as soldiers? How does it compare with the concept that Zamorin and the other Nair Kings took their charter from Chera Maan Perumal who departed for Mecca after embracing Islam?

Family system under Ezhavs contain no link to Polyandry, although the Wiki Article on 'Polyandry in India' classifies Ezhavas as a polyandrous tribe, quoting references. This link of course, is in place for Nairs, who 's also recorded as having practised Polyandry in the aforementioned article on 'Polyandry in India'

Okay, opinions differ. But the question that I want to raise, in the context of the quality scales discussec here, is whether it is to seek opinions that someone refers to the Wikipedia? Don't we have a moral responsibility to offer something authentic, cross-referenced and cleared of inconsistencies? As I see it, several related articles are grouped under a project. So, what's the role of a Project Manager or equivalent, if not to see that the Wiki Articles do have the authenticity expected of encyclopediae or reference material in general, and that Wiki Articles are not just collections of contributions from opinionated authors? KandukandangiriykunnaVarghese (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it strives to become one. In general, readers shouldnt believe what is written in wikipedia completely exactly for the inconsistencies and POV issues you pointed out. Improvement of wikipedia articles depend on the quality of the editors that choose to participate. Wikipedia has a grading system and good and featured articles are considered to be more reliable. Featured articles are the best articles produced by the wikipedia community. For example, Robert Falcon Scott is today's featured article and they get listed in the main page. As an uninvolved reader, one can identify good articles by the circular green icon (e.g.Jerry West) and featured article by the bronze star icon (e.g.India} at the top right of the articles. --CarTick (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard
listed --CarTick (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

NAIRS THE INDIGENOUS KSHATRIYA CLAN OF KERALA - "WITH REFERENCE"
Let us go through the references about keralam in an authentic way

From the following references we could get the exact existence of Keralam from the day which we know about the history. References include primitive text puranas and then upto Ithihasa.

1.Among kings who attended the swayamvara or Sasikala, the daughter of king of Kasi; such as, King of Kuru, King of Madra, King of Sindhu, King of Panchala, King of Karnataka, Chola, Vidarbha, and King of Kerala (Devi Bhagavatha, 3rd skandha)

2.When describing various places in southern part of Bharatha, names such as Dramida, Kerala, Mushika, Karnataka etc. occur in Mahabharatha. So it is to be understood that when Vyasa wrote Mahabharatha, there was a kingdom named Kerala and that it was separate from the country of Dravida (Mahabharatha, BhishmaParva, chapter 9).

3.Kartaviryarjuna took his majestic seat in the midst of Chola, Kerala, Pandya and other Kings of the countries under the sea who were standing round him to pay homage (Brahmanda Purana, chapter 54).

4.In Mahabharatha, AdiParva, 175, it is mentioned that the people of Kerala were considered as barbarians by the North Indians.

5.The Kings of Chola, Pandya, and Kerala from South India had reached the capital city of Vidarbha to take part in the swayamvaram of Rukmini (Bhagavatha, 10th skandha)

6.Mahabharatha, VanaParva, chapter 254, it is mentioned as follows - in his conquest of the countries, Karna had conquered Kerala also.

7.Valmiki mentions the countries which could be seen by the monkeys who were sent to the south by sugreeva to search for Sitha

नदीं गोदावरीं चैव

सर्वमेवानुप्स्यथा

ततैवान्ध्रान च पौन्ध्रान च

चोलान् पाण्ड्यान च केरलान्

meaning:- "You could see river Godavari and beyond that the countries of Aandhra, Poundhra, Chola, and Kerala:

This is the proof of ancientness of Kerala.

8. PathaalaLoka is a group of seven worlds one below the other with names Athala, Vithala, Suthala, Thalaathala, Rasaathala, Mahaathala, and Pathaala. In all those worlds, there are several beautiful cities palaces, castles, parks, gardens, open temple halls, natural arbours etc. made by 'Maya the Architecht.' There the Asuraas, Daanavaas, Nagaas(serpents) live with their families in happiness and comfort. In facilities and luxury Pathaala surpasses Heaven. Daithyas, Daanavaas, and Naagas(Asuras and Serpents) are the dwellers of these worlds.

Pathaala(NagaLoka), one of the seven divisions of the world is described as follows:

This is the region of Naagas(Serpents). At the out-place of this region there is a particular place having an area of 30,000 yojanaas. Vishnu Kala who has the attribute of 'tamasa' lives there under the name "Ananatha." The real Anantha or Aadishesha as the radiant embodiment of this Kala. History says that the Naagas were the early indigenous inhabitants of Kerala. The ancient word "ANANTHA" denotes "THIRUVANANTHAPURAM." The temple of Ananthapadmanaabha at Thiruvananthapuram answers to this description. On the whole the description of Pathaala fits well with that of Kerala. So it is not wrong to infer that the description of Pathaala in puraanaas is entirely about Kerala in all its aspects.

'''(Encyclopaedic dictionary of Purāṇas, Volume 3, PAGE 762) By Swami Parmeshwaranand'''

The nether regions have been assigned to the Rakshasas and the Nagas by the puranas, so South India and Ceylon being the farthest land limits of India must have appealed once to northern imagination as Pathala; page 13, Section D.

(The origin of Saivism and its history in the Tamil land)

By K. R. Subramanian

It would appear that there were at least two branches of the Naga race, the northern and southern. Those in the north had perhaps established themselves at Takshashila.

The Tamil grammarians have divided early south Indian races under Makkal, Tevar, and Nagar. The southern Nagas are mentioned as a very hardy and warlike at the period of Sangam Texts. They are described as having curved lips, bright teeth, and voice like thunder.

(Hindu culture in ancient India)
 * By Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha

PATHAALA AND KERALA THE INFERENCE

Prahlada's grand son MahaBali was the ruler of the whole world. Because of the efficiency of his rule, the reason came to MahaVishnu to take his 5th Incarnation as Vaamana. Vaamana has taken the Space and Earth with two steps, there MahaBali submits his essence of Punyakarma for donation towards the third step. MahaVishu has given a boon to Mahabali for visiting his citizens in every year at the occasion of Thiruvonam. Pathaala was the region where Mahabali was sent. Onam is the Biggest official and non-official festival of Kerala for the commemoration of this particular event. Therefore once the region of Kerala was called Pathaala and this region was ruled by the Serpent Dynasty from the period of unknown history.

This legend gives direct answer to the ParashuRama theory. Vaamana is the fifth incarnation of MahaVishnu and Vaamana went to MahaBali then MahaBali was sent to Paathala, which is Kerala itself (the festival Onam is the concrete evidence). If the fifth incarnation was directly connected to Kerala, how the sixth incarnation (Parashurama) can create Kerala??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya (talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

NAIRS ARE CONSIDERED AS ARCHAIC(very ancient) COMMUNITY

"The Nairs paid no land tax, but attend the kings to the field with their retainers." page 563 of below mentioned book.

"European travelers, when brought in contact with any genuine survival of archaic gynecocracy, like that of the Nairs or Towareks, are always struck by the liberty of the women as a kind of organized licence." page 457 of below mentioned book.

"In the most archaic communities, like the ancient Nabataeans and the modern Nairs, where property passes to the children through the mother only, the wife does not enter into any such partnership with regard to the inherited property of the husband, though it is customary for him to contribute, out of his earnings, to the establishment and maintenance of the household." page 211 of the below mentioned book.

"The Translator of Barbosa's Description of Malabar conjectured that Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs, who also bear a considerable resemblance to his class of guardians; and the undoubted resemblance between Cretan or Spartan and Malayali usage makes it almost certain that Plato had in his mind a phase of Cretan custom developed in a direction approaching more or less closely to that of Malabar." page 485 of below mentioned book.

"These Nayars being heads of the Calicut people, resemble the parliament and do not obey the King's dictates in all things, but chastise his ministers when they do unwarrantable acts. Thus from the earliest times, down to the eighteenth century, the Nair Thara and Naadu organization kept the country from tyranny and oppression, and so secured the prosperity of Malayali people and the importance of Calicut as an emporium for trade between east and west. page 548 of below mentioned book.

(Premitive Civilizations or - Outlines of the History of Ownership In Archaic Communities, Volume 1) By Edith Jemima Simcox

The glory of Nair dynasty