Talk:Vellalar/Archive 3

Vellalar Classification as Vaishyas
These are your references, Tambaih(2001) actually discredits Simon Chittys classification, you left out the complete citation by mistake.

Tambiah (2001) “ According to Swamy Vedachalam it is the Aryan priests who adopted the device of bringing all Tamils under three denominations: Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra and formulated rigid rules. He says : 2 "In this design the Aryan priests succeeded so well, that the Tamils whether kings or nobles ,rich or poor, learned or ignorant, all have become thorough slaves not only to Aryan priests but also to all who have joined the Aryan fold and bear the name of Brahmin. After this the further work of vilifying the Tamils was made much easier, and all those who in course of time, styled themselves Brahmins, discovered it to their great benefit and glory, to efface the three grades of distinction into which their predecessors classed the Tamils and to put them altogether under the general term "Sudra which means but the contemptuous menials as a whole. But in the Tamil country nobody will call himself a Sudra or a Vaisya or a Kshatriya. The Tamils are either agriculturists or traders, artisans, or labourers; every class of people follows a hereditary profession and calls itself by the name of that profession. But quite recently, a kind of mania has afflicted some classes; the people whose professions, though much useful, are looked upon as low by Brahmins and their imitators, to bring themselves under the Aryan appellation of Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaisya, escape being called the Sudra." It is into this error that even such an erudite scholar like Simon Casie Chetty falls when in his work entitled: The Castes, Customs, Manners and Literature of the Tamils where he classifies the Vellalas under the Vaisya caste and even goes to the extent of calling the Vellalas 'The Poo Vasi Ya/ 1 The caste system in Jaffna as it exists today is ample proof of the theories advanced by Kanagasabai and Swamy Vedachalam.”

Casie(2016) Simon Casie Chitty died in 1860. After the the Vellalans were classified as shudras in all official govt census.

Desai (1975) says Vellalas “proclaim themselves” as Vaishyas

Sanghvi (1981) says there is a tradition “among the Vellalans” that there were 3 divisions of Vaishyas....

Usha (2010) is analysis of Karmandala Satakam of the Medieval Period

Thruston(2018) is just a commentary by some “VED from Victoria institutions” on the original castes and tribes published in 1909. Edgar Thurston died in 1935. Even in Thurstons original work he only states “Bhu Vaisya” was the name returned by Vellalas. (That is how they perceived themselves, not how they were classified though)

So basically all your sources either state how the vellalans perceived themselves, or about their past traditions of having once been a Vaisya caste under the Medieval Cholas.

So I’m reverting back the edit to accurately depict that they were once classified as a Vaishyas in the past. From the 1870s despite their protests they were classsified as Shudras. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Bold text


 * @Cyberanthropologist Let us examine your conclusion, then my references.
 * Your claim, & I quote; "Simon Casie Chitty died in 1860. After that the Vellalans were classified as shudras in all official govt census. "
 * There are 2 censuses mentioned in the article for this, 1871 and 1901, in which the Vellalas were classified as Shudras by the British.  You seem conclude that there was no Vaishya classification at all post 1870, which is wrong! 
 * I've mentioned in the article that  1911 Travancore Government Gazette   classified the Vellalas as Vaishyas.  I quote:
 * "Of the three subdivisions among Vysias, the Vellalas belong to one that is known as Bhoo-Vysias."
 * citation given: Rao, C. Hayavadana Rao (2014). The Vellalas of Nanjanad, Travancore State, India. Anthropos, University of California. p. 514.
 * Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias
 *  This is a Government publication in 1911, post the 1871 and 1901 census. Hence,  your claim is invalid as the 2 classifications coexisted.  You cannot conclude that the Vaishya classification vanished, as I've given evidence to the contrary above.  The dearth of literature still mentioning Vellalas as Vaishyas, both pre and post British rule, which I have cited (and will address below), lends credence to the fact that the Vaishya classification still exists. You cannot impose one Caste POV on other. I hope this particular issue is resolved now.
 * Your version of the varna status in the Introduction:
 * "who * were earlier*  classified under the Vaishya[7][8][9]varna with 3 subdivisions, Bhu-Vaishyas[10][11][12] or agriculturalists, Go-Vaishyas or husbandsmen, and Dhana-Vaishyas[13] or merchants, and from the 1870's onwards, starting from British rule were classified as high ranking Shudras"
 * My version of the Varna status in the Introduction:
 * "who * ARE   traditionally*  classified under the Vaishya[7][8][9]varna with 3 subdivisions, Bhu-Vaishyas[10][11][12] or agriculturalists, Go-Vaishyas or husbandsmen, and Dhana-Vaishyas[13] or merchants, and from the 1870's onwards, starting from British rule  *ARE   ADDITIONALLY*  classified as high ranking Shudras"
 * As you can see, my introduction is more correct, as:
 * →The Vellalas * ARE* traditionally classified as Vaishyas (Karmandala Satakam,1292, past→ LD Sanghvi, 1981, present→Busnagi Rajanan, 1992, present), & not * WERE*  classified as LD Sanghvi and other sources cited till 2018, whether published or republished, fall under current literature.
 * →The Vellalas * ARE   ADDITIONALLY*  classified as as high ranking Shudras. Clearly this is an addition and not a substitution, as I proved above.
 * →Busnagi Rajanan also mentions in 1992, that the "Vellalars ARE referred to as Bhuvaishyas", not 'The Vellalars WERE referred to as Buvaishyas",  implying this was a current practice  and not a past one. Note the present tense used here (ARE), which I have capitalised.
 *  Quote:  "They ARE variously referred to as Bupaalan, Buvaisya"
 *  Citation:  Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.
 * Link:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Buvaisya&redir_esc=y
 * →LD Sanghvi in 1981 mentions that "There IS a tradition among Vellalans", not "There WAS a tradition among Vellalans,  again implying this was a current tradition , not one in the past. Note the present tense used in the Quote (IS), which I have capitalised.
 *  Quote:  "There IS a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers, ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."
 *  Citation:  Sanghvi, L.D. (1981). Biology of the People of Tamil Nadu. Indian Society of Human Genetics. p. 19.
 *  Link:  https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bxiAAAAAMAAJ&q=%22There+is+a+tradition+among+the+Vellalans+that+there+were+3+divisions+of+the+Vaisyas+:+(+1+)+Bhuvaisyas+or+farmers+,+(+2+)+Govaisyas+or+husbandmen+and+(+3+)+Dhanavaisyas+or+merchants+.+The+last+division+is+claimed+to+have+given+rise+to+the+Chettis+who+originally+belonged+to+the+Vellala+tribe.%22&redir_esc=y
 * →Desai (1975) says Vellalas “proclaim themselves” as Vaishyas
 * →I do not dispute the Vaishya or Shudra classification by the British, I am mentioning that they both exist today (there is no evidence to the contrary)
 * →Moving on, you say and I quote,
 * "The Manava Gotra was held earlier by the Vellalas"
 * This should be corrected to "the Manava gotra being held by the Vellalas" as  you have given no evidence to you assumed stance of the Gotra being absent among the current Vellala population . If you do have citations to that regard, with surveys or censuses carried out which mention the absence of this Gotra, then please feel free to mention them, otherwise this conclusion is without evidence and hence semantically incorrect.
 * → Thank you for the correction on the Tambiah Wijayakone reference!  Yes, that was mentioned by Simon Casie Chitty, hence I'm adding the Ceylon Gazetteer reference there additionally.
 * Reverting back to the original edit, since
 * 1) the Shudra classification as proved above is an  *ADDITIONAL*  classification and  not a substitution. 
 * 2) The *WERE* in the past tense used in the previous edit by @Cyberanthropologist in the instances quote is wrong and should be substituted by  *ARE* 
 * 3)  *Earlier*  in the Manava Gotra sentence should be replaced with  *being present*  or  *Being held*  TheBrokenTusk (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)j
 * →Busnagi Rajanan also mentions in 1992, that the "Vellalars ARE referred to as Bhuvaishyas", not 'The Vellalars WERE referred to as Buvaishyas",  implying this was a current practice  and not a past one. Note the present tense used here (ARE), which I have capitalised.
 *  Quote:  "They ARE variously referred to as Bupaalan, Buvaisya"
 *  Citation:  Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.
 * Link:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Buvaisya&redir_esc=y
 * →LD Sanghvi in 1981 mentions that "There IS a tradition among Vellalans", not "There WAS a tradition among Vellalans,  again implying this was a current tradition , not one in the past. Note the present tense used in the Quote (IS), which I have capitalised.
 *  Quote:  "There IS a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers, ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."
 *  Citation:  Sanghvi, L.D. (1981). Biology of the People of Tamil Nadu. Indian Society of Human Genetics. p. 19.
 *  Link:  https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bxiAAAAAMAAJ&q=%22There+is+a+tradition+among+the+Vellalans+that+there+were+3+divisions+of+the+Vaisyas+:+(+1+)+Bhuvaisyas+or+farmers+,+(+2+)+Govaisyas+or+husbandmen+and+(+3+)+Dhanavaisyas+or+merchants+.+The+last+division+is+claimed+to+have+given+rise+to+the+Chettis+who+originally+belonged+to+the+Vellala+tribe.%22&redir_esc=y
 * →Desai (1975) says Vellalas “proclaim themselves” as Vaishyas
 * →I do not dispute the Vaishya or Shudra classification by the British, I am mentioning that they both exist today (there is no evidence to the contrary)
 * →Moving on, you say and I quote,
 * "The Manava Gotra was held earlier by the Vellalas"
 * This should be corrected to "the Manava gotra being held by the Vellalas" as  you have given no evidence to you assumed stance of the Gotra being absent among the current Vellala population . If you do have citations to that regard, with surveys or censuses carried out which mention the absence of this Gotra, then please feel free to mention them, otherwise this conclusion is without evidence and hence semantically incorrect.
 * → Thank you for the correction on the Tambiah Wijayakone reference!  Yes, that was mentioned by Simon Casie Chitty, hence I'm adding the Ceylon Gazetteer reference there additionally.
 * Reverting back to the original edit, since
 * 1) the Shudra classification as proved above is an  *ADDITIONAL*  classification and  not a substitution. 
 * 2) The *WERE* in the past tense used in the previous edit by @Cyberanthropologist in the instances quote is wrong and should be substituted by  *ARE* 
 * 3)  *Earlier*  in the Manava Gotra sentence should be replaced with  *being present*  or  *Being held*  TheBrokenTusk (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)j
 * →I do not dispute the Vaishya or Shudra classification by the British, I am mentioning that they both exist today (there is no evidence to the contrary)
 * →Moving on, you say and I quote,
 * "The Manava Gotra was held earlier by the Vellalas"
 * This should be corrected to "the Manava gotra being held by the Vellalas" as  you have given no evidence to you assumed stance of the Gotra being absent among the current Vellala population . If you do have citations to that regard, with surveys or censuses carried out which mention the absence of this Gotra, then please feel free to mention them, otherwise this conclusion is without evidence and hence semantically incorrect.
 * → Thank you for the correction on the Tambiah Wijayakone reference!  Yes, that was mentioned by Simon Casie Chitty, hence I'm adding the Ceylon Gazetteer reference there additionally.
 * Reverting back to the original edit, since
 * 1) the Shudra classification as proved above is an  *ADDITIONAL*  classification and  not a substitution. 
 * 2) The *WERE* in the past tense used in the previous edit by @Cyberanthropologist in the instances quote is wrong and should be substituted by  *ARE* 
 * 3)  *Earlier*  in the Manava Gotra sentence should be replaced with  *being present*  or  *Being held*  TheBrokenTusk (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)j
 * Reverting back to the original edit, since
 * 1) the Shudra classification as proved above is an  *ADDITIONAL*  classification and  not a substitution. 
 * 2) The *WERE* in the past tense used in the previous edit by @Cyberanthropologist in the instances quote is wrong and should be substituted by  *ARE* 
 * 3)  *Earlier*  in the Manava Gotra sentence should be replaced with  *being present*  or  *Being held*  TheBrokenTusk (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)j

@TheBrokenTusk

1)LD Sanghvi

"There is a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers, ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."

Tradition-the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

So LD Sanghvi is just stating what tradition the Vellalars believe in. It does not mean they were perceived as Vaisyas by society or by govt.

Rajannan, Busnagi (1992)

He just states the Kongu Vellalars are referred to 'Buvaisya' along with other terms like 'rayar', and 'Gangavansam'

This again does not equate to being classified as a Vaishya at present 'Buvaisya' is just a a name here, with roots in their past.

It's like 'rayar' means King, but it not proof of a Kshatriya status or 'Gangavansam' name being proof of their Ganga descent being accepted.

About the 'Manava Gotra'. According to your source the Mnava Gotra is just a substitute used for those who don't have a specific Gotra in ceremonies. The usage of Ammava Gotra itself is indicates the Vellalars dont have proper Gotras.

The sources for present classification of Vellalars are not convincing for the reasond I mentioned.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk

I’ve gone through Edgar Thruston’s write up about Vellalans, here and it is contradicting their Vaishya status. I think you made an error here as well misled by the Snippets. Here is what the book says..

The Story of their origin is as follows. Many thousands of years ago, ​when the inhabitants of the world were rude and ignorant of agriculture, a severe drought fell upon the land, and the people prayed to Bhūdēvi, the goddess of the earth, for aid. She pitied them, and produced from her body a man carrying a plough, who showed them how to till the soil and support themselves. His offsprings are the Vellālas, who ASPIRE to belong to the Vaisya caste, since that includes Gōvaisyas, Bhūvaisyas, and Dhanavaisyas (shepherds, cultivators and merchants). A few, therefore, constantly wear the sacred thread, but most put it on only during marriages or funerals as a mark of the sacred nature of the ceremony."

In 'The Tamils eighteen hundred years ago,' Mr. V. Kanakasabhai writes that ....The Arivars were ascetics, but, of the men living in society, the farmers occupied the highest position. They formed the nobility, or the landed aristocracy, of the country. ​They were also called Vellālar.....But, in the chapter in which he describes the classes of society, the author omits all mention of the Arivar, and places the Brahmins who wear the sacred thread as the first caste. The kings, he says, very guardedly, and not warriors, form the second caste, as if the three kings Chera, Chola and Pāndy could form a caste; all who live by trade belong to the third caste. He does not say that either the kings or the merchants wear the sacred thread. '''Then he singles out the Vellālas, and states that they have no other they have no other calling than the cultivation of the soil. Here he does not say that the Vellālas are Sūdras, but indirectly implies that the ordinary Vellālas should be reckoned as Sūdras''', and that those Vellālas who were kings should be honoured as Kshatriyas.

'''In an excellent summary of the Vellālas *[8] Mr. W. Francis writes as follows. "By general consent, the first place in social esteem among the Tamil Sūdra castes is awarded to them.'''

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Cyberanthropologist
 * →Again, I see that you are quoting Edgar Thurston selectively.
 * In the paragraphs immediately after what you quoted, Thurston quotes the Baramahal Records which give, same as the Karmandala Satakam, give the Bhuvaishya, Govaishya and Dhanavaishya status and classification to the Vellalars.
 *  Quote: 
 * "The traditional story of the origin of the Vellālas is given as follows in the Baramahal Records.*"
 * "Murdaka Pālakulu had fifty-four sons by the daughter of the god Indra, and fifty-two by the daughter of the god Kubēra, whom he married to the one hundred and six daughters of Nala Kubarudu, the son of Kubēra, and his sons-in-law made the following agreement with him, viz., that thirty-five of them should be called Bhūmi Pālakulu, and should till the ground; thirty-five of them named Vellal Shetti, and their occupation be traffic; and thirty-five of them named Gōvu Shetlu, and their employment breeding and feeding of cattle."
 *  Link: 
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Castes_and_Tribes_of_Southern_India/Vell%C4%81la
 * Now compare it to Verse 34 of the Karmandala Satakam(1292-1342 CE), which I've cited in the article:
 *  Quote: 
 * "Gangeya Murthaka pala was born to Lord Shiva and he had two wives; the first wife had 54 sons & the second wife had 52 sons. Out of these Bhupalar, (one who practiced Agriculture) gave birth to 35 Vellala leaders, Dhanapalar, who was into trade, gave birth to 35 Vellala leaders Gopalar, (one who herded cattle)"
 *  Link: 
 * KARMANDALA SATAKAM: POLITICO-SOCIO-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIEVAL TAMIL LITERATURE ON THE VELLALA COMMUNITY OF SOUTH KARNATAKA : Usha R. Vijailakshmi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 * As you can see, both the traditional records, the Baramahal records cited by Edgar Thurston, and Karmandala Satakam cited by Usha R.Vijailakshmi accord the traditional Vaishya status to the Vellalars.
 * Karamandala Satakam and Baramahal records  ARE a part of Hindu Tradition , not WERE a part of Hindu tradition.  *WERE*  implies that they are no longer considered traditional records, or the tradition ceased to exist, and that is not the case here, as LD Sangvi uses *IS* in present tense. Hence  ARE  is the correct tense for the introduction.  These ARE Traditional Records.  Which currently exist. They are not absent or destroyed.
 * Therefore, Vellalars  *ARE TRADITIONALLY*  classified among the Vaishya caste with Bhuvaisya, Govaishya and Dhanavaishya subclasses.
 * So reverting back to the original edit for the intro, regarding the senetence with tradition in present tense.
 * @Cyberanthropologist Your claim, and I quote:
 * "Tradition-the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
 * So LD Sanghvi is just stating what tradition the Vellalars believe in.  It does not mean they were perceived as Vaisyas by society or by govt ."
 * →I have quoted above in my earlier reply that  Vellalars were given the Vaishya status by the British Govt in the Travancore Government Gazette of 1911 ,  hence your claim of "They were not perceived as Vaishyas by society or Government" is invalid .  Putting the Quote from Travancore Government Gazette here again;
 * "Of the three subdivisions among Vysias, the Vellalas belong to one that is known as Bhoo-Vysias."
 * citation given: Rao, C. Hayavadana Rao (2014). The Vellalas of Nanjanad, Travancore State, India. Anthropos, University of California. p. 514.
 * Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias
 *  As for societal perception , they I have quoted in the article Busnagi Rajannan (1992) who does say in his Salem Cyclopedia that Vellalars "ARE" referred to as Vaisyas or specifically Buvaisyas, in present tense, hence this claim of yours is invalid. If it was past tense it should have been *WERE*, but that is not the case here. Again putting out the quote from Busnagi Rajannan here, from my earlier reply:
 * Quote: "They ARE variously referred to as Bupaalan, Buvaisya"
 * Citation: Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.
 *  Link: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Buvaisya&redir_esc=y
 * →You are by default accepting British censuses which as Gospel truth and Non British records quoted by Historians, like the Karmandala Satakam, as mythical. This affects the neutrality of the article. But even going by your stance, I have given proof that later British records like the Travancore Government Gazette accorded the Vellalas the Vaishya status, hence this Vaishya status of Vellalars is not in dispute, as it is mentioned in
 * --Traditional records- Karmandala Satakam (Quot U.Vijayalakshmi, 2010), Baramahal records (quot Thurston, 2018)
 * --British records- Travancore Government Gazette of 1911, post 1871 and 1901 census. (Quot Hayavadana Rao, 2014)
 * →@Cyberanthropologist With regards to the Manava Gotra, you have said and I quote
 * "About the 'Manava Gotra'. According to your source the Mnava Gotra is just a substitute used for those who don't have a specific Gotra in ceremonies. The usage of Ammava Gotra itself is indicates the Vellalars dont have proper Gotras."
 * I have cited a reference which explicitly states that it was used by the three Upper castes, and not Shudras. If you have evidence that Shudras had the Manava Gotra, please free to cite evidence regarding the same. If you have evidence of the absence of the Gotra amongst current Vellalars, in the formn of censuses or surveyss please feel free to cite the same. In the absence of such citations, Reverting to the original edit for the Gotra section. Gotras are normally found among Vellalars, and are NOT absent. I quote;
 * "Gotra Lineage and Names The caste (jati) is an endogamous group, and gotra (clan) is an exogamous division within it. Normally, some of the larger castes, such as Rajpt, Jat, Vellala, and Brahman, have many constituent exogamous subgroups."
 * Citation:
 * Journal of Popular Culture, by the Popular culture association (Etats-Unis) & Modern language association of America. Published by Bowling Green State University, page 484.
 * Journal of Popular Culture - Popular culture association (Etats-Unis)., Modern language association of America. Popular literature section, Midwest modern language association (Etats-Unis). Popular culture section - Google Books
 * →@Cyberanthropologist Additionally, You have mentioned in the edit history that Shudras had Upanayana ceremonies as well. Yes, they did have Agamika upanayana ceremonies, Not Vedic Upanayana ceremonies which are traditionally restricted to the 3 upper castes, as I have specified in the article & given the citations for. The Vellalars are practitioners of Vedic rites who studied the Vedas. Quoting the references from the article here again:
 * "Verse 31 of the Karmandala Satakam states that the Vellālas of Kārmandalam belonged to the clan of the Gangas: they were both Srotriyas; practitioners of Vedic rites or Southerners"
 * Citation:
 * Vijailakshmi, Usha R. (2010). KARMANDALA SATAKAM: POLITICO-SOCIO-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIEVAL TAMIL LITERATURE ON THE VELLALA COMMUNITY OF SOUTH KARNATAKA. Indian History Congress. p. 430.
 * Quote 2:
 * "Yajñopavita is the sacred thread which all the ' twice born ', ie , the three uppercastes , among the Hindus begin wearing when they come of age . The rite that confers this is called upanayana.
 * Citation:
 * Kentish Coomaraswamy, Ananda (1988). Selected Letters of Ananda K. Coomaraswamy. Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. p. 437. ISBN 978-0-90562-306-1.
 * If you have a citation which says Veic upanayana is traditionally given to the Shudras, please feel free to cite the source. Reverting to original in the absence of any such citation. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk Also, L.D Sanghvi is a Cancer Researcher and not an anthropologist or historian. This is a publication by the Indian society of human genetics. Add the primary source that L.D Sanghvi references. It’s probably one or the sources already discussed here. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also Thurston just states the “tradition of Vellalans” he DOES NOT classify them as Vaishyas or Shudras he only states what OTHER AUTHORS have classified them as.

The Bramahal record story does not even have the word ‘Vaisya’ in it.

>I have given proof that later British records like the Travancore Government Gazette accorded the Vellalas the Vaishya statu

One author Rao writes that they are Vaishyas. That is far from ‘British records’ classifying them as such. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk the ‘gotras’ among Jats and Vellalans are not the same as the ‘Rishi Gotras’ of the Brahmins and Vaishyas, every community has gotra like subcastes.

>The caste (jati) is an endogamous group, and gotra (clan) is an exogamous division within it. Normally, some of the larger castes, such as Rajpt, Jat, Vellala, and Brahman, have many constituent exogamous subgroups."

Yes. But Rishi gotra and clan cannot be used interchangeably

In Hindu culture, the term gotra (Sanskrit: गोत्र) is considered to be equivalent to lineage. It broadly refers to people who are descendants in an unbroken male line from a common male ancestor or patriline. Generally the gotra forms an exogamous unit, with the marriage within the same gotra being prohibited by custom, being regarded as incest.

A gotra must be distinguished from a kula. A kula is equal to a particular family, or equal to modern day "clans", Kula does relate to lineage or caste. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk about Upanayana

Several texts such as Sushruta Sutrasthana, however, also include the fourth varna, the Sudras, entering schools and the formal education process, stating that the Upanayana samskara was open to everyone. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Irawati Karve, an anthropologist, is one of the co authors of the book along with LD Sanghvi, as mentioned in the Google books link given. Do not selectively quote and remove references. Adding back the citation given by her.
 * "There is a tradition among the Vellalans that there were 3 divisions of the Vaisyas : ( 1 ) Bhuvaisyas or farmers, ( 2 ) Govaisyas or husbandmen and ( 3 ) Dhanavaisyas or merchants . The last division is claimed to have given rise to the Chettis who originally belonged to the Vellala tribe."
 * Link to the book which mentions Irawati Karve:
 * Biology of the People of Tamil Nadu - Google Books TheBrokenTusk (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk This karmandala Sathakam analysis does not yield any results for the terms Vaishya, Vysya, Vaisya etc, it cannot be used as a source to claim that Vellalans were Vaishyas,  Cyberanthropologist (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The terms Bupaalan used in the Karmandala Satakam is synonymous with Buvaisya as is referenced by Busnagi Rajannan here:
 *  Quote: 
 * "VELLALAR, Kongu . A major caste of farmers in the district . They are variously referred to as Bupaalan , Buvaisya , Dhevar , Gangavamsam , Rayar , and most commonly as Kudiyaanavar and Vivasaayi ."
 * Link:
 * Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District ... - Busnagi Rajannan - Google Books
 * Citation: Rajannan, Busnagi (1992). Salem Cyclopedia: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary of Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Institute of Kongu Studies (Salem, India). p. 340. ISBN 978-8-19002-880-6.
 * Hence, Bupaalan=Buvaisya. Do not remove academically sourced content. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk

>The terms Bupaalan used in the Karmandala Satakam is synonymous with Buvaisya as is referenced by Busnagi Rajannan here: Quote: "VELLALAR, Kongu . A major caste of farmers in the district . They are variously referred to as Bupaalan , Buvaisya , Dhevar , Gangavamsam , Rayar , and most commonly as Kudiyaanavar and Vivasaayi

This just gives the commonly used terms to refer to the Kongu Vellalar. It does not say they are “SYNONYMS”. By your logic all the other terms are interchangeable too. So does Rayar, Dhevar and Vivasaayi mean Bhuvaishya now?

You’re quoting Karmandala Satakam, and Baramhal record mentioned my Edgar thurston as citations for them being classified as Vaishyas, but no where do both of them even mention the term “Vaishya”. You’re then using Salem Cyclopedia to claim Bhuvaisya and Bhupalan are synonyms. But that’s absolutely false. Because they’re two separate terms, like multiple others mentioned there to refer to them. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @CyberanthropologistWikipedia cannot use primary sources as quotation. The historian Usha R. Vijailakshmi has done an analysis of the Karmandala Satakam, it is not a Primary source. Other analyses and citations regarding the Karmandala Satakam are welcome. Since here analysis does not include all the verses from Karmandala Satakam, you cannot conclude that "Vaishyas are not mentioned in Karmandala Satakam".
 * Same goes for the Baramahal records, which are quoted partly by Edgar Thurston, this is not enough to form a conclusion that "Vaishyas are not mentioned in the Baramahal records."
 * See WP:RS for more information TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin help Requesting dispute resolution. As a consensus wasn’t reached.Cyberanthropologist (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators have many roles but adjudicating content disputes isn't one of them. To learn about your options, such as requesting a WP:Third opinion, see Dispute resolution. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk with your edits here you have deleted my references   stating they are a century old, but they are references I provided for the statements that Vellalars have been classified as “Shudras” since colonial times. So they are bound to old as they are colonial era sources.

And along with those references you deleted a 2008 one by Pillai where he says ”The Brahmin goes with the Vellala and others of the Sudra caste in this affair”.

This means the Brahmin of the Brahmin Varna goes with the ‘Vellala and others’ of the Sudra varna.

But okay, you disagreed with this, and claim the Vellalas are not being classed as Sudra here. Okay. But what about this edit of your then? 

This source you added. says “Other locals belonging to Chettiar, Goundar , Mudaliar and Vysya communities are also doing a substantial business” How are you passing this off as the Vellalar communities being classified as Vysya? Theyre not saying anything of that sort, This by no means can be twisted to imply that the Karnataka government classified the Chettiar, Gounder etc as Vaishyas. Vysa is a the name of a separate caste of Karnataka. Check this out, they’ve listed Vysya as a separate caste and Mudaliar, Chettiar, Pillai, separately too. here are other sources example Cyberanthropologist (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is precisely my point, if you do add the Pillai(2008) reference, then the 1981 census has to taken in the same semantic meaning.
 * "Vellala and others of the Sudra caste"
 * "Chettiar, Goundar , Mudaliar and the Vysya communities.
 * It is already cited by Busnagi Rajannan that they Gounders are Vaisyas, as I have quoted before in the earlier replies.
 * Adding back the 1981 Census with citation. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nammazhwar is classified as Vysya among the 4 great Vysya saints in the same article, it is clear the Census of 1981 implies the same with regard to the Vellalalr community.
 * The 1981 Census of India classifies the Chettiar Vellalar, Mudaliar, & Kongu Vellalas or Gounders among the Vaishya communities of Karnataka involved in substantial businesses.
 * The Vaishnavite Vellala Saint Nammazhwar, who lived ca. 798 CE, was classified as Vysya, among the Four great Vysya saints, by the All India Vaishya Samaj in 1988.
 * Quote:
 * "VYSYA. SAINTS. NAMMALVAR. According to tradition Nammalvar is the first amongst Alvars of Ramanuja Visista Advaita Siddhantha and he was is known traditionally one who born in a Vysya family ."
 * Citation: Gupta, Ke.Si. (1988). Vaishyas in India, Volume 1. All India Vaishya Samaj. p. 38. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk Here look at page 607 and 633 of the 1981 census, it clearly, differentiates between them as separate castes in the table. I don’t know if you’re joking now. You cannot extrapolate one citation(Pillai 2008) (Gupta 1988) to another completely different one (census 1981) And draw your own conclusions. Does it say Nammalvar was a vysya in the census 1981 article ? NO. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia to present things as they are, but in the Varna sectiion you’ve drawn your own conclusions and made the following statement

The evidences of the Dvija Gotras being held by the Vellalas[89][90], along with the long documented tradition of them wearing the sacred thread[91][92][93][94][95] or Yajñopavita & the Vaidika Upanayana ceremonies having been performed by the Vellalar community,[96][97][98] which are traditionally restricted to the 3 upper varnas, namely Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya respectively.[99] reaffirms their traditional Dvija Vaishya status[100] & contradicts these additional Shudra classifications of the Vellalars from the colonial period onwards[101], as Shudras do not have Dvija Gotras & are not given the Vaidika upanayana ceremonies.

This is your POV and you’re pushing it, I’m removing this and adding that

‘The Varna status of the Vellalars is a contested and complex topic, they have been classified as Shudras and as Vaishyas by different sources.’ in the intro of the Varna section.

Cyberanthropologist (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Paraphrasing the citation instead of exact quotation, is not conclusion. I have given the proper citations, which are not altered in any way, with links. Reverting. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

see Khatri as an example, the Wikipedia page should just state what the sources and authors have to say. Editors cannot write their own conclusions they arrived at using the sources. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The page cited is Irrelevant to this page in discussion. TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In the intro i changed They went “traditionally classified as Vaishyas” to according to their traditions they are classified as Vaishyas. Because the Varna tradition was foreign to south (As stated by Swami Vedachala, and various historians like Edgar Thurston, Gail Omvedt, James Manor etc). So I changed it to ‘according to their traditions’ they are classified as Vaishyas, the Baramahal record and the Karmandala satakam don’t even mention the word vaishya. Busnagi does NOT claim that. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Already gave prrof with citations that 1911 Government Gazette recorded them as Vaishyas, as well as in the 1981 Census. That is 2 Government references post the 1871 and 1901 census which classified them as Vaishyas, not Shudras. It is not just the view of the Vellalas, it is shared by the British and Indian Governments as well.
 * The 1981 Census of India classifies the Chettiar Vellalar, Mudaliar, & Kongu Vellalas or Gounders among the Vaishya communities of Karnataka involved in substantial businesses.
 * I've mentioned in the article that 1911 Travancore Government Gazette classified the Vellalas as Vaishyas. I quote:
 * "Of the three subdivisions among Vysias, the Vellalas belong to one that is known as Bhoo-Vysias."
 * citation given: Rao, C. Hayavadana Rao (2014). The Vellalas of Nanjanad, Travancore State, India. Anthropos, University of California. p. 514.
 * Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias
 * This is a Government publication in 1911, post the 1871 and 1901 census. Hence, your claim is invalid as the 2 classifications coexisted.
 * TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Link:https://archive.org/details/the-vellalas-of-nanjanad-travancore-state-india_202104/page/513/mode/2up?q=Bhoo+Vysias
 * This is a Government publication in 1911, post the 1871 and 1901 census. Hence, your claim is invalid as the 2 classifications coexisted.
 * TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TheBrokenTusk (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheBrokenTusk Here look at page 607 and 633 in the 1981 census you cite, it clearly lists Goundar, Mudaliar, Chettiar etct as separate castes from Vysya in the table.

The Karnataka census you cite does not state they are Vaishyas at all, you’re literally making up statements now. You cannot combine another source and reinterpret what the census means. It has to be taken verbatim. Does it classif them as Vaishyas? NO. Only the 1911 gazette states they are Vaishyas Cyberanthropologist (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: This is clearly a heated and controversial topic, and clearly also one that's quite impenetrable to an outsider. I have no opinion on how Vellalars should actually be classified, but to me it seems clear that the proposed introduction "The Varna status of the Vellalars is a contested and complex topic, they have been classified as Shudras and as Vaishyas by different sources." is a statement of fact and should be retained. It might also make sense to add three subheadings, presenting the case for Vellalars (1) being Vaishya, (2) being Shudra, and (3) the final argument by Swami Vedachalam that varnas are (were) historically alien to Tamil society, so Vellalars aren't (weren't) really either. As a side note, the nomenclature in the article seems highly inconsistent, I would strongly recommend using Vaishya (not "Vysya" etc) and Shudra (not Sudra etc) since those are the agreed names on Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @C.FredHere. Phonex01 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for mediating, I have requested User:TheBrokenTusk to follow your suggestion. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the mediation. I have added the changes you suggested, and the changes to the chronological order of the Vaishya section as put forth by @Beatrix_Kiddo2004. I have reproduced the article with these changes below, for future reference, it now clearly reflects the Vaishya status traditionally, historically and as per government records.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2022
In South India, There were essentially three classes: Brahmin, non-Brahmin, and Dalit. Vellalars were considered non-Brahmin Upper castes.

Although, Vellalars were Vaishya both traditionally and historically. According to historian C. Hayavadana Rao, Vellalars belong to Bhu-Vaishya along with the classification of the Travancore state and Sri Lanka.

Reliable additions for the "Varna classification" section. Phonex01 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already done in the talk page (above) and these sources accepted by editors of other pages such as Vokkaliga and Kamma. Phonex01 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nittawinoda Can you look up this with some admins? User:Phonex01 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which section above shows the asserted consensus? —C.Fred (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Third opinion did not favour mentioning Vaishya only; it said to indicate Vaishya and Shudra. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Above the "Varna classification" section. @Jpatokal was mediating. Both are accepted. Don't remove sat-sudra classification of the main page. Just requesting to add this along with them. These(present request) sources are reliable and compliances with wikipedia's standards. Phonex01 (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This may fit in your terms and wikipedia's terms.
 * ===Varna Classification===
 * In South India, There were essentially three classes: Brahmin, non-Brahmin, and Dalit.  Vellalars were considered non-Brahmin Upper castes.
 * Although, Vellalars were Vaishya both traditionally and historically. According to historian C. Hayavadana Rao, Vellalars belong to Bhu-Vaishya along with the classification of the Travancore state and Sri Lanka.
 * During the British colonial period, the Vellalars who were tillers of the soil and held offices pertaining to land, were ranked as Sat-Sudra in the 1901 census; with the Government of Madras recognising that the 4-fold division (four varnas) did not describe the South Indian, or Dravidian, society adequately. Following the arrival of Dutch missionaries in the early 18th century, some Vellalar converted to Christianity. Phonex01 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting to add two paragraphs to the Varna Classification section? —C.Fred (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kinda yes. These sources should be shown to the users. My claim is there's no varna system in south india. As the first and last paragraphs,
 * The four fold vedic system of caste hierarchy did not exist during sangam period (from c. 6th century BCE to c. 3rd century CE). Vellalar and karalar were aristocratic classes. 
 * Above resources are reliable than the Pamela G.price's notes. Pamela was copied from Edgar thurston source which is an unreliable source, according to wikipedia's standards. The same Edgar thurston were classifying vellalars belong to vaishya caste on the source. But still, all of south medias do mention "Non-Brahmin castes such as...", if they wanna point out a caste. They never use vaishya like sanskrit term. Phonex01 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, above sources are not reliable. Neither Rao nor Chitty meets WP:RS. You need to cite reliable secondary sources (post 1950) for caste or varna related topics. Furthermore, please avoid using Google Books snippet view, as we lack context and may end up misinterpreting the sources. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In southern part of India, there were just three distinct classes: Brahmins, non-Brahmins and lower castes (or dalits). The Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, the two intermediary "twice born" varnas, did not exist. The Brahmins, at the pinnacle of the social hierarchy regarded all non-Brahmin castes as sat-(respectable) Shudras or clean shudras. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Without judgment on the proposed edit, editor was blocked as a sock. If someone really wants to entertain this suggested change, they're more than welcome to it. Izno (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed
The page has many flaws (one sided view and author's personal views) and insufficient information. It's most of the information (including summary) was contributed by 2 editors only. The two were fighting like kids in the talk page as you can see. You can compare the page with Rajputs, Khatri, Vokkaliga and many dominant society of Indian regions. These pages are well constructed by genuine editors from various backgrounds. Literally, The Vellalar page summary is author's pov (their claim starts "seems to be rather"). The page need major improvements, cleanups and more sources.

The Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge. If the page can be edited by admins only, what's the need of wikipedia editors? The information should be contributed by volunteers and genuine editors without any restrictions and opinionated moderators rivalry.

Thank you. Exhistorian (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article(not "page") is not admin-only protected, it is extended-confirmed protected (30 days/500 edits) due to disruption and sock puppetry. If you have not reached that threshold, you are welcome to make an edit request, detailing a specific edit you wish to see happen. If it needs a broader rewrite or otherwise too large an issue to deal with in one edit, please start a discussion here to obtain consensus. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to start consensus here. But editors of the most content adds were blocked by mods due to their actions. For addendum, is consensus really important? It needs broader rewrite and cleanups too. Because, the article is important for many Tamil historical studies and its culture.   I only can't do improve the article. Need some help from genuine editors. Exhistorian (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2022
Editors kindly add this updated information to the varna section.


 * ===Varna Classification===
 * In South India, There were essentially three classes: Brahmin, non-Brahmin, and Dalit.  Vellalars were considered non-Brahmin Upper castes.
 * Although, Vellalars were Vaishya both traditionally and historically. According to some scholars, Vellalars belong to Bhu-Vaishya along with the classification of the Travancore state and Sri Lanka.
 * During the British colonial period, the Vellalars who were tillers of the soil and held offices pertaining to land, were ranked as Sat-Sudra in the 1901 census; with the Government of Madras recognising that the 4-fold division (four varnas) did not describe the South Indian, or Dravidian, society adequately. Following the arrival of Dutch missionaries in the early 18th century, some Vellalar converted to Christianity.
 * However, the major sub-sects of Vellalar such as Gounder, Pillai, and Mudaliyar were analogous to the Kshatriyas of the Brahmanical religion.

As Varna (Hinduism) concept, vaishyas are agriculturists and traders. This is secondary source that supports the vaishya and shudra classifications. The varna classification started in the 1800s and the British government recognized there was no proper 4-fold Vedic varna system in south India. Also, many Vellalar were Jains. Later British colonial period, Govt of India classified all respectable castes of south India are non-Brahmins. Periyavelar99 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. User has been indeffed, closing edit request.  TG  HL ↗  🍁 18:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this was the same user. I read similar points of these on Vokkaliga and Reddy. Editors should proceed this request. Exhistorian (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2022
Despite being a relatively lowly group, they were dominant communities in Tamil agrarian societies for 600 years until the decline of the Chola empire in the 13th century, with their chieftains able to practice state-level political authority after winning the support and legitimisation of Brahmins and other higher-ranked communities with grants of land and honors.

to

From the Sangam period to the Chola period of Indian history (A.d. 600 to 1200), state-level political authority was in the hands of relatively low, Vellalar chieftains, who endowed local and nonlocal Brahmins with land and honors, and were in turn legitimized by them.

additional context (request) on the first para of the social status:

They were more orthodox than the Brahmins in their religious practices. The Vellalar nobles had marriage alliances with Chola royal families. Bhumihar means (maharaja) (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aaron Liu (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2023
In the post-Sangam period section, add this requested line after "... dynasty called Kalabhras." to support the context.

Historians believe that the Kalabhras belonged to the Vellalar community of warriors who were possibly once the feudatories of the Cholas and the Pallavas. 42.105.220.218 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2023
This is the basic necessary helpful overview (Compiled from already existing and reliable sources) of the article to add to the history section but above the Sangam literature on the main article.

Historians consider the Vellalars originated from the Velir clans who claim descent from the Yadu king or Yadu dynasty. Historically, they held various occupational positions from petty kings and aristocrats, governors of provinces, and commanders of armies, to ordinary agricultural landlords and traders. Vino678777 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Duplicated. Lemonaka (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)