Talk:Channar revolt

Nadar descend from Dravidian Tamil Villavar aristocracy

Nadar/ Chanar descend from the Villavar aristocracy who founded the Chera dynasty and Pandyan Kingdom in the prehistory. Mahabharat (1500 BC) mention the Pandya Kingdom and its Villavar King Sarangha dwaja (Sarangha= Bow Dhwaja = flag). Laterday kingdoms such as Pandyan kingdom Chera Kingdom and Alupas are Villavar kingdoms too. Chanar (Chan = Iron Weapom), Eyinar or Enadhi (Archers) are subsects. Nadalvar or Nadar was the title of Pandyan aristocracy. In the Alupas Pandyan Kingdom the aristocracy could be Nadava or Nadavaru (Nadalvar). In the Chera Dynasty the king was called Villavar Kon. In the Karnataka /Tulunadu the Villavar people are called Billava . Villavar and their seagoing relatives the Meenavar (not the modern) founded all these kingdoms which might have been in existence for more than 8000 years. The degradation of Chanar/ Nadar is the result of the rise of Muslim power in kerala and Tamil Nadu. Nadars are ethnic Tamils and of pure Dravidian stock. The fall of Chera Kingdom of Villavar occurred when the powerful Sulthanates of Bhagdad started dominating the seaways of the Arabian ocean and a colony was established at Malabar. Many of the laterday Keralites descend from Non Dravidians. Some of them were North Indians and Nepalese people while others were foreigners. Nairs are people of Naga stock who migrated from Ahichatram in the Indo Nepalese border alongwith Aryan Namboothiris around 345 Ad to Karnataka. According to the records of Tulu Brahmins , the Gramapaddati and Keralolpathi Kadamba king Mayuravarma the arch enemy of Chera king Neduncheralathan brought Nagas and Aryans from Ahichatram in 345 AD to Banavasi in Karnataka. These Naga heriditary bonded slaves were called Bunta in Karnataka . The Bunt (community) of Karnataka could desend from these Nagas of Nepal (Newar). The Nagas practiced Matriarchy and Polyandry. Nayara Menava Kuruba and Samantha are subgroups of Bunt (community) who migrated to Kerala after 800 AD from Tulunadu. These Tulu people (Nayara Menava Kuruba and Samantha) with roots from Ahichatram in Uttarpradesh replaced the Tamil culture with a primitive Nepalese culture ( (Newar ) after the invasion of Malik Kafur in 1310 AD . This is the beginning of slavery of Nadar / Villavar people in their own former kingdom.

Southindia (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik Kafurs 1310 invasion brought Nairs from Tulunadu to Kerala

Keralolpathi mentions a Rashtrakuta invasion under a Tulunadu prince who was the brother of Tulu king Kaviraja Singha invaded kerala during the rule of Krishna 111 with a 350000 (exaggerated) strong Nair army around 960 AD. This Rashtrakuta invader is called by Nagas as Cheraman Vadakkan Perumal (True Cheramans are Tamil Villavar rulers not related to the Tulu invader) who established the first Naga Kingdom in Northern Kerala at Ezhimala , the present day kannur . Kolathiriis were the descendents of this Cheraman Vadakkan Perumal. This Naga Cheraman Vadakkan Perumal converted to Islam and went to Mecca. The Tulunadu Nagas who occupied kannur practised Matriarchy unlike Tamils of Chera dynasty . Kolathiris (Chirackal Rajavamsham) were supported by the Araickal rajavamsham a Muslim dynasty who practised Matriarchy. The decline of Tamil power in Kerala coincided with the arrival of Naga Bunt (community) (Nayara Menava Kuruba and Samantha) who had close ties with Arab Mappilla and Chonaka (Turkish) Muslims of North Kerala. After the invasion of Malik Kafur in 1310 the NAGAS or Vadugas (Bunt (community) and Kuruba Naicker from Andhra joined the Turkish invades. [[Anjum Hussain]] a Converted former Muslims, a Kuruba Naicker founded the Vijayanagar Empire as Bukka Raya. Between 1300s to 1800 this Naga - Muslim alliance existed. The Nagas who had been serving the Dravidians as slaves were suddenly elevated to rulership. When Madurai Sultanate was founded around 1328 Samuthiri a Naga Samantha became the ruler of Calicut. Naga Kingdom of Kolathiri became the most powerful kingdom after 1310 because of their alliance with Muslims. Kolathiri send two prinesses called Attingal and Kunnumel Ranis to replace the Venads Tamil Ai dynasty. The Travancore Kingdom was ruled by the sons of Attingal ranis with Naga| Tulu roots. These Tulu rulers brought the Tulu Script from Karnataka which is used to write modern Malayalam. Tulu Nagas were primitive people who wore minimum dress . One Portuguese plate shows Cochin king and his Nayar soldiers wearing only loin cloth. (Chera Kings wear full Royal cloths). Marthanda Varma (1750) used to wear onlly a piece of cloth around his waist. The Nagas and Aryans who spoke a Prakrit (Hindi) Sanskrit because of northern origins suppressed Tamil and most of Dravidian customs and religeon. Tulu Nagas of Kerala practiced Matriarchy like their Tulu cousins the Bunt (community). Naga women practised Polyandry and family did not exist. Paternity could not be established and the children were raised by mothers. (Earlier Cheras were Patriarchal like other Tamils and had fixed families) Nagas ruled with the support of Arabs, Portuguese and British. This led to the increase in number of people with other religeons. The Naga rule was Barbaric as the did not have Family with a Husband and Wife but practised Polyandry. Nagas did not wear dress and forced Dravidians hitherto accustomed to wearing dress to go naked too.

Southindia (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese supported Nagas against Dravidians

Portuguese soldiers who mixed with local Christians were called Mulatto or Indian Mestizo made the sudden increase in the Christian population in Kerala. Kerala had only about ten thousand Nestorian christians who were less than 0.5% of then Keralas population on Vasco Da Gamas arrival in 1498. The Portuguese descendents who mixed the Nestorian Syrian Christians in 1500s supported the Tulu Nagas of Kingdom of Cochin (The Mulatto Christians were antagonistic to Dravidians especially Tamils who once gave them refuge). At Angamaly the main Portuguese army was stationed while from Cochin | Mattancherry the Portuguese ruled. The Portuguese Christian army of Mulattos were allies of Nagas and enjoyed a higher status.

Southindia (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

European Colonialism deprived the Dravidians of their rights and country

European colonialism reduced most indigeous Dravidian people to penury. Europeans suppored the Naga and Aryan claims to supremacy. Europeans promoted the Christians with foreign blood (European and Middle Eastern) as Brahmins ! . The British were instrumental in making the Northern language of Nairs written in Tulu script a form of Grantha script used only by Namboothiris and Tulu Brahmins till then. The spice money made the Nagas rich. The Christian army of the Portuguese headed by Padaveetils supported the Nagas.

British destroyed MalayalamTamil(Malayanma) while promoting Tulumalayalam

Till the beginning of 19th century the language of Kerala used to be a form of Tamil called MalayalamTamil( Malayanma) Tamil itself. During Portuguese period the language of Kerala used to be Lingua Malabar Tamul was the language of Kerala. Till19th century the Malabar (Kerala) language was Tamil. MalayalamTamil or Malayanma was also a language derived from Tamil. For Nadars had numerous books written in Malayanma. The Tulumalayalam used by Namboohiris and Nairs was a minority language written with Tulu Script. The Syrian / Portuguese christians used Syriac Portuguese Latin and Tamil. British efforts to divide Kerala from rest of Dravidian south was systematic. The Syrian/Portuguese Christians were encouraged by the British to learn the Tulumalayalam of Namboothiris and Nairs. In 1817 Kottayan seminary was establised by British. Herman Gundert in 1847 started a Malayalam (Tulumalayalam) newspaper and started Sanskritising Malayalam. By the mid 19th century the Dravìdian Malayalam Tamil had been completely replaced by the Tulumalayalam heavy with Sanskrit and Hindi words. This made all those books written in Tamil and Malayanma useless and all those who used them illiterate. The Syrian/Portuguese Christians became the guardians of the newly acquired language. British aim of isolating and controlling Kerala was successful. After 1860 Tulumalayalam written with Tulu Script a Naga-Aryan language became the sole language of Kerala. The Dravidian history (Kannagi Ilangovadikal Chera and Ay History) was not however taught.Keralas Dravidian children were forced to believe Namboothiri created legends such as Parashurama legend. Most of Nadar books written in Palm leaf Manuscripts written in Tamil Malayanma rotted in this period.

Southindia (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

British used Christianity as a weapon against Dravidians

British converted the Dravidian tribes antagonistic to their rule to confuse and split them. East India Company had signed a pact with Dharmaraja of Travancore in 1895. British were allies of Nagas and never helped Nadars in their struggle till 1859. The British effectively divided Nadars on Hindu and Christian lines. (King Serfoji of Thanjavur was converted to by Swartz and then the British usurped his throne). British never attempted to convert their Nair allies . Only after Sepoy Revolt when British faced severe opposition they made a legislation to make upper cloth legal. Though Nadars were educated in western style as early as 1809 they were never employed or given land by British. Most of pure Dravidians had progress and freedom only after British left India at 1947.

Southindia (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The downfall of Tamil Villavar Pandyan Kingdoms

After the invasion of Malik Kafur in1310 AD the original Tamil tribes were either exterminated or pushed southwards to find refuge at Western Ghats. Villavar Nadar concentrated around 100 km radius of Tenkasi the ancient Pandyan Royal House. Villavar founded the Chera Dynasty. Other Chera tribes such as Malayar/Malayaman who give the ancient name of Kerala the Malayanadu are mostly extinct though some survive as tribals at Thalassery area. Some Malayaman migrated to Thanjavur area. Similarly Pazhuvettaraiyar a supporting clan of Cheras are found in only Thanjavur area. Ayar Konar people who once ruled the Ay kingdom and Venad escaped through Chenkottah and found only at Thirunelveli now. While some Vellalas joined the Nairs but soon found only in border areas. Thus the Vaduga Tulu rulers the Nair / Bunt (community) displaced Tamils with the help of Turkish and Moplah help.

Southindia (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nepalese Naga culture dominated Kerala between 1310 to 1947

Nedumchadaya Pandyan consecrated Sri Padmanabha Swamy temple in 789 AD. (Venadinte Parinamam Sivasankaran Nair). Marthanda Varma at 1730 AD using stones brought from Gandaki river basin at Nepal(The homeland of Nagas). However Pandyan Villavar people were refused entry. The Naga migrants from Ahichatram followed a Napalese Newar like culture and customs in Kerala. Jainism and Hinduism of Villavar were replaced by Snake Temples of Nagas with live snakes. Nagas did not wear dress and forced Dravidians not to wear dress too. After the British arrival Nagas started wearing cloths still forced Dravidians to go naked. Foreign spice traders with roots from Persia and Arabia were called Mappilai during Tamil rule in Kerala(foreign sailors who married local women). Their women used to wear Kuppayam a loose jacket. Dravidians never wore Kuppayam as it was a foreign costume. All Tamils including Nadars used Saree or Thavani to cover their breasts earlier. British in 1814 asked Nadar women to wear Kuppayam like foreign Christians.

Southindia (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nair Exodus to Travancore in in 1789

The Arab Navy of Moplah and Turkish (Chonaka Mappillai) army whice supported the Nair Samantha kingdoms made the Nagas invincible between 1314 to 1890. The Alirajas or Araikkal Rajavamsham of Kannur were the powerful Muslim kingdom which backed Nairs of Tulunadu. However Tipu Sultan who succeeded in a alliance with the Alirajas fixed the marriage of his son Abdhul Khali with the Araikkal Beevis Daughter.This ended the Malabar Muslim support to Nagas. When Tipu Sultan invaded Kerala in 1789 with a mere12000 army (4000 cavalry and 8000 foot soldiers) from Coimbatore the Nair armies of Kolathiri (20000 strong) and Samuthiri (50000 strong) ran away to Travancore without fighting. Samuthiri suicided while Kolathiri prince was killed by Tipu. The exodus of Nairs in 1789 made Nairs absolute majority at Travancore. These Nairs were behind the attacks on Nadars.

Nagas were Sudras

Nagas were the slaves of Aryan Nambuthiris who led them from Ahichatra in Uttarpradesh to South India. agas were ethnically different from Aryans and Dravidians. Nagas were slaves of Aryan Brhmins of Ahichatra Namboothiris and other Tulunadu Brahmins such as Shivalli Brahmins were invited by Kadamba king Mayuravarma at 345 AD from their home town Ahichatra in the Indo Nepalese border to Banavasi in Karnataka. These heritary Naga slaves may have Nepalese ancestory and may be related to Newars of Nepal. These Naga slaves were called Bunta or Bunt meaning bonded for life as mentioned in the Graamapaddati the ancient records kept by Tulu Brahmins. The Naga slaves or Bunts were not allowed to marry and have families and hence practised Matriarchy.Paternity could not be establised as Polyandry was practised by Nagas. The Bunt (comnunity) of Tulunadu the parent community of Nairs of Kerala. Nayara Menava Kuruba Maralu and Samantha were subgroups of the Bunt (community) . The Tulu Brahmins (Shivalli Namboothiri Potti Embirandiri) called Bunts Nairs as Sudras. The Naga Bunta were employed by various kingdoms of Karnataka as soldiers. The Tulu Pandyan Kingdom or the Alupas was ruled by Nadavas ( Nadalvar) equivalent to Nadars or Nadalvars of Pandyan Kingdom (Though Nadavas are a subcaste of Bunts now the Nadavas could originally have Dravidian Pandyan roots). The Bunts used to work as slave warriors for the Alupas. The Muslim invasion of Malik Kafur in 1310 changed the position of all Nagas (Bunt , Nair and Naicker ) of south india hitherto slaves were suddenly elevated to rulership after 1310s. All the Dravidian kingdoms of south India were destroyed and Nagas started ruling with Muslim help. Nambuthiris still refused to crown Naga rulers of Kerala as Kshatriya hence Naga rulers were called Samantha (Namesake Kshatriya ). However the North Indian Sudras were fairer compared to Dravidians gaining them European support.

Southindia (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The deceit of British and degradation of Nadars

The Nadars and other indigenous Dravidians thought that British may help them free themselves from the Yoke of Nawab of the Carnatic and from the Vadugas (Naicker and Nair s of Bunt (community) who had occupied their ancestral land.Delegates of Nadars met British introducing themselves as Dravida Kshatria who once ruled ancient Tamilakam (Tamilnadu and Kerala) hence called Nadar or Nadalvar around 1800. Nadars told them about Pandya kingdom their ancestral Domain. British misrionaries such as Bishop Caldwell misinterpreted Dravida Kshatria. Caldwell called Nadars uncouth savages in his pamphlet Tinnevely Shanars. At 1847 Gnanamutthoo Nadar had to write in Madras Mail, an English daily to convince the British that Nadars were not Savages. Samuel Sargunar another Nadar Christian convert who had studied European Anthropology and Sociology vociferously challenged Caldwells comments on Chanars in the 1840s. The Malayali Nadars had books written in a dialect which resembled ancient Tamil of Kerala called Malayanma (Malayalam Tamil). Thousands of books of Malayali Nadars were written in Palm Leaf Manuscripts in Malayanma or Tamil or Manipravalam survive to this day. Nadars Kalarippayattu and Martial traditions were readily ignored by the British. British were quite convinced that all the Portuguese descendents from Goa to Kanyakumari were Brahmins and provided them with high posts in Kerala. Thachil Matthoo Tharakan a Syrian Christian was appointed as forest minister and first Christian minister of Travancore at 1795 by the British while many other Syrian Christians were appointed as judges. From 1795 British were the defacto rulers of Kerala. British residents ruled Kerala with the help of Tamil Brahmins who had joined the trade posts of East India Company as clerks. The Tamil Brahmins were Aryans belonging to Narmada river area and not ethnically related to Dravidians. The Narmada Brahmins dressed like other Saurashtra people (Saree and Dhoti tucked between legs] and promoted Sanskrit. Tamil Brahmins betrayed most Dravidian clans to British. The Tamil Brahmins convinced British that Nadars were not the Kshatriyas. (Dalavai Ramappaiyan a Narmada Tamil Brahmin actually led the invading Vijayanagar Naicker army in the 16th century). Thus European Colonialism deliberately promoted Non Dravidian Aryans and foreign blooded Christians. The Spice money and the protection of the Europeans kept alive an oppressive Naga regime for five Hundred years while reducing the Dravidian Villavar people to Slavery.

Southindia (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nadar Books and American Neo Colonialism

The Americans were suddenly got interested in the Nadar Community in the Post Independent era. The American authors such as Robert Hardgrave, Dennis Templeman or Eliza F Hunt are American University professors who had and had been part of American Government machinery. Dennis Templeman writes about Nadars like this 'A low Indian caste in terms Status influence and Wealth. This is a lie. This is a planned attack on ancient Nadar community who could have a total population of one crore and nearly 1 % of Indian population. American research is sham . Their ideas are mainly drawn from British records and Christian Clergy of Kerala. An absolute minority of Nadars are actually merchants. No such group such as Northern Nadars exist. Christianity played very minimal role in the advancement of Nadar community. Christian Nadars are actually poor and backward in many areas. Christianity has actually divided and weakened Nadars as British hoped. They are poorly represented in Parliament because of this division. Western and American help intervention has made the Portuguese - Syrian Christians, dominant in all Christian Educational institutions of India. Nadars are pure Dravidians and have been in India and their Pandya Kingdom could have founded civilization in India many thousand years ago. Nadars dont require Parangi American support either. Americans have been writing that the Pandyan Nadar (Nadalvar) title is imagined. The British inactivity and complicity in the Upper Cloth Revolt is safely ignored by Americans.

Southindia (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, frankly, since there is a taboo against toplessness among American women, and toplessness (having no upper clothes) has a sexual connotation in America, the Americans might have been distracted by the subject matter... 68.37.254.48 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and there's another distraction: an American activist is named Ralph Nader. Famous activist, too. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by Mr.Doku for comparing the Tamil Nadars with Kerala Nadars

Go through all the links you have posted Mr. Doku. You make it sound like that the whole Nadar race had to follow this caste restriction. Post a proof which says that the Tamil Nadars had to face the same kind of caste restriction. I will post the appropriate proofs. Till then this article should never appended with the Nadar main article.Bake1987 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The references used did not make any such distinction. If you read the article carefully, it also includes information regarding revolt in current day Tamil Nadu in places such as Kottar. Prove it wrong, I am willing to change. Docku:“what up?” 14:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A small part of Tamil-nadu doesnt mark the whole of Tamil-Nadu. Moreever Nagerkoil is a place very close to Kerala and the place is predominantly occupied by malayalees. I will post a proof as soon possible. Articles writen about a caste should be considered with very appropriate facts. There are many sorts of Nadars. And u r just talking about a very minute section of Nadars.Bake1987 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am just talking about a very minute section of Nadars. So??? Docku:“what up?” 15:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please post a link which confirms that this caste restriction was also practiced in tamil nadu...Bake1987 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The article just deals with Travancore kingdom, which was almost the southern half of modern Kerala and southern region of present day Tamil Nadu. There was no Tamil Nadu or Kerala when the incident happened. Docku:“what up?” 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Majority of people of Travancore except brahmins never wore upper clothes. do you have any reference that nadar/izhava woman were never allowed to wear upper cloths? i think all references talks about channar woman. isnt?

11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pls read the article again. The article says that nadar, ezhava and nair women were not wearing upper clothes.. And, the references in the article calls them nadars not channars whatever that is. See here. Docku: What up? 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nadar were Slaves in both Tamilnadu and Kerala

The Tamil kingdoms came to an end in 1310 after the invasion of Malik Kafur in both Tamilnadu and Kerala. The Muslim dominance came to get excercised through Madurai Sultanate Nawab of the Carnatic and the Moplah . The Nagas Vadugas occupied both TN (Naicker and Kerala by Nair. The Kalabhras the traditional antagonists of Pandyas joined the invading Nagas. The Villavar Nadar people were forced to take refuge in jungles of southern western ghats. The Nadar degradation might have come between 15 th to 18 th centuries. Some Jain temples survived upto 16th century.The temple of Kannagi the traditional Jain goddess of Villavar people became a Hindu temple after Naga takeover. In the 19th century Nadars were not allowed to enter any temples in TN or Kerala including the Thiruchendur temple built by Parakrama Pandyan and Padmanaba Swami temple consecrated by Nedumchadaya Pandyan, their ancestors. The Villavar people had to abandon the ancient Kannagi temple built by the Chera_ Villavar ruler Neduncheralathan when they fled to south. The Vallikada Panicker was an aristocrat, a Nadar ancestor who lived in the 16th century Cochin. Valiathampi Kunjuthampi Kadaippadal written at mid 18th century says that several families of Nadakkamar and Panikkanmar(Kerala Nadar title) served Marthanda Varma and his rivals Pappu and Raman Thampi as mercendries and defenders. In the same period At 1725 Branthan Chanan and the army of Nadars saved Marthanda Varma from his enemies. It is believed Marthanda Varma was behind the ostracism of Nadars. But in the early 19th century their position was very low in Travancore.

1. Chanar were not allowed inside Hindu temples
2. Chanar not allowed to wear Gold in public
3. Chanar could not own more than 10 acres of land
4. Chanar could not build two storey building
5. Chanar women could not wear Upper Cloth

In Tamil Nadu

1. Chanar were restricted to extreme south at Thirunelveli/Tuticorin area.
2. Chanars were not allowed inside Temples
3. Chanar were forced to live in dryland
4. Chanar could not serve in army

In 1801 some Chanar delegates met the British Collector of Thirunelveli and declared themselves to be the Vanquished Kshatrias from Pandyan era and requested that they may be reinstated. The Collector asked the Nadars to bring a single gold coin minted by Nadars Pandian ancestors. The gold coin brought by the Nadars turned out to be an Italian Drachm, prompting the Collector to close the case.

Southindia (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So?

So just make sure that this happened to the Nadars of kerala. Kerala Nadars and Tamil Nadars are not one these days!! So u have to mention it specifically!!! This link here clearly will tel u that this happened in a place where nairs were predominant. S there were no kerala o tamil nadu in those days. But this incident happened in a place which was predominantly occupied by malayalees. Malayalees and Tamils were 2 different races right frm the beginning..Bake1987 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[1]

Your knowledge of race in India is remarkable. Using a pro-Nadar caste website to make a pro-Nadar point is outstanding. Docku:“what up?” 16:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not tryin to making things look according to the Nadar point of view. I am jus trying to say that this happened to the Nadars who were in a malayalee dominated region and specifically conveying this didnt happen to all the Nadars. I am not tryin to prove u are wrong o something. No offence.Bake1987 (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is always a book which reveals the negative side of a caste. The fact is we don't like docku and we will never allow an article written by him to remain in wiki. He is an anti-nadar,period. After all this, he is still trying to disturb this article. This upper cloth controversy is actually a conflict between a tamil caste and other malayalee castes. It is not even a caste prob. The Nairs were predominant in these areas and ofcourse they did'nt like a tamil caste disobeying their rules. So it was actually tamil vs malayalam. Not a caste conflict. Adding this article to the main Nadar article is baseless. There are many caste conflicts that has happened between the nadars and other castes. We cant include them all. Also docku addresses the nadars as though they were untouchables. If we were such a low caste we wouldnt have excelled so much in business. Noone would trade from a untouchable. Obviously docku ia taking all this very personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.92.83 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What about these articles, H. Vasanthakumar, S. P. Adithanar and Ayya Nadar articles. I wrote them too. Do you want them deleted as well? --Docku: What's up? 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you guys do think that this article is nonsense, propose for it to be deleted. You can try speedy deletion or Nominate for deletion debate. --Docku: What's up? 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya right. As if we don't know what you r up to, oFcourse we ll have this deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.3.171 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Which part of tamil-nadu? Tirunelveli or Madurai? The Nadars of Nagerkoil are widely recognised as Kerala nadars because of their appearance and culture. Asserting that these acts were practiced in Tamilnadu sounds like a fairy tale. I can't believe that wiki is actually supporting the claims of the docku and completing ignoring our claims. Someone neutral made it clear that this page should be locked till 14th. But it seems someone who supports docku has allegedly removed that tag for docku's sake. Referring two books to write history of the nadars? Wiki's concern over neutrality is under a big question mark. The line which says that the nairs stripped the clothes of nadars is sheer racism. Even if it is true, this line can be avoided for the sake of the nadars and for neutrality's sake!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.105.155 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wiki" supports reliable sources, not your claims or Docku's claims. Read Reliable Sources, and the sources that support the article and you'll see how "Wiki" works. Priyanath ^talk 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. So wiki allows kids like you to do the writing part. So does that mean anyone can write anything about anyone without the permission of that specific person. We never asked wiki to write an article about us. If this article doesnt care a damn about the views of the nadars, I can only say that wiki is run by kids. Who the hell is wiki to write about us and to even make things wiki has prevented common users like from editing this crap page. The contents in this article are not accurate either. For eg, this happened to the nadars who lived in kereala. Google books is not the greatest library on earth. Wiki sucks bigtime. We don't care about the rules of wiki. This is a public place and writing crap about a clan without their permission is something intolerable. 122.164.13.231 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Its useless to continue this discussion. People here speak of rules. They are not serious. The article is not even correct. The nadars and shanars are today one caste but were seperate castes at a time. People should chose their words carefully when writing about a caste. This incident happened in a Malayalee dominated region. Also only the shanars(toddy tapping nadars) were its victims. How baseless and insane can this get?? If things arent favorable to our people,then these so called rules should be broken to compensate our view and belief. I dont suppose wiki is as rigid as the caste system Refer this book. Converting Women By Eliza F. Kent(Page 62).

Replacing the term nadar with shanar is not a great improvement. Someone should delete this article or consider removing it from the main article Nadar.122.174.6.228 (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered. This shows how much importance is given to this article. Nothing but a scribble this article. So is someone here gonna remove this insignificant article frm the main nadar article o what??122.174.6.228 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement corrections

• " no female was allowed to cover their upper part of the body in front of Brahmins of Kerala " -> This is changed to : " no female was allowed to cover their upper part of the body in front of Upper castes until the 19th century. "

Reason: This rule was not only for the Nambudiris, but to all upper castes.

• " Violence against Nadar climber women who revolted against this continued and reached its peak in 1858 across the kingdom, notably in southern taluks of Neyyattinkara and Neyyur. " -> This is changed to : " Violence against Nadar women and other lower caste women who revolted against this continued and reached its peak in 1858 across the kingdom, notably in southern taluks of Neyyattinkara, Nagarcoil, and Agastheeswaram. "

Reason: The discrimination was not only against Nadar women, but also against all lower castes. Also, Neyyur was not a taluk. So, including the taluk names. Cheers, Aarem ^(Talk) 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have refs to support all your above claims? The upper caste sentence part is same as the sentence which was on the article before. If you can provide any ref to support your claim that other castes were also involved in the struggle, please do. You can't add a line which was never in the ref. Hope you can understand.Mayan302 (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Verrry interesting to us Westerners... so lower caste women had to be topless in certain parts of India until the 1850s? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nadars’ former status

Obviously Sylvester's book is not a thorough anthopological work. According to leading Nadar anthropologists, Robert.L.Hardgrave and Dennis Templeman, the nadar were not untouchables. Hardgrave and Bishop Caldwell(the person who was actually with the Nadars of 19thcentury) state that the Nadars occupied a position above the vannans and ambattans(barbers and washer men) and below other middle castes in the caste hierarchy(ref:Hardgrave pg 21-23). In other words, they occupied a middle position like the Vishwakarmas(assaris). Hardgrave also states that there were many Nadar subcastes in southern Tirunelveli, during the 19th century. The status of each subcaste was different from the other and this is even a confusing topic for Hardgrave. Some aristocratic Nadars were tradionally wealthy landlords and some of these land owning Nadars also resided in Southern Travancore(refer:Hargrave pg-29&56). Templeman states that most of the Nadars of the 19th century were not a part of the mainstream Hindu caste society and that their vague position in the hierarchy actually enabled them to challenge the traditional caste society. This makes more sense. The Nadars were able to become a successful business community due to this fact (Templeman:21-23). So the Nadars' former status is confusing and varied from region to region. The term Nadar is a modern title used to refer all these different groups of Nadars and equating all these groups to the term 'Untouchable' is inappropriate. Toddy tapping is just one of the occupations of the community. The community was primarily engaged in the manufacture of jaggery(Hardgrave:pg:137). The article states that the Nair community people covered their upper body. According to the Nair wiki article, nair men and women didn’t cover their upper body. This line also needs clarification. And the last section (Aftermath) has little to do with the upper cloth controversy or Nairs and it is more relevant to the Northern Nadars(a group of Nadars who migrated to Northern Tirunelveli) . The commissioner was no expert at this topic. Moreover this happened about 200 years ago and the current status of the Nadars is very different today. This is a complex topic and I advise the admins to consider these facts carefully. I am quite busy with my personal life now. I may not be able to participate in this discussion actively. But if you need any help please send me a message. I have the ebooks of Hardgrave and Templeman with me. If you need it, please let me know. Thank you.
Reference:
1)The Nadars of TamilNad by Robert.L.Hardgrave (University of California/ Year of publication:1969)

2)The Northern Nadars of TamilNad By Dennis Templeman(Oxford University Press/ Year of publication:1996) Mayan302 (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

• 00:16, 7 February 2016:

• "The Nadars were historically regarded as untouchable toddy tappers, and the bodies and attire of their women were coded to distinguish themselves from upper-caste women." - copyvio of Channa 2013 p.188.
• "Subhadra Channa has described the possible motive of the Channar revolt as for the desire of the Nadars to look like Nayar women. This is reflected" - the page does not mention the Channa revolt. It mentions "the Nadar woman and their protest in the Tranavncore state in the 19th century," and it mentions the permittance in 1913 by John Munro, the British resident at the Tranvancore court, in for the Nadar women "to cover their breasts with the breast cloth typical of the Nayar women." - is this a deliberate attempt to falsify info, or does the editor just not understand what's being written here?
• "Historically in Kerala, namely Travancore, the wearing of an upper cloth was allowed only to the Brahmin and Nair castes." - this is not what the source says. It says: "By tradition in Travancore, the breast was bared as a symbol of respect to those of higher status."
• "Many foreign groups such as the Syrian Christians and Muslims were allowed to also wear an upper cloth, but one which was different compared to that of the upper-caste hindus known as 'Kupayam'." - source does not say "many." It says that in 1813 the Nadars were allowed to wear jackets like the women of Christians, Shonagas, and Maplas.

To be continued. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

After having read the passage from Cohn, I don't see any major problems with the earlier version, other than the bit about untouchability. The main point seems to be that the Nadar women were permitted to wear the kuppayam jacket, but they weren't satisfied. They wanted to wear the same kind of breast cloth that the Nair women did. Ergo, they were fighting for equality. We shouldn't lose this important bit. Also, the John Munro order was in 1813! But note that it was rescinded. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Read through all of the source given. I did not attempt to falsify info, look at the refs for heaven's sake. Rabt man (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did read the references & sources you gave. @Kautilya3: which part of which earloer version are you referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the version you started editing. It appears that being bare-chested was the natural way of being for the Keralites, which is fully understandable in the hot and humid climate of Kerala. Problems started appearing only when the "foreign religions," including Hinduism, but now Christianity, came in and introduced their prudish mores. The Brahmin women covered their chests, probably wearing blouses. Thus chest-covering became a symbol of caste rank. The middle ranks covered their chests lightly, using a "breast-cloth," but didn't wear blouses. The lower castes didn't cover their chests at all. Christian missionaries came and taught the lower-caste women that they had to cover their breasts. (You can actually hear them thinking how barbaric it is not to cover chests!) Then the women decided they wanted to do it the Keralite way, not the Christian way. So there are many many undercurrents and subtexts in this saga. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Partisan sources

Azuredivay, please explain the "partisan sources" tag; as far as I can see, the substance of the article is based on scholarly sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The earlier version (when it was tagged with "partisan sources" tag) clearly had news sources that don't belong here per WP:HISTRS. Why you are restoring them? Wareon (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

HISTRS is an essay. When scholarly sources are available, they are preferable, but high-quality news sources can certainly be used to supplement them when they provide useful detail. You removed both a scholarly source and all links to Breast tax; why did you do that? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not just an essay but a standard. I was restoring exactly this version by Mayan302. How come news sources know things that scholarly sources don't know about a 150 years old subject? It sounds fishy. See WP:REDFLAG. Wareon (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thank you for doing the cleanup and recognizing the need of scholarly sources.[2] The article states "Lower-caste women who wore clothes that covered their breasts had to pay a punitive breast tax to the state", cited to a BBC source which is still not a scholarly source and it is mainly interpreting what it has learned from "a village tale". Is that reliable? OUP has been used for the next sentence which makes no mention of such a "tax". It does not even mention Nangeli "village tale". I am confident that if this claim had any strong validity then it won't be missed by a source like OUP given the OUP book has significantly covered the subject. I assume that these news sources have started to find historicity in the claims of village tales in protest to NCERT decision to remove the mention of Channar revolt from school curriculum.[3] Wareon (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Rome was not built in a day. I have to read, sleep, eat, live a little. There is no deadline. - Sitush (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources for tax?

I realise that the breast tax issue has kicked off a storm here and elsewhere. I can see recent news sources that refer to such a tax but Indian news sources, in particular, really do tend to feed off each other and are not particularly reliable.

I have been trawling for scholarly sources that mention such a tax. I am not new to this subject but (a) cannot recall seeing it mentioned until recently and (b) as yet haven't found an academic who had mentioned it. Also, it does not seem to appear in contemporary British works such as Logan's Travancore State Manual (we wouldn't consider that to be reliable but he was fond of minutiae & this practice would have appealed to his sense of the "heathen").

So, has anyone actually got a decent academic source that refers to it or are we in danger of repeating populist stuff that may well be an extreme example of "fake news"? - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I did notice that S. N. Sadasivan referred to it about 20 years ago but he is hopelessly unreliable as a historian and we routinely excise any citations of him. So far, that is all I have found before news stories in the 2010s. Even Hardgrave, who wrote a pretty definitive study of the Nadars in 1969, doesn't seem to mention it. I really suspect this has come out of Sadasivan's stupidity & some feminist/lower-caste activist nexus in more recent times. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: The ones brought to my attention were [4] and [5], which look okay. There's this, which is perhaps a dodgy publisher, whom I'd have to investigate more. There's also a book from "Mittal publications", and another Charles Allen references (a book). It's a little too much to write off entirely, for me; the media source is the BBC, too, not just the dodgy Indian papers. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Charles Allen (writer) is a popular historian whom I know has close-paraphrased stuff without attribution, so he may not be the best thing to go for. Or is this a different Charles Allen? The 2019 feminist paper is obviously peer-reviewed but also obviously driven by the agenda I mentioned - do the writers give a source for whatever they claim? I haven't spotted a BBC item that actually says there was a tax in the BBC's voice.

We can't write it off, and I wasn't intending to do that. I just think it may need contextualising because this has come almost literally out of nowhere despite both the region & its major castes(Nair, Ezhava, Nadar etc) being among the most intensely studied in all of India. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I rewrote the Nangeli article, months back and it was pretty stable - why are we discussing this? Manu S. Pillai, a quite reputed historian had covered this issue comprehensively and I have nothing more to add. The tax certainly existed as a generic tax imposed on LC women (which was part of an broader oppressive tax-regime and not limited to women) but it had nothing to do with breast size (as extrapolated from etymological connections and perpetuated in regional folkore, before gaining some legitimization by DBA activists). ∯WBG^converse 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• But this is also a yet another recent news source failing WP:HSC which mostly appears to be discussing the recent propagation of the "tax" by depending on a village legend. Whether a generic tax was imposed or not, the bigger issue is if it was as relevant as much as it has been interpreted to be significantly relevant by the recent media sources who are lously engaging in revisionism. As mentioned above, if the "tax" is actually a relevant part to the subject, then why this article alone lacked any mention before last year or the above Oxford University source which has discussed the subject in great lengths but mentions nothing about the tax? If we could discover multiple reliable scholarly publications coming before 2015, not prone to taking inspiration from local village legends and indeed cite some source/evidence for their claim then we can assess the credibility of the subject. Subject has been widely covered for 200 years, it must be easy to find such sources. Currently it all looks like revisionism, since the "tax" part appears to be having a lack of relevance in Channar revolt once we ignore the recent news sources. Azuredivay (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to see an academic source that is referencing contemporary or near-contemporary primary sources, not rehashing a folk tale. Folklore has its place, sure, and there is no doubt that historians frequently find new sources that cause revisions of history, but modern standards of presenting history pretty much demand that sources are at least near-contemporaneous, even if oral history. I don't trust a folk tale narrative to have remained static in the face of the present-day social activists and I am astonished if reputable historians are putting their status on the line in academically rigorous publications based purely on the moving target that is a 200 year old tale largely passed down by word of mouth. Absent this, any mention probably needs a significant caveat. FWIW, I have literally been in the room when a renowned historian realised his much-publicised thoughts would not stand up to academic scrutiny - Hugh Trevor-Roper was both a teacher and a friend to me. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree that Pillai fails HISTRS — the linked piece is an excerpt from [S. Pillai, Manu. (2019). "The woman with no breasts" The Courtesan, the Mahatma and the Italian Brahmin: Tales from Indian History. Chennai: Comtext Imprint, Westland Publications] which had extensive bibliographies, if I recall correctly.
• I don't deem the tax to be a major causative agent behind the rebellion and (as noted before) agree that much of this has to do with agenda-driven revisionism.
• Bernard S. Cohn, a historian-par-excellence do mention (and derive from) Yesudas' works in context of the broader locus. [Yesudas had name-dropped the tax as a generic charge on LC women.]
• An Indian History Congress presentation (2004) notes of the tax wrt the revolt but I don't deem their conference-presentations to be of high scholarly merit and/or rigor.
• To summarise, I don't believe the tax to belong here, at all, given that no scholarly text on the subject links the revolt with the tax. The discussion about the tax only belonged at Nangeli (wherein the details of her myth has been discussed) but sadly, a DRV has hold that there will be a seperate article on breast tax and I have no idea what it will contain. ∯WBG^converse 05:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just on the point of the conference paper, I think you may be right to have concerns. See my recent comment here. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Same reason. I have seen pretty many inaccuracies in a variety of presentations at the History Congress, over the years. They claim to do peer-review but it's practically non-existent. ∯WBG^converse 07:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and twisted information

The article is twisting the topic and is completely misleading .Also most of the references used here are mainly from the books related to religious conversions . the topic need to be edited as soon as possible and reliable and unbaised sources need to be added . Also unecesarily specifying other community names also need to avoided especially in sensitive topics. I hope admin will notice this . Theobserver8991 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Some references (like Ponnumuthan) are indeed bad. However, you removed a valid ref from Eliza Kent's book (a book published by Oxford University Press!). This article is mostly according to the refs from Hardgrave's and Kent's book. The BBC ref clearly states that the Ezhavas had to face this problem as well. So unless you provide another valid ref to prove your point we cant remove the term Ezhava from the article. Please don't remove valid refs. Mayan302 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please check the validity of the sources .

Unreliable sources. Theobserver8991 (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)