Talk:Ezhava

Template:Castewarningtalk

Theeyars (also spelt as Thiyya/Thiyyar) are the largest single Hindu community in Malabar region. The most cultured, highly educated and influential in every aspect of social life, they have outshone other segments of people in every walk of life. Their population is estimated to be over 35 lakh When Malabar was a constituent district of the erstwhile Madras State, Theeyars were included in the list of forward Castes. After the formation of Kerala State they were added to the list of Other Backward Classes presumably for enjoying the advantage of reservation. That was how they were equated to a distinctly different caste, Ezhava of Travancore, who have their origin in Dravidian migrants from Ceylon. Theeyars, the earliest inhabitants of Malabar are descendants of Indo-Aryan race who came over to Tian Shan region of Central Asia when their mother land - Crete Island – was inundated by a terrific flood in BC 1470-1450. Some historians say that their ancestors were the inhabitants of North Africa. From Tianshan area they spread over many regions including uninhabited land of Malabar, South Canara and Coorg. Some groups travelled still further and settled in Bali and Thahithi islands. Social historians like Kambil Anandan Master, T. Damu and M.M. Anantharam hold this view by and large. They are unanimous in their opinion that Theeyars and Ezhavas have nothing in common. They are distinctly different in their culture, lifestyle, customs and social practice. Anandan Master deals in detail with the history of “Mannanars”, a Theeya Dynasty who ruled over an area of highland in present Kannur District. The last Theeya King Kunhi Kelappan Mannanar was stabbed to death in AD 1902. There is another version about the origin of Theeyars. Alexander the great invaded India with a huge army numbering about 50,000. During the heavy battles nearly 30,000 of them lost their lives. A few thousands of the dejected soldiers left battle field and came down to south. Ultimately they settled in the uninhabited land of Malabar, South Canara and Coorg. They were the forefathers of Theeyars. Stories and legends may have some elements of truth in them, though we cannot take it for granted for hundred per cent accuracy. It is amply clear from these varied stories that Theeyars came to settle themselves in the uninhabited land of Malabar several thousand years ago. There are unique ethnic, social, cultural, spiritual and physical features of the Theeyars of Malabar, which no other community can claim. In this connection the following things are to be taken cognizance of :- (a) Theeyars belong to any of the eight clans (Illams). Ezhavas have no such illam. Marriage between individuals of same illams is prohibited and it is still strictly followed in Northern parts of North Malabar. (b) Theeyars, till recently, were followers of Matriarchy. Ezhavas followed Patriarchy right from the beginning. (c) Theeyars do not give or accept dowry. Theeyars look down upon any caste or people who accept or give dowry. In sharp contrast, certain other castes of Travancore, whose organizations are striving to merge their caste with Theeyars and propagating the one caste theory, bargain for dowry. (d) Theeya ladies have right to property. (e) Rights and rituals of Theeyars are distinctly different from other castes. (f) Theeyars have their own way of worship (Kavu, Kazhakam, Theyyam etc). (g) Theeyars of Malabar have Mediterranean features. (h) Theeyars, anthropologically, have an architectural style totally different from any other castes including that of Ezhavas. (i) Theeyars had suzerainty over lower castes in Malabar. (j) Traditionally, Theeyars only have the right to be the Kalasakkaran in their Kavu as well as in the Kavu of other communities. (k) During the period when local judiciary existed Theeyars (Tharayil Karanavars) only were on the jury. For generations, Theeyars worshiped Sri Vayanattukulavan as “Kuladeivam” and Sri Muthappan as “Kulanathan”.. The sp

Thurston

I have just reverted an edit that cited Edgar Thurston. I'm pretty sure that this is far from being the first occasion that he has been removed from this article. The source has been repeatedly rejected on the grounds of reliability, across an entire swathe of articles relating to South Indian communities: he was a scientific racist, untrained in ethnography, unable to speak the local languages and reliant mostly upon a few Brahmins whose own biases he did not take into account. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So are the sources that you have used in Nair. They are all from scientific racists who do the same as you have said. You have removed them in Izhava, but kept them in Nair. Why is that?Rabt man (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Too much wannabe stuff detracts from the quality of the Article

Seriously, the whole article has a bunch of claims of origin that have never been heard of before. Tiyyas claim different origin from Izhavas, but pan-izhavas in this article say that Tiyyas are Izhavas. Nairs are a whole different caste altogether, and had no admixture. In fact, Izhavas and other castes considered 'backward' status were not allowed a certain distance within a Nair, and a certain distance from the Nair's home.other It is also mentioned many times that 'Izhavas were the best of the lower castes'. The case that Izhavas were servants of Brahmins that were not given military functions is a total joke. Its as if the Izhavas are saying in this article that they wish they were Nairs. Seriously, this whole article talks about an identity crisis and comparison with other castes, as opposed to any complex studies on who the caste really was. Moplahs are not even a caste and don't rank within the caste system. Moplahs are seen as 'foreginers' in reality because they are partly the descendants of Arabs who came to settle in Malabar. Moplahs were not considered in the caste system, and if anything, they may have been considered high caste. This article overall seems very POV. Rabt man (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific and relate your comments to WP:RS rather than making generalised assertions. For instance, on the Ezhava/Tiyya issue, the text in the article is referenced to cited sources. Rather than just saying "Tiyyas claim different origin", you'll need to explain why we should not use those cited sources (if you have a reason). "It is also mentioned many times that 'Izhavas were the best of the lower castes'". I can't see the quoted text in the article. Could you pooint it out please? DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not one quoted text but many:

Parts of Article in which there is POV shown to say that Izhavas were the 'best of the lower castes'

"Pullapilly describes that this meant they "... were given kshatriya functions, but only shudra status. Thus originated the Nairs." The Ezhavas, not being among the group protecting the Jains, became out-castes.[11]"

"Thiyyas of Central Travancore were historically the highest-ranking of the "higher polluting castes", a group whose other constituents included Kanisans and various artisanal castes, and who were all superior in status to the "lower polluting castes", such as the Pulayars and Paraiyars."

"The Buddhist tradition of the Ezhavas, and the refusal to give it up, pushed them to an outcaste role within the greater Brahminic society.[11][12] This tradition is still evident as Ezhavas show greater interest in the moral, non-ritualistic, and non-dogmatic aspects of the religion rather than the theological.[11]"

The Source [11] as shown above, is from a book about Izhavas and to quote the book for your convenience "Izhavas and their Historic struggle for acceptance in Hindu society" by Cyriac K. Pullapilly (A Christian, and from a community that had large amounts of converts from the Izhava community, and in addition, possibly an Izhava convert himself due to the name Pullapilly which was given to Izhava converts). Also, the source [12] is clearly from a biased opinion. The source itself is [Joseph, George Gheverghese (2003). On life and times of George Joseph, 1887–1938, a Syrian Christian nationalist from Kerala. Orient Longman. p. 18. ISBN 978-81-250-2495-8. Retrieved 2007-12-09.]. "A Syrian Christian Nationalist from Kerala". Hmmm....

Regarding the Thiyya stuff, it is a dispute. I merely said that they claim different origin, and it is ongoing. But if you really want to know, Western Anthropologists are not always the most reliable. Gough's work (cited in the tiyya dispute) is considered very controversial as she did not know the language, customs, or proper history of the people. She took accounts from Izhavas, if you have read the book. But overall, comparing the Izhava caste to other communities makes the Izhava look like a wannabe community.

If you want more cited evidence regarding the wannabe stuff and specific examples where the castes and communites are compared, I can provide evidence from the article for that too as soon as possible, but I have to go now so...cheersRabt man (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Pullapilly, Gough etc are respected post-war anthropologists. You might not like what they say or their personal religious affiliations etc but we cannot ignore it. I've referred you to WP:NPOV and WP:RS previously, and more recently to WP:SPA because you are quite obviously here just to try raising the status of Nair and to diminish that of Ezhava - communities that have a long history of battleground activity on Wikipedia and of sockpuppeting etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh I never said anything about Gough in this article yet, but I have given explanation to why Puliapally is unreliable. Also, you are attributing motive which we do not do in Wikipedia. Please see WP:AGF. Also, I am not here to fight disputes between Nair and Ezhava. Like I said earlier, this article makes the Izhava community look like wannabes due to the heavy comparisons of origin from unreliable sources. I also am not trying to 'raise' the status of Nairs as the entire article on the Nair community is a public attack, and you with all due respect, seem to be trying to enforce every single negative opinion in that article. While on the other hand, trying to 'raise' the status of the Izhava community itself. Cheers Rabt man (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That you think Pullapilly is unreliable may perhaps demonstrates your "newness" here, although you seem to have picked up some obscure policies and "in-house" stock phrases quickly! I think that if you want to challenge the reliability then you will find yourself at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Toddy tapping and liqour business are the occupations of not just ezhavas but aso the Syrian Christians(abkaari)- Only a common ancestry can explain this. Many of the ezhavas converted to escape the brutal caste system in kerala106.51.20.13 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Pullapilly tries to assert that ezhavas are buddhists, then how is it that they were/are hindus? they should have continued in their religion which is not the case, the CHEKAVARS of the caste had worshiped "Kali" and ARJUNA NRITTAM performed in Bhagavathi temple further substantiate this fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.20.13 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See the information at WP:RS and compare with that at WP:OR. The article follows the former and you are engaging in the latter. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Ezhavas are actually warriors and higher in caste than Nairs and Brahmins. Please add that, also, Nairs are sudras and are inferior to Ezhavas in caste so they do not have common heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balakrishnan Koran (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Not doneYou need to provide a specific change you'd like to make in the article and back that up with a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Theeyars (also spelt as Thiyya/Thiyyar) are the largest single Hindu community in Malabar region. The most cultured, highly educated and influential in every aspect of social life, they have outshone other segments of people in every walk of life. Their population is estimated to be over 35 lakh When Malabar was a constituent district of the erstwhile Madras State, Theeyars were included in the list of forward Castes. After the formation of Kerala State they were added to the list of Other Backward Classes presumably for enjoying the advantage of reservation. That was how they were equated to a distinctly different caste, Ezhava of Travancore, who have their origin in Dravidian migrants from Ceylon. Theeyars, the earliest inhabitants of Malabar are descendants of Indo-Aryan race who came over to Tian Shan region of Central Asia when their mother land - Crete Island – was inundated by a terrific flood in BC 1470-1450. Some historians say that their ancestors were the inhabitants of North Africa. From Tianshan area they spread over many regions including uninhabited land of Malabar, South Canara and Coorg. Some groups travelled still further and settled in Bali and Thahithi islands. Social historians like Kambil Anandan Master, T. Damu and M.M. Anantharam hold this view by and large. They are unanimous in their opinion that Theeyars and Ezhavas have nothing in common. They are distinctly different in their culture, lifestyle, customs and social practice. Anandan Master deals in detail with the history of “Mannanars”, a Theeya Dynasty who ruled over an area of highland in present Kannur District. The last Theeya King Kunhi Kelappan Mannanar was stabbed to death in AD 1902. There is another version about the origin of Theeyars. Alexander the great invaded India with a huge army numbering about 50,000. During the heavy battles nearly 30,000 of them lost their lives. A few thousands of the dejected soldiers left battle field and came down to south. Ultimately they settled in the uninhabited land of Malabar, South Canara and Coorg. They were the forefathers of Theeyars. Stories and legends may have some elements of truth in them, though we cannot take it for granted for hundred per cent accuracy. It is amply clear from these varied stories that Theeyars came to settle themselves in the uninhabited land of Malabar several thousand years ago. There are unique ethnic, social, cultural, spiritual and physical features of the Theeyars of Malabar, which no other community can claim. In this connection the following things are to be taken cognizance of :- (a) Theeyars belong to any of the eight clans (Illams). Ezhavas have no such illam. Marriage between individuals of same illams is prohibited and it is still strictly followed in Northern parts of North Malabar. (b) Theeyars, till recently, were followers of Matriarchy. Ezhavas followed Patriarchy right from the beginning. (c) Theeyars do not give or accept dowry. Theeyars look down upon any caste or people who accept or give dowry. In sharp contrast, certain other castes of Travancore, whose organizations are striving to merge their caste with Theeyars and propagating the one caste theory, bargain for dowry. (d) Theeya ladies have right to property. (e) Rights and rituals of Theeyars are distinctly different from other castes. (f) Theeyars have their own way of worship (Kavu, Kazhakam, Theyyam etc). (g) Theeyars of Malabar have Mediterranean features. (h) Theeyars, anthropologically, have an architectural style totally different from any other castes including that of Ezhavas. (i) Theeyars had suzerainty over lower castes in Malabar. (j) Traditionally, Theeyars only have the right to be the Kalasakkaran in their Kavu as well as in the Kavu of other communities. (k) During the period when local judiciary existed Theeyars (Tharayil Karanavars) only were on the jury. For generations, Theeyars worshiped Sri Vayanattukulavan as “Kuladeivam” and Sri Muthappan as “Kulanathan”.. The sp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadathanadan chekavar (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)