Talk:Nair

Nairs and Namboodiris Share same H and Q Haplotypes

It is interesting to read the division along traditional caste lines with each sub-caste trying to out-erase the other one! I feel it may be more productive if some of the folks here could donate dna to the geneology project. (It does cost $99). http://www.ysearch.org/haplo_pie.asp . As far as I can tell the Nairs and Namboodiris share Q haplotypes. H haplotype is also present in Nairs, but is connected mostly to east europeans/jews, which came as a surprise to me. Interestingly the Christians in Kerala seem to be children of Scottish and Irish fathers (in a search by haplotypes R1a and J2) which likely happened after the British came to India.... So much for the theory of Namboodiri origins of Achayans! Kerala is an interesting state from a genetic perspective... 76.118.35.41 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop User:B Nambiar's vandalism

I simply don’t want to cross 3RR & being pushed me into blocking for 24 hour as I have lots of other crufts to be removed. Nambiar, you are pushing WP:POVPUSH of cast chauvinism and monkeysms into the article. It has been already reverted by many editors and I am afraid that you are editing against consensus. Your so-called reference does not qualified per WP:V .You are editing items that don’t have any proper sources and more or less WP:NOR and WP:CRUFT. Please stop your vandalism and pushing all these rubbish and misleading stuff.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you where the "chauvinism" is? The quote is from a book. How can something be OR if it's cited? --vi5in^[talk] 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Phraseology goes beyond source and the source itself has zero info on the ostensible sub-casts. Therefore, it has been reverted by many editors. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The introduction about Nairs being similar to the Samurai is not required (there are thousands of martial nobilities around the world), and there is no reason why the Samurai identity should be used to describe Nairs. I see that the information that Harjk has taken out is subjective (eg. Nairs being beautiful, etc.) however I think these statements are derived from quotes by Europeans (who thought the top-knot worn by Nairs could be emulated by Europeans). If these statements are being used they must be in purely quote format, not as facts. The section on Nair subcastes is worth keeping, as they do have references.Hijjins (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with user Harjk. The article has really come a long way and I don't find any 'chauvanism'. Most of the contents are very well substantiated with citations. Also it would be better to be specific on the matter when you have differences than making open-ended comments....Keraleeyan —Preceding comment was added at 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I put that there is because I recall reading the comparison in a National Geographic article about Kerala. I've been trying very hard since then to find that piece. You can paste comparisons and facts here as long as they are backed up by facts. I don't see why the information on sub-castes has been removed. It's obviously of historical significance, even if it isn't observed today. The quote about the hair-bun being "beautiful" is subjective. True. But it's the entire quote, and is presented as such and not as "fact". Can these editors please explain their changes and their reasons for doing so. Harjk, do you have a copy of the Travancore State Manual? I am assuming the information has been presented verbatim or at least compiled from there. --vi5in^[talk] 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Article

The article should be renamed as "Nayar" which is the correct English translation of നായര. This term was originally used by Europeans in early colonial times however the name later became anglicized to "Nair". According to convention, the Malayalam names are converted to their equivalent (Samudiri for Zamorin, Aluva for Alwaye, Kannur for Cannanore, Nambudiri for Namboothiri, Kochi for Cochin). Although most have "Nair" as their surname and "Nair" is more common (eg. Nair Service Society), "Nayar" is the correct term and should be used for the article (refer to "Madras" being the internationally common term, with institutes such as the University of Madras still in existence , but "Chennai" being used for the Wikipedia Article).Hijjins (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Nair" is more common, whereas "Nayar" is rarer. Although the later is the correct transliteration, the article is not based on transliteration, but on common name. --vi5in^[talk] 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should check the Wikipedia policy in regards to this (Correct term vs Most common term. Judging from precedents, such as the examples above, I would think that the correct term is most appropriate (note that Malayalee has been changed to Malayali) Hijjins (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nairs and Kshatriyas

I am unable to find substantial evidence in support of the Article's claim that the Kshatriya families of Kerala were originally Nairs. Poonjar Palace in Tiruvalla , for example , have traditions that a Rajput clan arrived in Kerala in the early centuries of the Second Milleneum, preceding Cheraman Perumal , perhaps. Similiarly, it's well known that the scions of Pandalam are decendants of the Pandyas of Madurai. Nairs were associated with the palaces throughout history, but the rigid boundaries of caste were transgressed rarely, if at all. Kshatriyas of Kerala form a caste that's different from that of the Nairs. Thankabhasma Kuriyitta Thamburatti (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nairs are different from the ancient Tamil Kshatriyas of Kerala ( Alvars, Nadalvar, Maran,Ay,Valluvan) but Some Nairs did elevate themselves Kshatriyahood in the 13 to 14 th centuries.Originally the Nairs were Sutras of Naga Scythian origin and not Tamils.The original Tamil kings of Kerala were Jain/Dravida kings who had Patriarchal descendency. The ancient Tamil kings of Kerala were CherasVillavar and Pandyas, Ays,Valluvans, Ezhimalai kings etc. In the ancient times Cheras and Pandyas were related Dravidian warrior clans.Cheras had principalities in Pandyan kingdom and vice versa. Whole of Kerala south of Kodungalur was ruled by Madurai Pandyan kings when Plini the elder visited Kerala 1900 yrs ago.or Niranam the Pandyan Capital There were many Pandyan principalities in Kerala including Pandalam. After the fall of the Chera kingdom in 1100s many Kshatriyas of Rashtrakuta origin seems to have dominated the Malabar. The Kolathiris were the first kingdom to adopt Matriarchy a non Dravidian custom, possibly because of their Rashtrakuta or Nair origins. After 1300s most of the traditional princes of Tamil origin were replaced by Naga Scythian Nairs and Namboothiris.Pandalam was a Pandyan Kingdom ruled by Dravidian Tamil Nadalvars. But the Namboothiris who occupied Pandalam claim that they descend from Pandyas at the same time claiming to be belonging to Aryan Bhargava Gotra of Namboothiris.The Pandyans were Dravidians not Aryan Namboothiris. The Travancore Royal family (1314) was an offshoot of Chirakkal Royal family. The Thambis did marry from Nairs indicating their Nair connections. Pandyan Nedumchadayan at about 750 Ad married a princess from Malwa Rajput princess whose relatives were stationed at Kudamalai Nadu. This Rajput princess converted the Pandyan ruler to Vaishnavism.Poonjar Raja could be related to the Maluvakon. Thus the Kshatriyas of Rashtrakuta origin along with some Namboothiris and Nairs who elevated themselves to Kshatriyahood between 1100 to 1300 ad period replaced the ancient Tamil Kshatriyas of Kerala completely.But some traces of ancient Tamil titles such as Pandyan,Villavar,Valluvakonathiri survived to 20th Century indicating intermixing with the Tamil aristocracy.

Nativedravidan (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a cock-and-bull story.

1."After 1300s most of the traditional princes of Tamil origin were replaced by Naga Scythian Nairs and Namboothiris.Pandalam was a Pandyan Kingdom ruled by Dravidian Tamil Nadalvars"- Who says so? Where's the historical evidence?

2."But the Namboothiris who occupied Pandalam claim that they descend from Pandyas at the same time claiming to be belonging to Aryan Bhargava Gotra of Namboothiris"- On the first place the Nambuthiri Brahmins did not ever penetrate south of Chengannur. Apart from that, what's the relevance of this statement here?We are talking of Kshatriyas and Nairs!

3."The Travancore Royal family (1314) was an offshoot of Chirakkal Royal family" How 's it so? The travancore royales trace their origins back to the Ay kings, and thence to Cheraman Perumal , satraps of the Pandyas etc. Princesses of Chiraykal who had sought refuge in Travancore/Attingal thanks to the campaigns of Tipu Sultan in Malabar, were adopted in the 19th century as heiresses; they ruled Travancore as Colonel Munro's stooges. Chirakkal blood is infused thus, quite recently.

4."The Thambis did marry from Nairs indicating their Nair connections." Quite an unconnected statement. Meaningless, too, since Tambis were Nairs per se; the nomenclature distinguishes offsprings born of liason between a Kshatriya Male and his Nair consort. Tambis could n't marry women of Kshatriya stock. Thomas Kutty Thannickal (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a cock and bull story like the one about St.Thomas visiting Kerala in the first century and baptzing those "early" christians. (The proverbial early birds that caught the worm!) The Zamorins were Nair chieftains to start with, who were accorded suzerainty by the departing Cheraman Perumal ,over territory as far as rhe cock's crow's audible(Kozhi koovunnadatrholam...Kozhikode!) with permission to expand their dominion by death and murder ( chathum konnum adakki vaazhka!)(So, the cock's arrived; the bull has n't; not yet!( Perhaps, there are too many beef eaters around!)The defining moment was the loot and pillage of the Thali Temple, and the murder of the Namboothiri Brahmins (Ooralar). Thali Temple was taken by force and a dynasty of Nairs was founded, to be famous in the history of Kerala as the Zamorins of Calicut.The "Sammothiri" laid claims to Kshatriyahood only in the 18th century.The Samoothiris atoned later for the murder of Brahmins ("Brahmahatya Paapam"), and the "Revathi Pattathanam" was one of the institutions brought in as penanace.Pundamon Punnayurkulam (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Kshatriyas" of Kerala like to think that they are completely different from the Nairs. However it is known that the Travancore, Cochin Rajahs had Nair origins and the Zamorin himself was a Nair. I think associating Nairs with the Varmas is much closer than associating them with the North Indian Rajputs.220.238.215.72 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. The Varmas and Nairs have unmistakeable common origins, including the system of matrilineage. Foreign elements have been injected from time to time, but overall it is indeed appropriate to say that the Kerala Varmas are Nairs transformed to Vedic Kshatriya status, possibly in return for the grant of special privileges to tbe Brahmans in Travancore and Cochin. These kshatriyas were initially "figurehead" rulers with most of the political power residing with the Nair militias/warlords/feudal chiefs. The Varma kings of Travancore and Cochin were historically weak in power until the rise of more hegemonic rulers such as Martandavarma. It is an interesting parallel to feudal Japan, which featured a figurehead Emperor and powerful but non-imperial families of Daimyos and Shoguns fielding Samurai militias.69.180.12.214 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Though the Kshatriyas and Namboothiri men married nair ladies, Nair men could not marry Kshatriya or Namboothiri women.Namboothiris sons out of a Nair women was considered Nair and a Sudra not a Brahmin. Neither the Kshatriya offsprings born to Nair ladies, the Thambis could become kings but they had some privileges including they can visit the king anytime they wanted. Nativedravidan (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Keralolpathy and Karnataka king Mayuravarma

Both Keralolpathy and Karnataka accounts of Kadamba king Mayuravarma say that Bunt of Karnataka and Nairs are the Sudras, who accompanied the Brahmins (Namboothiris,Pottis and Shivalli Brahmins) as slaves from Ahichatra the Naga kingdom. Mayuravarma brought them from Uttarpradesh/Uttarkhand at the Indo Nepalese border in the year 345 ad to Banavasi his capital. Naga Scythians were considered untouchables by the Aryans since atleast 2000 yrs. Nairs though fair are ethnically identical to the North Indian Nagas who form bulk of the Sudra population of North India. The Non Dravidian Sudra north Indian origins of Nairs should be included in the article.

Nativedravidan (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The matter of the Quotes

I've brought this up before, and I think I should bring it up again. I am slightly uncomfortable with the presence of the "Quotes" section as it is borderline POV. I don't think it contributes much by way of information to the article. If we remove it, we will be freeing up a lot of space for the article. I think we should transwiki it into wikiquotes. I don't think there are many other articles (about castes/groups of people) that have quotes either. --vi5in^[talk] 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea actually. If some of the quotes can punctuate the various sections of the article, they can be added there but the rest can go. Pretty much POV. Manu

I've moved the quotes over to Talk:Nair/Quotes since there has been no opposition to my proposal. We could add it to wikiquote, I guess. --vi5in^[talk] 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Confussion

So many arguments... Please some one clarify. Who actually is Nair??? Are they warriors??? or are they some thing else??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.24 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The introduction gives an explanation. Nairs were the warrior caste of Kerala, although there were other communities such as Ezhavas who did some fighting. However the main fighting force and ruling people were the Nairs. The Kerala Varmas are Kshatriya, but they never did any fighting (apart from notable exceptions such as Pazhassi Raja)Hijjins (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kshatriya dynasties and Aryan Namboothiris after the fall of Chera kingdom in 1120 with the help of Nair warriors. After 1300s the Kshatriyas of Kerala did have Nair mistresses whose sons had the title Thambi who were considered Nairs,Sudras and not Kshatriyas.Nairs who were considered Sudras could not marry Kshatriya ladies or Namboothiri women either (Pratiloma).The assertion that Travancore and Cochin kings were of Nair origins is false should be corrected in the Article. Travancore kings were mixture of Ays and Cheras. Cochin Kings were Cheras by Thavazhy (Mothers side) and Namboothiris by fathers side.

Nativedravidan (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Panar Aristocrats and Nair Sudras - The reversal of Roles

In the ancient Kerala Panars were aristocrats and warlords under the Chera kings. ost of the poets of Tamil Sangam era including Kapilar of Quilon were Panars. The Chera king Ilamcheral Irumporai in 200 ad claims to have defeated Pandiyan and Chola kings whose wealth he distributed among the Tamil Panar aristocracy of Kerala. After 1300s the Nairs who themselves descend from North Indian Naga sudras,while reducing theDravidian Panars to untouchable status still retained the ancient title of Panas, The Panapillai Amma (the title of the Pana ladies who married the Chera or Ay kings ). After 1314 ad the Nair ladies who married (by Sambandham) the Travancore kings were first adopted into a particular Nair family and was given the title Pana Pillai Amma (The lady from the house of Panas) before marrying the King.

Nativedravidan (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Detailed description of Nair customs.

The book A Description of the Coasts of East Africa and Malabar in the Beginning of the sixteenth century by Duarte Barbosa. One of the earlier accounts of Nairs, if anyone can pick up information from this source that is not currently present in the article. [1] Trips (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

exodus of nairs from kerala

hi all....in the recent past there appears to be an exodus of nairs from kerala..at one of the NSS websites.. i read that it is the socio-political situation in kerala( reservations etc.) responsible for this,nairs are found in great numbers in guess where????!1!1'...FIJI of all the places...i remember talking to a fellow nair in hindi during my graduation days coz the chap could not understand malayalam, anyways the title nair, pillai, menon, nambiar etc is still intact....Vivwiki (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Infact it was the Avarnas (Ezhavas and others) who had to move out of Kerala due to the caste driven issues in the past. Even now you can find Nairs dominating in govt offices and devaswom boards etc. Hard working Nairs can easily survive in Kerala or anywhere in India. Don't make an excuse off reservation. It's a basic nature of all mallus to work hard outside Kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.103.220 (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed nonsense

I’d removed a bunch of nonsense from the article pushed by Nambiar by the help of Vivin. It has been already reverted by many established editors. Still a more to be fleshed out. If you have a different opinion please share it first. Don’t blindly revert my edits. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How about you explain what you mean by "nonsense" (amazing you think that, because the information is cited) instead of saying "reverted by many established editors"? I'm not sure what else we can do, because the information is cited. The onus is on you to tell us exactly why you think the information should be removed. Add fact tags if you want, but don't simply delete. Thanks. --vi5in^[talk] 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not information, it is useless-nonsense and POV-fork-terrorism. The self published original research of cast chauvinism and mokeysm spoils the enhancement of Wikipedia. It has to be definitely killed by fire. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Really... original research from the Travancore State Manual? I had no idea that the description of Nair Marriage Ceremonies was also "useless-nonsense" and "POV-fork-terrorism" (whatever that means). Instead of useless rhetoric, how about your actually bring some facts to the table? --vi5in^[talk] 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Phraseology goes beyond references. If you want to add all the custom of Nair there may be 100's of incidents from their eating, bathing, washing & all other activities. Since WP is not a cystall ball it shouldnt be added either. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

From an anthropological perspective, the customs and rituals of a people are perfectly encyclopedic, especially if they are referenced. WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply in the least to this situation. It doesn't mean what you think it does. If you're going to quote Wikipedia policies to me (policies that I'm well aware of, mind you), perhaps you should pick the right ones. WP:CRYSTALBALL relates to unverified speculation about future events. I fail to see what that has to do with the (cited and referenced) information about marriage and rituals. There aren't "100's of incidents"; only the most pertinent and common ones have been described. All the sections have been adequately referenced and there is no reason they should be removed. Perhaps they could be rewritten and condensed, but that's the only change I see. --vi5in^[talk] 15:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Please dont rely on the 1905 State manual. All the other material needs to be cited. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that some material is better than no material at all. Mark whatever you feel needs to be cited with fact tags instead of outright removal. What's the problem with the 1905 manual other than the claim that it is "too old"? There really is nothing else that describes the stratification of Nairs. This may not be valid now, but I believe it serves its purpose in a historical context. I'm not trying to push POV here; I've actually been trying my best to keep this article neutral. Nair marriages happen exactly as they are described. Would you actually need a citation to state that the sky is blue? --vi5in^[talk] 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That its unreliable because of that age. And yes, in caste articles, as in so many other such articles that are open to WP:PEACOCK, I'd like a citation of some things that may appear obvious. About the wedding ritual in particular, if not covered in recent secondary sources, there is probably nothing encyclopaedic about it, and WP is not a collection of ritual. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That information is significant in a historical perspective. I initially wrote the wedding section (it was rather verbose) and it made certain there weren't any peacock terms. I can go through the current section and make sure that there aren't any. A bunch of other editors and I have taken the time and effort to make sure that this article doesn't run afoul of WP:PEACOCK like many others. This is also why I removed the entire quote section. If you want citations, then go ahead and put fact tags on things that require citation instead of simply deleting large sections of text. There is everything encyclopedic about wedding rituals. I'm well aware of what Wikipedia is not, but from an anthropological perspective, wedding rituals are extremely encyclopedic, and the section definitely isn't OR. Like I said, would you require a citation for something that is extremely obvious? I'll have some other editors/admins take a look at this. --vi5in^[talk] 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The wedding section is blatantly unencyclopaedic in my opinion. A reliable secondary source would comment on the differences between a traditional Nair ceremony and those of other similar groupings, which, of course, the primary source does not do. I am leaving that in pending an explanation, but removing all the other stuff. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've got you some references for the Nair ceremony. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "differences between Nair ceremony and those of other similar groupings". The reference that I provided you talks about Nair marriages in particular. Finally, what of the Samurai comparison? What exactly is your problem with it? I believe it talks of comparisons being drawn. It doesn't say that Nairs were Samurai, or even that were exactly like Samurai. The comparison is being made on the basis of a martial nobility. As far as the subcaste information, we can leave an unreferenced template on that. Does that work? As far as the Nair ceremony being "uncyclopedic", it would help if you explained why it was so, instead of just saying that it is. You did clarify it was just your opinion though. --vi5in^[talk] 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Samurai comparison is a throwaway one, possibly misleading, that doesnt belong in the lede. The wedding ceremony details are unnecessarily lengthy, and read like a guide or description rather than an academic analysis. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's actually a good point. Perhaps we could move that further down in the article? You're correct - the resemblance is simply in that one particular aspect. If you think the wedding details are lengthy now, you should have read it before ;). How about rewriting that entire section then? What format/style would you propose? --vi5in^[talk] 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata has alreay said that wedding ceremony details are unnecessarily lengthy and User:Vivin is not accepting it. He is misleading & talking about format of writing. There is no other format as the only solution is cutting short of the length. I did it already. If User:Vivin & User:Tripping Nambiar reverts it back, I've no other solution, i.e report it to ANI & suspected sock puppet of those two editors. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily lengthy doesn't mean it's un-encyclopedic. Cutting the length short doesn't mean deleting it outright. I hope you realize that accusing me and Nambiar of being sockpuppets is rather serious. It's a clear violation of WP:NPA. I've tried many times to engage you in dialogue but you seem to be stubborn and seem completely disinterested in discussion the issue. If you want to take it to WP:ANI, go ahead. --vi5in^[talk] 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not only unnecessarily lengthy but unreferenced in many parts. It's a clear violation of WP:NPA accusing me & crazyguy. I'd used multile id ubox in my pg doesnt mean that wherever other editors particiates are sock of me. It is a clear violation of the policy. I am taking the issue at ANI. Because you are not listening an dominating the article with your pov nonsense. You are not listening to others. You think you are correct & acting accordingly. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deindent On the contrary, you're the one who keeps claiming POV without proving why it is so. Lengthy and unreferenced indeed... have you bothered to check out the reference I have listed for it? If you look at it, you'll see a very good description of Nair Weddings. I believe I've asked you numerous time to tag anything you feel is unreferenced, with fact tags instead of blindly reverting. But you haven't done that. You keep crying about "POV nonsense". Don't lecture me aboutWP:NPA. I've WP:AGF a whole lot and been extremely patient. You're the one who constantly accuses me of being a sock, of "misleading people", and doing "POV fork terrorism" (whatever that means). I guess I'll be seeing you at WP:ANI. --vi5in^[talk] 15:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it correct to say "You are the one" ?Dr. Samuel Johnson (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Added NPOV tag, Reason: I had removed some parts from the article. After few days it is noted that the contents are back. Harjk & Relata was reverting, but a lobby is adding it back. A strong reason of lacking npov. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above makes no mention of NPOV. Removed tag. --vi5in^[talk] 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Samurai is not necessary (I am a Panicker Nair and not someone from another community who wants to degrade Nairs). The section on marriage must be edited, since the customs change (some considerably) from Travancore to Malabar. Only a general outline is required.58.105.165.66 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

population of nairs

hi friends,

 it may be time to change that statistic on the main NAIR page which claims we form 13% of the population, it may be much more actually!... got to look up some old caste based census, also joshua project puts the nair population at a figure way too high, i feelVivwiki (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kalari reference

Please see reference# 32 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2003_Jan_6/ai_96212029 I though CVN Kalari is run by Thiyyas. Could someone clarify please.