Talk:Nair/Archive 5

Discovery of Nairs :-)))

Discovery of Nairs Discovery of Kerala :-))))

Let us first examine non –historical texts. Both grama padhati and keralolpathi states that Parashurama reclaimed land from the sea and donated the land to brahmanas. Why did the poor thing do that ? He had killed the entire clan of Kartavirya Arjuna (Sahasrarjuna) and had offered his dead father's soul tarpana with the blood of the kings and warriors he slew. Like a smart boy, he then conducted the Ashvamedha sacrifice, done only by sovereign kings, and gave the entire land he owned to the priests who performed at the yagya, viz. Kashyapa. These texts go on and say that BUNTS AND NAYARS are descendants of the sudras who accompanied brahmanas from AHICHATRA in PANCHALA. So lets not get violent at this point ok . So calm down. So where the hell is Ahichatra ? This city is an archeological ruin in modern times near Ramnagar in Uttarakhand. It lies to the north of Hastinapura and Pramanakoti. For a moment let us examine the word Ahichatra (alias Ahi-Kshetra) , the capital of Northern Panchala, itself. The word Ahi means snake or NAGA in Sanskrit !!!. The word khsetra means region in Sanskrit. This implies that Ahi-kshetra was a region of Nagas. So could this mean that the region was populated by Nagas ?. So was it ? So what does other non historical literary work say about this place. Mahabharatha describes that it was while sporting at pramankoti that bhima was poisoned and drowned in the Ganges and was rescued by nagas living in the vicinity !!!. The region obviously had brahmanas (as mahabharatha refers to brahmanas in panchala Eg. Drona who later become the king of ahichatra ) Now who are these Nagas ? Nagas were a non vedic race who were spread throughout India very much before and during the epic Mahabharata until of course the entire Naga race was almost exterminated by Janamejaya, the Kuru king in Arjuna's line, who conducted the massacre of Nagas at Takshasila (now in pakistan). But why ? According to the 'Adi Parva' of the Mahabharata , before the Pandavas, "Khandoban" or "Khandavprastha" (Indraprastha or Delhi), was the capital of the Takshak rulers (of the line of the snake takshaka). They created obstacles in the way of construction of the new capital by Pandavas. Finally, these people were defeated, rendered homeless and driven out.They went and settled down in Taxila (Takshashila). In the Kurukshetra War, they joined the Kauravas and later assassinated king Parikshit (said to have been killed by the bite of the Naga king.Takshak). What were the other naga kingdoms before the pro-vedic – Kuru and puru lines ? A) Kingdom of Ananta-Anantnag(J&K) B) Kingdom of Vasuki-Kailasa (Tibet ) C) kingdoms of karkota (in punjab area) . So essentially the smart kuru dynasty annhilated major naga political power .Of course in subsequent period of time nagas became shudras when the non vedic nagas came in to the fold of vedic brahminic religion. This is the smartness of the vedic culture , it annhilates another culture by absorbing its practices and then giving it a lower grade within its heirarchial system within it. .Sorry for the detour ,so now our dear nagas, became followers of vedic religion and within its structure became threadless and of course the original proponents and custodians of the vedic religion - the brahmins refered to them as shudras because thats the category they will fit due to the "samskara" logic. Centuries passed........the naga cult and culture beautifully integrated with the vedic religion............. ……………………………………………………………………………… Now let us examine Bhargava Rama or Parashurama. He was the son of sage jamadagni and was from kanykubja. This kingdom is identified to be the modern day Kannauj district of Uttar Pradesh. This territory formed a part of the southern Panchala !!! . So our Parashu hero committed a genocide and then came down south took some territory and donated it to brahmins from back home. The poor brahmin guys obviously came along with their “shudras helps” who were still ardent snake worshippers due to their background. And then these poor fellows settled down in the malabar coast along with their “charnavar” (adherents) in tulu and malayala nadu. Don´t be overwhelmed by the parashuraman fellow because there are multiple parashuramas !!!!! Don´t worry its easy to explain it. Parasurama, in Indian mythology is depicted as immortal. The epic Ramayana mentions about a Parasurama who encountered Ramachandra or Raghava Rama of Kosala. In Mahabharata we finds mention of Parasurama fighting with Bhishma; teaching military science to Drona as well as Karna. In Bhagavata Purana we find Parasurama encountering Krishna and Balarama. All these figures could be different personalities but having common traits. All of them could be members of Bhrigu family ie Bhargavas, and proficient in the use of battle-axe.Many ancient figures like Vyasa, Vasistha,Gautama,Narada etc have this phenomenon of fusion of many people of the same name or family name, combining together into one personality. Well our neighbouring state tamilnadu has done it as well. Historians now agree that grand lady avvaiyyar was actually many in number. So let me not detour again, our genocide Parashu fellow basically gave his land to priests from back home as repentence and we the palaquin bearers, servants, Z category protection guys who were good in fighting, the barber etc etc came down. Well, we were slowly being made less and less of us, saying we are being upgraded in blood. Just what the english ( under Edward I) did with the scotts. The first brahmin settlement inside present day kerala was Chellur or Perumchellur gramam (old name) a village identifiable with the present-day Taliparamba in Kannur district. It is one of the northernmost of the traditional Brahmin settlements of Kerala. It lies on the banks of the river Parassini, near Ezhimala. For instance, from the Vadagaon-Madhavpur inscription, discovered from a site associated with ancient brick structures and Satavahana coins, speaks of a Vajapeya Yajnam performed by a person of the Kasyapa Gothram and hence the earliest evidence of brahmins in the area. This reference, attributed to the 2nd or 1st century B.C.,has its counterpart in the mention of a sacrifice in literature in a village further south. This is further endorsed by another song by poet, Madurai Marutan Illanakanar, in which Chellur is described as a place where gods receive sacrifice. The Parasuraman legend, was firmly established at Chellur as early as the Sangam period and that it was actually part of a long chain of migration trickling along the west coast. Well our sangam period kings like the descendents of the escorts, impressed by the sophistication of the vedic culture became soon “vedicized”. Our escorts and the local royals intermarried as well as got upgraded by the brahmins as well. Some nairs even become cheiftains, huge landlords owing to long term tenancy appropriation from nambudiri in exchange of sexual favours using the system of sambandham (a mutually beneficial arrangement for all parties involved). The nambudiris retained their blood because they had these concepts of anuloma and pratiloma marriages. However none of the non brahmin castes inspite of acceptance of vedic religion or improved economic status, received no upgradation of religious status within the varna systems. Finally our kovilakams kept asking the brahmanas to give them a kshatriya status (the first was kolathiri raja expressing his desire for the yajnopaveetham to the nambudiris). When the namboothiri Brahmins refused to do, the frustrated kolathiri as late as in 16th century got tulu brahmanas to make them kshatriyas by hiranyagarbham.A "chira" was constructed for this tulu brahmins at chirakkal , for their bath and they adopted malayala brahmana practices and came to be called embranthiris and kolathiri became the first kshatriya.One should realize that until this point there was no “caste status difference” between the royal houses and the descendants of escorts but only soci-political status difference. However the clever royal houses manged to become kshatriya within the definition of the vedic religion and the nairs did not. As for the matrilinial inheritance, its the product of chera chola conflict .That’s the sad story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

That's another brilliant piece. In fact the discussion pages are much more interesting than this drab article with its details of 'vivaha' etc.89.240.62.169 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Drab details" indeed. They're interesting from an anthropological perspective. The above information can be added, if cited properly. There are many things on the talk page that are "interesting". Unfortunately, very little is properly sourced and most of it is original research. I'm trying to get the time to get back to this article, to update it. --vi5in^[talk] 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Discovery of Nairs – Part II

For those of you who wish to countercheck points in my earlier discussion, I have listed points and the references you can read. Enjoy .

A Incorporation of Nagas in to Vedic Society : There were inter-marriages between the Brahmans and the forest-dwelling Naga tribe. It is significant that Naga genealogies and myths are accorded a prominent place in the opening canto of the Mahabharata. Ref 1

B Early Vedic society was internally differentiated and pluralistic, rather than monolithic and homogeneous. It was an amalgam or synthesis of Aryan and non-Aryan, including tribal elements. In other words, since its very inception Hinduism appears to be a "mosaic of distinct cults, deities, sects and ideas", Ref 2

C For early chera period in kerala , perumals rule and Brahmin ascendancy and migration (Ref 3 and 4)

D For extermination of the naga race by Janamejaya, and the famous Naga empires initial chapters in the first book (Adi Parva) of Mahabharatha (Ref 5, 6)

E Parashuramas paternal ancestry (heheya kingdom) maternal ancestry kanyakubj slaying kshatriyas (Ref 5)

F References

1. D.D. Kosambi. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India, p. 94; Romila Thapar, "Social Mobility in Ancient India", In Ancient Indian Social History, pp. 122-51.

2. Romila Thapar. Interpreting Early India, p. 68; Romila Thapar. "The Study of Society in Ancient India", In Ancient Indian Social History, pp. 211-39.

3. P.J.Cherian ( Ed ) PERSPECTIVES ON KERALA HISTORY- The Second Millennium Chapter III Consolidation of Agrarian Society - Political Processes -Dr.M. G. S. Narayanan

4. "Brahman Settlements in Kerala" by Dr.Kesavan Veluthat Dept. of History, Mangalore University, Mangalagangothri-574 199, Karnataka.

5. Mahabharata of Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, translated to English by Kisari Mohan Ganguli

6. Nagas : The tribe and the cult by Sharma RK 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.99.165.173 (talk • contribs).

Can you point out which pieces of text correspond to the references? A lot of what you posted reads like an essay or an editorial (not that it's a bad thing :), just that it'd not suited for an encyclopedia). I appreciate you coming forward with all these references. To be more specific, what I would need is cited info linking Nairs and Nagas (from here we can talk about what happened to the Nagas using your other references). --vi5in^[talk] 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Naga link

The nairs have been linked with naga culture and has been done by several historians in their discussions due to the strong similarities in the two cultures. for discussion see "Use Of Sex By Brahmins To Gain Supremacy By Dr. K.Jamanadas" (http://www.ambedkar.org/books/dob10.htm) and of course there are umpteen others.However to state as an authentic source we need it quoted in a research article or an anthroplogical documentary. The only decent one that can be found in this regard is below.

Some Aspects of Nayar Life. K. M. Panikkar The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 48, Jul. - Dec., 1918 (Jul. - Dec., 1918), pp. 254-293

It states "blah blah ........the Nayars were a community with a Naga or serpent totem"

The same article also states that "There are many reasons to believe that the term Nayar is a corrupted form of the word Nagar or "serpent-men"

I would like to read the whole original article though, but i donot have this journal access. However Fawcett´s article on "nayars of malabar" i have read in its entirety, its very nice and if u can read it please do so so that u can really clean up the mess on the customs part especially vivaha etc. Fawcett has described the customs very nicely and it is an authentic source to quote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The customs as far as Vivaham is concerned has been taken from O. Chandumenon's Indulekha. I would consider it to be pretty good. The first article "Use Of Sex By Brahmins To Gain Supremacy"; the only reference I could find was a crackpot hate site. I don't think it's a good reference (it was posted here before). So we're still stuck with not having a link between the Nagas and Nairs :(. But then again, are there any good references talking about who the Nagas are exactly? --vi5in^[talk] 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, where can I get Fawcett's article? --vi5in^[talk] 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Serpent men

The same article (Some Aspects of Nayar Life. K. M. Panikkar ) also states that "There are many reasons to believe that the term Nayar is a corrupted form of the word Nagar or "serpent-men"

I thinks thats decent enough if when u compare a novel like indulekha :-)))) .Fawcetts article hm.. - do u have an e-mail address ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.99.165.173 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Are the reasons provided in the article? :) I should have been more clear about O. Chandumenon's resource. It's not from the Novel, but an addendum to the novel. It's actually an article/letter that he wrote to the Malabar Marriage Commission. To send me an email you can click on my name and send an email through wikipedia. Thanks for all your sources :) --vi5in^[talk] 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey the keralolpathi does mention a naga connection for the nairs...it states "but the land newly created by parasurama was a most inhospitable region to live in being already occupied by the fearful nagas from the north...they were conciliated by their mode of worship being accepted (refering to the serpent worship)....these nagas later became the kiriathu nairs of malabar who claimed superiority over the rest of the malayala sudras..." so i guess even the brahmins gave naga status to some nairs....Manu

Are u sure about this ? because

1. The kerolopathi states so and i quote, "When Parasurama's first colonists found Kerala uninhabitable and unimprovable, they abandoned it and returned to their old country. During the time of their absence the Nagas (serpents) of Nagalokam or Patala, took possession of the newly-reclaimed land and settled there. The colonists returning found that the serpents had usurped their lands, upon which a fight ensued, and Parasurama arbitrated between his colonists and the Nagas, wih the result that these latter were to be given a corner of every occupied compound.Parasurama further ordained that the places allotted to the Nagas were to be left untouched by the knife or the spade, thus enabling the underwood trees and creepers to grow luxuriantly therein."

2. As per the Kiriathu Nairs story "Nayars of Malabar" states so and i quote,

"The Kurup, Nambiyar, Viyyur, Manavallan, Vengdian,Nellioden, Adungadi, Kitavu, Adiodi, Amayengolam, all superior clans, belong, properly speaking, to North Malabar. The Kiriyattil, or Kiriyam, said to be derived from the Sanskrit graham, a house (a doubtful derivation) is the highest of all the clans in South Malabar, and is supposed to comprise or correspond with the ' group of clans just named of North Malabar"

Yes i am sure of it...the travancore state manual mentions tht it was coz of this naga descent that the "Kiriyathil nairs held themselves to be superior to the other malayali sudras" Manu

Citations for the information

For the information provided above. Does anyone have any citations to back them up? I agree that Nairs were never really part of the varna system. But we need a reference/citation. Second, "avarna" and "savarna" do exist. The terms were coined by the Namboothiris, I believe. --vi5in^[talk] 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

seeing what we want to see !!!

Viv, we cannot say that "Nairs were not part of the varna system" it would be false and inaccurate. Too many documents support that nayars were part of the varna system. We are just trying to see what we "want to see". It would be difficult for me to cite the umpteen number of articles that nayars were part of the varna system. However i will cite just one for convenience.

Varna Schemes and Ideological Integration in Indian Society Richard G. Fox Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Jan., 1969), pp. 27-45

I would disagree only in the sense that initially Nairs weren't part of the varna system. They were then shoehorned in there by the Namboothiris; which is why Kerala has such a bizarre caste system. --vi5in^[talk] 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Y chromosome analysis and Nairs

Anyone knows if Nairs are J2 haplogroup in the Y chromosome studies of race/deep ancestory?

We know that Iyengar brahmins and desastha brahmins are J2 haplogroup for the Y chromosome (Ref 1). Unfortunately there seem to be no data on the nayar population. However if your intention is deduce nayar ancestry based on this then please don´t consider this because the point is that a one locus genealogy does not necessarily represent the whole of a species' evolutionary population history. For the Nayars it will actually lead to false interpretations.The practice of the Nambudiris of only allowing the first born male to marry a Nambudiri woman. All other sons (Apfans) entered into sambandhams with Nayar women . This resulted in two tendencies, a) most Nambudiri women did not marry and remained cloistered virigins b) many Nayars had Nambudiri fathers (thus their NRY). Therefore over the generations the mtDNA lineages diagnostic for Nambudiris (beleiving the keralolpathi that they are migrants from panchala :-))))) would be greatly outnumbered by those for Nambudiri NRY. Cross-cultural anthropology tells us that in societies with stratification the reproductive potential of an elite son is far greater than an elite daughter (both because of the biology of constraints upon the number of female gestations vs. male inseminations, and because of the frequency of polygyny vs. polyandry). Therefore assaying the NRY gene genealogy might give you a different impression about population history than mtDNA would, especially in the case of nayars.

1. VK Kashyap et al BMC medical genetics 2006

Kanam-Nayar-Chera

Janmam - ownership

Kanam- Lease / lease tenure and fees

The explanation of terms is below: Janmapparappu is the property inherited from ancestors. Janmam is hereditary proprietorship, freehold property, and is viewed as hardly alienable. Janmanir is parting with all the rights of a landlord, as done by pouring water into the hands of the purchaser. Janma nir/ janma veetu is transfer of property rights and change of the ownership of property by way of udakapoorvam.

Attipper is a documentary proof (karanam). In the Tellichery records it is known as karanappetti and there are chiefly six tenures. Kuzhik-kanam or kaanam (1/8), Otti (1/2), ottikumpuram (3/4), janmappanayam (7/8), Janmam. The figure in brackets indicates the loss of right of the janmi on his land in succession, his gradual decline and fall from his property.

Note :- As i i have cited with appropriate references before, We nairs did not have the Janmam for land until 16th century only Kanam from Nambudiris thats is the reason we were not Janmis and only from 16 th century onwards (when long term Kanams) turned to Janmam we were becoming Janmis.

As for the Chera issue I qoute "The Dravidian people have been divided, from ancient times, into Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas. Chera, or Sera (in old Tamil Sarai) is the Dravidian equivalent for Naga; Cheramandala, Nagadwipa, or the Naga country". So what we have proof is only that chera refered to a Naga culture. Nayar corruption from "Nagar" also means snake men. So both these are snake worshipping cultures but are not the same. Because "Naga" Kingdoms existed all over ancient india "the naga kingdom" in "dravida" is chera so they are cheras. Nayars also "Nagas in origin" came from the northern part of India (panchala) in to Kerala. You must see the fine difference here. Nayars are not descendants of cheras but both represent people of Naga culture from two different places who happen to meet in Kerala after the Nambudiris migrated in kerala along with the Nairs.

The commonality is that both the cheras and the nayars accepted vedic culture and both these groups got "inseminated" by the nambudiris. However chera descendants were rulers even before 16th century but the Nayars were under Kanam at this time.

Nayars who migrated to central and south kerala along with the nambudiris also mixed with vellalas (later pillais) bought in by cheras from chola and pandiya kingdoms by the chera kings.Therefore along with the nambudiri and chera "blood" they were also getting "vellala" blood. However the Nayars of malabar mixed with "nambudiris" and cheras only and hence the superiority complex developed by the nayars of malabar in terms of their birth.

The vedic culture and its classicism, systematicism , mode of life was impressing non-vedic cultures and was giving the idea of "sophisticated/cultured". This led to both the nayars and cheras willingly accepting the vedic culture and religion and becoming part of this. So we nairs, have got "blood" from them, "land" from them and "accepted their superiority and their religion and accepted a position within the varna system" and thus became one with the vedic-system. Now we canot make hue and cry that we are not part of this or being anti-brahminical/vedic culture. Its done. And one need have no regrets for this, as we have always only benefitted with the Nambudiri association.

Another valuable contribution. In fact the discussions have brought together some keen, erudite individuals. Hope the trend 'll persist. "Chera" literally means the rat-snake (non-poisonous). "Chera"==naga or serpent could have been the totem or gotra-symbol worshipped by the Nagas. (see DD Kosambi's book for more details on totem worship.)All said and done, why at all the Nairs "accepted their(Vedic) superiority and their religion and accepted a position within the varna system"? Who initiated and who endorsed such acceptance?Can someone explain this?"Vedic cultures impressing non-vedic" does not bring out the motives clearly.122.164.82.218 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nature of fusion of vedic and non vedic culture- Hope this answers your question

The proponents of a “separate” and “secular” Dravidian culture, insist on a physical and cultural Aryan-Dravidian clash as a result of which the pure “Dravidian” culture got swamped. Archaeology, literature and Tamil tradition all fail to come up with the strong evidences of such a conflict.In reality it is the Dravidian (south india- dravida- a geographical distinction) substratum over which the layer of “Aryan” culture was deposited and which is the essence of Vedic culture. Rather, as far as the eye can see into the past there is every sign of a deep cultural interaction between North and South, which blossomed not through any “imposition” but in a natural and peaceful manner. A superficial glance at Sangam literature makes it clear , in the words of John R. Marr, “these poems show that the synthesis between Tamil culture and what may loosely be termed Aryan culture was already far advanced (Ref 1) . Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines, “There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.” (Ref 2). As the archaeologist and epigraphist R. Nagaswamy remarks, “The fact that the literature of the Sangam age refers more to Vedic sacrifices than to temples is a pointer to the popularity of the Vedic cults among the Sangam Tamils.”(Ref 3). It is unfortunate that the most ancient Sangam compositions are probably lost for ever ; we only know of them through brief quotations in later works. An early text, the Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam, dated by most scholars to the first or second century AD,is “said to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school.”(Ref 4) Its content, says N. Raghunathan, shows that “the great literature of Sanskrit and the work of its grammarians and rhetoricians were well known and provided stimulus to creative writers in Tamil. The Tolkappiyam adopts the entire Rasa theory as worked out in the Natya Sastra of Bharata.”(Ref. 5). It also refers to rituals and customs coming from the “Aryans,” a word which in Sangam literature simply means North Indians of Vedic culture ; for instance, the Tolkappiyam “states definitely that marriage as a sacrament attended with ritual was established in the Tamil country by the Aryas,” (Ref. 6) and it uses the same eight forms of marriage found in the Dharmashastras. Moreover, it mentions the caste system or “fourfold jathis” in the form of “Brahmins, Kings, Vaishyas and Vellalas,” (Ref.6) and calls Vedic mantras “the exalted expression of great sages.”(Ref 7,8). The Pallava, Chola and Pandya temples were overflowing of devotional literature by the Alwars, the Nayanmars and other seekers of the Divine who wandered over the length and breadth of the Tamil land, filling it with bhakti. But here let us just take a look at the rulers. An inscription records that a Pandya king led the elephant force in the Mahabharata War on behalf of the Pandavas, and that early Pandyas translated the epic into Tamil.(Ref 9) The first named Chera king, Udiyanjeral, is said to have sumptuously fed the armies on both sides during the War at Kurukshetra ; Chola and Pandya kings also voiced such claims—of course they may be devoid of historical basis, but they show how those kings sought to enhance their glory by connecting their lineage to heroes of the Mahabharata. So too, Chola and Chera kings proudly claimed descent from Lord Rama or from kings of the Lunar dynasty—in other words, an “Aryan” descent. As regards religious practices, the Chola king, Karikala, was a patron of both the Vedic religion and Tamil literature, while the Pandya king Nedunjelyan performed many Vedic sacrifices, and the dynasty of the Pallavas made their capital Kanchi into a great centre of Sanskrit learning and culture. K. V. Raman summarizes the “religious inheritance of the Pandyas” in these words : The Pandyan kings were great champions of the Vedic religion from very early times.... According to the Sinnamanur plates, one of the early Pandyan kings performed a thousand velvi or yagas Vedic sacrifices.... Though the majority of the Pandyan kings were Saivites, they extended equal patronage to the other faiths ... and included invocatory verses to the Hindu Trinity uniformly in all their copper-plate grants. The Pandyas patronised all the six systems or schools of Hinduism.... Their religion was not one of narrow sectarian nature but broad-based with Vedic roots. They were free from linguistic or regional bias and took pride in saying that they considered Tamil and Sanskritic studies as complementary and equally valuable.(Ref. 10). Ancient south Indian people did not look upon religious distinctions seriously (Ref 11).

Other way round vedic culture was open too. The incorporation and assimilation of regional features into the mainstream of Vedic culture is attested by linguistic and philological evidence as well. Certain kinds of echo formations which are characteristic of the Austric family of languages found their way into the Indo-Aryan speeches. The presence of non-Aryan elements, especially Proto-Dravidian, in vocabulary, syntax and phoenetics, in Vedic Sanskrit is now fairly well established. The later Vedic texts indicate an even greater admixture of non-Aryan words. (Ref 12). The Sama Veda refers to a ritual whereby non-Aryans were admitted into the mainstream of Vedic society. There are frequent references in the early sources to non-Aryan Brahmans. Manu mentions that several foreign tribes who had entered India at different points of time and came into contact with the Aryan-speaking people were accorded a place within the fold of Hindu society.(Ref 13) The process of Aryanization or Sanskritization often entailed the adoption of Sanskrit names, rituals, customs and habits. However, it did not always bring about uniformity and homogenization. Often, the adoption of Brahmanical customs and features was a selective process. Furthermore, it was often blended with regional customs. For example, the Brahmanical institution of gotra was adopted by non-Brahman, including tribal communities in different ways. In some cases, Brahmanic and regional gotras were blended. In some communities the gotra exists only nominally and does not entail exogamy.So u have to look at it the way you lok at the present assimilation of "western" life style by us.

As i have stated before we nairs, have got "blood" , "land" " and "accepted a position within the varna system" and thus became one with the vedic-system and therefore should not run away from the "shudra" that we are within this system (which is ours as well). Its already done and we need have no regrets for this, as we have always only benefitted with the Nambudiri association in climbing the social scale.Had we not done this we would have been "avarna" even now. I think, We have survived well and need not be overtly "nayar fanatic". Lets not forget the ladder (nambudiri) we used to climb up has made us almost like it in culture and blood :-))). You can´t say 2000 years ago my ancestors were non vedic snake nagas and so we cannot accept our position inthe varna system all of a sudden now. Well going by that logic we are still "Monkeys". So along with understanding our social-evolution we need to accept what we are now within a system which is ours too. I have tried my best to give you a balanced opinion :-). If any personal biases have crept in , i sincerely apologize.

1. John Ralston Marr, The Eight Anthologies – A Study in Early Tamil Literature (Madras : Institute of Asian Studies, 1985), p. vii.

2. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, “Sanskrit Elements in Early Tamil Literature,” p. 45

3. R. Nagaswamy, Art and Culture of Tamil Nadu, p. 7.

4. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India, p. 130.

5. N. Raghunathan, Six Long Poems from Sanham Tamil (reprint Chennai : International Institute of Tamil Studies, 1997), p. 2, 10.

6. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India, p. 130. 7. Tolkappiyam Marabus 71, 72, 77, 81, quoted by S. Vaiyapuri Pillai in Life of Ancient Tamils.

8. Tolkappiyam,Porul 166, 176, quoted by K. V. Sarma, “Spread of Vedic Culture in Ancient South India” in The Adyar Library Bulletin, 1983, 43:1, p. 5.

9. K. V. Raman, “Religious Inheritance of the Pandyas,” in Sree Meenakshi Koil Souvenir (Madurai, n.d.), p. 168.

10. Ibid., p. 168-170.

11. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Cilappatikaram, p. 53., Ibid., p. 58.

12. T. Burrow. The Sanskrit Language, London, 1965; M.M. Deshpande and P.E. Hook (eds.). Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, Michigan, 1979; Romila Thapar. Interpreting Early India, pp. 11, 94. It is interesting to note that the most commonly used word for plough in Vedic literature, Langala, is derived from Munda. Similarly, the word for rice, Vrihi, is of Dravidian origin. Romila Thapar. Ancient Indian Social History, p. 217.

13. N.K. Bose. Society and Culture in India, Bombay, 1967, pp. 207-08; Romila Thapar. "The Study of Society in Ancient India", In Ancient Indian Social History, pp. 211-39.

Varna

The article, though stating that "Nairs were classed as Shudra" does not specify the reasons as to why this was the case. I think that much of the controversy can be cleared up if this was done. Kshatriyan 05:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is outside the vedic sect were considered as ‘Sudra’ by the vedic people. So all those who doesn’t perform ‘upanayanam’ fall into this category. This is again like the muslims calling others ‘Kafirs”. ‘Sudra’ also roughly mean that people who doesn’t know ‘brahmam’. Nevertheless, the ‘sudra’ name is misinterpreted as synonym to ‘servants’ by many. It is not so. Great people like ‘Sambookan’ and our beloved ‘Mahabali’ were terminated by the vedic gods because they were ‘Sudras’. Most of the forward caste people who don’t have a sacred thread can be considered as ‘Sudras’. So this classification encompass many forward caste in India like the vokkaligas, reddys, bunts, aroras, jats, kammas, vellalas and Marathas, though these people were also rulers and ‘nobilities’ in their respective land. Most of these folks were never part of the vedic bandwagon and were offshoot of the foreign invaders who later settled down in India from time to time. Also there existed a huge chunk of native (Dravidian) people who rejected the supremacy of the vedic migrants, they were also treated as ‘Sudras’ by the vedic sect. Nairs might probably fall into this group. User:Keraleeyan

I am not sure what is the difference then between shudra and avarna user:nil

Avarna means outside the Varna system. Sudra is a varna, so Sudras are not Avarna. The problem is that Varna was associated with Vedic people, and if therefore Jats, Marathas, Nayars, etc. were not Vedic, then how were they still incorporated into the Vedic Varna system? It is also interesting to note that Jats and Marathas are considered as Kshatriya (judging from their articles) although they, like the Nayars were called "Sudra". Kshatriyan 02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'Sudras' can be again classified into two, the Original Sudras who were part of the vedic people and the non-vedic 'Sudras' who were conferred the status by the vedic people. The first set of Sudras are the ones who accompanied the vedic Brahmin, Kshathriyas and Vysyas as servants. However, while migrating to places, the vedic group needed support and protection from the native groups as well. So the second set of Sudras were the natives who accepted the vedic people and given them support and protection. These people were later admitted to the 'savarna' group as 'sudras'. Nairs fall into this second category. The natives who kept away from the vedic sect were treated as 'avarnas' by the vedic migrants.01:46, 29 May 2007 User:Keraleeyan

Other questions arise with this. Why would these non-Vedic people like the Jats, Marathas and Nairs be classed as "Sudra" and not "Kshatriya" if their duty was that of ruling and fighting? Would it be because the Vedic people wanted to claim superiority over them? Why would they want to be considered "Sudra" and subordinate to the Vedic people? How would these Vedic people have the right to incorporate these non-Vedic people into the Varna caste system, since the Vedas and Smritis had defined certain tribes of people already? How have the Jats and Marathas managed to shake off this "Sudra" title? Kshatriyan 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the Varna system

Varna system

The varna (class) system is a socio-religious heirarchy of the vedic society. The earliest reference of the varna system can be found in Rig Veda (Purusa sukta: Book 10, Hymn 90.12)

“The Brahmin was his mouth, of both his arms was the Kshatriya made. His thighs became the Vaisya, and his feet the Shudra.”

The above Purusha hymn (or Purusa sukta) in the Rigveda (Book 10, Hymn 90.12) indicates that the early vocations were classified according to their relevance to the society and were visualized as parts of the anthropomorphic purusha (existence, being or spirit). This division of labor involving four main categories resulted in the emergence of a new and stable society from an older nomadic and chaotic way of life. The Vedic scriptures indicate that the original vocations (varnas) arose essentially to meet society’s needs.Now purusa sukta does not use the word “varna”, for these categories and it is manusmriti which uses this word “varna” for these categories and so many attribute the “varnashrama dharma” to manusmriti.During early vedic times people could change their “vocation” or varna, intermarry etc however over a period of time the rules were becoming stricter .

Varna and Jati

Now for those within the fold of varna there are four categories (Brahmana, Kshatriya,Vaishya and shudra) and are together sometimes referred to as savarna ( with Varna ) to distinguish them from non-vedic members . Those that were not within the varna – avarna (without varna) were outcastes . So when you say for eg. Shudra you donot have to say savarna shudra because it is like saying ( computer PC ).

Now The term jati (caste/endogamous group) and varna (class) are two different concepts. Jati is like a sub-class that is a endogamous unit For eg Brahmana jatis ( Nambudiris, Iyers , Iyengars, shivolli etc). So each of the four varna comprise of several jatis. Similarly the avarnas ( the so called outcastes ) also have several jatis Eg. Pulaya, pariaha etc. Now lets get back to the varna.

Characteristics and perks

Out of the four varnas the first three Brahmana, Kshatriya,Vaishya perform 16 samskaras ( socio-religious rites)refereed to as shodashasamskaras. One out of the 16 rites is “Upanayanam” or wearing of the yajnopaveetham (poonool). Since the first three varnas perform Upanayanam and have the 16 samskaras they are called dwija (twice born) and have the right to vedic studies. The shudra does not perform this and thus does not have the right to vedic studies. So even a brahmin boy till the day of his upanayanam is treated equivalent to a shudra for all religious ceremonies. Similarly a king who has not performed upanayanam is always a shudra king irrespective of his vocation. Thus south was a land of several sudra kings. However many kings ascended to the kshatriya status by getting the permission of the brahmans to perform “Upanayanam”. Thus a jati can ascend the varna hierarchy if it feels that that is more suitable for its vocation. However this has to be done with the permission of the brahmanas using religious ceremonies prescribed within the vedic system. I have tried my best to explain the concepts of varna system in a simple manner, hope it has helped. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.99.165.173 (talk • contribs).

Signing and Indenting

Please sign your posts with four tildes, and indent with colons. Otherwise, the discussion is extremely hard to follow. --vi5in^[talk] 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Varna

Thankyou for your input. Therefore the section on Nairs being "Savarna Sudra" is not required, only that they were referred to as "Sudra". It has been mentioned in this article that the Samoothiri Raja was the first "Kshatriya" of Kerala after receiving the "Poonul", however it was not done by the Namboothiris, but by Tulu Brahmins, since Namboothiris considered everyone in Kerala apart from themselves to be "Sudra" or "Avarna". The matter of "Samanta Kshatriya" also arises, since they too were considered "Sudra" by the Namboothiris, and their origins, and customs are non-Vedic and the same as Nairs (they did not have Poonul). Having said this however, it is known that there are some aristocratic Nair/Varma families who do have the Poonul. Also, in North India, apart from Rajputs and a few other Kshatriya clans, many do not have the Poonul (e.g. Jats, Marathas, Kambojas, etc.) however they are mentioned as Kshatriyas. Many of the Kshatriyas of North do not practice vegetarianism, which would be required once they wear Poonul. Kshatriyan 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Samantha-Samanther-Poonol-Vegetarianism-Varna ascension

Samantha-Samanther

Thank you Kshatriyan, its very nice to know that you see the logic , its inaccurate to specify savarna shudra one just have to mention only shudra, its understood that it means he is savarna. If one needs one can use the word sat-sudras because this seems to be the term both Brahmanas and a few anthropological documents tend to use for nayars (I think i have already quoted this article as a reference before). Another clarification you wanted seemed to be about samantha so i will try to share this also with you. Samantha and Samanther are different unlike what is commonly perceived by most of us. Samantha (singular) Samanthanmar (plural) refers to vassals or associates of the monarch. Generally the term refers to vassals in general but usually this terminology in Kerala history has always been used to refer to shudra vassals like the kiriath or kiriath equivalents (this is the discripancy in samantha page in wikipedia where it calls them samantha kshatriyas !!!! ).The kiriath/kiriath equivalents are vassals to the monarch but not kshatriya so they only have socio-political superiority among fellow nayars but not a varna superioriority because they are themselves nayars. For eg. Mangat achan was a Samanthan of nediyirippu swaroopam (samoothiri). Now coming to the second terminology Samanther (singular - but the "er" plurality for respect) is also used to refer to vassals of the monarch and the word remains Samanther in both singular and plural usages. However they refer to kshatriya vassals of a monarch . For eg. the nilamboor swaroopam was a Samanther of nediyirippu swaroopam (samoothiri).Thus Samanther can be refered to as Samantha kshatriya where as samantha" or "samanthanmar" are not refered to as Samantha kshatriya. However many people tend not to see the difference in usage these days because these are terminologies that have no meaning in modern day society and we have used it as per our convenience and understanding and so we tend to overlook the way we use these words.

Poonool and Jeneu

What i had mentioned in an earlier write up was that the first varna ascension in Kerala was performed by Kolathiri udayavarman in 1617 AD and if that discussion gave the impression that it was Samoothiri, i am sorry .Since the Nambudiris refused to perform it he got Tulu brahmanas to do it for him (these Tulu brahmanas later accepted Nambudiri customs and settled in Kerala and are now referred to as Embranthiris ). But once the ritualistic ascension to the higher varna was performed by brahmanas according to the vedic rituals even the Nambudiris accepted the Kolathiri as Kshatriya because it had legality and sanction of the vedic-religion. Soon many other swaroopams in Kerala followed en suite. As for the Rajput clans they do perform "upanayanam" but they donot call the sacred thread poonol but call it "janeu" and the procedure Janeu sanskar. Unlike Brahmanas by social practice many Kshatriya and Vaishya varnas tend to do their upanayanam only just before marriage this is the reason you donot see the "janeu" before. Moreoever many tend to remove it soon after marriage as well, unlike the Brahmanas. However if you witness married men among them during any rituals (preferably a samskara ritual) you will always see them with the "Janeu".They are descendants of huns and scynthians who entered india and integrated in to vedic-society and the Brahmanas elevated them to "Kshatriya status" by ritualistic purgation of their caste inferiority :-)).

Poonool and Vegetarianism

Next, vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is a later developed social practice fanatically adhered to only by Brahmanas ( Even they consumed meat during Rig-vedic period. Rig Veda 1.162.12ff describes how to apportion the meat of a sacrificed horse !!!). Where as kshatriya and vaishya varnas have no fanatic taboo to eat meat even if they are wearing "poonool"(though some jatis of Kshatriya and Vaishya varna adopted it to put on a facade of moral superiority). Wearing "poonool" is only a sanction to study vedas not anything to do with vegetarianism. You should look at it as how you see reservations now. If your caste has been enscheduled as SC/ST then you are eligible for the reservation. So its a proces of hereditary-enschedulent to a group by virtue of which they get acces to vedic studies if they choose so. By wearing a poonol a person becomes dwija(twice born). By learning a veda the dwija becomes vipra and by understanding the brahman through the vedas the vipran becomes brahmanan. However all the dwijas (Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya ) can learn vedas.

Thankyou for your response! Please sign your comment, because it becomes impossible to keep track of the conversation. Your answers are detailed and informative. Nayars did learn Sanskrit, literature and Vedas like the Kshatriyas, how is this possible if they were "Sudra"? I think the article should also explore the myths of Parasuram and his "extermination of Kshatriyas" and how the Nayars, originally Nagas, were forced to flee Southward and discard Vedic rituals (this is probably a myth but deserves investigation). What do you mean by Vedic norms in marriage? It is true that Marumakkathayam can not be resurfaced and is totally out of place today, but the "tharavadu" system is about maintaining traditions more than anything else. Recently we adopted the "Thali" (originally we only had the "Pudavamuri"), but it would be difficult for a community, already proud of its traditions, to undergo a change. Making Nayar customs more Vedic would involve adopting the Poonul. There are some Nayar families who do have the Poonul (not sure if is Samanthanmar or Samanther)Kshatriyan 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey the Thali has existed since the old days....theres an entire section called Kettu Kalyanam in the article. Manu

The Thali was used for the Kettu Kalyanam to mark the girl as being able to marry, however during the actual Sambandham only Pudavamuri is involved. In some cases the Namboothiri who does the Kettu Kalyanam can have a Sambandham with the lady. This tradition may vary from Malabar to Travancore. And as per bringing Nayar customs to Vedic Sudra norms, I think Nayars would find little reason to comply with the Vedic "Sudra" requirements. One of the reasons they were given Sudra title was because they were not willing to accept the supremacy of Brahmins and Vedic rituals. Kshatriyan 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why is so much of the article deleted??? Manu

Deletion without discussion is in bad taste. Please report the users concerned as perpetrating vandalism. Thampran 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletions and left a message on the anon user's page. --vi5in^[talk] 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vivin, I think there is still substantial sections missing. Thampran 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored them. --vi5in^[talk] 23:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese Aborigines had customs similar to Nairs

Summary: They had a matrilineal culture, men went to wars, had child marriage, there were women priests, they had a village structure similar to Kuutukudumbum, Called their villages "Siraya" similar to the "Karaya" or "Kara" among Nair culture, had communal property, houses had a series of ring structures similar to Nair houses.

Quoted From the article on Taiwanese aborigins in Wikipedia. "Many of the plains peoples were matrilineal/matrifocal societies. Men married into a woman's family after a courtship period where the woman was free to reject as many men as she wished before marriage. In the age-grade communities, couples entered into marriage in their mid-30s when a man would no longer be required to perform military service or hunt heads on the battle-field. In the matriarchal system of the Siraya, it was also necessary for couples to abstain from marriage until their mid-thirties, when the bride's father would be in his declining years and would not pose a challenge to the new male member of the household. It was not until the arrival of the Dutch Reformed Church in the 17th Century, that the marriage and child-birth taboos were abolished. There is some indication that many of the younger members of Sirayan society embraced the Dutch marriage customs as a means to circumvent the age-grade system in a push for greater village power (Shepherd 1995:61–65). Almost all indigenous peoples in Taiwan have traditionally had a custom of sexual division of labor. Women did the sewing, cooking and farming, while the men hunted and prepared for military activity and securing enemy heads in headhunting raids, which was a common practice in early Taiwan. Women were also often found in the office of priestess or medium to the gods.

These Aborigines mainly lived in stationary village sites surrounded by defensive walls of bamboo. The village sites in southern Taiwan were more populated than other locations. Some villages supported a population of more than 1500 people, surrounded by smaller satellite villages (Kang 2003:111–117). Siraya villages were constructed of dwellings made of thatch and bamboo, raised 2 meters from the ground on stilts, with each household having a barn for livestock. A watchtower was located in the village to look out for headhunting parties from the highland tribes. The concept of property was often communal, with a series of conceptualized concentric rings around each village. The innermost ring was used for gardens and orchards that followed a fallowing cycle around the ring. The second ring was used to cultivate plants and natural fibers for the exclusive use of the tribe. The third ring was for exclusive hunting and deer fields for tribal use. The plains people hunted herds of spotted deer and muntjak as well as conducting light millet farming. Sugar and rice were grown as well, but mostly for use in preparing wine (Shepherd 1993:29–34)."

Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Thanks. - Thampran 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Erratum : Kind attention to a mis-interpretation about Newars and Nayars in our article

Our article states

“Another theory is that Nairs are actually the descendants of the Newars of Nepal, who migrated to Kerala. There are many facts to support this view. One of the most prominent arguments is the distinct pagoda-like architectural style of Nair Tharavaadus and Temples. In addition, there is the Marumakkathaayam system of inheritance (a similar system is also practiced by the Newars).[7]”

There are two problems in this:

1. We together with many other articles on the web are propagating a possible fancy theory due to mis-interpretation of the original document. I tried checking the roots of this theory and this is what I found. In the book written by sociologist Balakrishna Nair in the year 1959 (Nair, Balakrishna N: The dynamic Brahmin : a study of the Brahmin's personality in Indian culture with special reference to South India / Publisher Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1959) he attempted to portray that a larger Naga culture with several seperate empires existed in the pre-vedic/brahminic time all over the Indian sub-continent. To prove his point in his book , he tries to say that at two geographical ends of the sub-continent you find remnants of people with matriarchy blah blah blah... So the context in which he was stating is that there existed several Naga empires all over Indian sub continent as evident from the two groups Nayars and Newars who both had matriarchy etc etc. And of course when he also tried in between to mention nomenclature corruption, the passage became mis-leading unless you sit and read it word by word.So this is the exact words in his book and I quote,

“"Present day Kerala formed part of the ancient Cherai country. "Cherai" is the Tamil word for the Sanskrit word "Naga". There are far too many references in Sanskrit literature to prove that the Nagas were the oldest tribes in India before the Aryans retained friendly contact. A subsect of the "Nagars" or members of the "Naga" tribe who lived in Malabar may well have been called "Nayars" just as their confreres in the Nepal valley came to be called "Newars". Mahabharata (Karnaparva 2, XIV) speaks of the Newars among whom property descended in the female line as it once did among the Arattas, Bahika or Takhas of the Punjab whose sister' sons and not their own were their heirs."

He clearly did not intend a descendancy from Newars as is evident from the above passage and he was using the similarity as an argument to prove completely another point. Some subsequently got misguided in their understanding of this passage and starting propagating a novel theory. We are one among those intelligent souls :-))) May be we could correct it atleast now :-))

2. The second point is the reference 7 (used as supporting refernce) takes you to Kerala tourism section on religion and I found there no Nayar-Newar connection !!!! but a supposition statement which i quote,

“The Nairs could have brought the matrilineal system down with them from the Indus Valley and earlier from the Mediterranean or it could have developed as a result of their way of life.”

So we not only mis-interpreted but probably also gave a wrong citation !!!!!.

May be the reference was intende for the matriarchy part of the sentence in which case we have more authentic anthropological documents to cite.

Kindly donot think that my intention is to pin-point blame on any individual. I think it must have been a genuine error which probably others could have also done. My intention is just to protect ourselves from being instruments in propagating an erroneous theory. In case i am wrong in my analysis, kindly provide an article written before 1959 to prove that its not a mis-interpretation of the Balakrishnan Nair´s book by later interpretors from whom we may have subsequently read and caught this idea from. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.165.173 (talk • contribs)

I've fixed the references. Somewhere along the way, they got mixed up. --vi5in^[talk] 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Newar connection is mentioned in the 1906 Nagam Aiyas Travancore Manual Manu

Let's stay on topic

This talk page (as mentioned in the beginning) is about the article. As such, please confine your discussion to points regarding the improvement of the article. Specifically, more information for the article, citations, references, and ideas for article improvement. This is not a place to discuss the Nair community, or what can be done for the Nair community. Also, we should refrain from drawing our own conclusions. Wikipedia articles cannot have Original Research in them. If we don't stay on topic, the page becomes filled with cruft, and most of it not pertaining to the article or its improvement. --vi5in^[talk] 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am removing certain sections from this talk page that have no bearing on the article. --vi5in^[talk] 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)