Talk:Caste system in Kerala/Archives/2012/May

Journal of Kerala Studies

Can anyone get hold of a copy of Journal of Kerala studies, Volume 2 - University of Kerala., 1975, p.25. I am sorry but I have no more information - the citation is incomplete in the article - but I would like to read the entire article in which page 25 exists. If the thing is written in Malayalam or some other non-English language then we'll need to get it translated, or find an alternate source per WP:NOENG. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's English only. If you Google it, some texts in page.25 would be displayed. --AshLey ^Msg 07:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use GBooks snippet views etc because they lack context. If that is all we have then the source should be removed. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you try purchasing the book. It's still followed by Kerala University. Wikipedia doesn't mandate unlimited free access to source always. --AshLey ^Msg 13:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked whether anyone could get hold of a copy. Your response was that some snippet views are available. I asked elsewhere some months ago about this journal and it still appears that no-one has access to it. Now, I have a lot of experience of how India-related contributors abuse snippet views. If nobody can get hold of a copy then the statement is not verifiable and should be removed. It is a drastic step, I know, but that is how it is. I'll try to work out who inserted the info in the first instance and see if they are still around. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I never! It turns out that it was you, AshLey, who added it. So, you'll be able to give me the additional information required so that I can get a copy via WP:RX, won't you? The info required is:

• name of the actual article
• author
• page range of the article
• issue number of the journal (we know that it is volume 2)
• date of the journal - this may be a month, but sometimes it can be shown in other ways

Of course, if you actually still have the copy then we could arrange a method whereby other people could see it. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The books is available in Kerala University Library. @book{university1973journal,

 title={Journal of Kerala studies},
 author={University of Kerala},
 number={v. 1-2},
 lccn={73907722},
 url={http://books.google.co.in/books?id=k7MbAQAAMAAJ},
 year={1973},
 publisher={University of Kerala.

I'm not bound to ensure the copy of the source for each any every editor who question the venerability of it. --AshLey ^Msg 09:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered my queries. I could have got the info that you provided using Worldcat etc, but we still do not have details regarding the author, the article title etc. Have you actually read the article in its entirety? If so, then you should know this information & I will be able to try to obtain a copy. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Journal of Kerala Studies" Vol 2, published in 1973: It has no specified author, but a combined work of the professors of Dept. of history. This particular portion is said to have authored by Prof. Koshy and some others. The editorial board had luminaries like A. Sreedharamenon, Rajan Gurukal etc. If you want to get a copy from any US library, use the LCCN No. 73907722 [1]. I was guided to this reference by a researcher in CDS, Trivandrum, where J. Devaki is also working. At present, I'm unable to ensure you a copy, but hopeful to get it, since a copy is available in the Library of CDS. --AshLey ^Msg 08:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"This particular portion is said to have authored by Prof. Koshy and some others" etc - you haven't read it, have you? You've just taken the snippet view, although you seem unwilling to say as much. I am removing it until we have a copy. It can always be reinstated at that time should the verification exist in context. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. [2] JanetteDoe (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, JD. I've downloaded it and will read the thing later. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you got it! I'm closely following your action. --AshLey ^Msg 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"...In order to preserve their nobility, the Christians never touch a person of inferior caste, not even a Nair. In the roads or streets, they cry out from a distance, in order to receive precedency from passengers; and if anyone, even a Nair, should refuse this mark of respect, they are entitled to kill him on the spot. The Nairs, who are the nobility and warriors of Malabar, respect the Syrian Christians very highly..."

(Page 25, Journal of Kerala studies, Volume 2 - University of Kerala, 1975)

I have previously indicated a similar quote from The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia. Allen. 1822. pp. 237 which was dismissed by Sitush for being too old. But this one is both new and academic, no question on its position as an RS. -InarZan Verifiable 12:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin Jeffrey source

Can anyone see or get hold of a copy of Jeffrey, Robin (1994). The Decline of Nair Dominance: Society and Politics in Travancore 1847-1908. Sussex University Press. ISBN 0856210544 ? I've read some stuff by Jeffrey and have the feeling that whatever he says in this source might also be said in alternate, more accessible sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the words of Jeffrey. He is quoting Hawksworth (1860). Some other people also have quoted Hawksworth, like this one. But it is not going to resolve any problem. -InarZan (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But we also use him to support the statement "In the colonial period, many lower castes were converted to Christians by the European Missionaries, but the new converts were not allowed to join the Syrian Christian community and they continued to be considered as untouchables even by the Syrian Christians", and the citation is for pages 9 and 10. We need to know whether the quotation crosses those two pages & in what context he makes that quotation. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is the above sentence should be removed from the article until someone come up with a verifiable citation. Also please refer to the above thread Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#New_Christians_untouchable_to_Syrians.3F

Also I strongly doubt the genuineness of the portion "...A Syrian Christian may touch a Nair (though this is not allowed in some parts of the country) but the latter may not eat with each other..." Because according to the above mentioned source, it is just "...A Syrian may touch a Nair but they may not eat with each other..." - InarZan (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We have what appears to be two citations for the sentence and, according to you, multiple available sources for the quotation. As such, there is no urgent need to remove either but I would still like to check the context. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. The sentence inside brackets appears to be not part of source. It could have been inserted by some Wikipedia editor either as an opinion or POV. We can keep this sentence in the quote only if it is actually part of cited work. But why shouldn't we forget Jeffrey and quote from other VERIFIABLE sources ? - InarZan Verifiable 04:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I deliberately ignored your second paragraph because until I can see a source I would rather not comment on it. I will try using a proxy. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My usual proxy for GBooks seems not to be working at the moment - I am trying to find another. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Still no joy with the proxy. However, Jeffrey's quote is itself quoted (with an attribution to him) here. Since this source is an academic publisher of high standing, and since your version linked to above is not (and the book itself contained few footnotes etc), I see no reason to believe that the quotation has been mangled by a WP contributor. Yes, it would be preferably to have the Jeffrey work and I will ask for it at WP:RX, but this situation differs from the Journal of Kerala History because we have a full citation and can therefore use WP:RX to get the info. You do not dispute that the quotation has been cited by multiple sources, and that adds weight to the suggestion that it be retained. We do specifically date the thing, ie: we acknowledge that the Hawksworth woman was a missionary in 1860 and that it is her view. I'd love to actually read her stuff & perhaps via a copy of Jefrrey's writing I'll be able to find it. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure your above link works? All I can see is "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." - InarZan Verifiable 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. Google restricts viewing sometimes - see this for some background. I have just taken a screenshot of the relevant bit and could email it to you if you wish. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't you upload it to http://postimage.org or http://www.freeimagehosting.net so that everyone concerned (now and in fututre) can verify it? - InarZan Verifiable 18:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a copyright violation to do so? - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, No need. I have found the same book in another place which is accessible from India. I am not sure whether a book on Human Resource/Economics is a good citation for a historical notation. Patrick Heller is a professor of sociology and international studies. His Areas of Interest are: development and comparative political economy, globalization, urban governance, democratization and civil society, the production of inequality, etc. He is not a say in history.

Anyway, let us consider it, but the problem persists. Actually, it is going from bad to worse. In Heller's version, it is "...but the latter may not walk with each other..", which contrasts the other sources which say “...but the latter may not eat with each other...”. This quote is really a problem-maker. It is not even least reliable since it differs from book to book. We already have three versions of it, that differs one another. After all, it is just an account of the wife of a Christian missionary, who may not have proper social understanding. If Jeffrey is directly quoting her, that does not mean he agrees 100% with her. I don't understand why do you insist to keep this ambiguous quote (which is not only too old, but also from a non-expert) in this article? - InarZan Verifiable 08:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not "insist to keep" it, nor did I find the thing in the first instance. From the outset, I have been asking for alternate sources for the thing and for some context, and then later I said (for example) "As such, there is no urgent need to remove either but I would still like to check the context". Half of this thread has been taken up discussing whether or not there has been a malicious insertion of a subphrase within it and it has been ascertained that particular subphrase does appear in other sources. Just let me spend another few days trying to find out more about it: if it were not sourced to someone like Jeffrey then I would have already agreed to remove it pending more information. As things stand, it is the context of Jeffrey's use that is most at issue here. A modern academic quoting an eye-witness account is always going to give a commentary relating to the quote, and it is the commentary that is significant here. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no access to Jeffrey's work. Then how can we confirm which of these versions is correct?

This one or this one?

But, my major concern is the unbalanced weight given to Jeffrey. Other sources which are equally (if not more) RS are shrunken to "However, other writers have noted xxxx." while Jeffrey's quotation of an unknown wife of some random missionary is given as is. This is truly WP:UNDUE. Regarding relative position of Nairs and Syrians, majority opinion is that Syrians were higher ranking than Nairs. I would like to repeat it. This is the MAJORITY view. Jeffrey may be the only person who thinks reverse. So as per Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight:

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

- InarZan Verifiable 10:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What other writers? What evidence is there that Jeffrey's is a minority view? Especially given that we are not entirely sure what his view is in the first instance, and when we could quite possibly be synthesising stuff. We need that source. My bet is that the quote can go, but Jeffrey's opinion relating to it can stay. I am fairly sure who it was who found that quote in the first instance, since it originally appeared in another article and was moved here in good faith (because it could be verified using other sources). I keep banging on about this but it is true: the context is important here.You say above that the quote comes from Hawksworth and you admit that others have used it also, therefore it is reasonable to try to work out why it has been picked upon by these various people. If several have used it then it is not necessarily a minority opinion. And in any event, a minority opinion is perfectly valid provided that it is not a fringe opinion, which is something different again.

There is a back story to this with which you are probably not familiar: both members of the Nair community and of the STC community have frequently attempted to disrupt articles such as this with puffery etc. When such disruption becomes fairly persistent, it breeds cynicism. As an example, just take a look at the protection log for Nair. It is important that we do not allow articles to be skewed by people with vested interests etc. Another example of which is the seemingly mistaken belief that STCs were a part of the caste system: I have yet to see a source that says that in an unambiguous way: at best they use words such as "inserted themselves", "can sensibly be said", "empirically, but not actually", "were treated as if", "not technically" etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for a copy at WP:RX, since it seems clear that no-one can see it here. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now got a copy of the entire chapter but will not have a chance to read it until next week. Please will someone give me a nudge if I forget! - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope you completed reading it. Are you still strong on your arguments? I am wondering whether it is from a 21st century academic. The tone of the work and selection of words does not suit a professional research article, but it reminds me some colonial missionary writings in 1800s. Besides the very poor layout and typography of the book, most of his terminology such as "Iravas" for Ezhavas, "Suddists" for Southists and "Nordists" for northists all seem to reflect a very old and outdated perspective. In addition, Jeffrey seems to share the same self-glorifying attitude of many English missionary writers, who had a belief that the arrival of British was a kind of turning point in the history of Malabar, while it reality, local people found no much difference whether it is Portuguese Catholics or British Protestants. A change from Portuguese to Dutch or from French to British meant nothing to them.

The book is published by the University of Sussex Press, where the author studied for his PhD. Think about it. If I do a PhD in Kerala University, obviously I will acquire some contacts there by which I can later get a book published by them. Anyway, the book was worth reading and I came across many interesting things such as:

"Nayar women could cover their breast with a particular style of cloth - which they were expected to remove before temple idols and caste superiors."

“...Sudras were brought to Kerala to serve the Malayali Brhmins. The Nayar girl was taught to bare her breasts as a mark of respect before such incarnate deities; her greatest pleasure should be giving pleasure to them. Perhaps it was.”

We already know about the Upper cloth controversy were women of lower castes fought for their right to hide their nudity. But the above quotes show that the Nair women too shared the same fate of that of lower caste women. The only difference was Nair women can cover their body when there are no Brahmins around and idols of any kind (such as a serpent idol or a Shiva Linga or anything like that) are not there.

On the other hand, Syrian Christian women were spared from this caste based discrimination. As Jeffrey writes:

"Syrian women wore a long-sleeved blouse which they were not expected to doff before high-caste Hindus."

Btw, you previously had said on Hawsworth's quote that "My bet is that the quote can go, but Jeffrey's opinion relating to it can stay." You also said you don’t insist to keep it. I don’t know whether you are still on the opinion that Jeffrey's say counts. Shall comment more on it after your comment on this book. - InarZan Verifiable 12:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

George Menachery: RS

George Menachery and his journal "Aspects of the Idea of “Clean and Unclean” among the Brahmins, the Jews, and the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala" are confirmed as RS in WP:RSN. Therefore we can use it as a citation for the ritual bath Syrians used to perform to nullify the 'polluting' touch of Nairs. The following excerpt from the journal says it:

"...Thomas Christians were always as much addicted to washing their bodies as the Brahmins or the Jews or even more so. In spite of the decrees of the Synod of Diamper and the efforts of the missionaries the Thomas Christian could hardly reconcile himself to any laxity in the matter of cleanliness. All Christians in the villages continued to observe the strictest rules that obtained among the Brahmins in matters of cleanliness and caste distinctions even till very recent times, as this writer could assert from his own experiences in and about the inhabitants of the villages of Kattur, Meloor, Chalakkudy, Ollur, Mala, Kallettumkara, Edakkulam, Chengalur, &c.in present day revenue districts of Thrissur and Ernakulam.

The following Decree of the Synod of Diamper(Action VIII, Decree XIII. Cf. The book of Geddes in the ICHC, Ed. George Menachery, p.91) throws much light on how far the Christians adhered to ritual cleanliness:

“ The Synod doth very much condemn what some...imagine, viz. That if they do not wash their Bodies betimes in the Morning on a Fastday, their Fast will be of no worth; and that if they happen to touch any of a base Race, or a Naires , they must wash themselves to make their Fast to be of any Merit; and declares that all such Washings and Superstitious touches, are commanded neither by God nor the Church...”

However the old customs died first in towns and townships, as the result of English education and contact with Westerners and their ways...."

Another portion:

"....For Christians as to the Brahmins Nairs being Sudras was an untouchable caste, though some European writers have described the Nairs as Noblemen and so on. Cf. Decree II of Act IX of the said Synod fully and may I request you to go through it most car fully to understand how expediency and profit often comes first with Archbishop Menezes, and how His Grace advises tricks to combine religion with material benefit. He allows Christians to practise untouchability or Ayitham and to pretend to go by the existing customs of segregation, but not to perform the ritual bath after the pollution caused by going near or touching Nairs and lower caste persons if it will not come to the attention of the king and the elite! “Therefore the Synod doth command all that shall be found guilty of forbearing to touch such [Nairs], or having touched them, shall wash themselves, to be severely punished as Superstitious followers of the Heathen Customs, and commands the Preachers and Confessors to admonish them thereof in their Sermons and Confessions....”

Comments? - InarZan Verifiable 17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a toss what Menachery says. This article is not going to be another Syrian Christian hijack job. They were a small part of the whole and are not Hindu. Yes, they should be mentioned as a peculiarity etc but weighting is important. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about "Caste system among Hindus", it is about "Caste System in Kerala". Therefore it should contain more than self-glorification of some Nairs. Syrian Christians form about 9-10% of the total Kerala population and were historically more influencial than bigger communities like Ezhavas. Your prejudices are not a valid reason here. Menachery is a confirmed RS. Therefore it should be included in the article. Do you have any other reason to say? - InarZan Verifiable 03:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

At its peak, the STCs appear to have been ca. 30% of the pop (1931), which was a rise from ca. 4% (1820). I am also aware that they and the Nairs had a somewhat fractious history. Nonetheless, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that the STCs were considered to be outside the system but treated as being of high status equivalent to Brahmins etc for some time. They should be mentioned but the system is fundamentally a Hindu concept and the STCs were choosy in which bits of it they assimilated and which bits they did not - which is a level of detail that should be dealt with in depth at Saint Thomas Christians etc. (I am doing some work there while trying to read around the subject).

All the Menachery stuff that you mention above relates to a thread that is already opened and - yet again - you are ignoring our conventions by opening another thread about the same thing. That lack of focus & chaotic approach to editing etc was also apparent in the article until fairly recently At present, this article is poor but it is a hell of a lot better than it was before I tidied things up some months ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

STC's were considered outside the caste system: Please don't camouflage the point. STC's were part of the system till 19th century. We have to add a seperate section for Non-Hindus in this article(Like the case in Caste System in India) and include the points mentioned by me and InazarZan since splendid WP:RSs have already been cited here. --AshLey ^Msg 13:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

All the sources that I am seeing say things such as they held a similar status to the upper castes etc. That is not the same as saying that they were within the caste system. Caste is a Hindu concept, period, and while the STCs certainly appear to have assimilated many aspects of the concept in order to benefit themselves, that does not make them a part of it. I am finding it difficult to keep track of what you two are saying because you are scattering it around in so many different places, and even different articles. If I have missed something then you are going to have to start over because the chaos is of your own making. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the sentences "STC's were considered outside the caste system: Please don't camouflage the point. STC's were part of the system till 19th century" as written by AshLey at 13:46 today are pretty much gibberish, by the way. Working out what you mean when you mix up comments by other people and do not use even a semblance of punctuation to assist the reader, well, it makes life very hard and it may go some way to explaining why certain sources are being misinterpreted. I am not blaming you here, but could you at least try to show quotations as quotations & give some sort of indication of which message you are referring to? - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I see now that you jumped the gun a bit regarding your "Menachery confirmed as RS at RSN" remark. See what happened within hours of you rushing here. A tip: discussions at RSN etc take days, not minutes. You should allow time for several people to respond and for consensus to build. Sometimes it does not happen, but rushing to make a claim as you did here is always the wrong thing to do. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

POV issue: Myth of Parasuraman cited as fact

The following passage could be immediately removed from the article: "A theory presented by Rene Barendse, who as of 2012 is a Fellow of the International Institute for Asian Studies, claims that the caste system established by Nambudiri Brahmins of Kerala was in accordance with the will of Parasurama, an avatar of Vishnu. The Nambudiris had control of 64 villages and asserted that they had powers given to them by the gods, so much so that they considered even other Brahmin groups to be outside the caste hierarchy.[3] The Nambudiri Brahmins were at the top of the ritual caste hierarchy, outranking even the kings. Anyone who was not a Nambudiri was treated by them as an untouchables."

This passage puts the reliability of entire article under question! --AshLey ^Msg 09:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you propose the removal of a theory proposed by a recognised authority? Why? Your explanation for doing so makes no sense to me. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"in accordance with the will of Parasurama, an avatar of Vishnu" - Do you think, this makes any sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley thomas80 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion counts for nothing here; Barendse's does. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing like that in the source. Do we need anybody's certificate to disprove this theory. Let the Godly matters stay out of Wikipedia--AshLey ^Msg 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't? Have you actually read the source? I have just found the bit about the will of Parasurama on the cited page, and a statement that Parasurama is considered an avatar of Vishnu on p. 632. It took me less than a minute to find these two items. If you want to add p. 632 to the citation then feel free. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a part of the second theory of the origin of the caste system in Kerala as argued by Pullapilly (1976, pp. 26–30), but consider Parasuraman as "an Aryan prince from Malwar". Legend of Parasuraman is better explained in a historical way by Pullapilly, need not have to mention as a separate theory. Selective quoting and cherry picking has really marred the quality of entire article. In Barendse, the sentence starts as "The caste system in Kerala was also held to be installed by Parasurama". So, it was held by someone like that, not now. Good that you pointed out p.632, which has a better representation of this idea. P.632 contains - "Rather than simply mythology, it was also a legal fiction." Anything else?--AshLey ^Msg 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the wording so that it better reflects the source(s) then feel free to do so. Untangling the blarney of ancient Indian mythology is not something that has ever appealed to me. It does not matter an iota whether the theory is still held to be true. Mythology is fiction, and as such I have little interest in it: that applies whether it is the myth of Parasurama, Jesus Christ, St George and the Dragon, Romulus and Remus or any other story. But it is mentioned by reliable sources and therefore it stays, simple as.

The only person cherry-picking right now seems to be yourself: selectively removing a sentence from a paragraph when the entire paragraph relied on a seemingly untraceable citation, and denying that something existed in a source when clearly the source does refer to it. I still await a simple response to my query in the earlier section re: Studies in Kerala History, btw. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't pointed fingers at you, but to the editor who included the Parasurama stuff. Now, you have done a clear personal attack on me and you know, it could attract a sanction!

The Parasu theory is not valid now, and outdated theories are just scraps. We will remove it. Kerala University Journal - You could expect a +/- reply within 2days. I'll ask for a hard copy. --AshLey ^Msg 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is a belief that has been noted in reliable sources then it has a place in the article. Similarly, we note the claims to be descendants of the Lunar Dynasty etc, even though those also are based on mythology, and we have entire articles on subjects such as scientific racism and its proponents (eg: H. H. Risley) even though these are discredited theories. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

But no place in a brief section like "Origin", especially in the form of a valid theory. --AshLey ^Msg 15:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What has the length of a section got to do with this? Who determines how long it should be?. It is or was a theory of origin that has/had a wide enough audience to merit discussion by modern authorities, and is placed in an appropriate section. As I said earlier, just fix the wording if you are convinced that the present version does not agree with the sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the weight, which you are always concerned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley thomas80 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What about it? I fail to see your point. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nairs were not considered untouchables by any christian group

The statement here given that "nairs were considered untouchables by syrian christians" is totally absurd....according to christians they had no rule regarding untochability.The source provided here is not trustworthy as it said that the rule for untouchability was explained by the wife some syrian christian ,a member of christian missionary who had no authority to do so.This argument is not supported by any historians/European travellers of 16th,17th or 18th century .In fact they were as a lower caste before the british period.Nair men ladies from syrian christian community was taken as the concubines (accoding to "History of Travancore from the Earliest Times"

By P. Shungoonny Menon )shungoonny menon has quoted a christian preist saying that mappulians(syrian christian women called)

having criminal intercourse with Nairs and condescend to live with them as concubineshttp://books.google.co.in/books?id=gxsrz7DAPxIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=concubines&f=false.If these christian ladies were taken by nairs as their concubines how come they be superior or consider Nairs as untouchables. Rule for untouchability is Mythical and should be quoted from the Mythical text "keralolpathi" And theese rules are applicable to hindu communities only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.58.125 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. No need to start yet another section. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is to remove that and write something from credible sources.Sitush ,you told me earlier that the records from colonial period are totally untrustworthy and then why are you using the untrustworthy thing here .I want my doubt to clarified.Quoting some Christian missionary wont help in this matter .Rule for untouchability given in other texts doesn't match this nor is christians included in that.Christians were considered untouchables like any other outcastes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.63.151 (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained why in the section above. I have absolutely no idea what I may have said to you earlier because you are not using a registered account for your queries and seem instead to be on a dynamic IP. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP why shouldn't you be a little bit sensible? There are ample evidences for this:

"Untouchability was practiced by the Syrian Christians. They used to go for a ritual bath after getting in physical contact/touch with the lower castes, and even the Nair castes. We get this information from the Diamper Synod Decree 2 in Section IX. In it the Portuguese missionaries admonishes the Syrian Christians and abolishes untouchability with the terms: “the superstitious and absurd customs of the heathens of Malabar of better not mixing with the lower, and of having no communication or correspondence with those that have but touched any of them, totally be abolished among the Christians.”(C. D. Sebastian, Creed and Culture in Dialogue: On the Evolution of an Indigenous Faith)

Again, this is not an Original Research of Sebastian. He is citing K. P. Padmanabha Menon, Kochi Rajya Caritram /History of Cochin (Malayalam), Thrissur. Please note that K. P. Padmanabha Menon, a Nair himself is verifying this.

Another Decree of the Synod of Diamper (Section VIII, Decree XIII) says this:

“ The Synod doth very much condemn what some...imagine, viz. That if they do not wash their Bodies betimes in the Morning on a Fastday, their Fast will be of no worth; and that if they happen to touch any of a base Race, or a Naires , they must wash themselves to make their Fast to be of any Merit; and declares that all such Washings and Superstitious touches, are commanded neither by God nor the Church...”

You can check both the above mentioned Decrees of Synod of Diamper. The Decrees of Diamper are available in many places, old and new books, online and offline, in different languages such as Malayalam, English, Portuguese, etc.

Yes, for Christians, there is no untouchability rules, that was why Portuguese condemned it as a heathen practice and abolished it.

Shungoonny Menon is not at all an RS. He was the Dewan Pashkar of Travancore, not a Historian. Also he was Nair himself and a subject of Hindu country of Travancore. His writings reflect high degrees of POV. Examples for his ‛historical’ knowledge:

“The present Dynasty of Travancore is one of the most ancient in India, the period assigned to its origin being the beginning of the world.”[3]

“The mother-country of Travancore was the Mandala kingdom Chera, which once covered the best portion of Southern India, and which underwent various changes during the four Yugas according to the Puranic accounts. In the present age, Kali Yuga, it was gradually reduced to the present Travancore...”[4]

“Brahma, the Creator, begot a son Kasyapen. His son was Sooryan. His son Vaivaswatha Manu. His son was Sudyumnen alias Ilen, who, by a peculiar adventure, (which it is not to our present purpose to detail here) became a female; Ila, and by her the Emperor Purooravass was born to Budhen. His son was Ayush, his son Nahushen, his son Yayathi; he had two wives Devayani and Sarmishtta, the former was the Brahman Rishi Sukren's daughter, who had two sons named Yedu and Durvasu, and to the latter Prince the Emperor Yayathi assigned sovereignty over the Southern part of India. The posterity of Durvasu are the three kings of Chera, Chola and Pandya. Of these three, Cheren was the head of the present Travancore Dynasty, which is also called Keralen...”[5]

Do you need more “historical facts” from his book? - InarZan Verifiable 18:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Equation is simple: In the precolonial period, Syrian Christians had the dominance, they considered themselves equivalent to brahmins, considered Nairs as Shudras, used their military power to arm twist local kings in their way and denied Nairs the chance to get equivalent privileges. Once the kingdom of Travancore became established, Hindu ideologies became more rooted, STC dominance was questioned and Nairs became more powerful. Christianity was considered as foreign religion at this point only. With Portuguese started Proselyting dalit people, situation became worsened. However, the legacy helped STCs to fight much of the attacks on it's prestige. --AshLey ^Msg —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Abraham Kettu

Syrian Christians practised something called Abraham kettu (Abraham marriage) by which a Syrian Christian male can have many wives, but only the first wife will be from his own community, subsequent wives will be from heathen castes such as Nairs. Only the children born from the first wife (i.e., the Syrian wife) were given baptism and had right to get father's wealth and property. Since the subsequent wives were from matrilinear castes, children born from them were considered as members of their mothers' caste. They were neither given baptism, nor were they eligible to get any wealth or property from their fathers. This malpractice was abolished by Synod of Diamper which nullified all the marriages except the first one. The Nair children born from Mappilla (Syrian Christian) fathers were called Pillas. This is how the Pillas originated. They constitute a considerable portion of Nairs in Travancore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.49.75 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Don’t talk bullshit here without any clear evidence .Actually it was the other way round Pillas( feudal land lords)taking Syrian Christian ladies as their concubines.This practice was ceased during the reign of HH.Karthika thirunal Rama varma due to the request from a Christian priest Father paolino (in his letter to the Raja).This letter is a part of Travancore records ,is a public document. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gxsrz7DAPxIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=concubines&f=true These Syrian Christians became dominant only during Colonial period after 1891 when Malabar came under the British rule. They helped the british people to spread Christianity among the dalits ,also the English administrator took concubines from them. (Genitical studies shows that they have European paternal blood line.)This made them more close to the English and gain wealth. These Syrians had only the status of washerman community or the outcastes as far as nairs were concerned .(Remember the story of st. Thomas taking a washer woman as wife) Mr. Anonymous IP please share sources for your comments here.Othenan (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is the other way. Travancore Hindu kingdom's documents do not have any authority. These documents are dismissed even by Nairs themselves since they call them as nothing other than Malayala Sudras.

Syrian Christians are mentioned in Tharisapally copper plates of 8th century and other earlier documents. Local and international accounts give a clear picture of a prominent Christian community, financially and militarily strong enough to control even the Kings. At the same time, there is no trace of Nairs until the arrival of Portuguese. As Ashley told above, Syrian Christians were in dominance until the arrival of Europeans. Syrian Christians are proven to have Cohen (Jewish) gene pool.

But the same time there is enough evidences for the Portuguese admixture. Recent genetic surveys have confirmed this fact.

".. On the other hand, Hindu Nairs have been influenced by the western European gene pool based on high prevalence of alleles B*07 and Cw*07..." (A crypto-Dravidian origin for the nontribal communities of South India based on human leukocyte antigen class I diversity: R. Thomas, S. B. Nair, M Banerjee)

Leaving behind their historical explanations, this genetic study has a great anthropological importance. It is a clear evidence for the admixture of Portuguese, British and Dutch blood in today's Nairs. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive. It was Portuguese who popularized the term Nair which was a mere title until then. Nair men served in Colonial armies as infantry soldiers. The Portuguese soldiers had numerous Nair mistresses and since the Nairs followed 'Marumakkathayam', the children born from these unions were classified as Nairs and were brought up in tharavadus.

Portuguese army (Parangi Pattalam) had its main barracks at towns such as Kannur, Thalassery, Calicut, Cochin, Quilon, Attingal, etc. Nairs in all these areas are fairer than those in other areas. The Menons of Valluvanad are the only Nairs without European admixture. This is why the Valluvanad Nairs (Menons/Mannadiar) consider Travancore Nairs (Pillai) and Malabar Nairs (Nambiar) as inferior castes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.62.212 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to talk about Nairs? Go to Talk:Nair, where you will find that the single source that you mention (Thomas et al) was trashed some time ago. You want to talk about STCs? Go to Saint Thomas Christians, where you will find that there is little proven historiography for the pre-colonial period: a lot of legend and tradition etc, but it is short on fact.

The only stuff in your messages above that appears possibly to be of relevance to this article is the alleged STC-Nair marriage arrangements, in so far as that might reflect some sort of peculiarity in the Keralite caste system. You'd need to provide some reliable support for that, and you have not done so thus far. In fact, most of what you say appears to be original research at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not heard this term before. I agree that there is evidence for Syrian Christian men kept non-Christian concubines until Synod of Diamper. But I am not sure whether it was called "Abraham Kettu". Can you provide some citation which actually contain the term "Abraham Kettu"?- InarZan Verifiable 12:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)