Talk:Vellalar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kshatriya

Taprobanus is vendalazing this page!!!... He has removed the Kshatriya reference of vellalars!!... This guy has an agenda!!... He must belong to a low people, mafia organisation which is trying to rewrite tamil history. I noticed that he's spending his time on wikipedia writing false things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkris (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed reference to 'vellalars from srilanka' because the guy who wrote it is trying to rewrite history (without any proof); it seems he's an agenda... Some people (on wikipedia...) are trying to rewrite the history of tamils by reducing the image, reputation of vellalars. Vellalars along with Brahmins belong to the elite tamil class from time immemorial. Many different texts prove it... They were landlords, kshatriyas, no doubt on this.

Please show a single historical verifiable document that purports to show any Vellala subdivision as Kshatriyas ? if not in 30 daya i will remove the NPOVRaveenS 13:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User 64.131.133.51 is Vandalizing this page repeatedly, if he/she doesnot stop, I wil take action to stop him/her from editing WikipediaRaveenS 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff written on this is wrong. Who wrote this? What jati are you? How do you go about proving that Vellalas are shudras? That is plain wrong! Vellalas are the equivalents of Nairs. They are administrators and close the the powerful leading authorities. Later,as time passed, lower castes tried to change their last names and become Vellala Pillais. The same is the case with Nairs in Kerala. The varna is Kshathriya.

Please provide WP:RS citation that says that. This is Wikipedia not a blog so everything we write should be attributable also dont attack other editors it is ahainst WP:NPA policy and if you keep removing cited material which is against WP:VAND also called vandalism. I have already warned a WP:SOCK sockpuppet account of yours. Thanks for cooperationRaveenS

For a caste to claim Kshatriya status, you must provide some background proofs : Links to ancient kshatriya lineages (Suryavansh, Agnivansh, Chandravansh, or Nagavansh), proof of coronation ceremonies performed by brahmins, and a martial history. Also, the Brahmin/Kshatriya caste is usually linked to Aryans. The Nairs of Kerala descend from the Nagavansh (only the upper "pure" castes, the rest are just assimilated), have a martial history, and in the past have gone through coronation ceremonies performed by brahmins. Most Nairs have Aryan features and are not indigenous to South India, except for the assimilated lower caste Nairs who are considered Malayala Sudra (see Nair subcastes). How can you compare the Vellalars to them?--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof on the status of the Vellalars as Sudra (the highest of all Sudras), taken from "Caste and tribes of South India" by E. Thurston, volume 7, page 373:

"In an excellent summary of the Vellalas * Mr. W. Francis writes as follows. " By general consent, the first place in social esteem among the Tamil Sudra castes is awarded to them.... "--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 115.134.80.6, there are 2 main pbs with people like you: you're making big confusion between history and mythology and take as true what was said, written by some western people during the colonial era. First of all, the ancient kshatriya lineage belongs to mythology and not history because their existence has not been proved; nowadays Kshatriyas can only claim (and not prove!) their link to these legendary lineage... Second, according to (orthodox) brahmins, there is no more Kshatriyas, they have been exterminated by Vishnu. They don't do coronation ceremonies anymore. By the way, Nairs were NOT considered as Kshatriyas but Sudras by Kerala brahmins... Concerning what you mentioned as a proof: this book was written during the colonial era, the author calls Vellalars as Sudra according to some Brahmanical POV and, above all, to western POV about India: the 'Aryan/Dravidian' division of India; according to these western colonial POV, Aryans were white people who invaded India and therefore all South Indians (except brahmins) who are dravidians are sudras and English/western who are white are linked to these aryans and therefore have the right to dominate India... From what real basis he considers Vellalars as Sudras ?... Nothing... This vision is not considered as true by modern scholars. Avoid talking about stupid things like 'Aryan feature' (...). Aryan/Arya means Noble/Lord (...) there is nothing about Aryan features in the Vedas or any other Hindu texts... Rama & Krishna (who were dark skinned, krishna was even black) were considered as the perfect Aryans. What is the definition of a Sudra ? Servant, peasant, slave... What is the definition of a Kshatriya ? King, noble, landlord, warlord... I went by these definitions (and not stupid brahmanical POV or western colonial POV) to rank Vellalars as Kshatriyas. See:

"... the Vellalars were the aristocratic classe and were held in high esteem..." (Ancient Indian History and Civilisation by Sailendra Nath Sen page 205);

"The Velir/Vellalar group constituted the ruling and land owning classe in the Tamil country since the beginning of recorded history..." (Meluhha and Agastya: Alpha and Omega of the Indus Script by Iravatham Mahadevan, Indus Research Centre, Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai, India, page 16);

see also this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=cegr6zH9PFEC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=velir+vellalar&source=bl&ots=rZ3rBNam2Z&sig=ZSmqVfT-eG05D2hZA7HEVyd2awg&hl=en&ei=J-EBS5CnN8ehjAfQqfWLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=velir%20vellalar&f=false ("The hollow crown: ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom By Nicholas B. Dirks Page 139 to 149")...

There are many other references showing the nobility of the Vellalar caste. The Vellalars have ruled Tamil society, made Tamil (one of the very greatest Indian civilisation) destiny for more than 2000 years (This is history and not mythology/legend!) which is much more than all the other castes which claim Kshatriya status (Rajput became rulers only 1500/1400 years ago, Nair 1200/1100 years ago...). The reference you have mentionned as a proof is not at all a proof, only a POV written without any good basis and to support western colonial POV (divide and dominate India). Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For Your Information, according to some sources, Velir/Vellalar group came from north and belonged to the Yadu clan: "...Sage Agastya repaired to Dwarka and, taking with him eighteen families of Velirs, moved on to the south..." (Encyclopedia of Indian Tribes by S.S. Shashi page 216).Rajkris (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Precision: nowadays, castes which have the word Vellalar in their name, such as 'Devendra Kula Vellalar', 'Isai Vellalar' (...) have nothing to do with the ancient Vellalars Land Lords and therefore cannot claim Kshatriya status. They were just peasants...Rajkris (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Then open a new wiki page for those landlords. Go by the real name. If you consider the Vedas and the historical accounts as myth, then Hindhuism is also a myth. Therefore the hindhu caste "Kshatriya" should mean nothing to you, since it is mythical. So please remove it. Dont tell me that all the peasants on all walk of life now were Kshatriyas. Even the Kallars are calling themselves Kshatriya.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not me who tells this but scholars, historians, scientists... According to them, there is no historical, archeological evidence of what is written, mentionned in the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata... So they belong to myth, legend... There is nothing to remove because this article is written according to scholar POV. I'll not remove their POV to put your POV. See also kshatriya to check what is the definition of a Kshatriya. Read also carefully what I have written above (see the ref and the links!) before telling sutpid things like "don't tell me that all the peasants..." (I've never told this!).Rajkris (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What scholars? All your proofs and sources are written (and verified) by biased Tamils scholars! I have provided a non-biased source written by a white man at a time where Vellalars themselves lobbied to be classified as Vaisyas when the British classified them as shudras. It is not POV. Kshatriyas is simply out of the question. How can a farming caste be a Kshatriya? What nonsense.

Qoute "Castes and Tribes of South India", Book 7, page 361 : "The Vellalas," Mr. H. A. Stuart writes,"are the great farmer caste of the Tamil country, and they are strongly represented in every Tamil district."--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Check clearly the names of the authors of my ref before writting stupidities... A book written by a western during the colonial era cannot be considered as 'non-biased'. The ref I have provided above are books written recently by independant scholars. Rajputs and Thakurs are also farmers (see below) but they are considered as Kshatriyas; why ? Because they are the ancient ruling caste. It is the same for Vellalars. Rajkris (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can show many many more books showing Vellalars are Shudra. All I need is a CLEAR sentence that they were Kshatriyas.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can show me many many books which associate Vellalars with Sudras. These books are based on colonial POV and do not tell why, how Vellalars are, can be associated to the Sudras caste. It is very easy to associate a caste to words like Sudra, Kshatriya (Vanniyars are trying to do such a thing to promote their caste as Kshatriya), but if you don't tell the reason, it is useless. I'm going to provide my ref in a separate chapter below.Rajkris (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Vedas the vellalar or their ancestors where mentioned as Brahmans or Kshatriyas. They are a huge faming caste (see my refs), and were never vegetarian, nor do they wear the sacred thread. Therefore they are Shudra according to Vedic literature and Hindhuism.--Jack.Able (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Check what Aryan means. Hitler killed so many because of this one word. Change it if you are unhappy. Im not gonna argue about it with you. Aryans sometimes have coloured eyes/hair, light brown to fair skin, and a caucasoid skull structure. You can see these features in Rajputs, most Brahmins, and also the Nairs/Bunts that you claim to be at your level.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

According to some western people POV like Hitler (a European Sudra, his ancestors were peasants), aryans are white, have blond hair and blue eyes and people like you are inferior to them. Read also carefully what is written in the Aryan wiki page.Rajkris (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are the Nordic Aryans. They are the most superior, Aryan Indians are the mediteranean type Aryans, ranking 2nd/3rd on his scale. Dark dravidians are considered negroids, rank on the lowest of his scale along with the Jews and Negros. Fair Dravidians like your so called "equavalent" Nairs are genetically Indo-Scythians like the Jats/Rajputs, and are therefore actually Aryan. And BTW, blue eyes does run in my family, thank you for blurting idioticly before asking who I really am :) --Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazis considered Gipsys as inferiors and tried to exterminate them. Gipsys are genetically connected to the persians/iranians, afghans, pakis and some northwest indians.Rajkris (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats is very true. Why are you wasting time arguing about Hitlers silly ideology about human genetic rank? The Jews are also genetically Semitic, which is very close to Aryans. But they are on the lowest in his eyes, including your people.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is you who started talking about Hitler. I just outlined how what you wrote is contradictory.Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining the obvious. What a waste of time. Stop going out of topic.--Jack.Able (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, The stories you call myth is unfounded. Although much of the Hindhu literature appear to be mythical, the Kshatriya dynasties really did exist, being able to trace lineages up to 2000 years back. For example, the Naga's have ruled several cities in North/Central India (example : see city Nagpur) before being chased away by Parashurama. The literature was written BASED on EXISTING dynasties, not the other way around. Comparing yourselves to the Nairs is also pathetic. They were listed as a Martial Race for their prowess, and were the only ones allowed to learn Kalaripayat. In Tamil Nadu the only martial race are the Thevars, but they were recruited in very low numbers compared to the Jats, Rajputs, Thakurs and Nairs. See [1]

This your POV, not scholars. There is no serious ref to Nagas in Nagpur. 'Martial Race' is term used by the british to designate people who are fit to serve as simple soldiers. Vellalars (Pillais, Mudaliars, Gounders...) were Land Lords for whom the warrior castes used to serve, work for (see my link above). 'Comparing yourselves to the Nairs is also pathetic' --> Naïr are great warriors (I have great respect for them) but they were not able to found great kingdoms, empires such as Chola & Pandya in which the Vellalars were the noble, ruling caste. These kingdoms lasted 1500/2000 years according to scholars, something unique in human kind history... BtW, in Martial Race i read 'The British regarded the 'martial races' as valiant and strong but also intellectually challenged, lacking the initiative or leadership qualities to command large troops.[8] They were also regarded as politically subservient or docile to authority.'.Rajkris (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Great" Chera/Chola/Pandya dynasties also ruled Kerala. They were chased out by the Nairs and the Nambuthiris. This is the Aryan invasion for South India. The descendants of these dynasties in Kerala (Thiya & Ezhavas) are considered untouchables. Welcome to the real world, Rajkris. You are living in a dreamland.

This is your pure POV, according to scholars, Chera and Nairs had close relations (Nairs were members of their armies).Rajkris (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not POV. Please read Kerala history properly. The Nairs are not indigenous to Kerala, and Kerala is their territory. --Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it your POV. Scholars do not share at all your POV. Nairs have mixed origins (even those from the top of the rank) like many indians. They speak Malayalam and were part of the Chera aristocraty, army (this is the opinion of scholars). The way you are writing shows clearly that you have a racial vision of India. You are promoting the division of India by promoting racial, community hatred.Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is not POV. Your knowledge of indian history is outdated. We have now mapped the human genome. A simple genetic test will show the origin of many tribes, such as the case with the Nairs. The only source that says Nairs are part of Chera dynasty are the translation of old Tamil texts which is now disputed (since it suits your agenda, of course you will support it). Almost all modern scholars agree they are not indigenous to Kerala. Also, the Bramanical records prove it. See : [2] for more details with references. Also, Malayalam has a heavy influence of Sanskrit compared to other Southern languages. This is due to the arrival of the Nambuthiris & Nairs who spoke Sanskrit. See Malayalam.

However, this is out of topic. I am not promoting any hatred, Im just showing you that the Vellalas are not the same as the Nairs in terms of origin.--Jack.Able (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nairs have mixed origins like most of indians. They were in good relation with Cheras, Vellalars (...): Pillai is a name commonly used by both Nairs & Velllalars. I can also tell you the same thing: you are using colonial based books on Vellalars since they support your agenda and your knowledge of Indian history is outdated.Rajkris (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you are just being daft. First you said Nairs were Chera, now you say they had good relation with Chera. Next, you will be telling me the Chera are Matrilineal and worship snakes? Obviously, you didnt read my references. Here it is : [3]. Read it if you are sooooo interested in the Nairs. Once again, you are going out of topic and adding bloat to this page. Stop it.--Jack.Able (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Martial Race shows your battle prowess. Being subservient is part of battle training, not "intellectually challenged"(this your is POV again). Rajputs/Nairs armies have a reputation of fighting till dead to the last man. Example : Battle of Saragarhi. If soldiers dont listen, then they are useless. If Arjuna did not listen to Krishna, they would have lost the war. A Vellalar would have fled the battlefield due to to lack of courage/training/subserviantness. Vellalas are not Martial race, and definitely not Kshatriya.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just put what has been written in the Martial Race wiki page. A simple soldier is not a Kshatriya!... In the army, only (high) officers can be ranked as Kshatriyas. I repeat once again, Kshatriyas are Kings & Nobles (Land & War Lords) and not simple soldiers who go to fight. Vellalars were the Tamil landed gentry, the ruling caste but also war lords (read carefully my refs above), high military officers. They were Kshatriyas by profession.Rajkris (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the Vedic literatures before blurting like an idiot. According to your definition, Arjuna is not a Kshatriya, because he is a soldier who went out and fought. I never said the Martial race were Kshatriyas. Being a good warrior is a Kshatriyan quality, but does not make you a Kshatriya. For example, the Thevars were a martial race, but they are not Kshatriya.--Jack.Able (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And for you information, there is no Kshatriya caste in Kerala, not even the rulers/kings. For a Nair to become "Samantha Kshatriya", he had to pay lots of gold to the Nambuthiris to perform the coronation ceremony. The Nairs were loosely termed as Malayala Kshatriya, with Samantha Kshatriyas at the highest in the caste ladder. Kerala's caste system is different from the four fold system in other states.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but you need to provide a non-biased proof from a neutral perspective.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The references I have provided above were written by a north Indian, a western and a tamil (read them carefully before writing stupidities). Rajput/Thakur were/are also farmers (see these links: http://books.google.com/books?id=wbtAkPRl9t0C&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=thakur+farmer&source=bl&ots=3Emu_lqbo6&sig=icKfLl1iVybF0kdAlMBZ-ZSg_4U&hl=en&ei=SIBZS6-qMJS7jAfG042TAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thakur%20farmer&f=false; Palanpur, the economy of an Indian village By C. J. Bliss, Nicholas Herbert Stern page 236 and also:http://www.everyculture.com/South-Asia/Rajput.html). From what I have read, your perception of India, caste is mainly racial. Wikipedia is not a place to promote racial hatred. If you continue your racial hatred, i will denounce you to wiki admin.Rajkris (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are just not reading my words. I never said the Rajput/Thakurs/Nairs were Kshatriyas. They are huge community with a mixture of Kshatriya and Shudra. Therefore to call them ALL kshatriya is wrong. Rajput Kshatriyas were the majority of the Rajput clans population, the remainder were shudras. For example, looking at the Nair sub caste page, >80% belonged to the Malayala kshatriya division, and the rest were Malayala Shudra.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is again your POV, not scholars!... I have never heard, read anything telling that all Rajput/Thakhurs were not Kshatriyas(of course there are always some impostors). I have enquired to a Rajasthani Brahmin friend and he clearly told me this: "Rajput/Thakurs were the ancient ruling caste of northwest Bharat, they were kings, feudal landlords, land owners, army chiefs, warriors... But after they lost their kingdoms, ruling status (Muslim/British invasians), those who managed to keep their lands, got involved in farming activities. Nowadays many of them are still farmers but they are considered as kshatriyas...". It is the same for Nobles from Europe, most of them were involved in farming activities. So what you tell is again a lie so as to promote your vision. Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I said not ALL are Kshatriyas. Can you please learn to read? You are going out of topic and wasting time!

Also, can you please ask any Tamil Iyers if Vellalars were Kshatriyas?--Jack.Able (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am disputing the fact that Vellalar were classified as Kshatriyas, when clearly they are a huge farming caste. The landlords are vaishya at best.

1. The is no mention of coronation ceremonies performed by brahmans in ANY of your books.

2. The is no mention of Vellalar being classified as Kshatriya in any of your books. They were always called Shudra.

3. The Vellalar are not warriors, they are not considered as a martial race.

4. The Vellalar do not descend from any of the Vedic dynasties, because these are the only ones coronated by the brahmans. Chera/Chola/Pandya dynasties do not count.

5. The only requirement that they fullfill is a small percentage of them were landlords.

The Rajputs/Thakurs/Nairs fulfill all off these requirements. Almost all books classify Vellalars as Shudra. Im going to change the page soon if you cant defend this. I am not promoting racial hatred. Im just disputing your POV that they are Kshatriyas, and you are defending it poorly. As user Raveen pointed out, please show a sentence from a book that shows CLEARLY that they were kshatriyas.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very clear, if you change this page, I will denounce you to a wiki admin and you will be blocked from editing. I will not let you do this kind of vandalism by using colonial type of books as ref!. I have provided very good ref, if you do not want to accept them I can't do anything... Arjuna was a Prince/King/Noble, a high military officer, not a simple soldier!... Vellalars such as Mudaliar, Pillais, Gounders (...) are the heirs of the ancient Tamil aristocraty and therefore their rank is Kshatriya. Landlord means someone who owns lands and for whom peasants and soldiers (to protect their lands) work for.

1. I agree, Vellalars are not Kshatriyas in the vedic sense but it is the case for all the other castes which claim Kshatriya status.

2. In my books Vellalars are mentionned as then ancient Tamil aristocraty and therefore were kshatriyas by profession. They are not considered as Sudras in my books.

3.The Vellalars are not soldiers but held top military positions in the Chola/Pandya armies

4.Yes but some traditions link them to the yadu clan (see my ref above)

5.Vellalars are originally landlords, the master of the soil, those who had the right to own lands. In a feudal society, the Kings & Nobles (Kshatriyas) had the right to owns lands and the Sudras (peasants,soldiers, slaves...) not.

I will provide my references in separate chapter (below), it will be more clear.Rajkris (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, see the original meaning for Landlord.Rajkris (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra means. Can you please read the Vedic literature first? You seem to think it applies everywhere. For example, Hitler is not a "European Shudra". He is Avarna (casteless), because he is not a Hindhu. And Napolean Bonaparte is not Kshatriya. He is also Avarna. Even if he was a Hindhu, he would be a Shudra.

Since Hindhuism is a religion based on mythology, so are the Vedic castes system. Kshatriya is a mythical caste. It is also a Sanskrit word. Only those ethnic groups/dynasties mentioned the mythical Vedic literature are Brahmin/Kshatriya. And they are all Aryan, who spoke Sanskrit in the olden days.. This is why the Brahmins only did coronation ceremonies for the decendants of these dynasties/ethnic groups.

The problem with your refs is your POV. Qoute : "In my books Vellalars are mentionned as then ancient Tamil aristocraty and therefore were kshatriyas by profession." When you say "therefore", the sentence becomes your POV. Just having an aristocratic background (a small percentage of population btw) is not enough to classify the whole population as Kshatriya. I need several non-biased books/journals that directly calls Vellalars as Kshatriya. Show me the sentence here. Just a single sentence.

Threatening to denounce me to a wiki admin shows that you are frustrated because you have no evidence to beat me in this argument.--Jack.Able (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is just because you are mixing mythology, history (...) so as to promote your agenda. There are many contradictions in what you wrote. I'm going by the definition of the word Kshatriya. In your definition, nowadays castes cannot claim kshatriya status.Rajkris (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sanskrit word Kshatriya doesnt belong to you. It belongs to the Brahmins who introduced Hinduism to you. It belongs in the Vedic literature. For a caste to claim the mythical Kshatriya status:

1. They must link themselves with any of the ancient kshatriya dynasties in the vedic Literature. I cant find your reference on the Yadu lineage, even still it is disputable, because Vellalas are dravidians.

2. Must have a martial history. Being a Martial race is a plus, although they dont have to be, such as the Marathi warrior clans.

3. Must go through coronation ceremonies by brahmins in the past, for this is a proof of their status.

Again you're showing me your agenda (division of India, racial, community hatred...) who you are actually...Do not talk in the name of Brahmins!... Ancient Hindu texts contains many contradictory infos.Rajkris (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, in ancient Hindu texts, there was a clan called Dravida which was considered as Kshatriya by birth but finally they were rejected by Brahmins for not following the vedic tradition...Rajkris (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What hatred? The truth is hatred to you? If the Vedic literature contains nonsense, then please remove the Vedic caste Kshatriya. Dont be a hypocrite.

FYI, the dravida clan's decendents is unknown as of today. It is not to be confused with the dravidians.--Jack.Able (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"It is not to be confused with the dravidians" --> I agree (some south Indian/Tamil castes such as Vanniyars & Nadars are using this to claim Kshatriya status)Rajkris (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? To simply try to confuse me? I assure you, my knowledge on the Vedas, Indian mythology, Hindhuism and Indian history is very clear. Stop going out of topic! --Jack.Able (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is my proposal to you : You can use word like kings, warriors, chieftains, aristocracy, great dynasty, greater than the whole world. Whatever you want as long as the reference supports it. But linking aristocracy to Kshatriyahood is POV, and your definition of it is not concurrent with the brahmanical definition. It is like linking all warriors to Samurai. Why dont you write "Samurai" there?--Jack.Able (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree... See below.Rajkris (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Another example to show that Vellalas are Sudra : The Nagarathar Chettis (a vaishya caste) usually find brides from the Pillai caste if and only if they cant find a bride among themselves. They consider the Pillais one step lower than them. Ask any Nagarathar chetti.--Jack.Able (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See below.Rajkris (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BtW, I can provide you a link where you can check the racial features of Vellalars (racial appearance seems very important for you); but i will not lower myself to such stupid things. I let you search for.Rajkris (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. I do not care. However, it does if you want to make claims such as coming from the Yadu clan.--Jack.Able (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing, I have already told you, but I prefer to repeat it so that it can enter into your brain (at least I hope so): in Hindu texts, Rama & Krishna (the 2 greatest Hindu heroes) are considered as the perfect Aryans. Rama was dark skinned & Krishna was black. So according to Hindu texts (from which the word aryan comes from), Aryan means a dark skinned with caucasian features. Two more precisions: Vyasa, the writer of the Vedas was black, Arjuna was dark-skinned (in spite of the meaning of his name: "pale").Rajkris (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me please teach you, since you obviously seem to lack knowledge on everything other than the Vellalas. Do not confuse mythology (Rama/Krishna) with real usage of the word.

1. Meaning of Arya (Sanskrit) : Noble, of high birth/upper caste.

2. Meaning of Arya (Old Persian & Contemporary usage) : speakers of ārya language ie Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans, and Indo-Europeans (language self-designator).

Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans, and Indo-Europeans are of the R1a genetic haplogroup. This includes most Rajputs, Thakurs, Jats, and upper-caste Nairs.

Vellalas are mostly comprised of L1,L2, and L3 genetic haplogroups.--Jack.Able (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

False. First of all, the evidence is that the Velir were claiming Yadava clan from a very ancient point in history, and doing so very frequently, and this claim was accepted by the people they ruled. The Vellalar are descended from the Velir. Secondly, R1a haplogroup is found in tribal indian populations as well as "Aryan" (whatever type of Aryan) populations, AS WELL as Dravidian populations. Finally, the Vellalar are mostly comprised of J2b2, not L1/L2/L3. 75.82.48.53 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)A Saiva Vellala Mudaliar

Vellalars as agriculturists

I dispute the argument that Vellalars are basically agriculturists. Even historian Mr. Vincent A Smith in his book 'The Oxford Student's History of India' says, Vellalars are one of the caste in Tamil Nadu which do not have any association with any one particular job. Like every caste of Tamil Nadu including Mudhaliar, Udayar, Vanniar, Nadar, Gownder, Vellalars too involved in farming. You can also refer the Gazette of Salem District publish by Tamil Nadu government.

Vellalars migrated to Kerala along with Pandiyan kings, as Pandians needed scholars with them when they had war with Cheras.

If no one replies to this dispute, I will re-write the contents about Vellalars's occupation A Soosai Prakash (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Velirs are Vellalars

The Velirs of the Sangam literature are Vellalars. Read through the sources.

Velirs are the chiefs of the Vellalars. Review the references below.

• Vel-Pari, Ma-Vel-Ewi are all Vellalars.--->Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago [4]

• "Vellalar of the Tamil Country (descendants of the Velir)"---->Journal of Tamil Studies By International Association of Tamil Research [5]

• Tamil Studies: Essays on the History of the Tamil People, Language, Religion, and Literature By Muttusvami Srinivasa Aiyangar

• Heritage of the Tamils: Education and Vocation - Page 269 by Shanmuga Velayutham Subramanian, Ca. Vē Cuppiramaṇiyan̲, Vē. Irā Mātavan̲ - Education - 1986 - 506 pages

• Racical Synthesis in Hindu Culture - Page 156. (Velir or Vellalar tribes)--->[6].

• The Early History of the Vellar Basin, with Special Reference to the ... - Page 21 by M. Arokiaswami

Sources: 1. Tamil Studies: Essays on the History of the Tamil People, Language, Religion, and Literature By Muttusvami Srinivasa Aiyangar 2. Heritage of the Tamils: Education and Vocation - Page 269 by Shanmuga Velayutham Subramanian, Ca. Vē Cuppiramaṇiyan̲, Vē. Irā Mātavan̲ - Education - 1986 - 506 pages 3. Racical Synthesis in Hindu Culture - Page 156. 4. The Early History of the Vellar Basin, with Special Reference to the ... - Page 21 by M. Arokiaswami - Vellalas - 1954 - 166 pages 5. Peoples of India - Page 29 by William Harlen Gilbert - Ethnology - 1944 - 86 pages

Irungkovel, Ma-Vel Ewi are all vellalars "The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago By V. Kanakasabhai". Mayank12 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Vellalar had the hereditary right to marry and crown the kings--"Contributions to Indian Sociology By Research Centre on Social and Economic Development in Asia, Institute of Economic Growth (India), Institute of Economic Growth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank12 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another source

"The Velir or Velala tribes"--->Studies in Tamil Literature and History

By V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar[7].

Mayank12 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Vellalars Origin

The below references come from books which deal with ancient Tamil history (Chera/Chola/Pandya/Sangam era):

1. The Harappan civilization and its writing: a model for the decipherment of the Indus Script... By Walter Ashlin Fairservis page 52/53: " The relationship of vellalan (Tamil) and vellalar (Malayalam) to terms for ancient chiefs velir, etc., provide us with a term for the system of chiefs as a whole, vellalar"Rajkris (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Ancient Indian History and Civilization By Sailendrda Nath Sen Page 205 & 207: "... the Vellalars were the aristocratic classe and were held in high esteem...", "The bulk of the land was owned by Vellalar who occupied a high social status. They employed labourers to till the land."Rajkris (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

3. History of agriculture in India up to c. 1200 A.D. By Lalanji Gopal, Vinod Chandra Srivastava, Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture Page 418 & 420: "Vellalars were responsible for the triumphs of their kings. They were the supervisors, the managers of their cultivable land."Rajkris (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Meluhha and Agastya: Alpha and Omega of the Indus Script by Iravatham Mahadevan, Indus Research Centre, Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai, India, page 16: "The Velir/Vellalar group constituted the ruling and land owning classe in the Tamil country since the beginning of recorded history..."Rajkris (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Racial Synthesis in Hindu Culture page 156: "...Velir/Vellala nobility..."Rajkris (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Encyclopedia of Indian Tribes by S.S. Shashi page 216: "...Sage Agastya repaired to Dwarka and, taking with him eighteen families of Vels or Velirs, moved on to the south..."Rajkris (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Journal of Tamil Studies By International Association of Tamil Research: "Vellalar of the Tamil Country,descendants of the Velir,..."Rajkris (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

8. Meluhha and Agastya: Alpha and Omega of the Indus Script by Iravatham Mahadevan, Indus Research Centre, Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai, India, page 16: "Agastya agreed and, on his way, visited ‘Tuvarapati’ (Dvaraka) and led eighteen families of the Velir, the descendants of netu-muti-annual (Krishna), to the south" (Precision: this is only myth, legend, no historical proof).Rajkris (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

9. Kingship and political practice in colonial India By Pamela G. Price page 61: "Vellalars were the ruling authority and the lords of the lands and villages..."Rajkris (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

10. Irunkovel and the Kottai Vellalar - The possible origins of a closed community By P. Ramanathan: "He was an important chief among the Velir and his ancestors belonged to the Yadu Vamsa in which Krishna was born..."Rajkris (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

11. The hollow crown: ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom By Nicholas B. Dirks Page 139 to 149: "... the ruling Vellalars...", ".... forts built by Vellalars..."....Rajkris (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have other ref, but i think it is enough for the moment. The ref above CLEARLY show that the Vellalars were the nobility, the ruling class of the ancient Tamil order, they were involved in war activities as military officers... Some myths, legends even link them to the Yadu clan. Their Kshatriyas status is indisputable!.Rajkris (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

After the collapse of the traditional Tamil Royal dynasties, they lost their ruling status and got involved only, mainly in farming related activities.Rajkris (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The first reference you gave is talking about the Chera dynasty in Kerala before the arrival of the Nairs. The Ezhava(Villavar) are their descendants in Kerala. Read it.

This is only POV from those who wrote this wiki page. Those who are strongly involved in the Nair wiki page like Anandks007, Linguisticgeek do not share the POV from the Ezhava community.Rajkris (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And I do not share the POV of the Vellalars that they were Kshatriyas. It is pure POV.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All of your references show that the Vellalars were a farming caste of landlords/chieftains who employed farmers. None of the references refer to them as Kshatriya. Just like none of the references refer to Prince of Wales, or Napoleon Bonaparte, or Hitler, or Alexander the Great as Kshatriya. Although they are a ruling class. If I call a wiki admin, he is going to be on my side of the argument. And the Yadu clan origin is extremely vague, compared to claims made by Rajputs/Thakurs/Nairs/Maratars.

Dear Rajkris, Vellalars were never Kshatriya. Be a gentleman please.--Jack.Able (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when farmers build forts ?... Since when farmers control villages ?... Since when farmers do wars & lead armies ?.... Vellalars were the Lords, the landed Aristocraty of South India since immemorial times. They were a noble Indian/Hindu caste, their rank in the Hindu Varna is Kshatriya eventhough they were not recognised by Brahmins as such but it is the case of all nowadays castes which claim Kshatriya status.The lineage claimed by the other nowadays Kshatriya castes is also very vague. That's why someone, in the Kshatriya wiki page, wants to remove all the castes who claim Suryavamshi, Chandravamshi (...) lineage and separate these legendary lineage from nowadays Kshatriyas castes. You can call an admin if you want, no pb for me. I can also ask some Brahmins to put their POV on this topic.Rajkris (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler the "European Shudra" built forts, in fact fortress/barracks. Hitler the "European Shudra" controlled villages, in fact nations. Hitler the "European Shudra" caused world war 2 and lead a huge army.

According to your poor understanding of Hindhuism, you called Hitler a Shudra, but your race is Kshatriya. Isnt this a contradiction? The Germans were so much more civilized compared to you.

Concerning the ancient "mythical" dynasties, you saying they did not exist is once again your POV. Example qoute from Dr.Naval Viyogi – The Ancient Rulers of India, Their Origins and History :

"The Nagas, like most of the other Native tribes had serpent as their totem. They also used to worship serpent and consider them to be their protective deity. They also used to wear artificial hoods of cobra on their heads at certain occasions. There are enormous evidences of seals and seal impressions found from Indus towns to show that Indus Valley People also used to worship this serpent deity."

I repeat this so that hopefully, it enter your brain (as you said to me) : The ancient dynasties such as the Suryavansh, Chandravansh, Agnivansh, & Nagavansh really existed. Just because the Vedas is mythical, doesn't mean these dynasties were also mythical. Alexander the Great had a mythical sword (Excalibur), but that doesnt mean Alexander himself was mythical.

The Vedic literatures called all these ancient dynasties "Kshatriyas", in addition to Greek warriors, Scythians(Sakas), Persian Palawans, and several other races. Only those mentioned in the Vedas as Kshatriya, are kshatriya.--Jack.Able (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once you again, what you wrote shows the kind of person you are & your agenda. The discussion is CLOSED. I will provide a summary, you can put one if you want. But be sure of this: I will never let someone like you doing the law on Wikipedia and concerning Bharat!.Rajkris (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia project not a propaganda place for political view points. Nothing is closed. By writing and article that is contrary to publshed academic sources we demean the whole wikipedia project. Taprobanus (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not me who has a political view points. I have provided my ref. I will provide more. Let' see... I will not let people vandalise this page. Be sure of this!... I advise you to deal with other castes related wiki pages such as Vanniyar, Nadar Karaiyar (which contain plenty of lies) before giving me any advise or warning! Rajkris (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion between me & this Jack Able is closed. I will just provide my summary of our discussion below.Rajkris (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not even Indian. I just have a deep interest in Indian history and mythology. However, what was just a simple comment has turned out to be a long debate. And I particularly dislike it when certain parties wants to add fake/unproved information on a page in Wikipedia just because it helps them politically. I will go to the Vanniyar pages as soon as I manage to fix this page.--Jack.Able (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO JACK ABLE Jack Able, I'll explain two reasons why I think you are wrong, and why Vellalar ARE kshatriya in any sense of the word:

1. As far as I can tell, the main reason you object is because the kshatriya are "vedic aryans" whereas the vellalar are "dravidians." Large-scale genetic studies have demonstrated that there is no evidence of an external invasion of aryan-speakers into India, ie both north indian Aryans and south indian Dravidians existed INSIDE India from a period of time dating back to over 30,000 years ago. And the dravidians were not always in the south, they were at one time widespread over the indian subcontinent - South India does not have an archaeologically-attested copper age, it transitions directly from the stone age to the steel age (because of north-south migration). While there is a genetic gradient that goes from north to south, this is less evident in upper-caste south indians (which includes saiva vellalar), and anyways, it is clear that both aryan/dravidian indian populations existed in India before the end of the last ice age. You claim that R1a1 is the marker of the Aryan, but according to recent studies this marker most likely originated in India (over 30 thousand years ago), and is found at high frequencies and of ancient origin in tribal as well as caste populations ie this cannot be explained simply by upper-caste "Aryans" impregnating the tribal women in the past few thousand years, instead researchers explain it as the caste-hindus emerging from the tribal populations. Therefore, the argument that Dravidians can't be kshatriya is inaccurate, since they were both living side by side during the Indus Valley Days and both are "indigenous" to India.

2. In fact, there are some people who think the ancient Yadava Kshatriya were dravidian for one simple reason - they had (seemingly approved of) cross-cousin marriages, something which is considered forbidden in North Indian culture but historically considered ideal in south indian (dravidian) culture. As long as you accept that vellalar are the velir of ancient tamil history (something that mainstream scholarship accepts), the most common lineage the Velir claimed was that of Yadu. The fact that numerous copper and pottery inscriptions have been found of Velir chiefs (who, by the way, were a technologically advanced group, generally credited with introducing advanced agricultural techniques to the Tamil lands) claiming Yadava lineage from before the Christian era means that these are some of the most ancient claimants to the kshatriya status (the vedic aryans themselves can only claim an ATTESTED history going back a few centuries before Buddha, so these Yadava claims are only a few centuries after), certainly older than the rajputs.

Summing up - So we have the velir of ancient times claiming kshatriya status, and the vellalar of recent times claiming vaisya status or in some cases accepting shudra status. Which should we believe about the vellalar? Obviously, the older the claim, the more likely (not certain) that it is based in some form of tradition. Everyone knows exactly why Vellalar were called shudras by the iyer brahmins of tamil nadu - the brahmins thought that anyone who was not living in the north indian "aryavarta" was not an aryan. What they failed to account for was the possibility that the vellalar may have migrated from the "aryavarta" at a point in time so ancient as to be forgotten, whereas they themselves were only calculating back to the time period of the Manusmriti, which is not particularly old. Although being called "sudra" offended the sensibilities of Vellalar (who, by tradition, were considered above all servile occupations), they claimed vaisya and not kshatriya varna because by that time the Aryan-Dravidian racial theory (introduced by western thinkers) was considered beyond reproach, and so of course there would be a logical issue with claiming kshatriya status as a Dravidian (the same mistake YOU make). That same logical issue applies to vaisya as well, but the vellalar were determined to not be called sudra so they simply insisted on vaisya and got it. But these are modern classifications, within the last one or two centuries, at which point there was no surviving evidence to directly link ANYONE back to the ancient kshatriya clans, so you would consider this more legitimate than 2000+ year old claims by the Velir chieftains (much celebrated in Tamil literature)? By the time the British came to India, the vellalar were not classified as a "Martial race" because they were the educated administrators, the dubashs and zamindars (my great-grandfather, for example, was the Salem Zamindar) who were the equivalent of provincial governors. And also because, whenever the Vellalar wanted to scare the British, they would simply ask the lower-castes to make a ruckus on their behalf. As a final note, I believe saying that Vellalar are comprised of L1, L2, L3 haplogroups is wrong, they are comprised of a majority J2b2 haplogroup.

Signed (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC) A Saiva Vellala Mudaliar

Conclusion of the Debate between Rajkris & Jack Able

I will add summary of the discussion.Rajkris (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will help with the conclusions.

Fact 1. Nowhere in the Vedas the vellalar or their ancestors where mentioned as Brahmans or Kshatriyas.

Fact 2. Since Hindhuism/Vedas belong to mythology, so does the assignment of the mythological caste Kshatriya by these books. Because of its mythological nature, only those mentioned in the Vedas as Kshatriya, are kshatriya.

Fact 3. Vellalars were a huge faming caste (according to almost all refs), and were never vegetarian, nor do they wear the sacred thread. They were classified as Shudra in several references.

Fact 4. The brahmans never performed coronation ceremonies for the Vellalars, unlike the Rajputs/Thakurs/Nairs.

Fact 5. The Vellalars were never classified as a Martial Race by the British. Battle prowess is a Kshatriyan quality, as mentioned in the Vedas.

Fact 6. A minor section of the Vellalars were aristocrats/landlords/leaders. They are descendants of the Chola/Chera/Pandya dynasties, but classifying them as kshatriya based on this alone is POV.

Thank you for your time.--Jack.Able (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of these conclusions are wrong.

Fact 1 (Revised). The velir claimed the Yadavas as their ancestors.

Fact 2 (Revised). The question is not about mythology, it is a question of which communities are descendants from those ancient, living clans who were considered Kshatriya in ancient Indian text.

Fact 3 (Revised). The Vellalars were a landlord caste (simply because landlords obviously have farmable land does not make them farmers. They were not the farm hands, which is what "a huge farming caste" implies). The Saiva Vellalar WERE vegetarian (at least from a certain point in medieval history), and the shudra classifications are recent classifications, while ancient classifications never hinted that the Vellalar were in any way considered a "low" people (or more specifically a non-politically privileged group, which IS a general concept that is a part of shudra status - the shudra were not privileged).

Fact 4 (Revised). The brahmans performed coronation ceremonies on the tamil kings and chieftains, many of whom were the clansmen of the Vellalar.

Fact 5 (Revised). Simply because the British did not classify Vellalar as martial race does not mean they lacked battle prowess (why would you imply that the British were somehow the ultimate arbiters of this question?). Vellalar are the descendants of Velir, who are clearly described as warrior-kings - the dominant military forces of Tamil Nadu, along with the Vendar (who were Velir in origin).

Fact 6 (Revised). This "minor section" comprises the entire Saiva Vellalar group (as descendants of the Velir specifically, which includes the Chera/Chola/Pandya dynasties). This is who we are really talking about, since it is understood that the non-Saiva vellalar groups are in many cases different communities who began calling themselves Vellalar quite recently. Special:Contributions/ (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC) A Saiva Vellala Mudaliar

Velir/Vellalar

Ippa MGR, J, Kalaignar were all head of Tamils. But are they Tamil? Ithu nalla koothu. Sasisekar (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand your question. I really don't understand why you have changed a very well referenced article for which i'm working hard (i have still many things to write on it). This is vandalism. If you continue, i will request an admin. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

what you don't understand. Are you Sri lankan tamil? Ithulla harichandran mathiri truth only truthnu advertisement vera? I can see that you are tamil from your edits. Velir were chiefs of Vellalar. You have added everything pertaining to the velirs over here. Now vellalar were chiefs of Parayar. On the same note, shall we merge all velalar and parayar together? Sasisekar (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism; I have provided multiple valid refs for each statement of this article, read them carefully instead of pushing your POV. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How could the term Kshatriya and the 4 varnas that were predominantly used in North India apply to Tamil castes? The first time the term Kshatriya became dominant was during the British rule when they tried to conduct a caste census based on the 4 varnas. Castes in Tamilnadu jostled among themselves to prove one was superior to another. I don't think the term Kshatriya was applied to any rulers including the Velirs and the Chera, Chola and Pandyas in any old Tamil literature like the Sangam literature. It would be right to call a caste as a warrior caste but use of the term kshatriya may not be right.

I also object to the reference to 'sanskritization' in this article because most Vellalar subcastes are not sanksritized in the sense the term implies, because many are non-vegetarian and their rituals are very different from the rituals of brahmins. Also historically Jainism was widespread in Tamilnadu during ancient days and Jains were the first ones to advocate vegetarianism in India even while vedic texts encouraged animal sacrifice. It is possible that some Vellalar castes may have adopted vegetarianism due to the Jain influence. It must be remembered that Thirunavukkarasar, a Vellala converted to Jainism and then converted back to Saivam. Shaan1616 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Here is one reference (among others) telling that ancient Tamil Kings claimed Kshatriyas status:[8]: "It is not that South India was entirely unaware of the varnas... the royal lineages of the Pallavas, Colas and Vijayanagara cakra-vartins claimed this status and thereby testify to the contrary." page 316. The 4 varnas system do not apply only to North India but the whole Hindu world.Rajkris (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Chola

Cholas were of Velir lineages, whos descendants are sub-castes of Velaalars[9]. Velir clan ruled during sangam [10] --Kaikolamudali (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This news is stale. Nobody denies this. Veliyan tittan is the grand daddy of cholas[11] but not velalar. Can you not see this? that they all only marry velir girls? But the line was broken when they started marrying naga girls like tirayar and kallar. Sasisekar (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Image of surnames

I have just reverted the inclusion of an image that purports to be some sort of diagram relating to surnames of the Vellalar community. I can see nothing to verify that the six names mentioned are the only names used by the community, or even the most common. I also do not really understand the purpose of the diagram, although perhaps that could be resolved with a better caption. If this information is valid then surely it would be better presented as text within the body of the article? We are not a gallery for the artwork of contributors. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)