| Revision as of 12:13, 1 March 2007 edit59.93.245.186 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 19:41, 1 March 2007 edit undoVivin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,403 edits ←Undid revision 111810111 by 59.93.245.186 (talk)Next edit → |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
What's so uncivil about this? How can you use that term when you have been stubborn about inserting a phrase such as "nambuthiris considered the Nair as sudra" "as a historical fact" . You have been maintaining the refrain all the while that "it does not really matter if egos are hurt, or if someone is offended by facts etc.". Your response on the discussion pages indicate your hurt; the struck out sentence beneath one of the edits does not exactly conform to what'so civil by any standards. Who are you to ask me to grow up? And what do you mean by growing up? My edit was an example of what people would normally avoid mentioning for the sake of not hurting someone else. Why should you be so offended by comments on paliathachan? Ask yourself this question. Can you refute the veracity of those statements? You have to accept that people are free to view a historical fact ( let's take the case of Paliathachan's premiership, for example) in an infinite number of ways, as long as the basic fact remains the same. One of those facts here was that the Paliath Achan was subservient to the Kochin King,and the caste of the former was the reason he could not elevate himself any further.( In any caser your Talk page is not the place I would like to discuss my opinions.) Why should you be offended if someone states that fact? Your being offended should be of no consequence, is n't it so? It would have been civil to demand substantiation for the statement. (You would n't certainly ask for testimony as regards the form or mode of interaction between the Achan and the king; nor would you dispute the indescribable haughtiness of children from nambuthiri and Raja households towards people from other castes, irrespective of age!)That's beside the point. What hurt you - let me reiterate - was the "inappropriateness" of publishing those facts, even though they were presented to illustrate the clear demarcations between "Kshatriya" and "Nair". I would suggest- as you have conveyed to me innumerable times- that you retain the bare facts while ignoring the aspersions, if indeed you consider them so. Incidentally, I was on my way to post my comments on another interesting edit, when I found I could not, on account of a "block" etc. I am reprodicing the purported entry below. I would like to see this in the discussion board, under my name, immediately below "Aca123 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)" ] 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That was indeed commendable work.A contribution like this adds quality and imparts a professional touch to the discussions.I am puzzled, however, on this statement about Kiriyathu nairs. I have resided in Southern Travancore long enough to notice that "Kiriyathu" nairs are derisively referred to as "Karicha" ("Karichakal"),for whatever reason, and the aristocrats of these parts would n't give their daughter's hand in marriage to a "Karicha". |
|
|
|
|
|
Also,the military traditions of South Travancore Nairs are too well known for further elaboration here, not to mention the formidable "Ettuveettil Pillamar" who strived to do away with the Travancore Royalty or valiant generals like Eravikutty Pillai Padathalavan and Velu Thampi Dalawa.(The former won the first ever victory of a native State over a Colonial power, viz the victory of Travancore in the Battle of Kulachal(1670?)in which the Dutch army was trounced and their General De Lennoy was captured as prisoner; and the latter led one of the earliest known uprisings against British hegemony.) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Nair armies of Travancore had subjugated almost every other principality in Kerala, and, to quote a contributor to these pages, "extended suzerainty of the tiny Travancore state till North Parur, brought the Scions of Kochi Royal Family to their knees, and made the Zamorin of Kozhikode hasten to sign a truce". So? Who formed the Nair armies of Travancore, if Kiriyathu alone were the martial group? |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I have gathered, the soldiers were recruited from dedicated families known as "Padanair Veedu" spread out all over South Travancore(Interestingly, there are "Padanair Veedukal" in our extreme north too.For instance, the late poet P.Kunhiraman Nair belonged to one of these.Possibly, the borders -with Tamilnadu and Karnataka- had a a genuine need for martial tribes to repel cultural incursions!) |
|
|
|
|
|
To return to the point, Nairs from the Padanair Veedu were not Kiriyathu.Therefore, I am not certain whether C J Fuller's classification encompasses truly the Nairs of the southern Travancore. |
|
|
|
|
|
In either case, ."Nair" is much more than a mere caste or social group. An attempt to constrain the Nairs into the Rigid Varna System would be ludicrous.That , at least, has been my refrain throughout these discussions ] 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Original research should augment rather than complement the reference material, since it's imporant that the basic processes of history are identified.No wonder one sets store by the studied observations on the "paranormal" from a scholar of immense erudition like Arnold Toynbee, for example, rather than the hasty conclusions of Velayudhan Panikkassery ( who argued that "Menons" originated from Ezhava/Thiyya) ] 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vivin" |
|
