Talk:Balija/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article is incorrect and needs to be fully revamped

This article makes many negative references insulting the pride of Balijas, and needs to be changed - please look into it. Balija is not a left hand Sudhra. Balija were rulers and merchants, many ruling dynasties like Madurai Nayakas, Tanjore Nayakas etc were Balijas. Even in 20th century many big industrialists in Coimbatore, Bangalore etc. were Balijas. How can such a big contributing community be associated with Sudhras. It's insulting Balijas.

There seems to be some conspiracy in Wikipedia to malign, insult the Balija caste. For the people of Hindu religion, Caste is very important. Requesting Wikipedia editors to be sensitive about this. Balija were rulers, kings, merchants, army commanders, traders during mid centuries and in 20th century were big industrialists, owned big reputed educational institutions etc. So please don't insult this caste by associating it with Sudhras.

Whenever I removed the Sudhra reference in the article, some conspirators seem to re-edit it to include this reference back.

From: 122.178.250.71


Reply to 122.178.250.71

First, please mark your posts with your signature / IP address so others can know which part was written by you. Varna claims in ALL wiki articles are controversial. So if you are new, suggest you discuss on talk page before making repeated changes to an article. Now coming to your grievances.

First the left-hand and right-hand classification. To make it simple, remember, left-hand means those who stayed away from the center of a town / city (ie., stayed in suburbs / outskirts). And right-hand means those who stayed within the town/city. Left-hand included manufacturers and did not always indicate untouchables (imagine workshops of all kinds including weavers in handloom units and such like) who lived in a city's outskirts back then. All the same, during British Raj, all occupation groups experienced social mobility; and hence this right-hand and left-hand thing got mangled up. So it was not possible to always demarcate a population group properly. Whatever census officers did during the British Raj was to fit the descriptive terms to the probables in the best possible way.

Also remember, the colonial era witnessed many tribals converting into peasants and offering their services to british-owned land for wages -- something which did not happen on a large scale in the era of kingdoms since peasants could be converted into agricultural slaves in native kingdoms. From amongst these neo-farmers of british period, some were appointed in supervisory roles, and these in time claimed to be 'rajas' or those of kshatriya varna [ex: the case of bhagatas and 'mudaliyars']; after first having elevated themselves into 'better castes' (such as vellalars, kapus, etc, as the case may be in a given region). One example you may wish to delve into is the conversion of thottiyans (former untouchables) into kambalathars. Also, if interested, look up in which areas farmers claimed to be balijas during the British Raj (and enlisted themselves in census records that way). As such, for a better idea of right-hand and left-hand 'empty shells' and legal arguments over it, the book "Xenophobia in Seventeenth-Century India" by Gijs Kruijtzer is a very good one.

Next, the varna thing. Within the balijas there are all sorts of claims. Some balijas claim a military background. However, a large chunk claims to have been traders with no connection whatsoever with military type people (which is also true; esp in karnataka regions and amongst lingayats. Like for example some of these were manufacturing or supplying canons or swords to various army units, but never took part in war as soldiers or in any other capacity). There are far too many occupation categories claiming to be 'balija'; which itself indicates social mobility such that any occupation group could become a 'balija'.

The south indian social structure in many areas was never shaped to suit the class description of the 4-varna system; or if it did then it related to a rulership which adhered to a different sutra or one in which the terms kshatriya and shudra referred to a different set of people. Which was also one reason why certain telugu speakers sought separation between Andhra and Dravida schools of law (See Anglo Hindu Law). IMO, perhaps they did not want laws of shaivas or those of certain sutras applying to them. Also, IMO, this perhaps eventually sowed the seeds of linguistic separatism; such that it triggered off the demand for creation of states on linguistic basis (each with their own governance).

Anyways, always remember the majority claims of belonging to any varna, were made by south-indians in the colonial era. All types of literature was produced to support such claims. So never assume these are ancient concepts amongst all indians.

However, it appears some wiki editors have made it their prerogative to mention varna in each and every caste article; without mentioning the legal cases or background of varna fights in the colonial period. They are no different from colonial-period-smarthas who decided they should have the birth-right to go around assigning varnas to different population groups; with the net result that things eventually backfired through a cascade of events (from which we are still struggling to come out of). All the same, this obsession with varna claims in younger generation (such as your comments) is a very unhealthy trend must say. This jaati-veri which is in fact "varna veri" (varna rage) does not take long to become "kola veri" (dharmapuri vanniyar type). Often such "veri" types are tribals who joined caste ranks recently and hence try to protect their so-called identity in the 'hindu hierarchy' at all costs; and in the process push India backwards. Suggest all such people look up the Journey of Man which can be humbling and may open up the mind to brotherhood rather than exclusivity. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Krishna Deva Raya

With all due respect, the discussion of Sri Krishna Deva Raya should go to Sri Krishna Deva Raya 's site. It should not be in this page. Requesting the moderator to move this and ban all the discussion on Sri Krishna Deva Raya. Whatever caste, language he may belong to be, we are all very proud of him and please don’t degrade his image by making him belong to one caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indo.gypsy (talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC) --Historyfreak69 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Krishna Deva Raya called himself a Kshatriya of Yaduvanshi descent. The people that write these Kapu articles keep saying that McKenzie manuscripts mention that he is a Balija, the fact is these manuscripts only say that after the first dynasty all subsequent dynasties were Telugu communities. As far as his lineage he is clearly said to have been born of the kings second wife or a mistress. His son-in-laws are Chandravansi Kshatriyas, specifically of the modern day Raju community and their gotra is Atreya. The Raja of Anegundi is the legal heir and direct descendant of Aliya Rama Raya. They also claim spiritual descent from Krishna Deva Raya as his line died off with him. This family gives it's caste as Raju. They are a Telugu speaking community settled in the former capital. They marry with Raju's from Andhra. Where these guys get the justification to say that they are Kota Balijas is beyond me. The very same author that keeps insisting on this point even says there is absolutely no conculsive proof to this claim, that it is just a theory they have based on what Mackenzie hypothesised, but they will not hear the truth from living descendants if this dynasty. One thing to keep in mind, kings back then had multiple wives, Krishna Deva Raya is in the guiness book of world records for having one of the largest harems of all time. With all due respect, the Thurston article does clearly state that who ever was thrown out of other castes or were a product of a mixed caste were accepted into the Kapu, Balija etc. castes. Why else would you have over a hundred different gotras, some Brahminical, some just a name of an occupation. Kapu was a generic term for farmer, so if a Brahman etc. became a farmer he would be called a Kapu, so that is probably why you have such a wide variety of people and customs in the Kapu community. This is not meant to be taken insultingly, just an academic point is being made--Historyfreak69 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Surname:-------Kapu Gotra:-------Ruler gotras:
  • Chodagam-------Pamidipandla
  • Chodisetty-----Paidipala--------all telugu chodas were kasyapa and used chodaraju as thier surname
  • Chodisetty-----Godavari
  • Dalavayi-------Thammineni-------Atreya
  • Kathari--------Pydipala---------Atreya
  • Sammeta-------Varalakshmi----Atreya
  • Metla/Matla-----Varipala-------Kasyapa {http://books.google.com/books?id=_AtuAAAAMAAJ&q=matla&dq=matla&lr=}

Where is the correlation between Kapu/Balijas and the ruling families? Unless this was an incomplete list from your own community website it doesn't seem to matchup. Just having surnames and gotras is not enough, the two have to match up. Can you give the actual family that claims direct descent from these kings?

@@ You are really turning on the heat dude and making all you postings a big joke...Kasyapa, Atreya, Vashishta, Dhananjaya are gothrams which are very much part of the Kapu community like Paidapala and Janakula.. If you cant believe it get on to any marriage bureau and check some brides and grooms and you will see these Gothrams... And the Madurai Nayaks who are Kota Balijas (I hope you dont want to contest this) surname is Garikepati and Gothram is Kasyapa... as another proof of the Kasyapa...

  • As i have stated and placed citations for, the gotra and surnames do not match, so if they do not match they cannot be the same. Simple logic.

@@The Raju community doesnt have a patent on these Gothrams... The only castes which share these gothrams are Kapu, Raju and Bramhins...(Reddys/Velams dont have these) which brings us to another question about the origins about the Raju caste itself most historians think it is a military section of the Kapus which got separated form the mother caste... Enjoy this piece of trivia...

  • You are right about sharing some gotras, but the Gotra and surname has to match, They can't just be present. No matching = no correlation. 90% of Kapus belong to Paidipalla, Janakula gotra.

@@Another piece of very vaulable information that you need to know is the Telugu Chodas mentioned themselves as Shudras... since when did the Rajus become Shudras.. ???

  • Different historians give different accounts, some say they claim Kshatriya status, some claim otherwise. Some feel that while the actual ruling family were Kshatriyas, their subordinates were Sudras and used their overlords titles as a sign of loyalty.

@@Stop dreaming and wake up... Stop claiming and please stop having the superiority complexion that you have...a small community like Rajus cannot rule Andhra in the form of so many Dynasties it was the preserve of powerful indeginious Agragarian communities like Kapu, Reddy and Velama; all of them Shudras not Kshatriyas and all of them are proud of their Shudra Status... And if at all they every linked themselves it was to the Lunar Dynasty not the Solar to which the Rajus claim to descend from...

  • Facts are not dreams, and stating facts should not be confused with a superiority complex. And as far as Lunar/Solar dynastys, the Rajus of Atreya, Vishwamitra, Dhananjaya are Chandra, while the Kasyapa, Koundinya, Vashista are Surya. Just clarifying facts.

@@Buddy do you have any idea how many powerful dynasties the Yadavas produced???

  • I do.

@@Manu Dharma states that a person is not a Kshtriya by birth it is by occupation that is the reason most of them claim status of Kshatriya. --Panel1 (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Panel1

  • Are you saying that these families first started off as farmers, became wealthy, got involved with the ruling classes, married into them and after a few generation of being rulers began to be regarded as Kshatriyas? Sounds logical but when do they stop being considered Kapus based on this logic? If the ruling family is no longer regarded as Kapus/Balijas then how can you say they are Kapus? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that these families started off as Kapu/Balija then when they became a long established dynasty, they came to be regarded as Kshatriyas because of their function. That would make more sense. By the way I think this is how all royal families all over the world came to be who they are. These myths about the sun and the moon were just a way of keeping power in the hands of the established few. The logic being that if the ruling family is descended from A God, then no matter how great or incompetent they were you cannot question them as then you would be questioning God and damning yourself. It's a common power nexus. The preists gave them Godly origins, the kings patronize them in exchange and the common people get played. It still happens today. Or maybe all of it is true. Either way, facts need to be presented. Then we can have a rational discussion, but there seems to be to much reliance on old wise tales, with no supporting evidence. In this situation, the one without facts resorts to angry indignations.--Historyfreak69 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:203.197.53.116

You are a Kamma and you intend to post some filthy posts about Balijas and then leve the signature of Reddys so that we pick up a fight with them.. Ill get you IP Banned and you edits cleared and revoke all your contributions take care dude... By the way check the origin of your community its got a really glorious history... colorful one too..


The article on Balijas has been vandalised by some Pro-kamma person. The mentioneing of some flithy and degrading sentences like 'person on a Donkey'is not accepted by wikipedia. I have edited the article to include the correct facts about this community.Please refer to the main Kapu(caste) page and citations for more info. 

If the person continues to vandalise this article his IP address will be taken to task.

=

There seems be active vandalising of this article ...many unwanted and degrading comments are being added in the article.Ornament makers are generally done by Kamasali's in the tradition Hindu social hierarchy structure...the vandals are trying to undermine the fact that balijas are traders of gems from which their family names have evolved. Don't vandalise the article else the concerned ip adresss will be taken to task John Rambo 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) John Rambo

Repeating Request

To Panel1:

I am repeating my request. I am not deleting anything from the page. I am only asking for references for certain statements made in this article. If you continue to delete the "Citation Required" tag, I shall be forced to report mentioning of wrong or unsubstantiated info in the article.

Both the citations you have provided are insufficient. One is a link to the Digital Library of IISc which does not open, and the other is a link to the Telugu language wikipage. Please provide the sentences from the IISc hosted article to substantiate the claims made on this page. Please also provide any reference from any published journal or book, to substantiate other sentences that I am marking with "Citation Required" tag.

Thankyou.

Panell99 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Panell99

@@ You have clearly deleted some content orelse i wouldnt be making this allegation please check your logs.. iam not going to point out what you dleted and where..

@@@ Before i start my counter arguments are you disputing whats written or is it simply a request for information.. If you are disputing it then what is your argument for the sweeping statement that i have been made by me... like the Kapu's migrating from Kampilya,Ayodhya....You need to have somehting to differ...

@@@@ Panel99 this article is an associated article of the Kapu Caste article and this has gone through this cycle since the past 3 years now. Tahts exactly why the references section is so large in that article...And if you want to take this up again and report it please go ahead and be my guest.

@@@@The link to the Munnuru kapu Abhyudayam online versoin in IISC works if you want i cna get a sencond opinion on this i can get it from a Moderator....

Anyway i will help you out in accessing this book the first page is a Balnk page if you navigate using the options below to page 2 then it will prompt you for a download... I cannot walk you through more on this.

@@@ Links being insufficent and informaiton being insufficent is not somehting that can be judged by you since you have failed to look into any of the information that has been provided. Information from Published journals can be seen beloew in the Refences Section... i will give you one more reference Andhrula Sankhsipta Charitra --- Suvarnam Pratapa Reddy is one more published book if you are interested in.. and also the kapunadu.com carries scanned pages if you are interested look into them..

@@@If you want to take it to the Mods iam perfectly fine and would really appreciate it if you can do that since i have reservations on your contributions to this article and the way you are using the citation requreid tag even after the link for the citation has been provided and you have not gone through the citation and have unesecarily posting citation required.

@@@ I would also want the Aricle to be locked for Editing by the Mods...

@@@ I have deleted them agan since i belive you have not gone through the link or have been unable to go through the link for whatver reasons and hence your request for information or citations cannot be considered genuine till you have gone through the book.

@@@Please go through them first and then decide if your requests for Citations are really genuine...And if you still feel they are required then lets discuss it here and do it based on a consensus rather than trying to slug it out. Your cooperation will be highly appreciated.

--Panel1 (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To Panel1,

I wish you had provided the references you have quoted above the first time itself, instead of making me repeat my request. Thanks for the same.

Yes I have deleted repeated info. Why do you want 2 sentences that say the same thing. The caste titles are repeated, similarity with Kunbi is repeated. Why cannot the article be brief and to the point.

But your second point does not hold: "..like the Kapu's migrating from Kampilya,Ayodhya....You need to have somehting to differ..".

Are you trying to say that the entire Kapu lot descended from one tribe? I would greatly appreciate any links and references to show that. Its not about arguing that someone needs to have something "to differ". I am merely asking for a reference to show that your claim can hold as true.

What is the point in having a reference section if the numbers (as references) are not present next to the sentences on the page.

Can you provide the exact link (instead of giving page 1) from the "Munnuru kapu Abhyudayam" and reference it to the appropriate sentence in the article? Or you can mention the sentences from "Munnuru kapu Abhyudayam" in the reference section below and link the content mentioned within the article to it. That wud be great actually and would help any reader immensely. Please I request you to do it.

Similarly can you reference content mentioned within the article to the stuff taken from the "Andhrula Sankhsipta Charitra". You can certainly provide a link to the exact scanned page on Kapunadu.com as a reference.

You cannot ask for locking from moderators just because someone asked you to provide references, edited spelling mistakes, made spaces between two words, and deleted repeted info.

For now, I am not putting back the "Citation Requested" tag next to the sentence. But if the appropriate references are not tagged specifically next to the content, I shall put them back on. Its not about how you or me wants to see the article. The "Citation Required" is to allow anyone who has any info regarding it to be able to provide the same to make the content more authentic.

And yes, am repeating myself here: please make a space between words seperated by a comma [Eg: instead of Kampilya,Ayodhya please make it Kampilya, Ayodhya - such things affect the readability. Also please mention the full word district instead of the abbreviated Dt - someone living overseas cannot make sense of it otherwise].

Thankyou.

Panell99 (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Panell99

Panel99

Thanks for the co operation. You can go ahead and format the article for spaces and look and feel iam not averse to it and iam not stoppping you from that.

ON the other articles i have other contributors helping me out when i used to provide content and they used to format the layouts like rambo4u and they also used to keep a regular watch on that.

You cannot expect me to do everything here as i dont have anyone else co ordinating with me for this article they intermittently come and add but no one is doing that on a regular basis... So it takes time for me to slowly add that i guess you understand that part...

When you add so many Citations required on a particular article the whole article becomes questionable that was the whole issue i had... with you putting up so many Citatation required tags. Remember getting everything on the Internet is highly impossible as references and hence ive not postes a lot of other content for lack of references when overjealous other community members used to vandalize delete and put road blocks for Kapu articles after a lot of coutering and evidence they backed down...

So you are welcome to make your own contributions i donot want to enforce my will and have my way on other contributors..

It will take time for me to put those references that you asked for and clean up the article so have patience


@@@ "Are you trying to say that the entire Kapu lot descended from one tribe?"

Yes there are some disions which might have merged into the huge community thourhg the cource of history... but on a whole if you take a look at the Gothrams of Telaga,Balija and Munnuru kapu the three main subcastes they are the same 85% of the Gothrams match... this is only one example and the next would be gene sequecing and matches they are always compared between two communities like Kapu,Reddy and Kamma not in subcastes like Telaga,Balija and Munnuru Kapu. On the other hand if they donot have the same parentage like the Velamas they would compare it against each other for example velama Dora gene samples are different from Koppula Velama and Polinati velama...

Alhtough the Reddys are also called Kapu in Rayalaseema their gothrams donot match and there are slight genetic differences between them and us.

Also they trace their origin to the Rashtrkutas who came in from the Deccan like the Rajus and also try to link themselves to the Rajput Clans who are not of Indo-Aryan ethicity.

The Rashtrakuta base was more in Rayalaseema hence you will see a greater concentration of Reddys in Rayalaseema supports their origin theory... while the Kapu's who are more closely Geographicaly linked to the Godavari and Krishna rivers were already serving as Vassals of Chalukyas when the rashtrakutas entered into Andhra region...

For me Kapu settlements are 2000+ years old and coincide with the Satavahana Empire... While Reddys are 1400 years old and coincide with the Rashtrakuta settlement inAndhra kammas and velamas are 1000+ years old..

This origin theory si well established and nothing new...

While Kapu subcastes like Telaga,Balija,Munnuru kapu are 1500,1000,900 years old respectively...

These are just hints for you which gives you a both Scientific and Varna System Angle mentioned in indian Mythology and history...

Please also take a look at Bramhin,Raju,kammma,reddy,velama articles will give you more insights... --Panel1 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Panel1


As far I know Kapu is oriya for the telugu Kaampu, originally of savara or saora tribe of orissa (and they seem to have gone all the way to sri lanka as well). However, I shall verify what you have said above and then respond. In the meantime would appreciate any leads / papers on the same. Thanks. Panell99 (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Panell99

Well Sri Krishnadeva Raya's 14th generation decendent is a Telugu Kapu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.207.153 (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To Panel1

Hello Panel1,

Reg the message left by you on my talkpage, wish to infom this:

1) I removed just one repeated sentence: In the first sentence you say: "Balija (Telugu: బలిజ వారు) is a sub caste of the Kapu or Naidu caste of Andhra Pradesh". Then immediately after just one sentence gap you say: "They are also referred to by their caste title Naidu and Naicker".

There is no necessity to repeat the same information in two sentences. In other Kapu related articles too, information has been repeated unnecessarily. I do not see in what way this ensures any "consistency across all Kapu articles". No reader is interested in repeated info.

There also seems no necessity to highlight things in bold. Everyone can read normally.

2) I edited spelling mistakes and made spaces between commas and words. But you have reverted that. Please correct the spelling and grammer errors yourself.

3) On what basis do you say they were the earliest inhabitants of deccan region, descendents of kaampu tribe, moved to Godavari areas, etc. Please provide citations from books or historians for all of that. I am putting back the "Citation Required" tag.

4) For the links with Kurmi / Kunbi, it has been mentioned in the book 'Social Changes Among Balijas'. Please see this sentence mentioned in the article "Kunbhee in Hindustani is known as Kapu in Telugu (17)". Please provide references for links with Vokkaliga of Karnataka. Please provide page number and attach as reference next to the sentence.

Thankyou. Panell99 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Panell99

@@@@@@@@@Panel99

Iam fine with POints 1 and 2 no issues

Regarding Highlighting the option has been provided exactly for the purpose for highlighting if evryone can read normally then why have the Bold option i differ with you on this.

3)Point 3 the Munnuru kapu Abhyudayam link works if you cnanot access it i cna get a sencond opinion for you to show the link works... this Book carries references to all the points you asking references for...

4)Wikipedia --- Kurmi Page carries the references for the links between all the Agragarian Castes of India

---Thanks

Arbitrary heading

As per Government of India laws, the word Sudhra must not be used to degrade any caste. Wikipedia can be taken to court in India with possible penalties if the word Sudhra is used to degrade any caste. Government of India has made it mandatory in 1950 itself not to classify Hindu castes using the Varna system such as Kshtriya, Brahmin, Vysya and Sudhra which is controversial classification of castes.

However here in Wikipedia some Editors, seem to be freely using the ancient Varna system (which was created during medieval times and before that) to classify Hindu castes now in 21st century Internet Age. I would request the Super Editors and Owners of Wikipedia to remove mention of Varna system to classify Hindu castes, as it is not only controversial but also breaks the Laws of Government of India. Never mention the word Sudhra or any classification under the ancient Varna system in any caste article in Wikipedia, otherwise Wikipedia could be taken to court in India.

Above write up by user RK78

Please read WP:CENSORED and WP:NLT. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I think there should be disabm. page, because in BIH this was and still is abusive name of Bosniaks. Primarly used by Serbs. Term was highly used during the Bosnian war, with devolution in after war time. E.g. like used in Prijedor massacre article.
--User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"sub caste" section

What is intended to be conveyed by this section? It is not clear to someone that is unfamiliar with this subject.Vontrotta (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

References for Balija/Kapu/Telega Dynasties

There has been considerable debate on each of Vijayanagara Dynasties. Prima facie, at least Aravidu Dynasty belongs to “Raju” caste Aravidu_dynasty. Interestingly none of the original commentators don’t talk about this, but at least present generations claim so. This is actually a case study of caste evolution.

I request all to refrain from claiming a dynasty belong to particular caste. More than anything else, if someone else claim that "your caste" member belongs to "their caste", it should be a proud issue for you. Much more than anything else, Vijayanagara Kingdom as a whole made most of the Indian proud if not a single caste.

There are enough Balija/Kapu/Telaga proven prominent historical figures made this community proud. Let’s not "conclusively" associate "controversial" figures (pertaining to caste) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indo.gypsy (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Considerable cleanup is necessary for Balija Dynasties and Balaji Branches. Though the text is OK, much of the info is not relevant for the sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indo.gypsy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Inline References Lacking

There appear to be a lot of references at the end of this document, but few in-line. Can some of these end-of-article references be turned into in-line citations?—C45207 | Talk 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of Lists

There are a lot of lists. Can some of these be turned into prose?—C45207 | Talk 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Revamping required

This whole article needs to be revamped.
1) When sentences are provided to show mixed origins, with sources from noted historians, they have been deleted. This is sheer egotism
2) There are claims made about origin from Kaampu tribe and settlement areas. Citations have to be provided for each of the claims made with inline references duly tagged. Otherwise they need to be deleted.
--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Varna

There has been a huge, detailed and pretty interesting section in this article relating to the background for varna. The problem is, it bears little relation to the subject of this article and it should really be in an article discussing the general nature of varna, to which this article can be linked.

It is grossly undue weight to use 9000 characters to explain what is essentially a background matter. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask that people read the articles for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am not the only editor who has seen this page recently and spotted that there is a mass of invalid content. It is poorly written, poorly structured and largely inappropriate. And now the varna stuff has been added back again. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

I know my way around Indic caste articles etc but this one is just a confusing mess. Given time, I could probably sort it out but I've tagged it as such in the hope that someone may beat me to it. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not willing to listen to Other's point of view, is this Wikipedia's crony democracy.

I think Sitush you are not willing to listen to another editor's point of view.

You are also not quoting any proper recognized sources to prove that Balija and Kapu were Sudhras or belonged to which Varna. Still you seem to be classifying Balija and Kapu are Sudhras without proper, authentic sources to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk78 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to listen. What is wrong with the sources which, by the way, I don't think I added to this article? - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Relation between Bunts and Balijas

Sri Krishna Deva Raya Father is Tuluva Narasa Nayaka and Grand Father is Tuluva Eshwar Nayaka , both Bunt community chieftains. Please through light on the relationship between Bunt Community and Balija Community. This will also give the Balija Community the Naga Vamsa Kshtriya status.I think the madhurai nayakas gradually changed their kshtriya status to chandravamsa kshtriya status. The Balijas are descendents of the Great Mahabali Chakravarthy must also be elaborated and written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.41.48 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for this information? I would also suggest that your take a look at original research. with specific regard to your point about kshatriya status. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

telaga ,ediga,gowda are different from balijas, all balijas are kshatriyas.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

Balija community, an immigrant Telugu speaking caste Hindu of Kerala , had been availing of all the benefits earmarked for Scheduled Castes over the last 30 years or so under the name of Kavara.[1] Kamma vamsa (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what change you are request. Please state in the form "Change X to Y". - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zmh_AAAAMAAJ&q=balija+SCHEDULED+CASTES+Kerala&dq=balija+SCHEDULED+CASTES+Kerala&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-i6nvz4jLAhVHeSYKHTGGDjUQ6wEICzAA

Surname

122.175.25.125 deleted Rao in infobox. Some examples of Rao usage:

122.175.25.125 made change in article Rao_(surname) which needs checking for discrepancies. --Anon=us (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Anon=us

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balija. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

varna status

@Sitush - reg clarification on collapsing Kshatriya and Vaishya varna. Velchuru Rao and Sanjay Subrahmanyam said that in reference provided. Frankly, i don't think varna system applied in east / south. Land-owners were often traders, regardless of varna.

Wrt rest, you are right in asking for citations / references. Sanskritization was such that Balija population in whole of Madras Presidency jumped from 804,307 in the 1891 census to an 8 digit number in later censuses. Several communities enumerated themselves into subcaste of Balija (that numbers are hard to add up really). Indicates it was popular enough for people to become part of it.

@Sitush and @Kautilya3, please am not here to show casteism. When some are self-obsessed, one must follow same route to show how hopeless their concept is. Am here to show how even religion accommodated social change. Culture was, is and will never be exclusive.

When brits made census reports, some interpreted everything with themselves as universal lords. See how every census is worded. Does it mean land-owning (so-called 'nonbrahmins'!) patronized aryans (see how the word is used in census reports) with themselves actually positioned into shudras having no right to own, inherit or bequeath land?! Is not shudra everyone's origin in a feudal setup?

How about folks who bothered more for religion, less for caste?

If either of you is interested, you can go thru census reports. Some things you may find interesting from this 1871 census link: http://dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/47396 --

  • In 1871 census, people were classed by religion, divided into 4 classes, Vaishnavite, Shaivite, Lingayite and other Hindus ((of) undefined faith) (see p.90). That changed. This topic raises heckles in powers that be today.
  • In 1871 census in whole of presidency, there were 11,610,000 telugu speakers and 14,715,000 tamil speakers. But later telugu speakers became more numerous! lol
  • From 1,095,445 brahmins in 1871 census the numbers actually decreased! In nearly every district you had minimum 2% brahmin population (even 6% in some districts). In contrast, the trading classes were less than 3% in every district. That changed.
  • See p.145 for Kavare and Kavare-Baligi ("Gavara and its Gavara-Balija subcaste"). But today it is called "Balija and Gavara-Balija subcaste"! --- THIS is what we are talking about.
  • See p.130 for Kavarai and Komati enumerated into separate castes (even at that point they were separate) but today all Komatis in tamilnadu are Gavara-Komatis. Wealthy "Komati Chetties" (as known previously) also profess to be Gavara-Komatis today. Trivarnika-komatis are just sanskritized Gavara-Komatis and freely marry into them.
  • See how vellalars are classified, as purely agriculturists (farmers and small land owners) but today they claim to be aristocracy of ancient tamil order (which is a farce bcoz imo current untouchable castes were former aristocracy (who got suppressed with feudal laws), and current middle castes are actually medieval creations consequent of vijayanagar period).

BTW, if you want clarification you could email Sir Subrahmanyam. Perhaps they have some evidence after all. Coz the nayaks in tamilnadu deployed Manusmriti to rule and followed the varna system. Cheers bro. May all of us be blessed thru these tumultuous times. @kautilya, no hard feelings please. I cannot revert unless you consent.

Thanks. --Anon=us (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

I couldn't care less what the 1871 census said or, indeed, any Raj census. They prove nothing because they're not reliable. I am utterly confused with most of what you write. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You mark article asking for references / clarifications, but say you are confused. Shouldn't you take a break from this? Is not about what you care. Is about facts. The way census officers documented ethnohistory of castes was wrong, but numbers they counted (demography) was not. You need proof to back up your claims for lack of reliability for demographic numbers. Revenue department, Land records department, Tax department were all linked. Territorial Revenues of the Madras Presidency depended on enumerating how many farmers, potters, traders, land owners (producing how much crop), etc existed and who could be taxed. They mulled on taxing sale and purchase of land even back then. You cannot claim all of Raj census is wrong.--Anon=us (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
The day I need advice from you, I will ask for it. You know sod all about how Wikipedia works and it is showing. Raj censuses are not reliable, period. They didn't even get the demographics right - read, for example, the sources at Census of India prior to independence. We don't use them as sources, therefore they are not relevant in discussions. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You have the right to your opinion. Am speaking of census of Madras Presidency not all of India. The north does not get things right even now.--Anon=us (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Like I said, read the sources in the article I linked. It doesn't matter which census of the Raj era you are referring to, it counts for nothing here. You're wasting my time and your own. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Its ok if it counts for nothing. It was an attempt to show all castes are products of colonial period sanskritization, and hence the current confusion. Was also an attempt to let you know clarification (for varna) you marked in the article may not be got. Perhaps people disappeared. Sorry if you thought I wasted your time..--Anon=us (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Clarification is necessary because the sentence doesn't actually make sense. It is almost as if there is a word or two missing after "evidence". - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The books says so. Need to borrow, to read and see what evidence they cite. Please start working on the article. When I get the book, will first add content to talk page. If ok, you can add to article. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Andhra politics and the Kapus etc

We need to mention the on-off relationship between Kapus, Balijas etc in Andhra politics. I can see plenty of news stories about it but a lot of them appear to be hyperbolic and ephemeral claims, political point-scoring etc. I have found this but surely there must be more out there somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, Many thanks bro for the edits and the Raj period summary. Nicely done. Yes, this is a political cauldron. Already Kapus burnt a train. Let us be factual here please. The paper is right. Now Balijas want to be called Kapu in AP. Kapu, Balija, Kamma fights were common before (killing each other). Feudal lords in a feudal world. Now, all are modernizing into civility. Let the sanity keep. Thanks.--Anon=us (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Kavarai

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

on Balija - pending reply -- for you to take the call to revert to branches (subcastes) or delete from intro:

(1) Mukund says merchant communities like Kavarai are mentioned in inscriptions after fifteenth century. Then writes in brackets (Kavarai is the Tamil word for Balija). His should be considered Primary Source. He gives no reference for his claim.

(2) Francis says "The Kavarai and the Balija are equivalent and occupied low positions" - did he say Balijas in Tamilnadu are called Gavara?

Many sources mention Gavara and Balijas as separate communities, including Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Yet, you both are insisting on something that is factually incorrect. Why?

Are you saying Balija subcastes like Gollas, Gajulus, Mahendravaram, Kambalar are ALL called Gavara in Tamilnadu? Sorry, you are wrong.

--Anon=us (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)--Anon=us

Kavarai is just the Tamil rendering of "Gavara". Plenty of sources [1] say that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Why are you giving google link search for "Kavarai and Gavara"? Please, Why not for "Balija and Gavara"? Are you saying even Sanjay Subrahmanyam is wrong? This source too which mentions them as different communities? How about explaining your Mukund and Francis source first? BTW, even from the link you gave the very first source is 'Acts of Parliament' which lists the communities separately.--Anon=us (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Kautilya3, if you are still insistent, just check some tamil balija matrimonials. Kavara will be mentioned as subcaste. Like see this or this. Kavara will marry Kavara not other subcastes. How can you say all balijas in tamilnadu belong to one subcaste alone? Please, your sources do not support your claim.--Anon=us (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Matrimonials and who marries whom? You are engaging in original research supported by unreliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That was for Kautilya for an idea of sub-caste. Is not original research. Do not assume. Let Kautilya3 reply. His own sources do not support his claims. Let him explain his sources first. BTW, i did not give any source in the article yet, for you to claim they are unreliable. Please take a break. That's a genuine suggestion, out of goodwill. Cheers bro.--Anon=us (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

The Francis citation does not support the claim in the lead. Being "equivalent" - a word seemingly used by the unreliable Baines in 1912 - does not mean the two are synonymous. For example, it could mean "of the same socio-economic or ritual or occupational status". I've yet to find the relevant bit in the Mukund source - can't see it on p 62 so I assume the page numbering is wrong. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, the Mukund bit is on p. 46 and is repeated in the glossary (p 185). In neither case is the word Gavara mentioned - it just says that Kavarai is the Tamil word for Balija merchants. I've no idea, then, why we have put a link to Gavara in parentheses in the lead sentence. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Mukund is Primary source. Gives no reference for his claim in bracket. All Balija subcastes are not called Kavarai either in Tamilnadu. Gavara, as separate subcaste, does exist. Hence this should go to branches, not intro. If you say all balijas of whole tamilnadu are gavaras, they will become very happy. They can start availing reservations!--Anon=us (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Mukund is not a primary source. Read WP:PRIMARY. But your argument seems to be irrelevant anyway because he doesn't connect Kavarai to Gavara. I don't think you are "seeing the wood for the trees" here. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
So anyone can write in brackets without providing reference and it is acceptable? How? How do you know Mukund did not intend to connect to Gavara? In Tamil the Gavara ARE called Kavarai.--Anon=us (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
In case it interests anyone, see this court case (glad it is available in public domain). Note the Tanjore Maratha Serfoji's concubine is a Kavarai lady. That is Gavara. In Tamil, ga becomes ka and a becomes i. Hence, Gavara is actually written and spelled as Kavarai in Tamil. YES, the Gavara-Balija exists as a subcaste of the larger Balija social group. All Balijas in Tamilnadu are not called Gavara / Kavarai. Example, the Kambalatar are not called Kavarai / Gavara. BTW, sword marriage also happened if lady was not equal caste of Maratha. Raja Pratap Singh's mother Annapurni was his father Tukkoji's sword wife (sword marriage). Annapurni's gurus were from the Tatacharya family. --Anon=us (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
We can only say what Mukund says, so speculating about what he may have thought but not said is pointless. And, yet again, the court case is completely irrelevant. You're making an interpretation of a primary source. Just stop with this speculative stuff, please. You're clogging up the discussion and it adds to the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The only sources that matter here are reliable ones that deal directly with the issue. Everything else is BS. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Then how can you speculate what Mukund intended to connect? How do you claim Mukund did not intend to mean Gavara when he himself says it is the TAMIL word for Balija merchants? How do you know Mukund was not referring to the Gavara-Balija subcaste? See another source by Mukund - again he says Kavarai in TAMIL. When he mentions TAMIL so clearly, how can you connect or disconnect on his behalf? How are you going to overlook sources like Rao, Shulman, Subrahmanyam, and various papers which mention (1) Balija and Gavara/Kavarai as separate castes or (2) Gavara/Kavara as a subcaste of Balija? Why is Mukund source more important than everyone else? How about Indian Government which records them separately for reservation purposes: 30. Kavara (other than Telugu speaking or Tamil speaking Balija, Kavarai, Gavara, Gavarai, Gavarai Naidu, Balija Naidu? Nobody should speculate. Unfortunately, Kautilya did; and you are supporting him. Agree court case is not relevant. --Anon=us (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
Present the reliable secondary sources and we'll look at them. Writing bollocks and fake accusation as you are doing - including presenting government sources - is just pissing me off. The government caste lists are known to be ambiguous, variable and politically motivated - they're useless and that has long been the consensus. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright you do not want government source, no Raj source. Sure. First, thank you for cleaning up the article and for your patience. Take a look at these sources:

(1) Most accurate source is Subrahmanyam and Shulman, p.74 which says --- These left-Sudra groups — often referred to by the cover-title 'Balija', but also including Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others — were first mobilized politically by Krishnadevaraya in the Vijayanagara heyday --- which means Gavaras became part of Balija social group at this point. How is it possible to say all Balijas in Tamilnadu are called Gavara or Kavarai (in Tamil)? Why not put Gavara-Balija subcaste under branches?

(2) See this paper on genetics - they acknowledge naidu title is used by many castes, such as balija and gavara (separately), and examine only the Gavara Naidu in the study.

(3) See this source - It says Balija community, with two sub-divisions, Gajalu Balija and Gavara Balija, migrated originally from Tamil Nadu.

(4) This Niels Brimnes source is indeed accurate. Page 106 says, "The Kavarais were Tamilized Balija Chettis of Telugu origin, returned in the census as 'Wadugas' or Northerners". Page 189 says "..were headed by Vellalas and Tamilized Balijas known as Kavarais".

(5) This source is most accurate. Says "Thurston and Rangachari describe three merchant castes (Balijas and their offshoots, Kavarais and Janappans).." -- Note offshoots.

(6) This source says - The Naidu caste has three broad sub-divisions: Kammas, Balijas and Kavarais.

Reg [citation needed] tag you marked in the article, there is a strong case of sanskritization which tried to explain in varna section below. If you are going to clean up, how are you going to say communities claiming to be balija are wrong?

See this page 223 for Sanskritization / Census issues.

--Anon=us (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Thanks. Some of those aren't going to be useful (eg: Thurston's opinion counts for nothing in particular, and we don't use genetics stuff in individual caste articles.) I am still at a loss regarding what your actual problem is, so it's a bit difficult to comment further. For example, we already use the Subrahmanyam and Shulman source you mention but they do not say what you claim, ie: that the Gavaras became part of the Balija community. What they say is that the word balija was used as an umbrella term to describe other castes as well as the Balija community itself. That's not uncommon. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I've got it now. You're referring to this edit, which I reverted (for the wrong reasons, as it happens). The problem with what you said there is you appear to have misrepresented the sources. As I said at 21:09 above, the Subrahmanyam and Shulman source doesn't say the Gavaras became Balijas. Further, the Mukund source doesn't say some Kavarai etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you bro. Yes, is about your revert. Am expecting following changes: (1) The intro is wrong (all balijas in tamilnadu are not called Gavara/kavarai). (2) Move Gavara-balija to branches. Sure, source does not say Gavara became part of balija community. It says Balija was cover title for Sudra groups which also included Boyas, left-hand Gollas, Gavaras, and others. Which means, I agree with you bro (I do not understand why you understand this differently) :) Yes, it is an umbrella term. If it is cover-term it means Gavara is also balija; hence there is a Gavara subcaste of Balija today (just as Gollas, Boyas, etc are subcastes of Balija - none of these intermarry). In Telugu, many would still say 'balija varna' for fighters gathered from different castes to protect dharma (burn in flames, ie, fight to death which Noburu Karashima documents well). There is no jati here, only dharma. This is a unique phenomenon in tamilnadu; which andhra and karnataka will not understand, as these became nayakas in tamilnadu. Please remove Thurston or others not acceptable.--Anon=us (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
I have this and this and this with me (indeed it was new society formation). Hope Noburu Karashima is acceptable source. After you have cleaned the article, will add content from them. Thanks. I do not know how you are going to represent sanskritization (of colonial period as in varna section below) because several communities till date claim to be sub-caste of balija. Also the concept of an umbrella term (bcoz today balijas think 'balija' is their caste / jati). Looking forward to wording which reduces caste puffery and accommodates everyone. Many thanks for helping with this article.--Anon=us (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

I am really not sure what this debate is about. The line in the lead says Balijas are "called Kavarai" in Tamilnadu. And, Anon=us rightly recognizes that Kavarai is the same word as Gavara (with a Tamil case ending). There are tons of other sources that say this too, e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc.

If putting "Gavara" in brackets is causing all this heartburn, you can remove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am mystified, too. I do see a problem with not sourcing the Gavara = Kavarai point but I don't think that is what Anon=us is upset about. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't have a problem with Karashima. He is quite often a bit of a radical in his viewpoints but he's a recognised authority. I'm just not sure what use he may be in this context. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, you are right. Am not upset with that. Please see NOTE below. That explains. Wiki is a powerful tool. Have nothing against you and Kautilya. You both contributed much and deserve much thanks. Thank you bros. I was getting tired of explaining. Any Tamilian would understand how Gavara is rendered Kavarai in Tamil. Kautilya3 does not get the regional peculiarity. Balija and gavara/kavarai is used interchangeably among Tamil speakers socially (because Kavarais (viz Gavara-Balija) were the most dominant merchants all thru 1600s and 1700s as seen in enough sources). However, as you can see, the Balija is a social group, umbrella term for far many more subcastes; accomodating even more subcastes since colonial period via sansktitization. No intent to ruffle either of you. Just wanted someone else to intervene to take the call. If I revert even once, it can be dubbed edit-war. Hence, the DRN. Thanks and may providence remain benign on us.--Anon=us (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Kautilya's sources

@Kautilya3:

Back to square one. Your sources:

  • (1) Francis source -- See Sitush's explanation above. He says Francis does not say balijas are called kavarai/gavara in tamilnadu. Should be removed.
  • (2) Mukund source -- See above, as discussed with Sitush. See below for synopsis.
  • (3) From the ones you quote now:
  • [7] is the same as Sepuri Bhaskar. Vijayalakshmi and Bhaskar published the same book as co-authors and individually.See unreliable source above.
  • [8], -- the source says "The Gazula Balija are known as Gauriputra, Banajiga, Kavarai and Balija Naidu. The Gazula Balija are a subgroup of Balija" -- Does not say what you claim. Instead it says what am saying, that they are a subcaste.
  • [9] - Sitush made it clear Thurston is not acceptable.
  • [10] - source says "Kavarai (ie., Balija) Vadugans number 56,033..". See synopsis below.
  • [11] -- Same source I gave Sitush above for sanskritization issue. Authors Washbrook and Baker rightly note problems with caste claims in census taking. See synopsis below. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon%3Dus (talk • contribs)
This source says : 'Kavarai' was merely the Tamil equivalent of the Telugu word 'Balija'. Isn't that clear enough? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

synopsis

Balija is an umbrella term (see above). There are numerous subcastes, like golla balija, kambalathar, boya, mahendram, etc. All of them are not called Gavara/Kavarai in tamilnadu.

Do not quote me wrongly. I said Kavarai is Tamil rendering of Gavara. None of your sources say ALL Balijas in tamilnadu are Gavaras. The whole state cannot belong to just one subcaste. Your sources refer to the Gavara subcaste.

Remove your claim from intro; and put the subcaste Gavara-Balija under branches. Since you are very insistent on having this in intro, please see Neil's wall.

NOTE:
If all were Gavara/Kavarai, all can start claiming reservations. Whatever Sitush may say, government in this case got it right. Perhaps because periyar was under public scrutiny and wanted to show he was impartial. Balijas are forward caste in tamilnadu. They do not get reservations. Only Gavaras do.

You cannot get BC cert unless one of your parent is Gavara (and not balija). This led to mass marriages with Gavaras in past 30 years. Already caste organizations are getting active; supported by exigencies that be; with demands for reservations. Your claims will make it easier for them to quote wiki.

Instead of making casteism flourish with exclusive divide of feudal times, my request to Sitush was to word the article to lessen caste puffery and accommodate all; including ones who sanskritized in colonial period. Moreover, all balijas today believe that balija is their jati - none ponder over the umbrella term.

Since there are numerous sources contrary to your claim (see 1 to 6 above to Sitush), you cannot have this in the intro. --Anon=us (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Lead or not

@Sitush:, I think the sentence needs to be in the lead because somebody that looks up Kavarai based on some Tamil source, needs to be able to find this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought about that but the same would apply to all the other groups mentioned in the body. Isn't that what dab pages are for? - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We could make a DAB page if we knew that the Tamil kavarai had multiple meanings. Do we? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
My mistake. I meant redirects. Kavarai currently redirects to Gavara, which actually doesn't even mention the Kavarai word and is a rather poor stub. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Ha! And it was me who stubbed it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: On DRN Page you got it all wrong. Have moved my post there. Please take your arguments to the DRN page.--Anon=us (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Sources for the lead sentence

Sitush, the DRN case has been closed without conclusion. Do you have objections for the sentence being in the lead. Here is the discussion of the sources I posed in the DRN discussion: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of sources

I have been asked to provide sources for the sentence in the lead. Not sure why this is being asked, because the sources have been there in the article for quite a while.

  • The Kanakalatha Mukund source [12] mentions it multiple times in her book:
    • P. 46: kavarai (the Tamil word for Balija merchants)
    • p. 183: Balija: a right-hand merchant caste, kavarai in Tamil
    • p. 185: kavarai: Tamil word for Balijas
All three mentions make it clear that kavarai is the term used in Tamil to refer to Balijas. The first occurrence qualifies it as Balija merchants. That is presumably because the Balija warriors might have been referred to as Nayaka or some derivative of that word.
  • The Peter Francis source [13] says
    • p. 35: In British times, glass bead- and bangle makers in Tamil Nadu were the Valaiyal, a subdivision of the Kavarai. In other parts of Dravidia they were called Guzula, a subdivision of Balija. (Note that Kavarai include the Gajula Balijas.)
    • p. 35: The Kavarai and the Balija are equivalent and occupied low positions (Baines 1912, 97). (This is presumably said to amplify/explain the previous sentence because the whole discussion is in the context of bead-making.)
  • In the talk page discussion, I mentioned John Baker and Washbrook [14].
    • p. 223: The Balija caste, for instacne, was divided into several sub-castes... (in 1901 or 1911 census). Among them was Kavarai. However, 'Kavarai' was merely the Tamil equivlaent of the Telugu word 'Balija'. The authors are trying to say that the classification was broken. One of the supposed subclasses spanned the whole class.
  • The Niels Brimness source [15], which the filer claimed for his own support does nothing of the sort:
    • p.106: The Kavarais were Tamilized Balija Chettis of Telugu origin.., nothing more, nothing less. This is essentially a restatements of the sentence in the lead, which said "In Tamilnadu the Balijas are called Kavarai".
    • p.189: Tamilized Balijas, known as Kavarais.
  • The PRG Mathur source [16], which also the filer claimed supports his own objections, says:
    • p. 12: Balija, a Telugu speaking migrant caste to Kerala, is segmented into two sub-castes, viz., Gavara Naidu and Gajalu Balija (Vala Chetti). These communities styled themselves as Kavara/Kavarai and managed to get community certificates so as to avail of all the benefits exclusively earmarked for the Kavaras, the Scheduled Caste.
    • p. 341: Section titled Kavara/Gavara -- Balija: Similarly too [sic] the Balija community, with two sub-divisions, Gajalu Balija and Gavara Balija, migrated originally from Tamil Nadu. The Balija Gavarai are popularly known as Naidus and the others as Chetties, Valai Chatties, Chettiars. It is said that they originally spoke Telugu. (This suggests that Tamilnadu Gavarai were not a subclass of Balija, but rather a superclass. These Gavarai migrants to Kerala apparently claimed a scheduled caste status that was meant for the Kerala Kavaras, just by using the same name.).
  • The Tamil Nadu government OBC list [17], which also the filer used to buttress himself, says:
    • Gavara, Gavarai and Vadugar(Vaduvar) (other than Kamma, Kapu,Balija and Reddi), which again suggests that Gavara was a superclass of Balijas. (But this reference doesn't clinch the issue because it is also talking about Vadugar, which is a generic term for all Telugu people.)

The references are unanimous that all Balijas in Tamilnadu engaged in trading are called Kavarai. The exceptions might have been the non-trading warrior classes, who were pretty much gone by mid 19th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know. I've seen those sources but they just confuse me because they are so inconsistent - some refer to specific types of Balija, some don't. And when they do, they don't seem to be agreeing. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
DRN was closed because you filed SPI. Does not mean other venues are not open. Just because am out of this, do not think you can push your POV, Kautilya3. You had enough time from Jan to now in messing up; and you continue to do so. If you push, there are others who will take this to better admins in wiki; instead of your buddy group. There are people watching. Do not forget there are better sources than yours which prove the opposite. You are yet to disprove them. If this itches you so much, write a book and disprove Rao,Shulman,Subrahmanyam who investigated kaifiyats, manuscripts and a host of sources in proving fighters from different castes were brought under the cover-title balija. Disprove other sources also which say so, including madras infantry records which prove separate sub-divisions existed in 1891 records. Harping selectively on your sources cannot work. You are nobody to create terms like superclasses; or assume so; when they are subdivisions. This is to let you know, this is not the end, just because am out of wiki, because of your antics.--Anon=us (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
From View History, the last edit to the article was by Sitush on 12:14, 3 April 2017‎. However, Sitush did not touch the infobox. Which admin changed the infobox, without providing a View History record? Is there anyone above the admin to answer this please? Also, Kautilya3 seems to be very motivated. For what reason? --Anon=us (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
A newly-registered account messed with {{Infobox caste}}, which thus affected every article in which the thing was transcluded. It has nothing to do with Kautilya3 and you need to stop casting these aspersions. I've fixed the template. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Sitush. I did not cast aspersions on Kautilya3 for the Infobox. I said he (Kautilya3) seems very motivated. Having DRN closed with SPI, now again back to pushing what he wants in the lead. That is what I meant about being very motivated. Hope that clarifies.--Anon=us (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Comment

Kambalathars/Rajakambalathars are not Balijas.Its a distortion of History. Please research. There is a group of people from Kambalathars who are distorting history and tagging with Balijas. Talk to Balijas in Tamilnadu for verification... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusersouthindia (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It is true the Kambalathars started claiming to be Balijas recently. But there is no proof. --Anon=us (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Anon=us

into the the Wikipedia page of such kind, there should be quantitative page also.... Saddam hussar (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Telaga/Balija are same; They both are forward caste communities in Andhra & Telangana

This is Amit, Telaga caste history and correct current status (Forward or Other Caste) needs to be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:480:DF62:5B4:C169:CE56:2B6F (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.ripublication.com/ijhss18/ijhssv8n1_03.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:480:DF62:5B4:C169:CE56:2B6F (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balija/Archive_1&oldid=1184711088"