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

Syrian Christians of Kerala may have Portuguese and Iraqi blood

Though Hinduism Buddhism and Jainism is mentioned in the Sangam Literature Christianity was not a known religeon to Tamils of Kerala till the European arrival. Tharisapalli plates was the first ever authentic record of Christian presence in Kerala issued by King Ayyanadikal Thiruvadikal of Venad at 825 AD.In this records the Nestorian christians had signed in three languages Hebrew Pahlavi (Persian) and Kufic (Palestinian). These Nestorians came to Kerala from Babylon in Iraq then part of Persian kingdom. Marvan Sapir Eso was the name of the Persian merchant who received the grant. Marvan is a common Arab name.Till the arrival of Portuguese at 1498 Syrian Christians used to have Arab names (Marvan Sapir Eso,Mar Ahadulla and Mar Abdul Jaleel). Christianity remained religeon of foreigners till the European arrival. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive. The Portuguese army might have been enrolled from Kerlaa but Goa,Mangalore Cauvery delta- Velankanni Indonesia and Macao in China. Portuguese army had its main barracks at Angamaly (Parangi Pattalam) and towns such as Kottayam,Thrissur and Quilon and Thalassery were minor army camps.In all these areas fair skinned Syrian Christians form majority of the population. Mattanchery used to be the administrative capital. The Portuguese soldiers had numerous mistresses and the Children of this union were called Mulattos. Even today the Christians of Kerala including Syrian Christians not only display Caucasian features but Arab and Chinese facial features too sporadically. The Portuguese army was 20000 strong and might have had these Christians as soldiers.The opportunistic Portuguese supported the Nair Kingdom of Cochin using its Christian army. Five hundred years of Colonial rule ensured that the Syrian Christians occupy a higher position than most indigenous Dravidians. Some fo the stories written during the colonial period spread the myth that the Syrian Christians were actually Nambudiris converted by St.Thomas. But Nambudiris did not appear in Kerala before Chalukya invasion ie after the 7th century. St.Thomas according to Apocryphal records visited King Gondophares in ancient Taxila in the present day Pakistan and was killed by a Greek king called Misdeus in the Persian Gulf. {http://www.gnosis.org/library/constom.htm} King Misdeus who was angry when St.Thomas converted his wife Tertia and son Juzanes killed Apostle St.Thomas. Portuguese spread the myth that Misdeus was indeed the king of Madras.In reality no Greek ruled Tamilnadu ever.It is absurd to call King Misdeus as the ruler of Madras. The Christians of Kerala used the Lingua Malabar Tamul and Portuguese during the Portuguese period.Thousands of books were printed in Tamil from Ambazhakkad near Angamaly Quilon and Thalassery but hardly any books written in Syriac.(http://www.tidsskrift.dk/visning.jsp?markup=&print=no&id=101382) The British though initially printed Malabar (Tamil) Dictionaries and other books in Tamil. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/14/stories/2005101407670300.htm) But in the 19th century they started promoting the Grantha Malayalam or Tulu Malaylam talked by Nambudiris written with Tulu Script which they taught to Syrian Christian priests through the Kottayam seminary established at 1817. The Christian Missionaries not only changed the Syrian Christian language to Tulu-Malayalam but started replacing Malayalam words with Sanskrit.Tulu was the language of large number of Christians of Mangalore area. The suppression of Malayalam-Tamil led to the suppression of most of the Dravidian population as well who finally adopted Tulu-Malayalam only at the end of 19th century. There is no evidence that Syrian Chrisitians ever talked Sanskrit before Kottayam seminary was established.The Dravidian Kings such as kings of Chera dynasty and Ay kingdom gave refuge to the immigrants from Syria.

Syrian Christians are indeed forward caste in Kerala. But they cant be called High caste of Kerala because they are ethnically different from Dravidian Hindu population and may have foreign mixture. The Dravidian population of Kerala including the displaced former Chera tribes like Pazhuvettaraiyars,Villavar and Vanavar who are now living in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are the original people of Kerala and cant be branded low castes as done during the colonial times. Vilmeenkodi (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And what about Nambuthiris? There are no indigenous ethnic groups in Kerala, except the tribal people who are considered untouchables by the immigrated groups. Syrian Christians constitute an ethnic group formed by the admixture of Aryan, Dravidian and Jewish races. Their social status and privileges were above all dravidian castes, but could be below the royals and Nambuthiri brahmins. --AshLey ^Msg 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Christianity in Kerala during Sangam period (400 BC to 400 AD) and Portuguese period

Chrisitianity was not a known religeon to ancient Tamils of Kerala and Tamilnadu. Numerous Sangam literature never mention about the existence of Christianity in Kerala while Jainism Buddhism and Dravidian religeon is mentioned in Sangam Literature The first mention about Nestorian Christian immigrants in Tharisapalli plates granted by Venads Tamil King of Ay kingdom Ayyanadikal Thiruvadikal at 825 AD to immigrants who spoke Hebrew, Pahlavi and Kufic. The Nestorian christians had Arab and Persian names Eg Marvan Sapir Easo, Mor Prodh, Mar Ahadullah and Mar Abdul Jaleel.Nestorians were few in number.However there is no evidence that any Dravidians/Tamils practised Christianity during the rule of Tamil Kingdoms of Kerala.Christianity remained a religeon of foreigners until Jordanus converted Hindus to Christianity around 1300s at Quilon. The Portuguese who arrived in Kerala in 1498 with 150 Sailors and four ships soon intermingled with the locals and had Indian mistresses and founded the new christian community of Kerala.The Christians adopted Roman Catholicism after the Portuguese arrival.The adoption of Greek Names by Syrian Christians of Oriental Orthodoxy Kerala also comes only after the Portuguese arrival. The Portuguese descendents who supported the Kingdom of Cochin claimed a higher status for themselves. At Synod of Diamper organised by the Portuguese at 1599 decided that the Portuguese and Syrian Christians to practise untouchability. Christians of Kerala because of their Syrian and Portuguese origins sport fair skin and sharper features. After the British treaty in 1895 AD with the weak Naga ruler Dharma Raja of Travancore Syrian Christians such as Thachil Matthoo Tharakan who was appointed as forest minister for the first time, who assisted British build ships using Keralas timber. The support of European colonisers to the Naga/Bunt (community) and Aryan Kingdoms of Kerala led to the suppression of Dravidians who make upto 40 percent of Keralas population until Indian Independence. Vilmeenkodi (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sangam Liturature mentions Malabar Christians by the name Esanuvadikal. The Saint Thomas Christians trace their origins to the evangelical activity of Thomas the Apostle, said to have come to India sometime in the 1st century. The earliest known source connecting the apostle to India is the Acts of Thomas, written in Edessa likely in the 2nd century. The text describes Thomas' adventures in bringing Christianity to India, a tradition later expanded upon in early Indian sources such as the "Thomma Parvam" ("Song of Thomas").Generally he is described as arriving in or around Maliankara and founding Seven Churches, or Ezharapallikal: Kodungallur, Kollam, Niranam, Nilackal (Chayal), Kokkamangalam, Kottakkayal (Paravoor), Palayoor (Chattukulangara) and Thiruvithancode Arappally – a "half church". A number of 3rd- and 4th-century Roman writers also mention Thomas' trip to India, including Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, and Ephrem the Syrian, while Eusebius of Caesarea records that his teacher Pantaenus visited a Christian community in India in the 2nd century, demonstrating that this tradition was well known across the world by that period.--AshLey ^Msg 08:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese period

Portuguese supported the primitive Naga kingdom of Cochin with its army while awarding a high status to all the Christians of mixed Portuguese and middle eastern origins..The second decree of Synod of Diamper convened in 1599 allowed that Christians may practice Untouchability.

Wikipedia is not a place to dump any rubbish. Syrian Christians had a prosperous, most influential and regal period before the arrival of Portuguese. They were both a trading class and military power. Rock edicts of Thazhekad given to a local Christians and Copper Plate edicts given to Mar Sabor and two more documents proves that they were the elites in pre-colonial period. Only royals and brahmins were extended with the similar privileges by the local rulers. Later on Nair community became equally influential due to their military strength, but they were still considered as Sudras by the brahmins and the local rulers didn't extend all the privileges to Nair community due to the protest from brahmins and christians. In 16th century, Syrian Christians were approached by the Portuguese to support their spice trade using the trading network and the local influence of the community. Later on, Portuguese tried to subjugate Syrian Christians and accused Syrian Christians of Errors and Superstitious beliefs and called them as Hindu-Christians. Using military force and influence with local kings they arm-twisted Syrian Christians, assembled a Synod( Synod of Diamper) and banned all the Hindu Customs. Consequently the community was divided into many denominations and the regal period of Syrian Christians collapsed after the 16th century. Portuguese are the real villains for the disintegration of Syrian Christians from the Hindu Social System. Anyway Syrian Christians still continued to keep many of their traditions in their personal and social life. --AshLey ^Msg 09:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of a recent contribution

Is this edit really relevant? Is it synthesis? - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand the context of calling something as WP:SYN. Can you please explain how the above edit meets the criteria of being a SYN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley thomas80 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the word "inference" and the use of "many historians", for a start. Honestly, I am not sure of the relevance of the point at all and I am concerned that it may be just some weird pov-pushing exercise, perhaps on the part of the Syrian Christian community. I'd like to see the sources but they seem mostly to be offline. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2012

(UTC)

"Inference" - is used wrt the Quote just above the new contribution. If it's better to use "many other academic books and primary sources like _____" instead of "many other historians", I could modify it. While you challenge the relevance of new point, please don't forget that in the past, the relevance of the contentious quote also was questioned in a similar manner. That quote is just a primary information and hence not entirely reliable as per Wikipedia policies, especially when a point in the quote is contradicted by many other reliable sources. Going straight, there are no reliable academic sources to prove that the Syrian Christians were considered untouchable by any community. But the contentious quote infers that in some places Nairs considered them as untouchables. At the same time, many academic sources mention that Syrian Christians considered even Nairs as untouchables and performed ritual bath to neutralize the pollution on any inadvertent touch. Such an ambiguous point should be balanced properly or else the readers are misled. If you consider new point as pov-push, the quote above very well meets the same criteria. All the sources are verifiable online, try google-books pl. Frankly speaking, I'm not against Nairs and respect them as a peer community. Let us remove the quote and detail the information with a balanced view. --AshLey ^Msg 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've done some tidying up elsewhere in the article and will have a think about this particular aspect. Are the offline sources available to you? - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1st source is available here [1]. Second source is available here: [2]. Third source is protected. --AshLey ^Msg 12:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling to determine what period Sebastian is referring to in the first reference. He says that the Syrian Christians held high status and that the Portuguese Missionaries were unhappy about the SCs practising untouchability etc, but those missionaries were (I think) active a very long time ago and Sebastian also appears to be referring in a preceding paragraph to the 2nd/3rd century. Frankly, it doesn't appear to be particularly well-written and that is quite a common failing of Concept's publications. Could they have changed their practices at some point?

I've not checked the second source yet but I am a bit concerned that a caste system that was effectively imposed by Nambudiris is becoming subsumed by a lot of content relating to a non-Hindu community. There should be a mention, of course, but the SCs were outside the Hindu system and caste is fundamentally a Hindu concept. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think, now you are going for original research. Please cite reference for your ideas.Also it's better to refer: Susan Bayly - Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, 1700-1900 [3] to understand the integration of Syrian Christians with Hindu Caste System. And you have to consider the wider aspect of the term "Hindu". It mainly refers to the Indian Culture, and the religious aspect of the term is a narrower one. --AshLey ^Msg 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not "going" for anything. I am trying to determine the extent to which this information is valid in this article, which falls within an area of Wikipedia that I have been editing for some time now and which is often subject to pov pushing, selective quoting, poor sources etc. I'm not accusing you of any of these but I have raised a valid concern about Sebastian.

I've got no idea to what your second sentence refers. I am aware of Bayly, thanks. I've even met her. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your concern about Sebastian is unacceptable as the book is of academic standards and also is a reference book for PG students in Indian Universities. It is peer reviewed and well-edited by Rajendra Prasad. Following the author, Syrian Christians(Nasranis) enjoyed high social privileges and practiced untouchability along with many other Hindu customs. European priests who came with Portuguese found it as heathen-practices, condemned it as superstitious and assembled Synod of Diamper to rectify the Syrian Christians from heathen-practices. That's well explained in the book. But the book doesn't dedicate sufficient space to detail the history of Malabar Christians from 1st century to 21st century. For that we have to refer many more sources. But to demean a reputed author after just 10 minutes of reading is not justifiable. There are many more sources which explain the privileges and practices of Nasranis, including the book of renowned historian, Sreedhara Menon.

My second sentence is about the integration of Nasranis (Syrian Christians) within the Hindu Society. Nasranis were called Hindu-Christians by many Portuguese observers as well as many Indian Historians. You could refer Bayly for more info. This point contradicts your claim that Nasranis were outside the Hindu System. Here we should not restrict the meaning of the term 'Hindu' to 'a religion'. --AshLey ^Msg 08:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you are assuming what I have or have not done, and you are also misunderstanding what I said. I am not querying Sebastian's authority but rather the quality of the particular book. It contains numerous misprints/typographical errors and the very page that we are using is highly ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Usually Typos and misprints are corrected in the follow-up editions; new editions are not be available on-line. Anyway I do not wish to focus entirely on the book since many more sources detail the same information.--AshLey ^Msg 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's take a look at some of the "many more" sources. There is no point in using one that has issues if others do not. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This Source-[4](Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters By Harold Coward)- mentions "The Syrian Christians had inserted themselves within the Indian caste society for centuries and were regarded by the Hindus as a caste occupying a high place within their caste hierarchy."

See another source here [5] (Origin of Christianity in India: A Historiographical Critique By Benedict Vadakkekara) - It says "...in the course of time Christian too were categorized as a caste...In the former times, Syrian Christians kept the rules of untouchability. They bathed before meals if they happened to touch or go near a low-caste..."

In the Booker price winner book Arundhati Roy observes "Untouchables were expected to crawl backward with a broom, sweeping away their footprints so that Brahmins or Syrian Christians wouldn't defile themselves by accidentally stepping into their footprint." --AshLey ^Msg 13:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll take a look at them later. As I said earlier, we need to get to grips with weighting and also with what time periods are being referenced, since one of the issues that Sebastian appears to be raising amid the vaguity is that the situation for the Syrian Christians changed over time. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've still not got round to checking these things out, sorry. I will do. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

InarZan raises a good point about Coward in one of the threads below. In your edit, you insert Coward but the passage in question seems at best to be vague and at worst makes no mention of untouchability. Can we remove this source but leave the statement intact for now? That source is a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS, and that is the issue which I raised right at the outset regarding this entire edit. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding The God of Small Things, which I presume is the Booker Prize item referred to above, since when has a novel been a reliable source for a statement concerning history? - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So, this your sacred thread, right Sitush? Okey, let me repeat my concerns. How come the relative caste ranking of Nairs and Syrians an ambiguous thing? There is no ambiguity at all.

1. Syrians were in higher rank than Nairs.
2. Syrians considered Nairs as untouchables.
3. Syrians would perform a ritual bath if they happened to touch a Nair.
4. Syrians had the privilege to kill a Nair if he approach him to pollute.
5. It was Synod of Diamper which abolished untouchability in Christians.
6. New Christians were not "untouchables" to Syrians, but only lower ranking.

There is ample sources supporting all these. If you doubt the factual accuracy of any of the above, I can provide citations. - InarZan (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course we need sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

(The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia. Allen. 1822. pp. 237) -InarZan (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No way are we using a source published in 1822. It is bad enough that we're using one from 1860, but at least that is done because it is cited by a modern writer (Jeffrey). - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such law. How come you believe that an old source is unreliable? Also you are not the authority who decides whichever sources are reliable or not -InarZan (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Please read WP:RS and if you still think that this is a reliable source then feel free to take it to WP:RSN. Alternatively, you could look at my contribution history and maybe assume good faith based on that - not so much the number of edits, but rather the subject area in which most of them have been made. I am not the authority and indeed Wikipedia has no such person, but it works on WP:CONSENSUS and I can assure you from my fairly considerable experience that the consensus is that sources of this age are inappropriate as verification for statements such as those you made above. Find something more modern. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also this.

"...Untouchability was practiced by Syrian Christians. They used to go for a ritual bath after physical contact/touch with men of lower castes, and even of the Nair caste. We get this information from the Diamper Synod Decree 2 in Section IX. In it the Portuguese missionaries admonish Syrian Christians and declare that untouchability is, a result of:

“the superstitious and absurd customs of the heathens of Malabar or better not mixing with the lower, and of having no communication or correspondence with those that have but touched any of them, totally be abolished among the Christians.”

The conclusion I would like to draw is that the caste mentality or casteism, an aspect of the mores of Indian ethos, was prevalent among the Syrian Christians. They took rank among the highest nobility of the realm. Like the Brahmins they had the right of sitting on carpets before kings, or riding on elephants and other privileges. No outsider, except the king and his prime minister, could hold civil jurisdiction over them. They were the lords and protectors of the Kammalas and other lower castes. They had the right to keep soldiers who were recruited either from among themselves or from the castes under them. During their domination by Portuguese missionaries, they condemned and abruptly abolished many or the innocent Hindu upper caste customs and rules observed by them. The sudden removal or these and other caste rules lowered the statues of the Christians a little in eyes of the Brahmins and Nairs. The attempt to extend equal status to the (sixteenth century) recent low-caste converts added to the prejudice of the caste Hindus."

(Creed and Culture in Dialogue: On the Evolution of an Indigenous Faith - C. D. Sebastian)- InarZan (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your opinion? Sebastian is already being queried and it looks to me as if you too have concerns about it, but your message is a little confusing to me. Could you clarify? - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Which 'opinion'? I have already given the link to that article. There are many other places on the web where you can find the same article. C.D. Sebastian is a reliable source, I have no concerns. I am going to use this in the article. -InarZan (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"The conclusion I would like to draw ..." is an opinion. Or are you saying that Sebastian says that? Honestly, something is getting lost in translation between you and me, and I doubt very much that it is at my end. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sebastian says that as well. I have not put any opinions or conclusions since my own views are irrelevant here. Sebastian's article is worth considering since he has cited for everything he put forward. There is no doubt this Wikipedia article needs much expansion. So far it covers only the 'untouchability' issue, I fear. Other matters that are related to caste system are caste-based concubinage, practices such as Mannapedi and Pulapedi, upper cloth restriction for lower castes and revolt over it, Hill Brahmins who consider even Nambudiris as untouchables, etc - InarZan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article could usefully be expanded. But that is not what this thread is about. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm not able to find any WP:RS to support the idea that Syrians practiced untouchability against new harijan Christians, I would modify the passage as

"Untouchability in Kerala is not restricted to Hindus: among Christians, the Syrian Christians, who were regarded by the Hindus as a caste occupying high position in the hierarchy <ref1- Harold Coward> <ref2: Duncan B. Forrester -Collected Writings on Christianity, India, and the Social Order, p. 41-42 [6], also practiced the rules of Untouchability against the backward castes<ref1: Rajendra K. Sharma - Indian Society, Institutions And Change, p.139, [7] <Ref2: Sebastian> <ref3: Journal of Kerala studies, Volume 2 - University of Kerala., 1975, p.25> and even the new entrants to Christianity from the backward castes were again treated as Harijans by the Syrian Christians too.<Educational and Social Uplift of Backward Classes By S. P. Agrawal, J. C. Aggarwal, p. 63, [8]"--AshLey ^Msg 09:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CITEKILL? - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid an edit-war, it's unavoidable here. Later on, once the edit war is over, I will trim some sources. --AshLey ^Msg 09:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You do not avoid an edit war by adding and then later removing sources. I really need to get to grips with this issue which, as you are aware, is being challenged on other talk pages also. I'll try my best this week to find the sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears, you are prejudiced over many sources I have cited here. How could I ensure the reliability of sources you find suitable? It is not the suitable forum for discussing the reliability of a source, hence I posted my query on CD Sebastian in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I have got a neutral opinion on CD Sebastian from Despayre, confirming it as WP:RS. If you have any doubt, please continue the discussion there. --AshLey ^Msg 07:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide the diff where I say that Sebastian is unreliable? Unless you can, RSN is irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have any concerns regarding the reliability of information in the sources cited for my contributions, why you are seeking some other sources! OK, now you don't have any doubts regarding the reliability of sources and it's hence it's content. So the sources say: The Syrian Christians had inserted themselves within the Indian caste society for centuries and were regarded by the Hindus as a caste occupying a high place within their caste hierarchy......They took rank among the highest nobility of the realm......In order to preserve their nobility, the Christians never touch a person of inferior caste, not even a Nair...... Like the Brahmins they had the right of sitting on carpets before kings, or riding on elephants and other privileges. No outsider, except the king and his prime minister, could hold civil jurisdiction over them. They were the lords and protectors of the Kammalas and other lower castes. They had the right to keep soldiers who were recruited either from among themselves or from the castes under them. During their domination by Portuguese missionaries, they condemned and abruptly abolished many or the innocent Hindu upper caste customs and rules observed by them. The sudden removal or these and other caste rules lowered the statues of the Christians a little in eyes of the Brahmins and Nairs..... If this information is reliable, then we can't take the quote of Missionary's wife as a reliable one, and we can't conclude the concept of untouchability with it. Now the question of relevance and reliability is on this quote, and we should have to remove it immediately. Also we could introduce a section for Caste and Non-Hindus, similar to one in Caste System in India. The time-line of Syrian Christian matters are narrated by Susan Bayly, and we could use the information. --AshLey ^Msg 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are gaming the system and misrepresenting me, with your fallacious RSN stuff etc. You know exactly what my problem is with that source and you are choosing to ignore it, and my queries. You are also hitting problems with similar stuff at other articles, and involving other people. Now, try some AGF: I said that I am trying to sort out what is going on in terms of sourcing, and I meant it. In particular, what "had inserted" means, since it has no apparent context. I have no particular opinion about the wife quote: it is old and would not be of any significance if it were not for the fact that it is cited by a modern authority. That modern authority needs checking out also, in case there is an element of cherry-picking going on. We are none of us perfect, after all. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What game? I,m still not clear: Source is reliable, author is reliable, but info can't be relied? There are no similar issues anywhere; wrt Caste System in India, we have reached some consensus, and in wiki, articles are improving like this only. This article also needs a face lift- not only in the matters related to Caste and Non-Hindus, but as a whole. It has no mentioning of the colonialist origin theory of caste. In one place it even considers Parasuraman's Myth as a fact. Lot more... On wife's quote - now it has been challenged with WP:RSs. --AshLey ^Msg 13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cherry-picking (which you have been accused of elsewhere also). Inappropriate forum shopping. Inability to keep focus. Inability to see that one RS does not usually trump another RS - we should show all reliable opinions. I actually suspect that there may possibly be a comprehension problem also, since you seem unable to appreciate that the Sebastian source is vague. Please, give me some time to work through all this: the more that you obfuscate, the longer it will take. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No source is complete; CD Sebastian's source may not be complete, but we have to cite many sources to have a comprehensive view. Cherry picking - while you inserted wife's quote, it could be called like that. Here I have tried to balance it with a different view. Focus, Comprehension, Game, Inability - good buzz words, but all started with your negative attitude- unnecessarily warned in talk pages, disowned your opinions in other forums, reverted without discussion, accused POV-push, "undue weight to minority" comment, "Community Authors" comment etc. OK, now I would wait for your positive inputs and let's AGF. --AshLey ^Msg 14:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have had my "positive inputs". You just do not want fully to accept them: Sebastian is vague on the point, as you now seem to acknowledge, and therefore should be removed. We cannot synthesise sources to make a statement. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Factual Errors and over weight to Nair Caste

Please consider following points from the document

• However amongst these castes, Nairs have become most influential due to their numerical superiority.

Without proper citation it's residing there for a a long time. It appears like a POV-push.--AshLey ^Msg 15:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire paragraph should go. I was the person who tagged it as needing a full citation and I've never been able to locate the relevant info from the source detail provided. My gut feeling is that it is at least in part original research. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll consider removing it. Many more clean-up is required to improve the quality. --AshLey ^Msg 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edgar Thurston

I have reverted some stuff that cited Edgar Thurston. Why on earth would we want to use that source? It is old, it is a compendium of even older works and it is amateurish in origin. Thurston often based such research as he carried out himself on samples of as few as 30 or 40 people in a community of many thousands, and he was a known proponent of scientific racism. I know that he is cited in a lot of articles but that is not a reason to encourage the habit. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Christians were higher rank than Nairs

We have enough sources for the Syrian Christians were in higher rank than Nairs. Many historians have written about the ritual bath Syrians used to take if they happened to touch a Nair. We have ample evidences for this. But the single quote about the caste system gives an impression that Nairs were higher than Syrians. This is actually POV pushing. -InarZan (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the thread not too far above this one. Please do not start another thread unnecessarily. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind telling which thread? None of titles imply so, and it is a waste of time reading dead threads uselesly. -InarZan (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution, which was started all of four days ago. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Upper cloth Revolt

This article gives undue weight to untouchability while the cloth-related restrictions are appeared to be omitted deliberately. The lower caste women had to walk naked against which they revolted, perhaps the only such incident in world history when people had to fight the ruling castes for their right to wear cloths. This article is not only complete, but also one-sided. -InarZan (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusing people of bias and deliberate omission will not make you any friends. The UCR has a place here, certainly, but we also have an article just for that subject & therefore we need not go into massive detail. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We have another article on Untouchability. Then why we need that too here? -InarZan (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read what I said and slow down a little. You have a conflict of interest here and it is showing. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Without a section on UCR, this article on Caste system in Kerala is lame. -InarZan (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Who said that there shouldn't be some stuff on UCR here? Really, you seem not to be reading things through properly, which is why I suggested that you slow down a little. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be acting like an owner of this page who insist everything should have your signature of approval. -InarZan (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Which bit of "The UCR has a place here, certainly, but we also have an article just for that subject & therefore we need not go into massive detail" do you not understand? (1) UCR should be in the article; (2) we can link the mention in this article to the detailed one about Ucr; (3) because there is a detailed article about UCR, we do not have to go into massive detail, which would in any event be undue weight. Basically, I am agreeing with you but also pointing out that because the other article exists there is no need to swamp this one with extended coverage about one particular facet of the system. It is nothing at all to do with ownership. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

New Christians untouchable to Syrians?

From where on earth did you get the idea that new Christians were untouchables to Syrians? The given citation only says the new Christians were not considered equal to Syrians. 'Not equal' does not mean 'Untouchable'. They were also not allowed to join Syrian churches since they were not baptized by Syrian bishops or priests. Here it is not the case of cast system, but the difference in church denominations. Portuguese people have baptized many Brahmins as well. They also were not allowed to join the Syrian church despite their high status. This sentence gives a wrong impression and should be removed. -InarZan (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong section, and you'll need some sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The given citation is "Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters By Harold Coward" page 19 which says this:

"For several centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese St. Thomas Christians did not baptize those or low castes lest they lose their social Position. when the Portuguese arrived, they used to send them to the Portuguese for baptism but after baptism they still would not admit them to their churches or have any relations with them. That explains the formation of a separate church for the new Christians in Kerala (the Latin Christians).

The first Protestant to display much interest in the Syrian Christians was Dr. Claudius Duncan, who visited Kerala in 1806. In the same year the London Missionary Society started to work in South Travancore encouraged by Colonel CoHn Macaulay, and John Munro appealed to the Church Mission Society (CMS) to send missionaries to work for the reformation of the Jacobite Syrians. Thus the Mission of Help was established in 1816 to assist the Syrians in restoring the “primitive doctrine and missionary energy” in them. But gradually tension built up between the Mission of Help and the Syrian Church. The missionaries resented the restriction of direct evangelism among the Hindus. The relationship broke down in 1836. A few Syrians caime with the CMS, and they turned to the Ezhavas and the hill tribes. But the missionaries had their own problems and were deeply divided on the issue of baptizing a sizable number of Pulayas. Not until 1854 was the first Pulaya baptized in the CMS. Even then they had to tolerate separate congregations for Syrians and low-caste converts.

The Mar Thoma church was formed under the influence of the CMS Mission of Help, and one of the issues involved was the question of evangelism anong non-Syrians. Even here converts were rarely given equal treatment with Syrians. All this emphasizes that caste attitudes were strong among the Syrians. The expectations of the new Christians for equality of treatment clashed with the older attitudes among the Syrian Christians. Conversion was seen as a way of overcoming the caste barrier. The new converts claimed to be Syrians, which was ridiculed by the Syrians. Forrcster speaks or a sort of “Syrianization" among the Christians like that of the Sanskritization of M.N. Srinivas. This instance of caste versus Christianity shows the process ot dialogue between two worldviews: the Hindu caste system, and the Christian value ot equality. The missionary impact disturbed the settled Christian community and even now poses a challenge and leaves the Syrian Christians with uneusy consciences concerning social disparities and Christian ideals. The Syrian response varied through the centuries, but significant changes did take place over a period of time."

Where in this passage would you say the "untouchability" comes? -InarZan (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, this very source is one that is being discussed in the thread slightly above this one. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I could correct the point as

"Untouchability in Kerala is not restricted to Hindus: among Christians, the Syrian Christians, who were regarded by the Hindus as a caste occupying high position in the hierarchy <ref1- Harold Coward> <ref2: Duncan B. Forrester -Collected Writings on Christianity, India, and the Social Order, p. 41-42 [9], also practiced the rules of Untouchability against the backward castes<ref1: Rajendra K. Sharma - Indian Society, Institutions And Change, p.139, [10] <Ref2: Sebastian> <ref3: Journal of Kerala studies, Volume 2 - University of Kerala., 1975, p.25> and even the new entrants to Christianity from the backward castes were again treated as harijans by the Syrian Christians too.<Educational and Social Uplift of Backward Classes By S. P. Agrawal, J. C. Aggarwal, p. 63, [11] --AshLey ^Msg 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Untouchables?

The notation untouchables is really absurd. There is no a group of people called untouchables since the untouchability is a relative thing. Whether a person is untouchable or not depends upon the perceiver's caste position. A Nambuthiri is untouchable to a Kurichya, while being touchable to a Nair, similarly a Thiyya is untouchable to a Nair or a Syrian Christian while he is touchable to a Nadar. Therefore the title of the section and caption of the image should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.91.169 (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There are thousands of sources that use the term. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

The paragraph starting "Despite being outlawed..." in section "Caste System in the Modern Era" says many things which are not seen in the citation. The reference is a list of SC, ST & OBC communities from Kerala Public Service Commission's website. We are in need of proper citations for the points in that paragraph. - InarZan Verifiable 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great to have more citations for that paragraph. Can you not provide them? - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)