Talk:Mudaliar/Archive 2

Kaikolar vs Isai Vellala

Has it not been accepted universally that Isai Vellala are the followers of dancing related devadasi tradition in Tamilnadu?

Why the confusion with kaikolar? The Kaikolar name was used by two groups and the dancing related Kaikolar have been renamed to Isai Vellala a couple of centuries ago.

Sriramwins 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All the references in the book talk about kaikolars being devadasis. Just because the Kaikolars devadasis rename themselves Isai Vellalar does not make them vellalar. Even the census reference provided by you was mocking at the fact that Isai Vellala were not Vellala but in fact Kaikolar Devadasis. Very soon Pallars who are adi dravida dalits (not even dravidian tamils) will claim they are vellalars since their name is Devendra Kula Vellalar.

Kaikolar vs Isai Vellala renaming

From Sriramwins 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Once upon a time all humans descended from Monkeys. So this transition is natural. Because devadasis named themselves Isai-Vellala, it must be because they abandoned their traditional roles (music and dance) in society and took on the roles of Vellala - agriculture.

The important thing to note is just as there are multiple mudaliars who are not endogamous, there are two groups which go by name Kaikolars who are not endogamous.

If they are endogamous, then they would have been classified as one group by the Government of India.

Sriramwins 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaikolars are devadasis. Even Ootakoothar himslef has acknwoledged this in one of his songs where he sings that a Kaikolar Devadasi was married to a imaginary king called Musukunda Cholan or Musumukha Cholan. Go ask Kaikolar Sangam.

Request for Comment

• Need clear sources for origins of ThondaiMandala Saiva Vellala
• Need clarification for Isai Vellala and Devadasi connection.
• Need clarification for confusion between Kaikolar and Devadasi. Why many books refer to Kaikolar and Devadasis and what is their relationship with the current group called Kaikolar and IsaiVellala?

Sriramwins 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Isai Vellala are part of Sengunthars or Kaikolars

Valid reference:

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory)

[1]

Quoted from book:

Isai-Vellala needs a separate section in the article

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory)

[2]

Quoted from book:

Isai Vellalas are none other than that section of Sengunthar Mudaliars or Kaikolars who were associated with the system of Devadasis

From Sriramwins 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Good reference. Atlast we have settled the following from the above statement.

Things to note in this are:

• Not all Kaikolar were associated with Devadasi system.
• Isai Vellalas form a separate section of Kaikolar. This is similar to Kallar, Maravar and Agamudayar belonging to Mukkulathor but each forming a special section. This is also similar to Tirunelveli Saiva Pillai and Tanjore Saiva Pillai both belonging to Saiva Pillai but each a separate section.
• Isai Vellalas were associated with the system of Devadasis.
• Finally even Isai Vellalas were associated and NOT currently associated. The current Chief Minister of Tamilnadu M Karunanidhi is from Isai-Vellala group and none of his female relatives are associated with Devadasi system.

Currently Isai Vellalas no longer call themselves Kaikolar and are classified under Most-Backward-Class by the TN government. Kaikolar or Sengunthar are classified as Backward-Class by the TN government.

So from this, we can understand that the section of Kaikolar who were involved in the devadasi system renamed themselves to Isai-Vellala. So the group which goes by the name Kaikolar or Sengunthar and belongs to Backward Class according to TN Government, were not involved in devadasi system.

Sriramwins 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Isai Vellalas form a separate caste and are no longer considered as Kaikolar as per Government of India

From Sriramwins 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Isai Vellalas form a separate caste according to Tamilnadu government. Nobody can change that now. So they need a separate section in this article.

Also sign all comments so that it is easy to see who is writing them. Sriramwins 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

VALID REFERENCE THAT SHOWS KAIKOLAR DEVADASIS WERE NOT SEPARATE SECTION BUT INTEGRAL PART OF KAIKOLARs/ SENGUNTHARS:Other references still show that Kaikolars were devadasis

Valid source: Donors, Devotees, and the Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu By Leslie C. Orr [3]

This source clearly states with references that Kaikolar devadasis come back and marry into kaikolars and sengunthars. Some of the references are inscriptions.

Important thing to note here:

1. Kaikolar woman becomes devadasi and has sexual intercourse with brahmin men in temples

2. Then the next generation who are the offsprings of Kaikolar devadasis and brahmin men come back and marry Kaikolars

3. This cycle continues forever.

From this it is clear that the Kaikolar devadasis are not separate from the kaikolars and the present day kaikolars are offsprings of brahmin men. There is a reference even for the last statement.

VALID REFERENCE OF Leslie C. Orr has no such statements

Put the page numbers and copy and paste the section, otherwise you are lying and spreading propaganda.

Even the proof you gave, clearly states that Isai Vellala were involved in devadasi system. Sriramwins 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

VALID REFERENCE that kaikolar devadasis came back and married other kaikolars

Page 158 in Donors, Devotees, and the Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu By Leslie C. Orr [4]==

So go read the book and stop trying to lie saying that there is nothing in there.

Only Isai Vellala and not proper Kaikolar involved in devadasi system

Once again, the group of people who were involved in devadasi system were renamed into Isai Vellala from Kaikolar because they were not allowed to use it due to the confusion that you are suffering from.

Sriramwins 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If all kaikolar were involved in devadasi system why rename a certain group alone as Isai Vellala

The important thing to understand is the section involved in devadasi system is exogamous (not involved in intermarriage) with the group currently called as Kaikolar. Otherwise how would the government know who is Kaikolar proper and who belongs to the group which uses the name Kaikolar but actually belongs to Isai Vellala?

Sriramwins 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment Mudali title and ThondaiMandala Saiva Vellala

• Need clear sources for origins of ThondaiMandala Saiva Vellala
• Clear sources for usage of Mudali title.

Sriramwins 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No clear origins for ThondaiMandala Saiva Vellala

No clear origins available for ThondaiMandala Saiva Vellala. Are there examples of famous ThondaiMandala Saiva Vellala in the historical records?

Sriramwins 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ariyanatha, some nayanmars from sivan temples, ptr rajan, palanivel rajan and many more are all saiva vellala only. don't delete the references.

VALID REFERENCE that kaikolar devadasis came back and married other kaikolars

Page 158 in Donors, Devotees, and the Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu By Leslie C. Orr [5] So go read the book and stop trying to lie saying that there is nothing in there.

Strong objection regarding the claim that Tondaimandala Vellalars were the original people to use the title Mudaliar - See links below

Many evidences and researches in journal articles have claimed that the title Mudaliar was given by the king based on merit. See the following links.

According to noted social scholar Vijaya Ramaswamy Mudali in that period did not indicate a caste. The period being referred to is the period of Chola empire around 11th century AD.

Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, 12 1985; vol. 22: pp. 417 - 444.

Saedirof 04:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

unable to digest the fact that Sengunthars are actually devadasis who also go by the neame of isai vellalar and kaikolar, user Saedirof is attempting to create a new confusion saying by bringing up some shit about mudaliar title. why don't you read the reference that says sengunthars are isai vellalars. you're so pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.51.21 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NUMEROUS REFERENCES PROVE THAT ISAI VELLALAR, KAIKOLAR AND SENGUNTHAR ARE THE SAME PEOPLE

Numerous references have been provided to prove that Isai Vellalar are Sengunthar who are Devadasis. Even Direct link has been provided. So stop trying to manipulate saying that Isai Vellalar are not Sengunthar. Look below for the link and read it.

Valid reference:

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory)

[6]

Quoted from book:

Isai Vellalas are none other than that section of Sengunthar Mudaliars or Kaikolars who were associated with the system of Devadasis

More references that Kaikolars/ Sengunthars are Isai Vellala/ Devadasis

Academic References to prove the Identity of Kaikolars and that Kaikolar Devadasis are an offshoot of the former

References

1)Asia in the Making of Europe: A Century of Advance. Book 2, South Asia - Page 1032 by Donald F Lach, Edwin J Van Kley - History - 1998 - 662 pages [7]: Clearly describes the status of Kaikolars.

2)Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, 417-444 (1985) [8]: This research article explains the blood relation between the Devadasis and the Kaikolar. Quoted from article:(Devadasis (dancing girls who have very close kinship ties with the Kaikolar))

3) Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982),[9]: Text Quoted from article: At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king.

4)Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [10]: This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)

5)The Erotic Sculptures of India Y. Krishan Artibus Asiae, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1972), pp. 331-343 (proves that kaikolan musicians = devadasis) [11]

6)Some Enquiries into the Condition of Weavers in Medieval South India, Indian Historical Review, Vol. VI, Nos. 1 and 2

7)Contending identities: Sacred prostitution and reform in colonial South India Priyadarshini Vijaisri A1, A1 Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Issue: Volume 28, Number 3 / December 2005 Pages: 387 - 411[12]. If you cannot access previous link, then just go here [13] and follow one of the links. This research article talks in much detail about how women from the Sengunthar/ Kaikolar caste go into prostitution in temples.

8)Another reference book Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God. Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu by Leslie C. Orr, [14]

9)South Asia Unreached People Groups: [15]:This is a non-profit world renknown organisation recognised by many countries. The following is the description used - The KAIKOLAR people are a caste of weavers 1.5 million strong in southern India... That daughter is considered married to the temple deity—often the Hindu destroyer god Shiva. In practice, the daughter becomes a temple prostitute.

10)Global India Missions: [16]: The following description is used - The Kaikolan are a large Tamil and Telugu caste of weavers....Traditionally, one girl in every family was set apart to be dedicated to temple service and becomes a Devadasi(meaning female servant of god). In the temple, the girl is considered married to the temple deity but in practice becomes a prostitute, especially to the Brahmans and she learns traditional music and dancing.

11) Book: Of Property and Propriety: The Role of Gender and Class in Imperialism and Nationalism - Page 178 by Bannerji, Himani, Mojab, Shahrzad, Whitehead, Judith [17] Again, the google link provides a limited preview. This books also talks in great length about the Kaikolar Devadasis and the Brahmin men.

12)Madras Gazetteer recognized by the Government of India: providing google link. follow link for full book. [18], [19]

Goverment of Tamilnadu has classified Isai Vellalar in the Most Backward list and separate from Kaikolar/Sengunthar

Here are the references: IsaiVellalar - the spelling is Vellalar and not Vaelalar. http://www.tn.gov.in/department/mbclist.htm IsaiVellalar are a branch of Vellala otherwise why would the government accept it?

Kaikolar/Sengunthar http://www.tn.gov.in/department/bclist.htm

I think that since there are no proofs for Tondai-mandala saiva Vellala being the first to use Mudali title, personal attacks on Isai Vellala are happening.

Better be professional. Refrain from changing the spelling of IsaiVellalar. Accept that they are a branch of Vellala and are separate from Sengunthar/Kaikolar.

Saedirof 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

SENGUNTHAR ARE KAIKOLAR AND ISAI VELLALAR

A lot of references prove the identity of isai vellalar as part of Kaikolar who have changed their name to Sengunthar in order to hide their identity as Devadasis. So its high time you digest this fact. See above for more references.

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory)

[20]

Quoted from book:

Isai Vellalas are none other than that section of Sengunthar Mudaliars or Kaikolars who were associated with the system of Devadasis

I think user Saedirof is crying out loud as he just found out the truth about the Kaikolar Devadasis. Moreover the reference clearly state that Isai Vellalar are an integral part of Sengunthar. Why are you trying to manipulate this saying that they're vellalar? Don't rephrase the reference according to your convenience. its pathetic. looks like you're impotent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiddharthRaju (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks against other editors please. It isn't helpful to the discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to edit warring I've protected this article for the time being.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Goverment of Tamilnadu has classified Isai Vellalar in the Most Backward list and separate from Kaikolar/Sengunthar

Here are the references: IsaiVellalar - the spelling is Vellalar and not Vaelalar. http://www.tn.gov.in/department/mbclist.htm IsaiVellalar are a branch of Vellala otherwise why would the government accept it?

Kaikolar/Sengunthar http://www.tn.gov.in/department/bclist.htm

I think that since there are no proofs for Tondai-mandala saiva Vellala being the first to use Mudali title, personal attacks on Isai Vellala are happening.

Better be professional. Refrain from changing the spelling of IsaiVellalar. Accept that they are a branch of Vellala and are separate from Sengunthar/Kaikolar.

There is no point in trying to combine Sengunthar/Kaikolar and IsaiVellalar or respelling IsaiVellalar to IsaiVaelalar or other variations.

The Government of India is the final deciding authority on caste name and classification.

Combining the two separate groups is like combining Cats and Dogs into one group because they are both pets. For that matter we can combine White and African American as one race because both speak English. Dont push POV. Follow what the Govt. of India is stating. Governments decide caste and race and not POV.

Saedirof 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mudaliar

Clearly the govt. of India has classified Isai Vellalar and Sengunthar separately as shown in my proof.

Secondly all my proofs are using the inscriptions from Archealogical Society of India and journal articles and books. So there are no manipulations going on.

Thirdly, Casper21 has no proofs for the claims made in the paragraph Thondai-Mandala Saiva Vellala. All his proofs are valid sources but they are referring the group Thondai-Mandala Vellala or KondaiKatti Vellala. His sources are

a. Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft038n99hg&brand=eschol b. Order and Disorder in Colonial South India Eugene F. Irschick Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 c. Lionel Place, 1799 East India Company Report, para. 59. ( This is not a direct reference but a reference in a reference) d. http://www.hindu.com/fr/2004/09/03/stories/2004090300780600.htm

However he insists that these are valid references to his claim when patently they are not.

Fourthly, his claim that Mudali is the caste title of only Thondai mandala Vellala is also a manipulation of the reference. The reference states that Mudali is the title of all Thondai mandala Vellalas. It does not state that only Thondai mandala Vellala has the title of Mudali.

Saedirof 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mudaliar title usage in 12th century AD

According to Vijaya Ramaswamy , mudali in the 13th century referred to a title and not specific castes. People from all castes were awarded this title by the kings. Many Brahmins, Warriors, Poets and Sages were awarded this title in various countries. Even Jews in kerala were awarded this title in 1215 AD, according to by Si. Pi. Acyutamēnōn by the Maharajah of Cochin.

1. Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, 12 1985; vol. 22: pp. 417 - 444.

1. ^ The Cochin State Manual http://books.google.com/books?id=X7UCAAAAMAAJ&q=jew+mudali&dq=jew+mudali&pgis=1

If there are proofs before 12th century AD that state the claim made by Casper21, definitely it should be examined and a final conclusion can be taken. In the meantime, all valid proofs should be included in the article.

Saedirof 18:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IsaiVellala are classified separately from Kaikolar/Sengunthar by Govt. of India

This article classifies the castes using Mudaliar title. IsaiVellala are classified separately from Kaikolar/Sengunthar by Govt. of India. End of Story.

Nothing else matters.

Since based on the proofs of Irschick, Tondai mandala saiva vellala and KondaiKatti vellala should be classified under the same heading. Both are two names for the same set of people.

Saedirof 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ISAI VELLALR ARE SENGUNTHAR

Its your POV against the proofs provided by multiple historians and researchers. As for the Mudaliar itself. You can try all the tricks in the book. It is not going to work. The locus of dispute is about Kaikolar Devadasis who have assumed different names such as Isai Vellalar, Sengunthar in order to evade detection.

Multiple references have already been quoted which clearly establish the identity of Isai Vellalar as Sengunthar. Period. No matter how much you whine, the truth shall remain the same: Kaikolar are Isai Vellalar who have changed their name to Sengunthar in order to evade detection about them being Devadasis. Go read the references. The description of Kaikolars has been agreed upon by numerous historians and authors. No matter how much you try to manipulate and re-word the quotations from references, it is not going to help. The truth shall prevail. I suggest you take some time to read through references. Casper21 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you send all these proofs to Govt of India and modify the Gazette. Then we can combine the two castes. While we are at it, lets combine TondaiMandala saiva vellala and TondaiMandala Vellala. Saedirof 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

THONDAI-MANDALA SAIVA VELLALA ARE KONDAI-KATTI VELLALA

Based on the book by Irschick and the proofs given, it looks like THONDAI-MANDALA SAIVA VELLALA ARE KONDAI-KATTI VELLALA, one and same. THONDAI-MANDALA SAIVA VELLALA is fake.

However many times you may refer to incorrect proofs, the truth is you have no proof.

Isai Vellala are classified from Sengunthar separately, end of story. Saedirof 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Show one proof for THONDAI-MANDALA SAIVA VELLALA

Saedirof 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mudaliar Title

This is a dispute about what groups can use Mudaliar title and which group used the title first; who were the first settlers of TondaiMandalam; Proofs for existence of caste THONDAI-MANDALA SAIVA VELLALA; Caste distinction between IsaiVellala and Kaikolar.

This dispute involves user Saedirof and user Casper21.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

According to user Casper21,

• it is Thondai Mandala Saiva Vellala (TMSV) caste who were the first users of this title.

• it is Thondai Mandala Saiva Vellala (TMSV) caste were the feudal lords who conducted agricultural raids

• it is Thondai Mandala Saiva Vellala (TMSV) caste who were first vellalas settled in Thondai Mandalam by king KariKala Chola

• Kaikola caste are weavers who have no history before that.

• Kaikolar and Isai Vellalar are one and the same.

According to user Saedirof ,

• Clear proof is available that Mudali was a title that did not refer to a caste.

• There is no definite proof for which group is the first user of this title. If there is proof

available to the contrary, this will be withdrawn.

• The usage of this title refers to only officers intially and not castes.

• Kaikola caste used this title from 1100 AD. (Proof given)

• Kaikola caste were warriors forming many regiments in Chola army from 900 AD.(Proof given in the form of inscription)

• Caste called KondaiKatti Vellalas (KKV) also known as Thondai Mandala Vellala (TMV) were

the first group to be settled by King Adondai chola in Thondai Mandala. (Proof given in the form of British reports)

• The Kaikolar group and Isai Vellalar are separate castes and proof shown in the form of Government Gazette notification.

Saedirof 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Saedirof (talk · contribs) conducting a false survey by speaking for both sides

Saedirof (talk · contribs) very sleazily has been playing both sides for a while now. He is now speaking on my behalf in tis false survey. This is absolutely unacceptable. I do not concur with the comments made by Saedirof on my behalf. Why don't you just speak for yourself Saedirof? Casper21 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

REFERENCES PROVE THE IDENTITY OF ISAIVELLALAR/ KAIKOLAR ARE VERY MUCH SENGUNTHAR

Saedirof has been constantly vandalising the article using multiple socks as he is unable to accept the various references that prove that Isai Vellalar alias Kaikolar are Devadasis.

REFERENCE 1: ISAI VELLALAR ARE SENGUNTHAR

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory)

[21]

Quoted from book:

Isai Vellalas are none other than that section of Sengunthar Mudaliars or Kaikolars who were associated with the system of Devadasis

The above is a valid academic source that proves that Isai Vellalar are in fact Sengunthar.

REFERENCE 2: Vijaya Ramaswamy's reference proves IDENTITY OF KAIKOLAR DEVADASIS

This is the very same reference quoted by Saedirof which clealry proves the identity of Kaikoalr Devadasis. Saedirof keep manipulating or deleting these references from the article in order to push his POV for his own personal reasons.

Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982)[22]:

Text Quoted from article: At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king.

Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [23]:

This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)

Saedirof, Don't hide these references by cluttering the talk page. Let these references be in full view so that people can read and decide for themselves. The identity of Isai Vellalar has been established as Sengunthar beyond any doubt. Moreover other references clearly state facts about Kaikolar Devadasis. Why are you deleting/manipulating the academic references about Kaikolar? Looks like you're scared that people might read them and are trying to hide these facts. These are all academic references by well known historians and authors whereas you're just another anonymous user. So don't try deleting these references and pushing your POV. If you want to write trash, go create a blog. Casper21 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Saedirof

Isai Vellalar are Sengunthar, which is what the various references state. The user Saedirof and his puppets have been removing citations from many articles including this one. He should think twice before re-phrasing the quotes from the references. This is so obvious that it can be termed as vandalism. Moreover, he keeps beating around the bush as he clearly wants to hide the facts about Kaikola Devadasis and also goes onto question the authority of the citations. Raghav NS 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Raghav_NS and Casper21 on Mudali title and TondaiMandalaSaiva Vellala

Nowhere in the proofs given by the opposing side, it states that TondaiMandalaSaiva Vellala used the Mudali title first.

Infact, there is no proof for existense of TondaiMandalaSaiva Vellala.

All proofs refer to KondaiKatti Vellala

Saedirof 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REFERENCE FROM VIJAYA RAMASWAMY THAT MUDALI DID NOT REFER TO CASTE BUT A TITLE GIVEN BY THE KING

According to Vijaya Ramaswamy in

Artisans in Vijayanagar Society, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, 12 1985; vol. 22: pp. 417 - 444.

mudali in the 13th century referred to a title and not specific castes. People from all castes were awarded this title by the kings. Many Brahmins, Warriors, Poets and Sages were awarded this title in various countries.

Saedirof 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REFERENCE FROM Acyutamēnōn THAT MUDALI DID NOT REFER TO CASTE BUT A TITLE GIVEN BY THE KING

According to Si. Pi. Acyutamēnōn in 13th century even Jews were given Mudali title by the Maharajah of Cochin.

The Cochin State Manual http://books.google.com/books?id=X7UCAAAAMAAJ&q=jew+mudali&dq=jew+mudali&pgis=1[24]

Saedirof 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CLEVER SURREPTIOUS MISUSING OF REFERENCES RAISES DOUBT ABOUT POV and VANDALISM

All references gives for TondaiMandala Saiva Vellala refer only to TondaiMandala Vellala or KondaiKatti Vellala.

It raises reasonable doubt as to the existense of caste called TondaiMandala Saiva Vellala and strongly resembles POV and Vandalism.

Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: [25]

Order and Disorder in Colonial South India Eugene F. Irschick Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1989), pp. 59-492,http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X(1989)23%3A3%3C459%3AOADICS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

Lionel Place, 1799 East India Company Report, para. 59.

http://www.hindu.com/fr/2004/09/03/stories/2004090300780600.htm

Saedirof 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REWRITING OF STATEMENTS IN BOOKS TO SUPPORT POV

In the book, Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: [26],

Mudaliar is referred to as surname of all TondaiMandala Vellalas. It does not mean that only TondaiMandala Vellalas were using Mudali surname.

This has been rewritten to Mudaliar is referred to as surname of only TondaiMandala Vellalas.

There is definite difference in meaning between the two sentences for those who understand the nuances of the English language well.

Further there is no proof given that Mudali is originally the title of TondaiMandala Vellalas.

Saedirof 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Kaikolan musicians and devadasis are separate from Kaikolan soldiers and weavers

The seminal book Castes And Tribes Of Southern India By Edgar Thurston, K. Rangachari which forms the core reference for the many later books connecting Kaikolan and devadasis was published first in 1909.

In this book, the authors Edgar Thurston, K. Rangachari note on Page 39 the following quote from the book Journey through Mysore, Malabar and Canara by Francis Hamilton Buchanan, written in 1807. See link. [27]

They say,

Writing a century ago (1807) concerning the Kaikolan devadasis, Buchanan says that "these dancing women and their musicians now form a separate kind of caste;..."

So we can see that even in 1807 A.D, Kaikolan devadasis formed a separate kind of caste from the Kaikolan soldiers and weavers. This is a clear proof that Buchanan a foreigner to the Indian nation, has observed that Kaikolan devadasis form a separate caste as early as 1807 even though they have the similar sounding name.

Saedirof 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Goverment of Tamilnadu has classified Isai Vellalar in the Most Backward list and separate from Kaikolar/Sengunthar

Here are the references: IsaiVellalar - the spelling is Vellalar and not Vaelalar. http://www.tn.gov.in/department/mbclist.htm IsaiVellalar are a branch of Vellala otherwise why would the government accept it?

Kaikolar/Sengunthar http://www.tn.gov.in/department/bclist.htm

The Government of India is the final deciding authority on caste name and classification.

Saedirof 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NEED PROOF FOR EXISTENCE OF TONDAIMANDALA SAIVA VELLALA OR ELSE REMOVE THE SECTION

If there are no proofs FOR EXISTENCE OF TONDAIMANDALA SAIVA VELLALA then we should REMOVE THE SECTION OF TONDAIMANDALA SAIVA VELLALA

Saedirof 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SAEDIROF is wrong. ISAI VELLALAR ARE INDEED SENGUNTHAR

I agree that Isai Vellalar is just another name for the Sengunthar community. The references also prove this. Maruthavel 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ATLEAST ONE WOMAN FROM EVERY KAIKOLAR FAMILY WAS DEDICATED AS A DEVADASI: THE GAZETTE NEED NOT BE MODIFIED AS IT ALREADY MENTIONS ABOUT KAIKOLAR DEVADASIS

Saedirof seems to have missed it above. The gazette already talks about Kaikolar Devadasis.

Madras Gazetteer recognized by the Government of India: providing google link. follow link for full book. [28]

The above reference mentions clearly that:

ATLEAST ONE WOMAN FROM EVERY KAIKOLAR FAMILY WAS DEDICATED AS A DEVADASI

Maruthavel 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SAEDIROF IS LYING: VIJAYA RAMASWAMY'S REFERENCE CLEARLY PROVES THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE KAIKOLAR:AT LEAST ONE WOMAN IN EVERY KAIKOLAR HOUSEHOLD WAS, ACCORDING TO AGE_OLD TRADITION DEDICATED TO THE TEMPLE AS A DEVARADIYAR OR DEVADASI. THE DEVARADYAR ENJOYED SPECIAL PRIVELEGES IN THE DAYS OF THE VIJAYANAGAR EMPIRE AND WERE THE ONLY WOMEN PERMITTED A DIRECT AUDIENCE WITH THE KING.

The above was quoted from the following research article.

Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982)[29]:

This is the very same reference that Saedirof has mentioned. This clealry states the truth about Kaikolar Devadasis but Saedirof is manipulating and even hiding this fact. He has been deleting all these sections from the article.

Maruthavel 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ANOTHER REFERENCE FROM VIJAYA RAMASWAMY PROVES THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE KAIKOLAR CASTE:THIS RESERACH ARTICLE DESCRIBES HOW A KAIKOLAR DEVARADIYAR OR DEVADASI WON SPECIAL PRVILEGES FOR THE KAIKOLAR FROM THE KING DEVA RAYA II (A.D 1433)

Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [30]:

This article once again confirms the fact that there was only one Kaikolar caste. Saedirof is lying once again.

Maruthavel 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

POV PROPAGANDISTS ARE LYING WITH SOCKPUPPETS

GOVERNMENT states clearly Kaikolar and IsaiVellalar are two SEPARATE castes.

EDGAR THURSTON clearly quotes from Buchanan that the "these dancing women and their musicians now form a separate kind of caste;..."

IT has been very clearly shown that IsaiVellalar a branch of Vellala used Kaikolan name for social upliftment.

So all your references about Kaikolan devadasis are about IsaiVellalar.

Noted websites such as www.narthaki.com have clearly stated that Bharathanatyam was derived from the dance tradition of Isai Vellala of the devadasi system that you seem to be interested in so much.

IF THERE IS ONLY ONE KAIKOLAR CASTE, WHY WOULD EDGAR THURSTON IN 1907AD QUOTE FROM BUCHANAN IN 1805AD THAT THERE ARE TWO CASTES?

IF THERE ARE TWO CASTES IN 1800AD AND THERE ARE TWO CASTES NOW IN 2007 AD, WHY IS THERE CONFUSION THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE CASTE?

IS TRUE PURPOSE SCHOLARLY DISCUSSION OR PROPAGANDA AND SLANDERING?

Saedirof 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE TONDAIMANDALA SAIVA VELLALA SECTION UNTIL THERE IS SOME SOLID PROOF

PROOF NEEDED FOR EXISTENCE OF TONDAIMANDALA SAIVA VELLALA.

DONT YOU POV SOCKPUPPETS HAVE ANY PROOF ABOUT EXISTENCE OF TONDAIMANDALA SAIVA VELLALA ?

WE SHOULD DEFINITELY REMOVE THAT SECTION UNTIL THERE IS SOME SOLID PROOF.

PROOF NEEDED FOR MUDALI TITLE BEING ORIGINALLY USED BY TONDAIMANDALA VELLALA

ALSO REMOVE THE SECTION ABOUT MUDALI TITLE BEING ORIGINALLY USED BY TONDAIMANDALA VELLALA IF THERE IS NO PROOF.

Saedirof 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PROOF THAT MUDALI TITLE DID NOT REFER TO CASTE BY VIJAYA RAMASWAMY

PROOF THAT MUDALI TITLE DID NOT REFER TO A CASTE BY NOTED SCHOLAR VIJAYA RAMASWAMY SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE.

Saedirof 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NEW MUDALI GROUP NANJIL MUDALI NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF CASTES

NEW MUDALI GROUP NANJIL MUDALI NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF CASTES

[www.tn.gov.in/department/bclist.htm]

PROOFS NEEDED FOR ALL YOUR OTHER CLAIMS

TRY TO COME UP WITH PROOFS FOR ALL YOUR OTHER CLAIMS Saedirof 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isai Vellalar are part of Sengunthar

I strongly disagree with Saedirof. From the reference given above:

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory) [31]

Isai Vellalar are part of Sengunthar. The reference proves this point beyond any doubt. User Saedirof is quite wrong and also seems to be denying the reference itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RajivMahendran (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fake claim by Saedirof that Isai Vellala ar Vellala when in fact they are actually Sengunthar

Saedirof has been making a lot of fake claims. He has stated above that Isai Vellala are Vellala. This is absolutely false. He has provided no reference whatsoever to prove this, whereas the academic reference Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory) [32]

proves that Isai Vellala are in fact Sengunthar.

RajivMahendran 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Saedirof heavily manipulating references and making fake claims

Saedirof has been heavily pushing his point of view that there are two Kaikolar groups when in fact all references point to only one. On top of that he has been inserting invalid claims that all references about Kaikolar Devadasis are actually referring to isai Vellala. This is totally baseless. The references are about Kaikolar Devadasis and thats about it. I request Saedirof to keep his wild imagination to himself and stop making bodus claims.

RajivMahendran 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

IsaiVellala as devadasi

IsaiVellala are the section of Vellala following devadasi tradition from The Journal of Religion and Theatre, Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 2004 [33]

Saedirof 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isai Vellala are a branch of Vellala from www.saivaneri.org website

www.saivaneri.org [[34]] gives the list of Vellala Pillai and Isai Vellala are included in the list. If Sengunthar and Isai Vellala are the same, why not include Sengunthar also?

Saedirof 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NEED PROOF FOR ALL OTHER CLAIMS

Other than dissing Sengunthar, do you have any proof for all other grand claims made by your side of the argument? If so, add them here so that they can be evaluated.

Saedirof 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Malicious Edits by Saedirof

Saedirof is manufacturing statements and is attempting to delete all references about Kaikolar. All references show that Isai Vellalar are part of the Sengunthar whereas this user has deleted most of the references and has re-phrased sections to push his POV. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Reference proves that Isai Vellalar are Sengunthar. Period.

Saedirof has just deleted this reference to push his point of view. The reference proves that Isai Vellalar are a sections of Sengunthar. End of story.

Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory) [35]

There is absolutely no ambiguity here even though Saedirof has been repeatedly deleting this reference from the article.

More malicious edits by Saedirof

Saedirof has also deleted multiple references regarding Kaikolar. This is completely unscholarly conduct and will not be tolerated. This is just another attempt by Saedirof to push his opinion with out any backing. Shakti 25 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)