Talk:Vanniyar

my opinion

• The largest community in Tamil Nadu is the Vanniyar Caste-wise census: An opportunity to rectify the injustice done to the Adi Dravidas (but this is not included in the article)
• There is a book about their origin in Tamil Nadu, the name of that book is Vanniyar Puranam.(but this is not included in the article).
• Kambar has written a book about the Vanniyar people in the book 'Silai Elupatu'.(but this is not included in the article).
• Other names:These are in the Most Backward Classes in the Tamil Nadu Government's reservation list. It also includes other names like Vanniya Kula Kshatriya, Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vanniya Gounder, Gounder or kandar, Padayatchi, Palli and Agni Kula Kshatriya.(but this is not included in the article).

But it is written line by line that these are Shudras, lower castes. English Wikipedia provides very accurate information about the Vanniyar people. I don't want to waste my time talking about this page anymore and I don't want to diminish my respect.. My thanks to all the admins..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath I have removed the POV tag as a consequence of this declaration. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

this article purposely written against vanniyar community and must be Wikipedia should remove the article. 2409:4072:6CBD:54BD:0:0:F0CA:4F09 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This article should be deleted as it is deliberately written against the Vanniyar community. This article contains completely false information. 2409:4072:6CBD:54BD:0:0:F0CA:4F09 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Legal-claiming user complaints

I have reviewed the text, prompted by a complaint made by a user dressed in legal language which led to their banning. Unfortunately, the user did not specify what details they found to be objectionable beyond generally stating the footnotes were one of them. Looking at the footnotes, I found a specific claim that the Vanniyars had "taken ownership" of an origin myth of descent from certain "fire races". This claim was not supported by the text so I rephrased it and added to the body, as there was no reason it needed to be a footnote.

As this is a caste-related article that documents a process of Sanskritisation, supported in the sources, I strongly suspect that the objection is to the fact we mention this process. However, given the fact I have found a misrepresentation of the source, I have not removed the tag. I will try and find a user with more expert knowledge to review the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I am fine with your edit to the article but IMO the previous version was not "a misrepresentation of the source" either. "Tak(ing) ownership of the Agnivanshi fire myth" is just another idiomatic way of saying that the community "laid claim to" or "linked themselves to" or "adopted" the agnivansha or agnikula (fire origin) myth in order to assert their kshatriya status. Again, replacing that wording with "assert descent from the "fire races" from which Kshatriyas frequently claim descent" is perfectly fine, and perhaps even preferable if it avoids any confusion or misreading; I just don't want to fuel the claims that the article was previously misrepresenting the cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue Your recent edit isn't an improvement on my original, in my opinion. It makes for close paraphrasing, it mis-spells kshatriya and it manages to use the word descent twice in a short sentence (assuming that I am reading the edit correctly on the app, which can be confusing). More, the "fire races" (Agnikula) are indeed a myth - it is the concept that some "supermen" among humans originate not by the usual scientifically-accepted evolutionary process but instead emerged fully-formed from flames.

Is it OK for me to revert? I see that Abecedare is sort-of OK with what you wrote but I'm rather less so, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling and added "also" to make it read more smoothly. The version prior to my edit was making a statement not found in the source that the Vanniyar were making an "attempt to take ownership" of the woo. If one "takes ownership" it strongly suggests that something is being removed from somebody else, and this is substantively different from the claim made in the source. Feel free to reword if you wish, but it should not be a footnote, or imply that this cast group is taking something away from another group to which they are not entitled.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue It still reads wrongly, with a clumsy two uses of "descent". And while your interpretation of "take ownership" is one, both myself & Abecedare interpret it otherwise. I'm not at all sure what the issue is with it being a footnote - it is a nonsense claim and can be treated as such.

You did say that you would seek advice from people more informed in caste matters. That would be me and, very probably, Abecedare. I'm going to have a think but my gut says right now that you have tweaked for tweaking's sake and possibly without a full understanding. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the "also" which you added is effectively tautology. The Vanniyars were claiming Kshatriya status, which means that they must be descended (in their eyes) from one of three mythological origins - all Kshatriya claim one or other of these origins (fire, sun, lunar).

I've fixed the kshtriya typo. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok per your comments, I have rephrased so that it matches the source. There is no mention in the source of "taking ownership" of the myth. The exact text is this Instead of giving the old name, Palli, many were beginning to refer to themselves as the Agnikula Kshatriyas or Vannikula Kshatriyas (that is Kashatriyas of the fire race). And: Oral histories simultaneously were stressing descent from the traditional "fire races" which Kshatrityas both north and south often claim as ancestors.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue "Taking ownership" means "embracing" an identity. Furthermore, regardless of what that specific source says, if you were actually familiar with the sources generally you would know that your latest attempt to "improve" the article has yet again made it worse: it wasn't just oral histories which claimed the kshatriya connection but also written histories, and one book in particular which became something of a bible-like text for those seeking to glorify the caste. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue "... descent from the mythical "fire races", whom the Kshatriya claimed as ancestors" is not correct. I thought I had made this clear before but perhaps not: only some Kshatriya claim an Agnivansh origin. There is a reason why a familiarity with a whole range of sources and concepts produces better articles than a slavish reliance on one. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so you would want to add sources that say that. Currently, the only source for the statement relating to fire races says exactly what our article does. The only edit justified by our source would be to add "northern and southern" before Kshatriya. Do I need to remind you of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

As for "taking ownership", in this case it is not great English, and I have never seen it used for the adoption of a cultural belief. It reads as if another point is being made. If you wished to use "adopted" I would have no objection, but again, we must bear in mind what the sources say.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Or also "often" or a synonym.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue All I want is for you to stop messing up this article with poor edits. The original statement, prior to your arrival here, was fine, not synthesis/OR and not a misrepresentation, despite your accusation. Abecedare told you this and I told you it also but you are in IDHT mode. Are you aware of the Arbcom sanctions regime in this topic area? - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue Try reading p 50 of the Rudolph source which you are citing. That mentions two written histories by one guy. How many more errors are you going to make in attempting to "fix" something that didn't need fixing? - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of the requirements for editing in contentious areas, are you suggesting I am breaching them in some way? I would have thought supporting edits with sources was even more important in these cases.

Page 50 describes two books which claim Vanniyar descent from the Pallava dynasty, the source does not claim that the books by the Palli lawyer assert descent from the fire races. The Pallava claim is already in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue The crux here is the claim to Kshatriya status, not which Kshatriya dynastic origin myth they claimed. If you knew anything about caste issues, you would realise this - no caste has ever fought about which origin dynasty they claim, only about whether or not they are this or that varna (brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra). You said you would check with an expert - that's me. Feel free to find another but as things stand, I am going to be reverting this mess unless someone other than you objects. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't appeal to a higher truth outside of the source which supports a claim. This is a basic tenet of wikipedia. The source simply does not say what you want it to.

In any case, you are entirely within your rights to revert to the established version as there is no consensus for what I added. Afterwards I will try another bold edit to see if we can resolve this. If that doesn't meet your approval, I will add a failed verification tag to the footnote, as you have provided no evidence from the source to support the claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue No. Propose your bold edit now and save us all some time. Whilst you are correct about the pre-eminence of sources, there are ways to use them which better reflect the wider topic area. It is that which you clearly do not understand and because of the lack of understanding you are making statements which, outside of the specific source microcosm, are nonsensical. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and don't you dare tag me if I revert. I'm not the only one who thinks that the original statement was not a misrepresentation, as you claimed. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I feel that given your very emotional tone, reliance on arguments based on WP:TRUTH and the very strong indications of WP:OWN, you have no interest in substantially discussing this topic based on the content of the sources. The bold edit will likely be the basis of an RfC, and I will not be making any complaint against you based on grounds of edit-warring when you revert it. However, I will add failed verification tags, as indicated above, if you revert to the unsourced text. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to revise ‘lower caste’ description for historical accuracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The current article oversimplifies the social status of the Vanniyar community by referring to them as a “lower caste.” While a majority were historically engaged in agriculture, this overlooks the significant number of Vanniyars who held positions of power, particularly as chieftains, poligars (feudal lords), and military leaders during the Vijayanagara and Nayak periods. Notably, the Sambuvaraya dynasty — linked to the Vanniyars — ruled parts of northern Tamil Nadu in the 13th–14th centuries. Several Vanniyar poligars were influential during colonial resistance movements. Such historical roles challenge the one-dimensional classification as “lower caste,” which seems to be based primarily on colonial ethnographies rather than a full account of their socio-political history. I suggest revising the wording to reflect this diversity of roles and status across time periods, and incorporating reliable historical sources to support a more nuanced account.

Sources can include works like Burton Stein’s “Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India” and K.A. Nilakanta Sastri’s histories of South India. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Vanniyar classification needs historical context and nuance; Clarifying socio-political diversity of Vanniyar community

Historical Status and Role of the Vanniyar Community

The Vanniyar community has a rich and diverse history that transcends simple classification as a “lower caste” community. While some segments of the community were traditionally engaged in agriculture, it is important to acknowledge the significant role that many Vanniyars played as warriors, chieftains, and military leaders throughout history, particularly during the medieval period.

Chieftains and Poligars

The Vanniyars have long been associated with feudal roles in Tamil Nadu, particularly as poligars (feudal lords) and military leaders. Many Vanniyar families governed regions and played key roles in local administration, defense, and regional politics. Some of the prominent Vanniyar chiefs belonged to the Sambuvaraya dynasty, which ruled parts of northern Tamil Nadu during the 13th and 14th centuries. The Sambuvarayas were powerful feudatories under the Cholas and later the Vijayanagara Empire, recognized for their military prowess.

During the Nayak period (16th-17th centuries), several Vanniyar families held significant positions as poligars, managing territories and defending against invaders, including the British during the Poligar Wars of the 18th century. These military and administrative roles were crucial in maintaining local power structures and resisting colonial forces.

Sanskritisation and Caste Reclassification

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Vanniyars sought to enhance their social status through Sanskritisation, adopting practices, customs, and titles traditionally associated with the Kshatriya (warrior) varna. They began to emphasize their warrior heritage and claim descent from the Agnikula Kshatriyas—a legendary group of warrior clans in Hindu tradition. This effort to reframe their identity resulted in the community adopting the title of “Vanniyakula Kshatriyas.”

Colonial and Post-Independence Classification

Under British colonial rule, communities in India were often categorized based on their occupations rather than their political or military roles. As a result, many Vanniyars were classified as part of the Shudra varna, associated with agricultural and manual labor, which led to them being perceived as part of the “lower castes.” However, this classification ignored the elite segments of the community that had held power and prestige for centuries.

In post-independence India, the Vanniyar community was initially recognized as part of the Backward Classes (BC) in Tamil Nadu, reflecting their socio-economic status. Following the Vanniyar reservation agitations of the 1980s, the community was later classified as Most Backward Class (MBC) in 1989, which provided them with access to affirmative action benefits in education and employment.

Conclusion

The Vanniyar community’s history cannot be reduced to a simple “lower caste” classification. Their role as warriors, chieftains, and poligars in medieval Tamil society illustrates their significant political and military contributions. While many were involved in agricultural occupations, this does not fully capture their historical and socio-political influence. Their efforts to elevate their caste status through Sanskritisation reflect a broader trend among communities in South India seeking recognition for their historical achievements.

Suggested Sources:

• Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India
• K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India
• S. Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of the Vijayanagara Empire
• V. Kanakasabhai, The History of the Sivaganga Poligars (for insights into the Vanniyar role in the Poligar Wars)

Mr.nobody777 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777: Please specify:

• The exact change you are proposing to make to the article,
• Along with the complete bibliographical information for the sources (including publisher, year, page number and, ideally, link and quotes) supporting the change

Fwiw, I could not even locate the works by Sanjay Subrahmanyam and V. Kanakasabhai you are referring to although I don't know whether that is due to the missing source information or because they are LLM hallucinations. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare: download link 👉Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India. --Gowtham Sampath (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Padaiadchier (padaiyatchiyar) were armed men and formed the military class.Source--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Gowtham Sampath That 120 year old book is not a useful source for anything related to this article, and hadn't the concerns about Vanniyar being both warriors and peasants already been addressed in the above discussion and by Sitush's recent edits?

Unless Mr.nobody777 (or, anyone else) can specify what exact book/chapter/article S. Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of the Vijayanagara Empire and V. Kanakasabhai, The History of the Sivaganga Poligars refer too, we can close this discussion section as an LLM-generated distraction from efforts to improve the article. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Sources with Full Citations

1. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar
   • Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1976 (4th ed.)
   • ISBN: 9780195606867
   • Page: 232, 234
   • Quote: “The Sambuvarayas were important feudatories of the Cholas and later emerged as rulers in their own right. They controlled territory in northern Tamil Nadu and had a long-standing presence in the region.”
   • Link (Google Books)
3. Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India
   • Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1980
   • ISBN: 9780195610659
   • Page: 276
   • Quote: “The poligar system was widely prevalent in Tamil Nadu during the Vijayanagara and Nayak periods… Among those who occupied such roles were the Vanniyars, whose influence in northern Tamil Nadu was significant.”
   • Link (Google Books)
5. Dirks, Nicholas B., The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom
   • Publisher: University of Michigan Press, 1993
   • ISBN: 9780472064345
   • Page: 154
   • Quote: “The Vanniyars, despite being largely cultivators, were also poligars in several districts and held considerable military power in pre-colonial Tamil society.”
   • Link (Google Books)

Mr.nobody777 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the other two? Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Which two?? Mr.nobody777 (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The other two sources you listed in the original comment, and which I have asked twice about above, namely:

• S. Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of the Vijayanagara Empire
• V. Kanakasabhai, The History of the Sivaganga Poligars

Btw, I checked the information you provided in the recent update and all the google book links are incorrect and the supposed quotes from Sastri and Stein don't appear on the listed pages or anywhere else in the respective works (I didn't bother checking the Dirks reference after that). Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare I have Dirks here. It is Cambridge University Press 1987, not Michigan 1993 (which is a common error). The cited page doesn't even mention the Vanniyars. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 Please do not use LLM AI for research and don't expect anyone else to check what it says for you. The accuracy of results is often very poor and far too often is completely wrong. If you cannot be bothered reading the sources properly then it is probably best that you move on from Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

My intention was to contribute meaningfully to the representation of historical communities like the Vanniyars, whose roles in Tamil history I believe are sometimes underrepresented or misunderstood. Going forward, I’ll focus on sourcing information directly from published academic texts, archives, or publicly accessible historical sources. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppilla Mazhavaraayas of Ariyalur – Vanniyar Poligars

The Oppilla Mazhavaraayas served as poligars (palaiyakkarars) of Ariyalur and were distinct from the Mazhavaraya clan associated with the Cholas. Their original title was Nayanar, and their leader was awarded the title Ranavijaya Oppilla Mazhavaraya by a ruler of the Vijayanagara Kingdom for military achievements. Notably, the Zamindar of Ariyalur belonged to the Palli or Vanniyar caste.

Source:

Mazhavaraayas - Wikipedia

what’s your say on this?? Mr.nobody777 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 Wikipedia isn’t reliable. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we’re in a strange position. You’re trying to defend the Wikipedia page about the Vanniyar caste, but when I provide another Wikipedia page with citations as a source, you say it’s not reliable. That would make the current page unreliable as well. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 Wikipedia isn't reliable in part because people like you contribute to it using useless so-called sources and statements, as you did above. There are lots of people like you, so lots of articles are affected. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you speaking so rudely? This is a discussion page, and we should be having a healthy, respectful conversation. I’m not being offensive—I’m simply presenting my points. If I’m wrong, you’re free to point it out constructively. There’s no need for offensive remarks; they only create conflict instead of helping solve the issue. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 I am addressing your points. Even the statement you quoted mentioned said one guy was "notably" a Vanniyar, implying that the status was unusual for Vanniyars. Since this article concerns the community as a whole, most of whom never amounted to anything more than hand-to-mouth peasantry for many centuries, we aren't going to make a big fuss about the exception to a rule - as the saying goes, one swallow doesn't make a summer (Aristotle, I think?). Your purported "issue" is not in fact an issue. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Addressing points is one thing. But “ people like you contribute to it using useless so-called sources and statements, as you did above. There are lots of people like you, so lots of articles are affected.” This is a offensive statement. I hope you understand. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 I don't understand. It was factually accurate, which is something all contributors here should aspire to. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Every contributor aspires for the factual accuracy. No wrong in that, but does that mean you can be offensive. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You’ve contributed a lot to the wiki community, and I appreciate that. When new contributors like me join, please try to be constructive with us. That’s what helps move us, the community, and society in a positive direction. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 I wasn't offensive but we're drifting off topic here. I have been working on caste-related Wikipedia articles for about 18 years and it becomes wearisome seeing people (often the same people, using different accounts) constantly try to glorify their lowly socio-economic-religious position. If all these people were right, every caste group in India comprised rulers and warriors, whilst no-one farmed, cleaned the streets, prepared meat, worked as labourers etc. It is laughable, just as people in the UK would be laughed at if they all claimed to be historically akin to King Charles III.

Take the time to discover how Wikipedia aspires to have its articles researched and presented and remember that it is a voluntary project, so you should be mindful of the time being spent by other people in addressing whatever you might say. My top tip: until you have some familiarity, avoid caste stuff because it tends to be a minefield and a quick way to get blocked from contributing at all.

This is a blunt response but not, in my opinion, rude. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand that caste-related topics can be sensitive and often misused, and I appreciate your long-term commitment to maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. However, I’d like to offer a broader perspective. Over the course of India’s long and complex history, power dynamics have shifted repeatedly. Many clans and communities that may today be classified as lower in the socio-economic hierarchy did, at different points, hold regional or military power. The subcontinent has seen countless local kingdoms, chieftaincies, and armed groups rise and fall. To generalize or dismiss all such historical claims as glorification risks oversimplifying a very layered and fluid social structure. While I agree that all claims should be backed by reliable sources, I believe it’s important to approach historical diversity with openness, not mockery. Constructive dialogue and rigorous sourcing should be the focus—not presumption or discouragement. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small correction on Palli Page

@ User: Elowa Hi, please capitalise Palli and Parayars in your latest edit on Vanniyar Wikipedia page 49.36.108.62 (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please remove the image Vanniyars celebrating Pongal

The image was taken from the book called "Castes_and_Tribes_of_Southern_India", that book was mentioned as not a reliable source, so I want the senior editors who have access to edit to remove that image. Worldmonk (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)--Worldmonk (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)