Talk:Balija/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Balija. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Article is incorrect and needs to be fully revamped

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

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

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

From: 122.178.250.71

---

Reply to 122.178.250.71

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krishna Deva Raya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I do.

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

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

User:203.197.53.116

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

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

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

=

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

Repeating Request

To Panel1:

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

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

Thankyou.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

To Panel1,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankyou.

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

---

Panel99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Panel1

Hello Panel1,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

@@@@@@@@@Panel99

Iam fine with POints 1 and 2 no issues

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

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

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

---Thanks

Arbitrary heading

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

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

Above write up by user RK78

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

Disambiguation page

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

"sub caste" section

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

References for Balija/Kapu/Telega Dynasties

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

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

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

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

Inline References Lacking

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

Lots of Lists

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

Revamping required

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

Varna

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

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

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

Confusing

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

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

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

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

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

Relation between Bunts and Balijas

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

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

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