Talk:Musunuri Nayakas

Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas

Musunuri Nayakas are 14th century warrior kings of Shudra varna. In 14th century Kamma caste of Shudra varna is present as quoted by prominent 14th century brahmin poet Srinatha in his book "Bheemeswara Purana".

Prominent Historians views:

• Durga prasad told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.
• Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.
• Etukuri Balaram murthy told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.
• Bsl Hanumantha Rao told Musunuri Nayakas are Kammas.

These historians have extensively researched on caste of Musunuri nayakas and confirmed they are Kammas.

Inscriptional evidences:

• An inscription of Musunuri Gundaya in bapatla in guntur district (South indian inscriptions volume 4:page.146) mentions he belong to Chaturtha varna of Kammanadu.

Literary evidence

• Vedasara Ratnavali a book written by uppuluri ganapathi shastry in 1974 mentions musunuri nayakas as Kammas. Shastry is the descendant of Musunuri prolaya nayakas gifted agrahara brahmin family. Shastry clearly said his ancestors told that musunuri nayakas are Kammas. Shastry also told that he also have supporting ancient talapatras with their family to say musunuri nayakas are Kammas. Vedasara Ratnavali book was published in 1974 by annavaram devasthanam which was under the control of Velama caste zamindars.

All these evidences clearly point out that musunuri nayakas are Kammas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrun (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ventrun, you have been here long enough to know that you need to provide WP:Full citations. This is apparently a subject you care about. So, please spend the effort and provide enough information for us to make a judgement. If the books are online, please provide links. If not, please provide quotations. Until a consensus is reached, please retain the WP:STATUS QUO text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• The "insciptional evidence" and "literary evidence" that you mention are WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia cannot use PRIMARY sources. Please provide WP:SECONDARY sources, typically books/articles authored by academics and published by scholarly presses/journals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  dont use primary source but secondary source.

  Need to rethink. 2409:4070:2E98:3E55:0:0:7488:2A0D (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ventrun and Kautilya3 . I suggest that the status quo of mentioning that Andhra Historians think they are Kammas and Talbot, who is indeed an international scholar that I have become more familiar with, believes the castes haven't become formalized much latter. This way both historians have their POV heard, which is what Wikipedia aims for in topics that raise debate. This is what I was aiming for with my initial edit. I don't think it's appropriate to discount the Bheemeshwara Puranam nor the Andhra Historians. In the same breath, the view of Talbot should be notes and heard, unlike the previous version of the page. There is also a need to have regional historians because of a potential issue with Etic Research. It's a documented type of research in Psychology that results in research taking local applications and applying it more broadly. I am not saying that Talbot has engaged in that, but to balance out any potential likelihood that she may have, regional historians should have a say.--Vivek987270 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I also think the article, as it is right now, is one of good faith by Ventrun and Kautilya3. Let's leave it at that. --Vivek987270 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not going to work. What I have reinstated is a one-year old text. It has been ransacked bit by bit over the period by caste propagandists. I have since discovered that other pages have also been ransacked in the same way, e.g., Khammam Fort. So, the issues need to be settled now. This cannot go on for ever.

Please provide the full citations and/or quotations as I requested above. Without them, the content will be deleted. This is according to the Wikipedia verifiability policy, which is its most fundamental pillar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Malik Maqbul is another page where the caste propaganda seems to happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I Belong to the Musunuru Kappayya Family and I can confirm that we are Kammas, we were given the title Varma, so the names are like Ravi Varma, Raghu Varma, Madhu Varma..etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Varma.Smitha. (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Kaluvacheru grant

A lot of the information that historians are basing their conclusions on comes from the Kaluvacheru grant of Anithalli. This grant says that Kapaya Nayaka had 75 subordinates (which is a formulaic figure as per Cynthia Talbot). It also says that Prolaya Vema Reddi was one of these subordinates who became independent after the death of Kapaya Nayaka.

Both Somasekhara Sarma and Rama Rao recognize the problems with this narrative.

• Vema Reddi was an independent ruler in 1325 in Addanki, at the southern end of the original Guntur district (now in Ongole district).
• We don't have evidence of Musunuri Prolaya Nayaka's rule before 1330 (Pithapuram Vilasa grant), but it could have also been sometime around 1325 because he really started from Rekapalle.
• Kapaya Nayaka must have conquered Warangal soon after 1334. (See the Malik Maqbul page.)
• Between 1325 and 1345, Vema Reddi was expanding his kingdom, coming all the way to the Godavari river. He probably started expanding it soon after he established his rule, driving out the Muslim garrisons in the area, but he appears to have continued doing so even after Kapaya Nayaka took over Warangal. So, Vema Reddi was hardly a "subordinate chief" of Musunuris, he was a competitor.
• After the death of Kapaya Nayaka, all of East Godavari fell into the Reddi kingdom, so much so that a separate branch of the dynasty got established in Rajahmundry.

The Kaluvacheru was written in 1423, almost a century after the events. The fact that it misrepresents the timeline (moving Vema Reddi's independence to 1368 instead of 1325) badly damages its credibility. Either they got the whole hisory wrong, or they were wilfully misrepresenting it in order to make it appear as if the Reddis and Musunuris were allies. Kaluvacheru is apparently near Annavaram, at the eastern edge of East Godavari. If the people there had warm feelings for Musunuris, claiming that Reddis were their allies would be a political device. Or, perhaps, it merely meant that East Godavari began to be ruled by the Reddi kings after the death of Kapaya Nayaka. (Vema Reddi was dead by then, but the Kaluvacheru grant exhibits pretends otherwise.)

The Kaluvacheru grant has not yet been analysed using the standards of modern historical scholarship, which would take into account all these factors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Origins

The Origins section of the article has this line, "Andhra historians often state that Musunuri Nayaks belonged to the Kamma caste group". Some doubts regarding the veracity of the claims. 1. Who are these Andhra historians? The citation is to a single book by one Durga Prasad. Does the work have academic rigour or is it a work by an amateur historian? 2. The usage of the word "often" seems to imply that a large number of Andhra historians mention them as Kammas. But having just a single citation does not justify the word "often". If there are more, they should be properly cited. 3. If we are including the opinions of local historians for providing diverse and non-European POV, then it should include other Andhra historians with diverse views. As has been pointed out in the earlier posts by others, some Andhra historians ascribe Musunuri Nayaks to the Reddy or Kapu communities. Shouldn't those claims be mentioned in the article as well?Reo kwon (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Reo kwon Looking through past variations of the page, there were additional citations from various other historians besides Prasad that were included that attest to the claim that I have now reincluded. From my end, I know at least three of these sources are from history professors or scholars that are Telugus (Raghunadha Rao, BSL Hanumantha Rao, and Pramila Kasturi). With your last point, please feel free to include these any other modern (post-1950s) Andhra historians with appropriate attribution, page numbers, quote, and/or links to the location of the book. The overwhelming thought from this particular group of historians about the Musunuris is that they are Kammas. I am not aware of any credible historian that fits this group profile that argues otherwise. By LovSLif (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya

Kautilya3 I'm trying to discover what happened to the Chattopadhyaya reference, which is in the bibliography but not the list of citations. It was present at 16 June 2019 after some socking but seems to disappear with your edits on 17 June 2019 and I'm not sure why. Either the source needs to be removed from the bibliography or it needs to be used. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Some kind of oversight. I have in my files a draft where the Vilasa Grant has a separate section, but it is not complete yet.

I added some wording to the last section which might clarify the troublesome relationship between the Bahamanis and the Musunuris. Kapaya Nayaka seems to have initially regarded the Bahamanis as fellow rebels, who should be helped in order to thwart the Delhi Sultanate. But the Bahamanis had bigger ideas. They regarded themselves as the new "sultanate" of South India and the Musunuris as their underlings. Musunuris didn't accept this subordination, prompting the Bahamanis to make multiple military campaigns. The "gifting of the turquoise throne" signifies their eventual acceptance of the hierarchy.

It would appear that the Musunuris, as well as other the Andhra dynasties, failed to master the new military technologies of the Delhi Sultanate. Only the Bahamanis and Vijayanagara were able to do so. Control of the west coast was necessary as that is where the horses could be imported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I find the entire era in this region somewhat mystifying. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Delhi Sultanate was perceived as being made up of "foreigners" (turushkas and mlecchas). So the locals rose above their factional squabbles and united. But the same perception didn't work against the Bahamanis. Factionalism took over again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Musunuri Nayaks definitely Kamma caste. Sources Inscriptions 1.The Kaakateeya Inscription found in SangamJagarlamudi and Narasarao peta etc ..Clearly mentions Kammas belongs to vallutla gotra are Durjaya anvayas and Nayaks under Kaakateeyas.no other Kapu caste in Andhra had Vallutla gotra.only Kamma caste group had vallutla gotra in more than 200 sunames. Musinidri surname people rose to Kaakateeya highrarchy before Rudradeva one and they also claimed Durjayanvaya. Literary Evidences. 1. Rayavachakam indirectly description had some linking kamma clans of then Vijayanagar with the Prataparudra. 2.Gurizaala clan ruled from Ramagiri the contemporaries and allies of Musunuri are Kamma. 3.Manchikonda Clan ruled Manchikonda Are kamma 3.Velugoti vaari vamsavali had many instances of Kamma Rivalery. 4.Rajavahama vijayamu written by Kakumani Murthy kavi clearly mentions Kammas along with Velamas are not Just another Kapu caste,but military commanders specialised in War tactics. 4.Srinathakavi the 13 th century poet Also glorified Kamma Velama and Raacha as the Defenders of dharma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4070:2E98:3E55:0:0:7488:2A0D (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)