Talk:Nair Brigade

File:Shah-alam-6.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shah-alam-6.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nair Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312081154/http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april15-04/body.html to http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april15-04/body.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312081154/http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april15-04/body.html to http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april15-04/body.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216022421/http://www.localgovkerala.net/lsgd-links/Committee/1Adminrpt1958.asp?intID=1 to http://www.localgovkerala.net/lsgd-links/Committee/1Adminrpt1958.asp?intId=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216022421/http://www.localgovkerala.net/lsgd-links/Committee/1Adminrpt1958.asp?intID=1 to http://www.localgovkerala.net/lsgd-links/Committee/1Adminrpt1958.asp?intId=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Absurd (Misinterpretation of Sources)

Pinging @Kjrajesh:

For me, it appeared the last revision of the article was moreover like a facebook story and here are my findings after checking the sources

These are the two references given to claim the participation of the Channar army in the Travancore

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.47735/page/n435/mode/2up?q

https://archive.org/details/nayarbrigadeoftr00madr/page/n9/mode/2up

None of these sources covers the term "Channar army" but only a statement on page 395 Castes And Tribes Of Southern India Vol. 2, "Channan, a corruption of the Tamil word, Chanror or chiefmen, is the most important of the titles of the Izhavas. This title was conferred upon distinguished members of the caste as a family honour by some of the ancient sovereigns of the country".

Madras Presidency records Page 1 stated The earliest record we have of the strength and composition of the Military Forces of Travancore dates from about the year 1757. There was then an army of 30,000 Nayars (10,000 regular and 20,000 irregular infantry). In the year 1780 it consisted of about 50,000 men disciplined, according to European manner ; in addition the State could command "in times of need" 100,000 Nayars and Chogas, armed with bows, arrows, spears, swords and battle axes. It is clearly mentioned those 100,000 Nayars & Chogas were reserved troops only to be used in times needy. (Formed in the year 1780).

For the Carnatic Brigade, the source said A portion of the army was known as the Carnatic Brigade. Its origin is uncertain. It would appear from the treaty of 1795 that the Travancore army did not consist of Nayars only, but contained also men from the Eastern side of the Ghauts. Whether the Carnatic Brigade took its name from the presence of these men, or whether it was a remnant of a force sent by the Nawab of the Carnatic to assist Travancore during internal troubles, is not known. By the treaty of 1795 the Travancore troops were bound to aid the East India Company in its wars, and a portion of the Travancore army was employed with the British troops in Lord Cornwallis’ operations against Tippoo Sultan. In article (In 1818, these left out Nair army was renamed as Nair Brigade, till then this army was known as Carnatic Brigade).

The name was Travancore Army itself, only a portion of the troop known by the Carnatic brigade as there are sources that the Maharaja was assisted even by the pashtuns. It is totally absurd to claim the troops sent by the Nawab of Carnatic were channars, even by the name Carnatic.

For Veluthampi, The Rajah, alarmed at the near approach of the British troops, hastened to tender his submission to the British Resident. The Dewan fled to the jungles, and, being pursued from place to place, was eventually put to death by his brother, or, as some say, committed suicide to avoid capture. But in article, it is said (Velu Thampi Dhalava dismissed Channar army from his Travancore army, during the period 1800 - 1808.From then onwards Travancore had only Nair army. This was a huge mistake done by Velu Thampi Dhalawa because British army took help from these Channar soldiers to finally kill Velu Thampi Dhalava.)R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 09:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

From: @Kjrajesh:

Chogas or Chovan or Chekavar are Ezhavas. Channars are Ezhavas. This clearly staes that Channar army is Ezhava army or Chekavar army.

You say "It is totally absurd to claim the troops sent by the Nawab of Carnatic were channars, even by the name Carnatic.", but who said Carnatic army is channar army? Channar/Ezhava/Chekava army is different Carnatic army is different.

For Veluthampi, He dismissed the Channar army during the period 1800 - 1808, but he fled to the jungle during the period 1809.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Kindly read this government employment newsit states that The Travancore force consisting of Nayars, Ezhavas, Maravas and Paravans numbering more than 300 each, destroyed all that remained inside the Kulachal fort. . It clearly states "The Travancore force consisting of Nayars, Ezhavas, Maravas and Paravans numbering more than 300 each, destroyed all that remained inside the Kulachal fort." as you know Kulacal war was held in 1741. Channar's are Ezhavas. Ezhava army is called Channar army. ref: http://employmentnews.gov.in/newemp/MoreContentNew.aspx?n=SpecialContent&k=90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The thing is that the term Channar army is alien to both sources presented here and the statements that Marthanda seek help of the Channar army to defeat Ettu Vettil Pillamar's and the death of Veluthampi were misinterpretations. Violates the policy WP:STICKTOSOURCE WP:OR WP:COI

The Edgar Source Page 393 and 394 speaks about the Kingdom of Purakkad that the King has not had many Nayars in service but served by Chegos instead. The Panikkans of Ambanat house in the Ambalapuzha taluk were the leaders of the Izhava force, and many powers and privileges were conferred upon this family by the Chembakasseri (Ambalapuzha) princes. Even so late as the days of Maharaja Rama Verma, who died in 973 M.E., large numbers of Izhavas were employed as soldiers* of the State, if we may believe the account of Friar Bartolomeo,*

The kingdom of purakkad was annexed to Travancore by Marthandavarama in 1746 after the colachel war happened in 1741. The Rajah became his ally. (A Sreedharamenon 164). It doesn't mean they were a part of the Travancore forces but a local force. If they were why did they keep the name Nair Brigade intact?. Even in the main article, it is mentioned In the early years, only Nairs were admitted into this brigade. Later, the unit was expanded and several sub-units were formed. The name Nair Brigade remained unchanged, even following the admittance of non-Nairs'Robin Jeffrey. Not only chegos but Maravas,Christians, Muhammadans and even Pashtuns were in service. [Menon, P. Shungoony].

There is no such statement on both the sources presented that Veluthampi dismissed the channar army in 1800-1809. Definitely Violates the Wikipedia No original research policy by misinterpreting sources. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't find any other published works from the employment news author Prof. T.P.Sankarankutty Nair apart from the Malayalam work about Veluthampi Dalawa.The author has to quote the book/journal-title from where he has taken the reference from. Fails WP:RS WP:V. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 10:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You are trying to mystify the readers. The word Carnatic absolutely means the old Mysore kingdom.It has nothing to do with Malabar or Travancore. The title Channan/ Channar was rarely used by ezhavas. But it's commonly used by the palm toddy tappers called nadars. You can refer the channar lahala/ marumarakkal lahala/ upper cloth revolt. There are no such words channar army or channar regiment in any of the domestic or foreign references or history records. So you are willingly misleading readers by quoting the term channar army and in amblppuzha tluk there were ezhava panikkers only.The mathur pnikker himself was a nair and many other nair pankker families in amblappuzha taluk.````— Preceding unsigned comment added by

Reply from @kj_rajesh

When you say "The thing is that the term Channar army is alien to both sources presented here", yes it is correct, but Channar have a link to another Wiki page where you can see who Channar is also I have given another link to a book in which it is clearly stating Channar is Ezhava. so Ezhava Army means Channar army.

This is not the way of citing an article. I do agree the Edgar source say Channar is the title awarded to Ezhavas but there is no scope here to make an army called Channar/Ezhava army. I'll make it simple for you. In the article, it is written Marthandavarma used the Channar army to defeat Ettuveetil pillamar and is not in the source, the same happened to the statement about Veluthampi that he dismissed the Channar army in 1809 and the British army with the help of the latter killed Velu Thambi. We cannot create something by reading in between the lines. Hope it is clear to you. WP:STICKTOSOURCE Write what the source says also do remember to sign after closing your comments. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 08:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply:

Kindly read the book A Social History of India By Dr. S. N. Sadasivan Page number: 704. https://books.google.ae/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=snippet&q=marthanda&f=false

^{kj_rajesh@talk}

I've been searching all over the Internet and the archives about the S.N Sadasivan statement about Veluthambi and the part of Chegos along with Marthandavarma in annihilating the power of the Nobles of Ettuveetil and I got something different from the earliest records of Travancore Written by Sankunny Menon and Nagam V. Ayya. Modern historians and authors are most likely to specify the accounts of statements that they would mention in their Journals/Books. In the case of S.N, it was found empty even though he is not the primary source he should substantiate his statements with the support of a secondary source, probably some books about early Travancore records or the Madras Government records. There are so many threads of past discussions in Wikipedia itself about the infidelity of S.N in the work of The Social History Of India and can be checked here [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Do remember he is the creator behind the unfounded term PULASYAM and can be found in archives. And this should be the reason his opinions/citations are pulled out from sensitive topics like Nair and Ezhava. Participation of Marava troops and Nairs in the demolition of Ettuveetil nobility can be checked on the above mentioned sources. Even if we consider S.N it is factually erroneous while comparing with the Madras presidential records as the 100,000 Nayar and Choga reserved troops formed in the year 1780 and the demolition of Ettuvettil power happened even before the Dutch Colachel war of 1741. S.N states marthandavarma seek help from also chogas of chempakassery kingdom (Purakkad) which was annexed to Travancore only in the year 1747 whom he used liberally for exterminating his foes, particularly the Ettuveetil. We don't know how he made a treaty with those chogas of purakkad, an enemy state before the annexation of the state to Travancore. R.C^{Outlander07@talk}