Talk:Iyengar

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iyengar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016165014/http://chennaionline.com:80/columns/DownMemoryLane/diary156.asp to http://chennaionline.com/columns/DownMemoryLane/diary156.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060715062207/http://www.chennaionline.com:80/columns/DownMemoryLane/diary159.asp to http://chennaionline.com/columns/DownMemoryLane/diary159.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iyengar. 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://archive.is/20120918002111/http://www.tehelka.com/story_main17.asp?filename=Ne042206superiority.asp to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main17.asp?filename=Ne042206superiority.asp

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) 06:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

status column for telaga caste

Someone kindly take a minute to add useful and interesting content to Telaga caste, Kapu caste, balija caste pages

Use the link - http://www.kapusangam.com/history.php

Also, Telaga caste is Forward caste. Mention it in the right column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.107 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Related Ethnic Groups section

A response to User:Drusekoana with citations and a better worded answer than previously.

Clarification on “Tamil people” as a Related Ethnic Group for this Article

A note for consideration of the article's overall accuracy: Re-assessing the inclusion of “Tamil people” in the Related Ethnic Groups field

I’d like to bring up the categorization of Iyengars under the ethnic label “Tamil people.” While Iyengars are Tamil-speaking, the assumption that they are part of a unified “Tamil ethnic group” is highly debatable and, in this case, misleading.

Linguistic ≠ Ethnic Identity

The classification of “Tamil” as an ethnic group is problematic. As noted by leading Dravidian linguist Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, the term “Dravidian”, and by extension “Tamil”, denotes a linguistic family, not a racial or ethnocultural identity:

“It is clear that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are not racial terms.”

(Krishnamurti 2003, citing Cavalli-Sforza, Chapter 15)

Simply speaking Tamil does not immediately indicate shared ancestry, religion, or cultural identity; especially in the case of Tamil Brahmin groups like the Iyengars, whose customs, rituals, and worldviews are derived from a Sanskritic-Vedic tradition.

Though there is a unified Tamil cultural grouping overall, Brahmins are one group that do not fall into it. I will be expanding on how and why this is the case below.

Brahmin Culture Originated in Indo-Aryan, Not Dravidian, Traditions

Brahmins, including the Iyengars, trace their cultural and ritual lineage to Indo-Aryan traditions, not native Dravidian systems. Krishnamurti observes:

“By the time of Katyayana (300 BC) and Patanjali (100 BC), the first language of the Brahmins was Prakrit, while Sanskrit was confined to ritual purposes.”

(Krishnamurti 2003, Chapter 2)

Iyengars are thus part of a historical Brahminical tradition with deep pan-Indian liturgical roots, linked by sacred texts and rituals that long predate their adoption of Tamil for regional use. Their Vaishnava religious identity and Manipravala literary output (a Sanskrit-Tamil hybrid style) reflect this:

“A new style called Manipravala... a harmonious blend of native language and Sanskrit.”

(Ibid)

Tamil Nationalist Movements Clearly Distinguish Non-Brahmin Tamil Identity

The early 20th-century Tamil purist movement arose explicitly in reaction to Brahmin dominance and the perceived “foreignness” of Sanskrit:

“[The movement] was against the rise of Brahmins and Brahminism with whom the spread of Sanskrit was associated.”

(Ibid, Chapter 15)

This resistance further highlights the cultural distance between Tamil Brahmins and the broader Tamil-speaking population. Iyengars, with their distinct rituals, caste identity, and religious systems, are not seen (historically or culturally) as representative of “Tamil people” in the ethnonational sense.

Pre-Brahmin Tamil Identity and Culture Are Distinct

Tamil culture long predates Brahmin presence, as evidenced by the Tolkappiyam and early Tamil Sangam literature. The distinctiveness of Tamil identity, in art, religion, and social structure, is well documented and notably excludes Brahminical forms:

“Tamil performing arts include Koothu, Bommalattam... religious practices include veneration of village deities and ancient Tamil gods.”

"Dravidian folk religion refers to the presumed indigenous traditions of the Tamils, believed to have been practiced before significant Indo-Aryan cultural influence. These traditions likely included ancestor worship, nature veneration, and village deities, some of which persisted and merged with later Hindu practices."

Quotes directly taken from the official Wikipedia article regarding the topic, cited sources are mentioned there:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamils)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_folk_religion)

Such practices are not typical among Tamil Brahmins, who adhere to Smarta or Srivaishnava traditions based on pan-Indian texts, culture, and Vedic authority.

In contrast to this, if we look at the origins of the philosophical corpus associated with the Iyengars in question we see a starkly different picture:

The tradition traces its roots to the ancient Vedas and Pancharatra texts, popularised by the Alvars and their canon, the Naalayira Divya Prabandham.

The tradition traces its roots to the primordial start of the world through Vishnu, and to the texts of Vedic era with both Sri and Vishnu found in ancient texts of the 1st millennium BCE particularly to the Puranas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita.

The historical basis of Sri Vaishnavism is in the syncretism of two developments. The first is Sanskrit traditions found in ancient texts such as the Vedas and the Agama (Pancaratra), and the second is the Tamil traditions found in early medieval texts (Tamil Prabandham)[18] and practices such as the emotional songs and music of Alvars that expressed spiritual ideas, ethics and loving devotion to god Vishnu.[19][8][9] The Sanskrit traditions likely represent the ideas shared in ancient times, from the Ganges river plains of the northern Indian subcontinent, while the Tamil traditions likely have roots in the Kaveri river plains of southern India, particularly what in modern times are the coastal Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu region.[20]

Quotes directly taken from the official Wikipedia article regarding the topic, cited sources are mentioned there:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vaishnavism)

So in conclusion, for factual accuracy and consistency with scholarly sources, I recommend the following:

Removing “Tamil people” from the “Related ethnic groups” field.

As a more informative and accurate placement I would recommend replacing it with a descriptor such as “Other Brahmin communities” however the core of my argument was revolving around the misrepresentation rather than potential additions.

This categorization neatly avoids confusion between language-based affiliation (Tamil) and ethno-cultural identity (Brahmin, Iyengar), and philosophical identity (Sri Vaishnavism/Vishishtadvaita) which are not interchangeable.

Iyengars are rightly noted as Tamil-speaking (reflected accurately in the “language” field), but ethnicity, as defined similarly to Western contexts, is problematic, particularly in the Indian context, where it cannot work without inherent bias. In many cases, their community-based, cultural grouping (Iyengar Brahmin) is ignored and lumped under a regional/linguistic label under an “ethnicity” tag which, as established above, is misleading.

To clarify, none of this is politically driven. This is a very important matter to bring up, as the ethnic affiliations that are stated should be correctly representing a group. A user had previously suggested I had only questioned Brahmins and not Tamil Upper Castes. However, Tamil Upper Castes, along with all other non Brahmin groups of Tamil Nadu (excluding certain communities for example Saurashtras whose Tamil language affinity as well as distinctive cultural affinity are both acknowledged simultaneously; which is the exact same case as being brought up by me here for Tamil Brahmins) traditionally partake in the mentioned Tamil ethnic and cultural activities and have historically coexisted with other Tamils. While Tamil Brahmins led isolated lifestyles with distinctive culture shared with Brahmins of other regions, as a much more tightly knit, priestly community, in their own villages outside of the main city.

This is not to isolate or bash Tamil Brahmins at all. This is about representing their identity accurately and completely, instead of diluting it with modern, post-colonial linguistic chauvinism, which is a common but misleading projection as an ethnic marker.

Looking forward to some positive responses and any clarifications from other users.

Thank you.

Temporary 1010 Temporary 1010 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The Agraharam, although historically mentioned in much of India (including Kashmir and neighboring areas that some politicized Dravidians today perceive as a preserve of the Aryan race), are clearly a South Indian specificity. Some historians (yes, if you give me a little time, I can find you references for this “some”) even see this as a - small - contributing factor to the regional character of the anti-Brahmin movement in India (found chiefly in the south, in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra). In northern India, Brahmins live mainly among other communities in the non-dalit village. This is the model of village organization evoked by some anthropoligists (yes, some): caste village and Dalit hamlet in northern India, agraharam, non-Brahmin village and Dalit hamlet in many parts of southern India. Even the concept of agraharam, as you present it, can be questioned in Tamil Nadu, as it is less relevant in the city (ancient cities divided along caste and other community lines, with agraharams nestled among many other caste neighborhoods) than in rural areas (even there, agraharams only exist where Brahmins are numerous, when they are a tiny minority, they tend to live in groups among other people). And I'm not going to dwell on Kathleen Gough and her study of the villages of Tanjore, where she is notably interested in the representation of the village by its inhabitants. While she notes that Brahmins tend to distinguish the agraharam from the main village, the inhabitants of the village - mostly non-Brahmins - tend to present the village as comprising the village and the agraharam (in effect excluding the “cherri”, the Dalit hamlets).

Basing the non-Tamilness of Tamil Brahmins solely on the fact of their settlement in communal neighborhoods and communal cultural practices poses broader problems. After all, Tamil non-Brahmins, including those perceived as the “least Brahminized”, follow the logic of isolation in streets, neighborhoods and even communal villages. The Nattukottai Chettiars and their famous ancestral villages display a similar autarky to the Brahmin agraharams. The Nattukottai Chettiars are renowned for the rich culture specific to their community. So are the Nattukottai Chettiars not Tamils? Even so, their customs and beliefs are quite different from those of other Tamil-speaking populations living in the Chettinad.

The Vellalars traditionally present - among other myths - the genesis of their caste as linked to the Velirs who came from Dvaraka (Dwarka, Gujarat, which is not Dwarasamudra, Karnataka). So the Vellalars are not Tamils, since they relate to a past and geography that is not Tamil?

Perhaps you can now see the limits of your discourse, which by the way, also strongly includes outdated pseudo-scientific concepts, such as Dravidian racialism, a legacy of European colonization and its transmission of racialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, currently rejected or even criminalized in Europe, but popular or even politically plebiscited in certain parts of present-day India.

If Tamil identity is post-colonial linguistic chauvinism, why not apply it to other Tamil communities. Your account's contributions largely revolve around this specific action, specifically targeting articles related to Tamil Brahmins. This is why suspicion is heightened with regard to your contributions. Kongu Vellalars are theorized by some as sharing ancestry with Vokkaligas, have you shown any interest in explicating on their article the senselessness of Tamil identity, when Dravidian race explains everything? No. Similar links exist between certain dominant communities in northern Tamil Nadu and inhabitants of the Andhra region. We don't see you there either. Tamil chauvinism is as “unscientific” and “outdated” concept as the Dravidian chauvinism (disclaimer, different from Dravidian languages speaking people studies). Drusekoana (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Drusekoana

Your reply avoids the core issue: whether Tamil Brahmins, such as the Iyengars and Iyers, should be included in an ethnic list of “Tamil people” when they have distinct linguistic, religious, cultural, and historical characteristics that separate them from the Tamil ethnolinguistic identity.

Several of your points misrepresent both the content being debated and Wikipedia's editing standards:

1. Misplaced Comparisons with Other Tamil Castes: Equating Tamil Brahmins with groups like the Chettiars or Vellalars misses the central issue. Tamil Brahmins maintain Indo-Aryan linguistic and ritual traditions, continue Sanskrit-based liturgies, have distinct migration histories, and often identify more closely with pan-Indian Brahmin networks than with a singular Tamil ethnos. These are not minor variations within Tamil society but clear ethnic and cultural distinctions.

2. Irrelevant Theorizing: Discussions of Agraharams, village settlement patterns, or speculative caste sociology are not policy-relevant. Wikipedia articles and lists are governed by what reliable sources say, not by subjective anthropological speculation.

3. Attempt to Discredit Me as an Editor: Your repeated insinuation that I am pushing a "casteist" or “racialist” agenda because of my edit history is a personal attack, not an argument. You claim “suspicion is heightened” due to the focus of my contributions. That is not a valid reason to dismiss edits that follow policy, are supported by sources, and are discussed on talk pages. Editors are free to focus on any topic. Edits are evaluated on their merits, not on imagined motives. See WP:AGF and WP:FOC.

4. Policy-Free Reverts and Accusations: Your edit summaries contain serious accusations like “disruptive caste-led opinions” and “racialism” without citing any actual Wikipedia policy to support the reverts. That is not acceptable. WP:NPA prohibits such attacks, and WP:CONSENSUS requires you to justify your changes with sources, not assumptions about another editor's beliefs.

To be clear, I do not deny the validity of Tamil ethnicity for most Tamil-speaking communities. My edits focus specifically on Tamil Brahmins because their inclusion in an ethnic list is questionable based on reliable sources, linguistic and cultural distinctiveness, and Wikipedia's own list inclusion criteria.

Challenging inclusion is not the same as denying identity elsewhere. The other groups you mentioned, such as Kongu Vellalars or Chettiars, do not display the same historical, linguistic, and cultural divergence from Tamil ethnicity that Tamil Brahmins do. Nor are they part of a broader transregional kinship network. Tamil Brahmins, in contrast, are one of many Brahmin subgroups across India, united by shared Indo-Aryan traditions, Vedic ritualism, and Sanskritic religious frameworks.

Wikipedia encourages content-focused discussion. Editors are not required to address every theoretical inconsistency before raising a valid, source-backed concern. My position is grounded in academic literature and policy; if you have reliable sources supporting your position, feel free to present them. Otherwise, per WP:V, WP:LISTCRIT, and WP:ONUS, my edit should stand until valid counterevidence is provided.

If reverts continue without actual engagement here, I will raise this at WP:DRN or WP:ANI. Wikipedia works by discussion and policy, not personal attacks or gatekeeping.

Let’s stay focused on sources, article scope, and community standards. Anything else is a distraction. Temporary 1010 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2026

There is much wrongful information on a page that needs to he rid of wrongful information and I hope that such will prevail. ~2025-37715-85 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)