Talk:Mannanar dynasty

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

NOT AN ACTUAL KINGDOM[edit]

As per malabar manual these institutions were set up to give protection for a nampoothiri lady(driven out of the community for illicit relations with lower caste men).The baronial powers provided by Edavakkutty kulam(a nayar clan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.51.123 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolathunadu kingdom was decentralized realm and Mannanar's were local ruler however the extent of power is debatable, but one needs to question some traditions concerning giving of brahmin virgin to Thiyya? so the exact reason why Namboothiri gave their women to Thiyya and not for a Nair or varma is a big question which needs to be thoroughly scrutinized--Rahulkris999 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul...,

Brahmins never gave a virgin nampoothiri lady to Mannanars,it is clearly given the text that those ladies driven out of the Nampoothiri community for illicit relations with lower caste men were taken by mannanars men. Nayars or Varmas dont accept those kind of ladies .In south malabar and other parts of kerala Mappila men(muslims) or mukkua people gave shelter for the excommunicated Brahmin women.None of the sources provided here gives an idea that Mannanars were rulers.Actually they were at the mercy of Chirackal Raja who gave them land and Baronial power.Othenan (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article information not supported by the source[edit]

As per F.Fawcett(in his book nambutiries),the chirackal raja gave lot of land to a theeyan near taliparamba,on condition that he will protect the excommunicated Brahmin woman if they choose to go with him.

It was a custom in olden days that the the mannanar’s agent took the excommunicated woman to a two way road which leads to two different ways to enter the mannanar’s house. If the lady chooses the eastern gate, she becomes mannanar’s wife and if she chooses the northern gate she is adopted as mannanar’s sister.

This book was written in the 18th century. The Article mentions that mannanar’s ‘ruled’ between 6th and 12th century. It also mentions that they followed Buddhism. The two above statements have no validity. They Ref./evidence provided does not support these arguments. Hence they must be removed. Also the rulers and social structure of kerala before 10th century is disputed.Then how come an ezhava/tiya kingdom be set up in 6th century. I dout these things, bring up evidences that support statements in this article. Or else REMOVE it.

The evidence given here are not reliable eg; ‘Religion and social conflict in South Asia By Bardwell L. Smith’ it sparsely mentions about the ‘erstwhile royal status’ and ‘buddhist tradition’ of mannanars and fail to give any details or evidence. Buddhist tradition for ezhavas is disputed(contradictory statements that they were buddists from srilanka ,eezham and they lived here so many centuries ago and was against brahmanisation and how come they ended up as Hindus, also toddy tapping is considered an offence as far as Buddhists are concerned ) .

Also in Malabar manual it is said that these excommunicated ladies worked as seducers or prostitutes in the rest of their lives.

According to the given source(studies of parvathy kodoth) ;the authority of these mannanars were limited to settling of caste disputes among the tiyas. Also they didn’t have any right to collect taxes. Then can they be considered as rulers or vazhunnor . These tiyyans were required to hang their legs out the palanquin if they saw any Nair or a Rajah as a token of submission. Chirakkal kingdom itself was set only in 12th century A.D. Then how can some group supported(by giving land and baronial power) be formed in 6th century. The statements are misleading/give wrong information.Vinu707 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If tax collection is the issue then one must know that income from agriculture is limited in kolathunad because of peculair geography of land which doesn't support large scale agriculture, also the kingdom of kolathiri depended on support from local naduvazis instead of a standing army to maintain law and order...so Mannanars being local rulers is plausibl. However dating from 6th to 12th century is disputable--Rahulkris999 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist origin of mannanars???[edit]

I don't find any significant evidence supporting the Buddhist origin of the mannanars.None of the reference provided gives information about the buddhist heritage of them.The book Religion and social conflict in South Asia By Bardwell L. Smith merely mentions that they were buddhists in the past and fails to give any evidence supporting his statement.So I am removing the sentence that'they practised Buddhism as their religion'.The were kept by Chirackal raja for a particular purpose,giving land and military powers for protecting the excommunicated Brahmin ladies,the I wonder how can they practice Buddhism when they under the Rule of a Hindu Nair King. And If they practised buddhism ,where did they go for worship,were there any monastries/temples in Chirickal??(not say some hindu deities were once Lord Buddha). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.62.175 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I can find no source for the phrase Izhathu Mannanars. The Pullapilly source mentions the Mannanars as being Izhavas (ie: Ezhava) but nothing more specific. I'm actually wondering whether these people are even notable. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mannanar was a thiyya king who ruled ezhimala.The last mannanar was killed by Nair goondas.Malabar manual written by William Logans had mentioned that there was a case related to this murder on the court at that time.He was the last Mannanar in Mannanar family Sreeragvp (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logan is not a reliable source. Nothing from the Raj era and earlier is. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=mannanar&source=bl&ots=9l8nSbomxk&sig=ACfU3U2H3MkQza0PcQXY8ymqCaOeQIu4IA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwptj7q4zlAhXUW3wKHZBxAoAQ6AEwC3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=mannanar&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FnB3k8fx5oEC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=mannanar&source=bl&ots=KegLn4FN62&sig=ACfU3U1xmDYjF0BlHm0ya9GezznTeHQcrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwptj7q4zlAhXUW3wKHZBxAoAQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=mannanar&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2jMg8K5dPZUC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=mannanar&source=bl&ots=wTgcXOo2o1&sig=ACfU3U3lvtBjeI2KE96wyRs4XfkwRQvubQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIiZ6brIzlAhXDheYKHUNRDG84ChDoATAAegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=mannanar&f=false

Even malayalam wikipedia is mannanar only https://ml.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A6%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%BE%E0%B5%BC Kalangot (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name is Mannanar and not Izhath Mannanar.

Izhath is a word meaning belong to ezhava.

Vandalism from ezhava against thiyya.

Hijacking thiyya history.

Vandalism in Name[edit]

Name is Mannanar and not Izhath Mannanar.

Izhath is a word meaning belong to ezhava.

Vandalism from ezhava against thiyya.

Hijacking thiyya history.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Mannanar dynasty family temple.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Mannanar Thiyyar King Aramana site remaining's of swords.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]