Talk:Musunuri Nayaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Good work

this is a well written article, and yet I feel like the title is deceptive. this is a piece of indian history (a well written piece to be sure) and not the biography of any one person in the story. I would suggest renaming.66.82.9.56 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Dear Mr Siddhu, This article was written after painstaking research. We can discuss in this forum about various evidences to show that Musunuri cousins belonged to Kamma social group. Please participate in the discussion if you have evidences contrary to what is written in the article.--Polumetla

[edit] Incredible

This story tries to marginalise a great empire (the Vijayanagar empire) and extols a measly Nayaka kingdom, which for most part served as a feudatory of the Vijayanagar empire. There were numerous Nayakas who served under the Vijayanagar empire like the Nayakas of Shimoga, Kanakagri, Chitrdurga all in Karnataka alone. This is just another Nayaka kingdom. Please restudy your history and dont create parallel histories. All the Nayakas whether of Kannada origin or Telugu origin need to be seen in the shadow of Vijayanagar Empire.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Reply

Mr Kannambadi was totally mistaken. The article throws light on a small but significant chapter of Andhra history which steered the South Indian history after 1350 AD. This was the first South Indian rebellion against the powerful Delhi sultanate which not only succeeded but inspired the subsequent Vijayanagar empire to protect Hindu dharma. The glory and grandeur of Vijayanagar was yet to come. The nayak chiefs of Vijayanagar were predominantly the progeny of Kakatiya nayaks. I suggest the critic to read a beautiful treatise on Musunuri nayaks written by M. Somasekhara Sarma (cited in the article). It is interesting to read How Bukka and Kapaya Nayaka worked together to achieve the common goal. This formed the basis for subsequent migration of Nayaks to Vijayanagar after Kapaya was killed by jealous Rachakonda Velamas who colluded with Bahmanis.

[edit] Vandalism

59.93.48.55 should refrain from vandalism. Changes without giving reason will be reverted. 59.93.48.55 must login with User name and explain why he changed Kamma (caste) to Kapu (caste) with evidences. It should be noted that I gave proper evidence to Viswanatha Nayudu being Balija and suggested deletion of false info from the article on Kamma (caste). Please read the book: Durga Prasad, History of the Andhras Till 1565 A.D., P. G. Publishers, Guntur; page 168. Kumarrao 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear kumarRao,

Durga Rao himslef claims its not an Authentic publication and his articles have not been Accepted or published as journals by any other University And there are contradictory claims from SuvarnamPratapa Reddy saying Musnuri Kapaya nayaka was a Kapu/reddy and from Colin Mckenzie of all historians saying he was a Kapu.

You do not have supporting claims and Musunuri is not their Surname as is being projected the same set of people who went on claiming Kakatiyas as Kamma Madura Nayaks are Kamma are also spoiling this article just for the sake of glorifying the Community... Give us sound proof and then it would be accepted...

Musnuri nayaka married of niece and daughters to Korukonda nayaks they were Kapu and not Kamma... Another piece of information if you are interested in.

[edit] Evidences

192.216.42.56 must login as a Wiki user, reveal his identity and engage in meaningful discussion.

1. The book by Durga Prasad is accepted by all historians. It is cited in many articles on Wiki, including Vijayanagar empire, Andhra Pradesh history etc. All Universities in A.P., prescribe this book in History departments (E.G., Univ. of Hyderabad)

2. Musunuri Nayaks could not be Reddy because the very basis of selection of Musunuri Prolaneedu by Bendapudi Annaya Mantri and Kolanu Rudradeva was to avoid Reddy-Velama rivalry (This excludes Reddy and Velama claim to Prolaneedu. Suravaram was clearly wrong in his statement).

3. Musunuru village near Nuziveedu (Krishna Dt) is populated predominantly by Kamma farmers even today. There is a small dilapidated fort in the village. This region was part of Vengi Chalukya kingdom. After the rise of Kakatiyas on the ashes of Chalukyan empire, Musunuri warriors migrated to Warangal to serve Kakatiya kings.

4. Surname "Musunuri" exists only in Kamma and Brahmin communities of AP. (The only other claimant to Prolaneedu is Brahmin caste). Mr Kotta Bhavaiah Choudary in his "Kammavari Charitra" logically argued in this direction on the basis of Surname and Gothra.

5. The name of Prolaya Nayak's uncle (China Naanna) was Kamma Nayak.

6. Telugu historians generally agreed that Musunuri cousins were Kammas. Dr B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao in his "Andhrula Charitra" and Prof. Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma, Former Head of the Department of History, Andhra Aniversity, also reiterated this view.

7. Anapota Nayaka, son of Recherla Singama Nayaka got the title "Kammadoralamodina Kaaladandama" after the demise of Kapaaneedu. (Nelaturi Venkataranayya's English translation of "Velugotivaari Vamsavali"). Obviously these Kammadoras were Kaapaneedu and his relatives.

8. "Velugotivaari Vamsaavali" also mentioned "Birudula Nirasinchu Kammadoralu", after the capture of Warangal by Padmanayakas. Kamma Nayaks declined the positions and power offered to them by victorious Velamas and migrated to Vijayanagar in view of good relations between Bukka Raya and Kapaaneedu. Obviously, the persons who were in control of Warangal at that point of time were Kamma Nayaks.

9. Many old-time Velama Zamindars always referred to Kapaaneedu as a Kamma rival. (I cannot offer tangible proof to this hearsay).

10. During the attack by Golkonda general 'Mir Jumla' on Gandikota Pemmasani China Thimma Nayudu invited his relatives of 66 Kamma clans to join him in the battle. He referred "Asahaayasoorulou Musunuri varu" in his letter. Obviously, Musunuri varu were Kammas.

11. MacKenzie's Krishna District manual was silent on Musunuris (Any evidence otherwise may be cited with proof).

12. Marital alliances were made for political purposes during medieval times.

Other info:

  • Kakatiyas were not Kammas. I edited the article "Kamma (caste)" to that effect.
  • Madhura nayaks were Balija merchants. I edited the article to that effect. I also cited historical references.Kumarrao 08:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

Aside from the grammar, style, and tone (all of which need work) and the wikification (miscapitalisation, unwikified lead, etc.), the article is couched in very one-sided langauge; it makes very dogmatic statements about events with no sign that there might be alternative interpretations and views. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained edits

150.198.150.245 has been repeatedly editing without giving any explanation. He/she must consult the rerefence: "History of Andhras" by Durga Prasad.

(http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/gw_44_5/hi-res/hcu_images/G2.pdf). Kumarrao 09:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear MR.kumarRao,

I am sorry, that I havent posted any references for my editings. Initially i thought it was some miscreants, who's simply changing articles and havent responded. I apologise. I have read that prolaya belongs to telega caste in wikipedia and therefore tried to correct it. Im not sure who posted it,U could check in the Kapu caste/telaga section. Also Durga Rao himslef claims its not an authentic publication and there are contradictory claims from SuvarnamPratapa Reddy saying Musnuri Kapaya nayaka was a Kapu/reddy and from Colin Mckenzie saying he was a Kapu. need more input ---raju

[edit] Reply

1. Durga Prasad clearly mentioned on page 168 that Musunuris belonged to fourth caste (Sudra, Kamma).See his webbook above.

2. K. B. Choudary (Kammavari Charitra, 1939) provided convincing evidence.

3. Suravaram was wrong. He did not cite any evidence.

4. McKenzie never talked about Musunuris. If he did, provide a citation.

A list of evidences/reasoning is available on this talk page.Kumarrao 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Editing process is on. Citations are being provided in line.Kumarrao 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please make changes to Kapuscaste/Telaga section which points that musunuri nayaks belongs to telaga caste.----raju

[edit] ==================

This article modified by Kumarrao shows a bias towards the Kamma caste.I think this is not the way to show history..if u have refered to any history text books or wikipedia for instance the one who wrote for e.x Cholas,Pallavas,Madurai Nayaks etc never wrote saying that these are from so n so caste even if written never bragged the caste....You hav modified this article in order to praise or show bias towards the Kamma community...If u have mentioned only in the introduction as to who Musunuru nayaks are provided if u r pretty much sure about it it would been enough.... John Rambo 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo4u (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==============================================

Nuetrality of this article is disputed

The reason provided by Kumarrao are also not convincing...

I like to counter Kumarrao regarding this assumption that Musunuru Nayaks are of Kamma origin..

a) Saying that Books by Prasad is prescriped a History text in many universities doesn't make it a reliable source....Even Suravaram Pratap Reddy Book is a text to many universities. Even in Civils Services it is one of the prescribed texts...so ur argument doesn't hold much in that aspect...

b)Your 2nd argument that "Musunuri Nayaks could not be Reddy because the very basis of selection of Musunuri Prolaneedu by Bendapudi Annaya Mantri and Kolanu Rudradeva was to avoid Reddy-Velama rivalry" Why is only Kamma should be selected for this ?? Why not a Telaga or Balija Nayakas or a Mudiraja ?? to avoid this rivalry...These are also the important Nayakas during that time... So this argument too does not hold water... John Rambo 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Dear Mr Rambo,

1. Please follow wiki guidelines. You are not signing your contributions with four tildes. Mere mention of your Wiki username will not do.

2. You have to refute the supporting arguments (see above; # 1-10) one by one.

3. The most important argument in favour of 'Kamma' theory is based on Surname. 'Musunuri' surname exista only in Kamma and Brahmin communities. Please show any evidence that it exists in Reddy or Kapu communities of AP.

4. Another important evidence comes from Rayavachakamu in which Pemmasani chief (Kamma) invited his relatives including "Asahaayasoorulou Musunuri varu" to join them in battle with muslims. Obviously, Musunuri warriors were Kammas.

5. Suravaram's thesis was totally wrong and unsupported by any evidence. If you have, please produce one.Kumarrao 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)