Talk:Cheraman Perumal

Disambiguation dispute

Redheylin (talk · contribs) has asked me to have a look at the present dispute which I understand is about whether we are dealing here with one or two identically named persons.

I am not familiar with this figure, but for now am struck by the fact that both Cheraman Perumal (Nayanar) and Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert), each last saved by Pectore (talk · contribs), currently describe their subject as a Chera Dynasty king who ruled in the late 8th century.

Could editors explain further what the dispute is about, and what the sources are for assuming identity or two different people? Cheers, Jayen466 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These sources may be of interest, specifically [1] and [2]. These would seem to indicate the possibility that we may be dealing with one person, but that it is disputed whether or not he did indeed convert to Islam, as legend has it.

If the only source for Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert) is the assertion that the conversion legend may refer to some other, identically named individual, I would argue that that individual lacks the required notability to deserve a separate WP article. Instead, the legend – and the fact that its accuracy appears widely disputed, judging by my straw sample – should be mentioned in the article on the more notable individual, for whom there are more historically ascertained facts – i.e. following the approach of the above sources. (And if I've got it all wrong, please don't hesitate to point that out!) Jayen466 03:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

sheesh. merge it back together then. This is silly. --dab (𒁳) 07:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do look at the sources dab before terming things "silly", some of us have actually explored the anthropology and history of South India and Sri Lanka. I'm merely reporting the facts as they are, that the phrase/term/moniker "Cheraman Perumal" as noted by Nayar in 1974 is a generic title that was held by many kings. I have provided numerous sources depicting how "Cheraman Perumal" is a title utilized by many kings.

• The Imperial Printing Press in 1918 states "a succession of chiefs who each held office for twelve years. About the first half of the ninth century A.D., Cheraman Perumal, the last of these...and then have gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca." (Madras. Superintendent of Government Printing, 1908)
• Sociologist S. Devadas Pillai on the Islam conversion legend "modern historians have found no evidence to back up this legend" (also agrees with A. Sreedhara Menon, former ICHR fellow)
• The Islamic convert is named "Bhaskara Ravi Varma" by Abdul Rahman Kutty, Indian ethnographer who has done quite a bit of work on Muslim communities and social groupings in India ("Marraige and kinship in an island society"
• "The maharaja of Travancore claims descent from Cheraman Perumal, the last Hindu king of a united malabar, whose date is variously given from AD 378 to AD 825" (from EB 1911) and no mention of the Islam conversion.
• William Logan himself never mentions the Sundarar/Perumal narrative in his book Malabar Manual, which Redheylin has "Cited" but probably didnt read.
• The Madras journal of literature and science, by J.C. Morris states "These viceroys were called 'Cheraman Perumals'. The general belief that there was only one Cheraman Perumal who lived about 350 AD is not founded on fact." This concurs with Nayar 1974 as well.

We have more than one Cheraman Perumal we are dealing with here. There is Bhaskara Ravi Varma, Sthanu Ravi Gupta and Rajasekhara Varma.Pectore^talk 06:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, obviously a complicated case. Do the three personal names you have quoted occur in the above sources (and if so, in which respectively)? I note you have given two sources referring to the last Cheraman Perumal/Hindu king of Malabar, which presumably (?) means they are referring to the same figure. Yet one mentions the conversion legend, the other one does not. Btw, once we have sorted out who we are talking about, I think our article(s) should perhaps also reflect the variety of dates given for the "last Hindu king of Malabar"; there are 475 years between 350 A.D. and 825 A.D. Jayen466 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, if so, that should be mentioned in the lead of this article, and there should be one article. I note that SDP is disagreeing with another scholar on the subject of the conversion. In general, all that matters is that a legend exists and was repeated for various reasons, and that doesn't necessarily need a dab-page. Note also that the most modern primary source is almost certainly Keralolpathi, which really needs attention as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Are you guys aware of the Cochin Royal Family article? This article also mentions the last king/Cheraman Perumal, along with the disputed legend. Jayen466 22:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I should like to bring to your attention the position of Prof. Sreedhara Menon - an authority on the history of Kerala - on "Cheraman Perumal". Not only does Menon rubbish the conversion legend, but states emphatically that nobody by the name of Cheraman Perumal ruled Kerala.

--GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The first reference, where is it from? The second is a blog, not a reliable source. It seems to be there is no doubt about the Hindu saint being a "Cheraman Perumal", and Morris and Nayar agree that there was more than one with the title.Pectore^talk 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently the quote is from "A Survey of Kerala History" authored by Prof. Menon. I am unable to quote from the book proper since I haven't read it. Let me see if a Malayalam encyclopedia could be of any help.--GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

idea?

Create pages on Rajasekhara Varma, Sthanu Ravi Gupta and Bhaskara Ravi Varma. Also create Islamic Cheraman Perumal legend and Cheraman Perumal (Nayanar). Link whatever evidence of whichever conversion to the biography pages, and work on the history (probably closer to story) on the latter two. I use Islamic legend, because I have not found a source that disagreed with a Cheraman Perumal being a Shaivite saint.Pectore^talk 06:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are sufficient sources to show that "Cheraman Perumal" was a generic title held by numerous kings, we could also treat that title under this article, much the same way as we do in the article Holy Roman Emperor, and have articles for all the attested individuals that held it. Jayen466 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

P. Shungoony Menon refers to Bhaskara Ravi Varma as "the last Cheraman Perumal". Menon 40 & 41 give a great account of what "Cheraman Perumal" meant.Pectore^talk 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that Rajasekhara Varma and Bhaskara Ravi Varma are two different people? Is there any work, say, that mentions them both and treats them separately? Because if they were separate people, one most likely succeeded the other, given how close in time they were, according to our articles. Jayen466 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kerala Varmans is another article we have on this topic. It does mention both Rajasekhara Varma and Bhaskara Ravi Varma, treating them as separate people. Unfortunately, it is unsourced. :-( I think all these articles need pulling together and/or crosslinking somehow. Jayen466 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello J and everyone - sorry I am late. You are certainly right about what all these articles need, and I had got some way - but, as often, one hits on a certain place that, for some reason, commands great interest while all around it goes to hell in a handcart.

For example, the idea that there were several "cheraman perumals" is something entirely new - there is no mention of this in the actual articles - and nothing about it in "Chera Kings", for example. Next, that "he" is a "Nayanar" - a poet-saint. This idea, which obviously assumes a single CP, has been injected in to Wiki - but entirely without sources. There are two or three traditional lists of Nayanars, and I'd like to know whose idea this is. In fact, all the Nayanars' articles, and many related, have been written (very badly) without any sources at all. I have been working at them for some time.

The matter reprinted by GRRR has been raised yet again - it is a straw man. Logan (p191 et seq) rejects the mentioned material but still says that CP and the introduction of Islam is historical (c825CE). Later (p228) he quotes the Keralopatti to make it clear that this is the same man who is supposed to have "gone to heaven". He is not an up-to-date author but he is thorough and better than the nothing that preceded him. So I merged, quoting Logan, and was reverted, quoting nothing. This is how we stand. Logan is online, btw. Redheylin (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now let me deal with those "many Cheraman" theorists:

I have provided numerous sources depicting how "Cheraman Perumal" is a title utilized by many kings.

• The Imperial Printing Press in 1918 states "a succession of chiefs who each held office for twelve years. About the first half of the ninth century A.D., Cheraman Perumal, the last of these...and then have gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca." (Madras. Superintendent of Government Printing, 1908) This is Logan's position - it does not say there were several, it says he was the last of several.
• Sociologist S. Devadas Pillai on the Islam conversion legend "modern historians have found no evidence to back up this legend" (also agrees with A. Sreedhara Menon, former ICHR fellow) Not only this does not support the theory, it is wrong - Logan produces evidence.

• The Islamic convert is named "Bhaskara Ravi Varma" by Abdul Rahman Kutty, Indian ethnographer who has done quite a bit of work on Muslim communities and social groupings in India ("Marraige and kinship in an island society" Quite possible. interesting to know where he gets the name. Maybe "CP" is some kind of honorific or title - but no sign here of multiple CPs.

• "The maharaja of Travancore claims descent from Cheraman Perumal, the last Hindu king of a united malabar, whose date is variously given from AD 378 to AD 825" (from EB 1911) and no mention of the Islam conversion. And no mention of multiple CPs.
• William Logan himself never mentions the Sundarar/Perumal narrative in his book Malabar Manual, which Redheylin has "Cited" but probably didnt read. (see above)
• The Madras journal of literature and science, by J.C. Morris states "These viceroys were called 'Cheraman Perumals'. The general belief that there was only one Cheraman Perumal who lived about 350 AD is not founded on fact." This concurs with Nayar 1974 as well. This is the only such statement, then. However, Logan suggests that the extremely wide discrepancy of dates is due to the conflation of the anti-buddhist and anti-muslim movements - for the Keralopatti clearly confounds the two. Redheylin (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A tidbit from google books I found earlier, don't know if it relates or not: [3] More later (if I find more). Jayen466 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Long section of quotes moved to Talk:Cheraman Perumal/Quotes for the sake of discussion.Pectore^talk 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

J that is most interesting - particularly Taylor, who departs from the chronology with such assurance and calls our man "CP Nayana", 300 years after Ravi Bhaskar. It is clear that several different versions of things have to be encompassed - but I still do not think a case has been made that we should start by assuming several CPs and giving them separate articles. Quite the opp, in fact. Redheylin (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keralolpathi is not a reliable source by any means, its a bunch of forgotten myths, as noted by KP Padmanabha Menon and A Sreedhara Menon. Not only are you relying on Logan too much, you are discarding Sreedhara Menon who is much more of an expert (as Karimpuli agrees) than Logan on the subject. Nayar and Morris also assert this was a title, not a name. What you are doing is you are claiming that Logan is more of an expert than a multi-disciplinary range of experts who disagree with his anachronistic, implausible generalizations. Cheraman Perumal is nothing along the lines of a given name. Another defender of the Bhaskara Ravi Varma = Cheraman Perumal Nayanar and CP as a title is Walter J. Fischel (Expert on Cochin and the Jewish diaspora in South Asia) who notes "priviliges granted to Joseph Rabban many centuries ago by the Hindu ruler of Malabar, Bhaskara Ravi Varma whose title was Cheraman Perumal".Pectore^talk 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The historicity of the Nayanar saint cannot be discounted. Sreedhara Menon, KR Vaidyanathan, Sviderski, KV Krishna Ayyar, aong others all agree that a Cheraman Perumal certainly was a companion of Cuntarar.Pectore^talk 03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here ([4]) is another couple of snippet views. Is this the Nayar you are referring to? This source says the rulers were called "Perumals", there were twenty of them, and the last one was Cheraman Perumal. However, the person described on page 88 who "was also known as Cheraman Perumal Nayanar" may be a different one, just based on the maths -- 20 perumals ruling twelve years each do not bring us into the century that the page-88 Cheraman Perumal is supposed to have lived in. Jayen466 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

you relying on Logan too much - that's true. I thought over-reliance on a single source was a lesser fault than a complete absence of references - which was, you may remember, my concern with your re-editing, in contradiction of Logan, without adding any refs at all. But I am not "discarding" Menon - I cannot do that till you add his views, properly sourced. I AM discarding the presentation of his view as negating Logan's. I am not rejecting any of the other scholars either - they should be added. I am simply waiting for you to show that the majority of scholarship holds that the "Cuntarar" Cheraman and the "Muslim" Cheraman are two different historical persons, and thus support the edits you have made. Redheylin (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So far;

• Logan quotes the Keralolpati, or another text he conflates with it, to the effect that "the Muslims/Buddhists say CP was one of them and that he did not go to heaven, but that was a different Perumal called Banu." This does not support two CP's - it calls one version of his life into question, that's all. Logan himself says he believes there is evidence to show that the dates of the first mosques coincide with the dates of Cuntarar - it IS the same person.
• S. Menon apparently says there was no such person - AND he never became a Muslim! He is not saying there are two different figures, as far as I can see.
• Ayyar says that, since Sekkizhar (sacred writ) says that CP went to heaven with Cuntarar, either this was another CP or else the story is not true. He does not, though, pursue the matter. Obviously such a view should be incorporated, but Ayyar has not committed to two CPs.

The views of Vaidyanathan, Sviderski et al have still not appeared. Redheylin (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As Pillai and Menon agree, the idea of a Muslim Perumal has been discarded, and I believe Karimpuli had another source for that. CP as a Hindu saint is found in a wide swath of narratives. CP as a title is also agreed on by a number of authors. I brought sources the minute you asked for them, yet all I get in response is "Logan this. logan that" and "keralolpathi says:". Keralolpathi has been discarded as a reliable source for example Mohamed Taher as "full of inconsistencies, anachronism, and absurdities", while Thurston and Rangachari state that "some time about the opening of the nineteenth century, the Kerala Mahamatyam and Keralolpathi were concocted, probably by Nambudiris". Logan is a proponent of a non-mainstream theory, the idea of the existence of a Muslim perumal which is based off the keralolpathi and rejected by Pillai and Sreedhara Menon. The theory of several CP's is brought forth by numerous sources and not expressly rejected like the theory of Logan, therefore it merits inclusion.Pectore^talk 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

numerical representation

Since there is a dispute about sources, lets write out the name of the researcher and date of research to look at academic consensus. I'm willing to admit the idea of CP as a title could be anachronistic, but the Hindu narrative seems unassailable, at least the idea he existed, though there is debate about when he existed.Pectore^talk 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources agreeing with multiple CP's/CP as a title

• K. Balachandran Nayar 1974
• JC Morris 1874
• Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Irelan 1846

Sources disagreeing with multiple CP's/CP as a title

Sources agreeing with muslim narrative

• Abdul Rahman Kutty 1972
• William Logan
• Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland 1846

Sources disagreeing with muslim narrative

• S. Devadas Pillai 1997
• A. Sreedhara Menon 1970

Sources agreeing with hindu narrative

• EB 1911
• 77 on google books

Sources disagreeing with hindu narrative

It is. of course, good to assess the balance of various assessments of the reliability of various accounts. But above you are still treating the accounts as relating to the same case - whether a title or not does not matter - and there is no sign of backing for your edits made on the basis that there are two, and only two, CPs, unrelated to one another. It is not a question of which account is right, but the fact that you are comparing and assessing the two accounts together yet have sought to have them presented completely separately. Redheylin (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well read on the history of Saivism, and when I looked up Cheraman Perumal I saw a page for a mythical Muslim legend (which you were fine with). I split the page because the Hindu "perumal" was not historically disproved (and I believe you deleted all mention of the Hindu narrative though correct me if I'm wrong on this) unlike the Muslim legend which has been dismissed as anachronistic by the latest reliable sources (Pillai, Menon). Also, I have never said there were only two CP's, I have said there are multiple, or there could be just one as well. I am merely trying to make a solution that reflects the reliable sources I find, which is why I've espoused 3-4 different theories, which arent necessarily exclusive. If you want my personal view (ex pectore), I think the idea of a Muslim perumal is a huge myth, and the Hindu Cheraman Perumal should be the only page. However, I am open to examining new theories (which is why the solution of multiple perumals and biographies of kings was proposed by me) and am not just conducting a myopic reading of a debunked colonialist author. Pectore^talk 16:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a single page for the friend of Cuntarar and mention the doubtful myth of the Islamic conversion in it? This would follow the approach of Sastri, e.g., on the Talk:Cheraman Perumal/Quotes page. Jayen466 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We could add that "Perumal" was a title, and "Cheraman" a common honorific, and draw attention to the fact that in the opinion of some scholars, several distinct individuals may well have been conflated in the various narratives. I don't think much more can be done, as the historical facts seem so doubtful and uncertain. Jayen466 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Nayar says the title was "Perumal", and the last of the Perumals was "Cheraman Perumal". All the quotes on the quote page ascribe the Islamic conversion to the last Perumal, Cheraman Perumal (though they disagree somewhat about the century in which he is supposed to have lived). So, some sources at least, Nayar included, say that there were several Perumals, the last one was Cheraman Perumal, and about this one there is a doubtful conversion legend. No? Jayen466 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Taylor mentions the conflation of several individuals, and specifically the conflation of the Islamic convert with Rajasekhara: "The legendary end of the Chera hegemony, and the basis for any legitimacy claimed in the future by the principalities of Kerala, is attributed to the last high king, Cheraman Perumal Nayana, who is reported to have divided his kingdom, converted to Islam and left India for Arabia. The author of what is known as the partition of Kerala is sometimes conflated with the great, early Kulasekhara monarchs, Rajasekhara Varman or Sthanu Ravi, but the historical 'last emperor' is Rama Varma Kulasekhara, who ascended the throne in 1089. The exigencies of the Chola wars had by now brought about the rise of the warrior Nairs (and their chaver suicide squads) and the matrilineal system of inheritance, symptoms of social and economic stress in the country. Rama Varma faced the enmity of the Chola king, Kulothunga I, who sacked Makotai and captured Kollam in 1096. With the help of the chavers, the Chera forces drove back the Chola and regained Kollam in 1102-the city thereafter became the last Kulasekhara capital (Ten Vanchi, the Vanchi of the South), giving Venad a claim to be the most important of the Chera successor principalities, although the later rajahs of Kochi also claimed pre-eminence. Claims of Kulasekhara descent and grants of land came to be a necessity with the disappearance of Rama Varma in 1124." According to Taylor then, if I read him correctly, Rama Varma converted to Islam and disappeared in 1124. Jayen466 18:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, thinking it over, if we follow Taylor's outline, we do have a rationale for making the two articles separate, as they are now, and attributing the different dates to them, as well as the different names, i.e. Rajasekhara Varman to the Saivite saint, and Rama Varma to the muslim convert. Jayen466 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes J - as I said, Taylor has a whole different take, and I have not assessed his importance or figured out why he says the things he does. Otherwise, as you say, Perumal is the title, Cheruman is the last, and, as Logan says the dates coincide. It looks to me like two competing legends - as the Keralolpatti suggests. I do not mind about which one is the more likely, although personally I have had more opportunities to go to Mecca than to go to heaven on a horse, so far. I did not at all remove all reference to the Hindu legend. Just track back and have a look at the page as it was - or rather the two pages stuck together it was! Unfortunately, when I had only started trying to build a synopsis of sources this happened. Last time it was done by an editor who signed only to do this, then did nothing more. This obviously matters a lot to some folks, but I want some clarity here. Redheylin (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pectore, the composite version began:

Cheraman Perumal was a king of the ancient Tamil-speaking Chera Dynasty in the late eighth Century CE. He is said to have ruled from the seat of the Chera Dynasty; Karuvur Vanchi (modern Karur), on the Amaravati River over Kongu Nadu, the Koduntamizh (deviant Tamil) regions of Kuttanadu (Malabar), Venadu (later Travancore) and Tenpandinadu, the first two being north and south modern Kerala and the third in the extreme south of Tamil Nadu.

In the Shaiva Siddhanta tradition he is accounted a friend of the renowned Tamil Shaiva devotional poet Cuntarar, and bother are numbered among the Nayanars, the poet-saints of Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta. According to the Poondurai Purana and the Keralolpatti he left for Kailash with Cuntarar, appointing a young man from Poondurai (Erode district) as his successor, and the two entered heaven in their physical bodies when Cuntarar grew tired of life.

It was you who removed this material. You gave no sources. You did not discuss titles or attempt concordance with articles like Chera Dynasty. It is not a question of which version of CPs death is right. It has to be a majority of notable historian's verdict that these are two, identifiable individuals. So far that is not so, your edit is unsupported. I understand it is your personal opinion that the Hindu view is right and the Muslim one wrong. But what is wrong with recording a wrong legend about someone if it is notable? And it is.Redheylin (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know its notable. I am not letting my personal views get into this am I (except for being upfront and stating them)? I have stated taht Wikipedia should have a page on the Muslim legend and even treat it as fact. However, its patently obvious that the Hindu view of a Cheraman Perumal saint has not been opposed by any historians, while the Muslim legend has been debunked by Pillai and Sreedhara Menon. However I think Jayen's solution is probably the best. Making the page on the more notable Hindu legend, and leaving a section on the ambiguous Muslim legend should be alright.Pectore^talk 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also of note, this book on the history of jews of india by Nathan Katz also supports the multiple CP legend.Pectore^talk 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another narrative stating Cheraman Perumal converted to Buddhism. another book, and a third. So he could have become Buddhsit as well.Pectore^talk 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thinking it over, I am inclined to have articles for Cheraman Peumal (Rajasekhara Varman) and Cheraman Perumal (Rama Varma Kulasekhara). The article for Rajasekhara should mention the disputed legend(s). Note that a variant spelling of Rama Varma Kulasekhara is already redlinked in Kingdom of Cochin (and perhaps elsewhere). Cheers,

You were probably deceived because the "Muslim" picture was at the top. That is nothing - just, it was the only pic. Perhaps you can fix that? But please be aware that all the Nayanars have previously had their pics removed for copyright reasons. If you can find a better picture of any kind it would be great. Then we can integrate. But there is still the fact of Taylor - we need to know what were his primary sources and who agrees with him. Redheylin (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, would'nt it be a good idea to try and involve more people in this discussion...., let's say the original compiler of the article or some active members of wikiproject: South India / Kerala /....? --GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Karimpuli, please do so if you wish. But please let's have verifiable and notable secondary sources. Redheylin (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: can't see anyone proposing a move Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Cheraman Perumal → Cheraman Perumals — Query to me by a user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The move is queried because it introduces a plural, which is contrary to style guidelines. For example, there were many "Lords of the Isles", but the page is nevertheless Lord of the Isles. Redheylin (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article can be merged with the Secon Chera Dynasty of Kulasekharas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing 3 year old merge proposal as failed, no consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The Sangam Cheras are a different dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy (talk • contribs) 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.