Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 5

Bhumihar brahmin/babhan
Some of the historic accounts by renowned authors mentioning bhumihar Brahmin / babhan community.

1)Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly url= http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

2)The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA59&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20brahmin%20origin%20by%20historians&f=false

3)Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CGMqAQAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw

4)Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=D5lQutvzAp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20&f=false

5)Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=voe3AAAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ

6)Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dxDWbsztdVQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Evolution+and+Spatial+Organization+of+Clan+Settlements:+A+Case+Study+of+...++By+Saiyad+Hasan+Ansari&source=bl&ots=Z2K627D9Qw&sig=p0YFJjE2ASP6v09wVCn3DY6riRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tKMUVOqGKonjuQShw4DoAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Evolution%20and%20Spatial%20Organization%20of%20Clan%20Settlements%3A%20A%20Case%20Study%20of%20...%20%20By%20Saiyad%20Hasan%20Ansari&f=false

7)Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. url==https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar

8)Hindu caste and sect by yogendra nath bhattacharya url==https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n136/mode/2up

9)Census of India 1891 by British Indian Govt. url==https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up

10)Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ... By Susan Bayly url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA203&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

11)The State at War in South Asia By Pradeep Barua url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bhumihar&f=false

12)Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1

Note : Bhumihar Brahmin/ Babhan/ Bhumihars (short name of bhumihar Brahmin) are names to same community. Sometimes they are also called as Bhramarshi. Brahmin is a priestly class in hindu community, but many Brahmins were landlords during British and mughal era.

Hi everybody, whatever books I have mentioned earlier are the books from renowned Historians or social activists. None of these books have mentioned any relation of bhumihar with rajput. Bhumihar (i.e. Babhan, which is an old name for bhumihar brahmin which had been used in early colonial census of british india (ref 9)) is a distinct community different from rajput, but having Brahminic (of brahmin) origin. It is a total bias to write a tale and false fiction mentioned in ashwani kumar book (i.e. Bhumihar made up of union of rajput and Brahmin). You can find a lot about the plight of dalit ( i.e. so called downtrodden section of society who are not at all downtrodden in present time and politically awaken since independence) in his (aswani kumar) book, but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned massacres in which Maoist (i.e. naxalite) and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan. Any kind of cruelty should strongly be condemned but writing only one corner is also prejudice. This book is a totally biases against upper Class and trying to emphasize only on false tales and fabricated story which has come out of sheer jealousy. There are some bad persons in all community which have been over hyped in ashwani kumar's book. Entire babhan community has been made culprit in his book. If anyone is writing anything in Wikipedia he should write all the issues, and not merely some defamatory and derogatory tales, which is not at all true. Ashwani kumar has written many fictitious stories about babhan/bhumihar which cannot be simultaneously true. Rajput is a community which come into existence only after fall of Harshavardhan kingdom. (Refer Rajesthan by RK gupta and s r bhakshi. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gHNoU2zcDnIC&pg=PA1&dq=rajput+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qr8eVKO8MZKTuATy3YLwBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rajput%20origin&f=false or you can refer book from eminent historian like Satish Chandra for medival india.) Initially they (Rajputs) were centered around north-west India and some part of central India. They came to eastern India only at the time of emergence of Islamic force in western India (i.e. around 1200 AD or Muhammad ghori period). Bhumihar brahmin is a new name to babhan community which gained popularity in late 19th century and popularised by babhan landlords as well as sahjanand saraswati. In early british census report(till 1891 census) they were enumerated as Babhans under aristocratic and military community along with rajputs, nairs and marathas. So I request wikipedians to remove this fairy tale which has been fabricated by some jealousy community out of sheer jealousy. Please put up historic fact about babhan community rather than some fabricated story. Swami shahjanand saraswati was a peasant leader and social reformer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahajanand_Saraswati) who advocated mere priesthood for babhans rather than landlord ship and wanted inclusion of Bhumihar Brahman/Babhan in mere donation taking Brahmins list and also attempted to abolish zamindari (landlord ship) from bihar. Babhans were already included in aristocratic class till 1891 british census. There is hardly any book or early historical evidence giving relation of bhumihar/Babhan with rajput. It is a pure myth to associate bhumihar with rajput which are two distinct community. So please put down the myth and include the materials from reliable and credible citation regarding bhumihar/ babhan community. Bhumihar is a Sanskrit word for zamindar or jagirdar which means landlord or landholder. Swami shahjanand saraswati books (Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar) are cited by most of the Brahmin community for reference like kanyakubj Brahmin, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins) Saryupareen Brahmins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saryupareen_Brahmins) Jujhautiya Brahmin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jujhautiya_Brahmin). In many of the sites the sahjanand thoughts are distorted before presenting which is pathetic.

One more point I want to mention is that a new fictitious and imaginary theory has evolved recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and in colonial era. Babhan (Bhumihar) has been categorised as shudra along with kayastha in British colonial census report.(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the early British census report and one book abstract which evidently tells the falsehood of the above statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt url==https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24179313M/Census_of_India_1891 & url==https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up) and (Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress & url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) above books clearly show that babhans were considered and listed as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas till 1891 colonial census. They(babhans) fought to get included in mere priestly (i.e. donation taking) Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Bhumihar name was not used to list this entire community till 1891 census report. This entire community was listed with the name babhan till 1891 census under military and aristocratic category. There after sahjanand demanded abolishion of zamindari (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/zohkohb0i282t94/Area%20Studies/public/SouthAsia/Misc/Sss/whpsnts96.html) and inclusion of babhan as mere priestly and donation taking brahmin list (since they have brahmnic origin). Bhumihar word was also popularised and created by their groups(sahjanand group) which included kashi naresh. 1901 onward, bhumihar (i.e. babhan ) was categorized under mere priestly brahmin category. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact. We are talking about British India census claim without any substantial fact to verify that claim. some People have started unnecessary inclusions in wikipedia which is not at all historic. I feel that British census report statement or claim can be verified from the same census report not from mere supposition of an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to push a partisan point of view and that you need to work constructively with other editors if you wish to improve this article. Thank you for your attention. Philg88 ♦talk 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also trying to put up neutral point of view. Defamatory things without historical facts should not be put on the wikipedia. This thing i am repeatedly telling since the beginning. My aforesaid blog is never intended to defame or popularize some sect of society but i wanted to point out the erroneous statement as well as fictitious stories (many may regard as legend). These things should not be put on the wikipedia. Wikipedia is generally referred by novice to know the starting knowledge of something. Putting up flaw full statement should be therefore avoided in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

some editors of this page have extreme hostility and grudge towards babhan community. They are consistently putting up defamatory and fabricated tales as well as deeds of some rough elements of the babhan community. some rough element is present in all the community. Do you people feel that entire babhan community is made up of roughs. It is total bias which they are showing. Whenever i tried to put up some neutral point of view they delete my statement stating the neutral point of view issue. Some rough elements are present in all the community that does not mean that one should write on the front page of wikipedia. If people are so keen to write why not they put IS on islam wikipedia. I know doing this is wrong because some people do not define masses. Many of the statements present on babhan community wikipedia is taken from unreliable and unacceptable source in the name of neutral point of view. It is sheer hostility toward this specific community. Please take corrective action against it and put up some acceptable facts rather than fables or legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi sitush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Bhumihar_Brahmin),i have communicated with Jeffrey Witsoe in which he has told that he is also not firm about the question of " babhan listed as shudra in census record along with kayastha"( if you require i will send you conversation). I have mentioned William pinch (refer aforesaid citation 12) book which have cited many books as well as census record stating that earlier census record listed babhan as military and dominenet community. Francis buchan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Buchanan-Hamilton) has told them as militant brahmin since they have brahminic origin but many of them have adopted agriculture and war. Jeffrey Witsoe has not cited any book or the census record claiming that statement. In communication with him he told that this is a small issue if incorrect he will change it in his next edition. I feel you have special grudge or hostility towars this community so only putting up some crap material. you have done enough, if you are so sure why do not you cite any census record in which such claim has been made. Do not make wikipedia a tool to show ur hostility or grudge. Willium pinch has cited proper books for all the statement he has made. you are consistently removing willium pinch book ciation and putting up a book which ahs not cited the book from where he got such an idea or inference. Do not show hostility on wikipedia, it is not facebook where you can put any unauthentic news or fiction or mere supposition. You have raised question over the authenticity of the material by sahjanand saraswati who has national recognition and acceptance as a hero and eminent leader. He always demanded removal of zamindari so he was against many of the babhan landlords and helped yadav peasants during independance(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/zohkohb0i282t94/Area%20Studies/public/SouthAsia/Misc/Sss/whpsnts96.html). Do not narrow down your view and see the person from a single perspective. It is just like telling an elephant as a cylindrical pipe after touching its trunk. repeatedly i am telling put up some authentic material material rather than suppostion or myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If Witsoe changes his mind in a later edition of his book then we can change the article. You really, really have to stop attacking me because you are already on extremely thin ice here and could well find yourself permanently excluded from anything to do with this subject. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sitush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Bhumihar_Brahmin), do you think that Willium pinch  book as well as francis buchanan statements and census report 1891 are false and the book you are repeatedly putting up is true. Francis buchanan has done an exhaustive survey and his survey is regarded as the first british account in bihar and eastern uttar pradesh province. you have not answered my question i.e. which year british census record has really mentioned them as shudra. It is totally obvious from the census record that bhumihar name came quite late in the society and babhan name was used for this whole community which was listed as military and dominant community till 1891 census (refer willium pinch book reference 12 and census record 1891). The census report 1891 (which i have mentioned earlier)clearly says that kayasthas were termed as pure shudras not babhans. That statement (about kayastha) is also historically not correct but british census has mentioned that. I will not write anything if you give me the census record claiming the statement you are repeatedly putting up. you are complaining that i am targeting you but your complain is totally false because you are not able to find any british census document supporting your claim. It is mere grudge or hostility. I know some babhans are popular for many bad deeds but babhan has also given rajkumar shukla and sahjanand saraswati kind of people. So do not put false things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We do not use Raj census records directly because they are known to be poor. We use them only in the context that they are used by reliable secondary sources, ie: where secondary sources comment about them. Therefore, it would be pointless of me to try to fulfil your request as it would make no difference. That rationale is also why we do not use Buchanan and other awful Raj sources etc directly - I'm sure you have been told this before, something among your massive screeds. Please do not forget that I am not the only person who has been involved with this article, nor the only one who has seen your comments about it. I suggest that you drop this stick. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sitush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Bhumihar_Brahmin), You are not using British census stating it to be poor and derogatory sometimes, but you are making false statement or supposition referring it to be present in British census record. It is totally mockery of truth. you have said that the words of francis buchan is also not reliable but the earlier british census record is based on his survey also. If you do not want to refer british india  census record questioning its neutrality point of view then why you are referring it indirectly and adding some false statement on it. Read willium pinch book where he has mentioned citation for all the statements. Do not blindly get prejudiced about something which is not at all true otherwise give some substantial evidence backing that statement. Wikipedia is not a place to show hostility but a place to put historical account, if discussing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already explained that we can mention the census when a reliable secondary source does so, and in the context that the source refers to it. I am not going to waste my time replying any further because you quite clearly are not listening. This issue has been done to death here and has been reviewed by other people familiar with the problems of caste articles, such as . If you do not like it, perhaps go write whatever you wish on some other website? As our article says, the situation changed over time and the Bhumihars are pretty notorious for not liking the earlier situation to even be mentioned. That's your problem, not mine. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you (sitush) say that the source you are putting up is reliable and willium pinch book which speaks  different from Jeffrey Witsoe is unreliable. Jeffrey Witsoe has not mentioned any authentic text citing that specific statement. It is his hypothesis to explain some points in his book. He has merely assumed that what ever happened with kayastha same might have happened with babhan. But is totally false. we are living in a democratic world so we have write to ask the authenticity of the statement. You should know that Britishers started census in India in 1871 but the exhaustive survey was done in 1881 onward and the last survey was on 1931. Till 1891 babhans were classified as military and dominant community. Bhumihar brahmin name was adopted for this entire community during later part of 19th century, which was popularized by big zamindars (landlords) and bhumihar brahmin sabhas. you are trying to pass some unreliable and false fact which is obvious from willium pinch book as well as census record under Jeffrey Witsoe's umbrella. we have right to know the date and the colonial census record which have really mentioned such claim. To prove something you can not take some false news. you should be confident on the news or information you are putting up. Jeffrey Witsoe is has not mentioned any reliable citation regarding his this particular claim. willium pinch is also a historian (http://wpinch.faculty.wesleyan.edu/research/) who has given proper citation for all the statements in his book.


 * Bhumihar have brahminc origin and the very name babhan suggest that, which is evident from willium pinch, francis buchan, sahjanand saraswati, and jogindra nath bhatacharya  as well as willium crooke statements. A lot of resentful theories have came out during later half of colonial era which was utterly stated by some of the hostile communities or resentful persons and  written in some of the  britisher documents led Babhans make Bhumihar brahmin sabha.Bhumihar is a sanskrit word which merely mean landlord or landholder and comparable to zamindar or jagirdar titles of mohamdan times.(see yogendranath and Susan Bayly)   Most of the britishers and indian historians  have also contested those resentful and mythical theories . Pandit yogendra nath bhatacharya has also contested the theory made by Mr risley who have considered babhans to be offshoot of rajputs. His(risley) theory of tribal division and Gotras of bhumihars are similar to rajputs led him to conclude so, but same kind of tribal division as well as gotras  exist in  maithils (maithil brahmin ) and sarswat brahmin. His(risely) survey was insufficient to arrive at that conclusion. Swami sahjanand saraswati have made an exaustive survey of all the bhumihar clans and published it, which clearly states that kinwar clan as well as some other clan of bhumihar and rajput has same brahmanic origin. No british document really state that bhumihar to be shudra, which is a fictitious tale of recent origin. Babhan has become a point of making  fictious tales by any person. I strongly object on the theories which does not have any evidence and are based on mere supposition and grudge. Some people are deliberately finding out all those tales and mere suppositions,  to past on wikipedia to demoralize this entire babhan community. Most of the Bristshers as well as indian historians have objected the fallen brahmin theory and just indicated that they lost their priesthood status because of military services and aristocracy (it is evident from the books which i have mentioned above by  Susan Bayly ). Some people have made babhan a fluid  material which can be subjected to any fictitious theory or fairy tales. If anybody except sitush is also there on wikipedia please do not delete my edits because i know the resentful thought of this person can hardly be quenched. I have give the sufficient and credible citation for each and every statement i have introduced in wikipedia. Some resentful guys have led me to study about babhan  community thoroughly and some of the books also i have mentioned on this community which are credible enough to be studied and relied. So i urge you all not to deleate statements which are neural, unbiased and made by renowned authors.  -User:Bpandey89 (User_talk:Bpandey89) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@sitush what ever material you are putting up is a crap and none of the historians you have personally pasted is renowned or well known. In the name of neutrality you are consistently putting up spurious things which is not at all acceptable. You are alleging others that they are just copy pasting material but i feel that is much better to paste material from renowned authors than pasting spurious and fabricated opinions which do not have any historical relevance. Do not do such things. I have elaborately presented all the points of confusion present in your brain.You are deleting most of the credible and reliable accounts on the topic. Do you think your patronized authors like ashwani kumar, jaffry wotse and arvind das personally have done any survey to find out the clans and traditions of babhans to really arrive at some points. Customs and beliefs of any community is not at all origin of any 100 year interval it has genesis in much ancient past. All the british and indian historian account have considered babhans a dwija (twin born) community. The very name Babhan suggest that we are brahmin of magadh region since it is a pali word and pali was language of magadh during ashoka and other rulers. All the historical evidences and customs as well as tradition points toward brahminic origin. Even francis buchanan has told that all the best historical account of that time have suggested their brahminic origin which is  crap for you and some insinuated fictitious tales you have considered credible. It is height of hostility please do not do so in the name of neutrality. If you are so keen why do not you do a survey and research on babhan community. Bpandey89 talk 08:47 25 December 2014
 * I want to add 1901 census report, which clearly says that babhan is a mere pali term for brahmin and present in ashokan edicts. There are some greek and chinese travellers of ancient times have clearly stated that brahmins in magadh have left donation taking in pursuit of agriculture and landownership and called Sang he Kang ( land-seizer) in chinese. Most of the theories points toward brahminic origin of this particular communityand are generally regarded as superior to rajputs. Hybrid theory is a myth and of present origin which came out of jealously. Babhan listed as shudra in british colonial census is a mere supposition of Jeffrey Witsoe because none of the british census have really stated this. I have listed 1891 as well as 1901 census records, which clealy state the falsehood of the statement by jeffrey witsoe. Some persons are spreading spurious material in the name of neutrality. If anybody is so confident then please cite the british census record. Babhans were always considerd twin born cast during british times and most of the british text mentioned them as military brahmin. please see the battle of madarpur also that clearly indicates the origin of bhumihars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madarpur) Bpandey89 talk 12:17 26 December 2014

Kinwar rajput and Sakarwar rajputs as well as kinwar and sakarwar bhumihar have same brahminic origin. So some of these Rajputs are also known as bhumihar rajputs in the azamgarh district but the word bhumihar is mainly used for bhumihar brahmins rather than bhumihar rajputs. . Bhumihar have brahminic origin and are similar to tyagis of western uttar pradesh. The glossery of the book "Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century" by Susan Bayly has just mentioned bhumihar to be north indian brahmins with tradition of land holding and solders. ). Bpandey89 talk 16:13 26 December 2014

The caste hierarchy was mentioned in british india census report only after 1891 census report. This hierarchy listing system was not there in any of the earlier census report. This clearly indicates that bhumihars(i.e. babhan ), tyagis (i.e. taga), and bhats were mentioned as second rank in british census report above to rajputs. None of the british census record has mentioned bhumihars to be shudra. It is the mere supposition of the author jaffry watsoe to explain the caste sabhas (committees) formation during early 20th century.He should also know that saryupari and maithil brahmins also formed sabhas to strengthen their caste integrity and identity at that time. I have told many times to remove this bullshit material which suggests bhumihars had been listed as shudras in british report. It is a false propaganda to defame a community or a new conspiracy theory. If some wikipedians are so sure regarding this issue then why not they find the census record suggesting their claim. some wikipedians are consistently getting indulged in proliferating and propagating conspiracy theories just to defame some community. It is shameful and insensible. Probably jeffry watsoe or some wikipedians are getting confused with bhuiyar whom some early british census reporters also get confused with bhuinhar (bhumihar). In order to eliminate this confusion british census reporters have told bhuiyar as dravidian bhuinhar (see willium crook book ). In order to eliminate this confusion babhan word is mostly used and where ever simply bhumihar is used, babhan term was also written along with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 January 2015

babhan (i.e. bhumihar) in ashokan edicts
As i have told in earlier sections(i.e. Bhumihar brahmin/babhan section) and provided enough citation to tell that bhumihar brahmin or simply bhumihar is a new name adopted by babhan community in a meeting in later part of 19th century in which kashi naresh was most prominent player. Bhumihar is totally a new name adopted by babhans to assert their land ownship state. Babhan is an old pali word for brahmin. The common folk of magadha used to speak pali during ashokan era and possibly bit later period and were saying brahmin as babhan like nepalis tells brahmins as bahun. There had been large influx of sanskrit speaking brahmins to bihar from madhyadesh (midland) who differentiated themself from the old brahmins by sticking them to sanskrit word (i.e brahmin) rather pali babhan word. There has not been strong evidence found suggesting these babhans were brahmin buddhist. Most of the legends that have been mentioned in the main wikipedia article page is a myth or rumour which originated and documented at the time of british period. Most of the babhan residing in bihar are old Brahmins of magadha. Associating babhans with rajputs or telling any fabricated stories out of jealousy is not at all good from historical point of view. Rajputs are probably white huns or shakas who were hinduised by sanskrit speaking brahmins of west india to counter flurishing budhism or for some personal gains. , (page no 243). Most of the historians suggest foreign origin of rajputs which gained prominance after fall of harsh around 600 CE. It is totally evident that they came to bihar only after attack by islamic forces on western or nothern part of india. Rajputs never ruled bihar or bengal (i.e. eastern india) neither they have originated from bihar or adjoining states. So how it is possible that suddenly at the time of ashoka they get appeared in magadha and got intermixed with brahmins in magadha to form babhan which is mentioned in his(ashokan) inscription. It is totally ridiculous and wierd legend or theory which is still mentioned by some of so-called scholars who hardly know about abc of history. None of the actual historians (names and citation i have already mentioned in bhumihar brahmin/ babhan section) have found any evidence regardig it. so writing such a wierd and defaming statement is showing grudge to this specific community. I do not deny the possibility of babhan's association with buddhism but even this theory or legend hardly have any evidence present. so i request wikipedians to put down such an insensible and improbable account which lacks truth and incororporates statement out of grudge. Some of wikipedia editors have become a real nightmare who particularly select improbable accounts or myths insinuated by others to defame somebody.This is a serious problem written down in the name of neutrality pont of view. some people tell that mr sahjanand was involved in bhumihar brahman sabha to glorify their history then why not they just tell or allege that ashoka was also involved in babhan sabhas to associate and use this word for brahmins in his edicts. Some illitrates or so called scholars have even said babhan is a word for sham brahmin so bhumihars are sham brahmin. Totally funny and insane statement of some neural point of view holder who defame people and undermine their history in the name of neurality. History is not science that you have a strong experimental backup to prove everthing. It is based on historical accounts and archeological evidances. There are many literatures regarding origin of babhan and new name bhumihar but some wikipedians are always writing improbable account and legends which are hard to digest. , .you can find out many more books which clearly and evidently states that rajputs do not have origin in bihar and adjoining places and it do not have association with old magadh. talk 12:20, 19 February 2015


 * Sheesh, are you still here pushing this POV? Please read WP:TE and go do something more useful. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

sitush i am not at all pushing anything i am just providing some earlier accounts which seem probable and which i and most of persons consider correct. talk 12:39, 19 February 2015

list of bhumihar zamindari
भूमिहार ब्राह्मण (ब्रह्मर्षि समाज) जमींदारी -

वास्तव में भूमिहार ब्राह्मणों से सम्बंधित कितने गढ़ - राज पाट, जमींदारी (Estate) हैं, १० २०, ५०, १००....... ! इस समबन्ध में हम भाई बंधू बहुत कम ही नामों से परिचित थे | जब मैंने इस सम्बन्ध में खोज शुरू किया तो आंकड़ा आश्चर्यजनक रहा | अगर इतिहास के दबे पन्नों को खंगालेंगे तो आंकड़ा १००० पार कर जायेगा ऐसा मेरा मानना है | वैसे फिलहाल अपने खोज के दौरान जितनी भी जमींदारी के समबन्ध में मैं सूचि तयार करने में सफल हो पाया हूँ, उसे इस पोस्ट के माध्यम से आप सभी की जानकारी हेतु उपलब्ध करा रहा हूँ | फिलहाल मैं भूमिहार ब्राह्मण (ब्रह्मर्षि समाज) के गढ़ - राज पाट, जमींदारी के सम्बन्ध में केवल पच्चीस नामों की एक सूचि आपके समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूँ | इसके साथ ही अगले अन्य पोस्ट में दूसरी, तीसरी... नई सूचि पेश करूँगा |

१. टेकारी राज २. काशी राज ३. बेतिया राज ४. तमकुही राज ५. अनापुर राज ६. हथुआ राज ७. अमावा राज ८. मकसुदपुर राज ९. शिवहर राज १०. भरतपुरा राज ११. धरहरा जमींदारी १२. बभनगावां जमींदारी १३. चैनपुर जमींदारी १४. औसानगंज जमींदारी १५. रूपावाली जमींदारी १६. नरहन जमींदारी १७. जैतपुर जमींदारी १८. जोगनी जमींदारी १९. ऐनखाओं जमींदारी २०. ऐशगंज जमींदारी २१. आगापुर जमींदारी २२. राजगोला जमींदारी २३. केवटगामा जमींदारी २४. मधुबनी जमींदारी २५. बराओं जमींदारी 25 ghoshio estate 26. hardi estate 27. parihans estate 28. raj dhanwar estate 29. pokharn estae 30. tilakpur zamindari 31.rannucha -makandpur zamindari 32. amabba zamindari 33. kathela zamiindar 34. pakra zamindari 35. dhruvganj zamindar 36. garhi rampur zamindari 37. barahiya zamindari 38. ekshariya estate 39. koll zamindari 40. bihatt zamindari 41. pandarakh zamindari 42. giridih zamindari 43. pakur zamindari 44. maheshpur zamindari

पंडुई राज...सोनभद्रई भूमिहार ,,वत्स गोत्र ब्राह्मण है ,,यह क्याल्गढ़ ,नोनागढ़ और सोनभद्र राजवंश उत्तरप्रदेश से सम्बंधित रहे है ,, इन्होने मुगलों को कई बार हराया था ... और आन बान शान के लिए अंततः सब कुछ न्योछावर कर दिया

Anapur Estate (Allahabad) - The Royal Bhumihar Zamindari Of Anapur. A Small Estate With A History Spanning More Than 300 Years.

Kunwar Revati Raman Singh : A notable politician of Zamindaar family from Baraon state of Allahabad. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rai : He belongs from a Zamindar Family of Giridih — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.240.41 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

purvanchal ; the bhumihar raj
12:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Historically Uttaranchal or Purvanchal is the region ruled by the king of Kashi (Kashi Naresh), which reigons are Mirzapur, Chandauli, Ballia, Mau, Ghazipur, Sonbhadra, Deoria, Kushinagar, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Bhadohi, some main parts of Gorakhpur, Basti and also Sant Kabir Nagar.[2] This territory was ruled by the Bhumihars, which have their strong Bhumihar army to support them.[2] The Kingdom of Kashi was founded by Khsetravridha, the son of Ayus, of the Somavansa dynasty of Pratishthana. It lost independence in 1194 and was eventually ceded by the Nawab of Oudh to the British Raj in 1775, who recognized Benares as a family dominion. Benares became a state in 1911[2]. It was given the privilege of 13-gun salute.

The kingdom of Benares currently known as Varanasi was recaptured from Nawab of Oudh by Mansa Ram, a Gautam Bhumihar Brahmin zamindar of Utaria.[2] In 1737 AD Balwant Singh, ruler of Utaria, later received the territories of Jaunpur, Varanasi and Chunar in 1740 AD from the Mughal Emperor of Delhi.[2] The Kingdom of Benaras started to hold prominence in this way under the Mughal dynasty. Other prominent places under the kingship of Kashi Naresh were Chandauli, Gyanpur, Chakia, Latifshah, Mirzapur, Nandeshwar, Mint House and Vindhyachal.[2]

With the decline of the Mughal Empire, the military of Bhumihar Brahmins strengthened their sway in the area south of Avadh and in the fertile rice growing areas of Benares, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Ghazipur, Ballia and Bihar and on the fringes of Bengal.[2] The strong clan organisation on which they rested, brought success to the lesser Hindu princes. There were as many as 1,00,000 Bhumihar clansmen backing the power of the Benares rajyas in what later became the districts of Benares, Gorakhpur and Azamgarh.[2] This proved a decisive advantage when the dynasty faced a rival and the nominal suzerain, the Nawab of Awadh, in the 1750s and the 1760s.[2] An exhausting guerrilla war, waged by the Benares ruler against the Avadh camp, using his clan troops, forced the Nawab to withdraw his main force.[2]

According to Orthodox Bhumihar Brahmin traditions, no one has seen Kashi Naresh eat food, and none of the kings have travelled abroad, in keeping with strict Brahmin rules.[3] Kashi Naresh has played host to a list of dignitaries which includes Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Indira Gandhi, Queen Elizabeth, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, President Kocheril Raman Narayanan and his Burmese wife.

wikipedia of purvanchal will also conferm it
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We require sources to meet criteria as outlined in WP:RS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

bhumihar ; a military and aristocratic class
according to history, In 1891 British census report bhumihars were enumerated as Babhans under military and aristocratic class of society like Rajputs, marathas, jats, and Nairs. In the same report babhans were said to be offshoot of community of pure aryan blood, descended from some of the earlier settlers in Hindustan......

Of the 67000 Hindus in the Bengal Army in 1842, 28000 were identified as Rajputs and 25000 as Brahmins, a category that included Bhumihar Brahmins. The Brahmin presence in the Bengal Army was reduced in the late 19th century because of their perceived primary role as mutineers in the Mutiny of 1857, led by Mangal Pandey.The usual surnames/titles of the Bhumihar Brahmins are same as those of other Brahmins of Northern India. Being a fighter by caste few of them have Rajputana surnames/titles... 117.205.240.41 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)pratik singh

rai title of purvanchal area of uttarpradesh
Rai was the title of honour conferred by the British government (i.e. British Raj (British colonial rule)) to Brahmin landlords as well as other landlords. It showed association of person with power and wealth at the time of British era. The title pronounced by Britishers to lordly (landholder) Hindus was *Rai Bahadur or Rai Sahib but their Muslim counterpart was conferred the title Khan bahadur or Khan sahab. Now a day it is just a hereditary title..... Rai is a historical title of honour in India, and it is used as a surname mainly by Brahmin landlords, like Bhumihar Brahmins... 117.205.240.41 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)pratik singh
 * this page is for discussion how we can improve the article by making it align better with the reliably published sources. Do you have specific sources to support article changes? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

BRAHAMARSHI SAMAJ
BRAHAMARSHI SAMAJ = BHUMIHAR + TYAGI + CHITPAWAN + MOHYAL + ANNAWIL + NIYOGI

have many linls related to brahamarshi samaj in googles ..

senior bjp leader NITIN GADKARI is d chairman of brahamarshi samaj

117.205.240.41 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)pk


 * Please provide specific article content requests with specific reliably published sources to support the changes. Note that search engine results are not reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

BHUMIHAR ; well in civil service
dineshwar sharma - intelligence buroo, chief krishna chaudhary, dg, rpf abhiyanand - dgp bihar etc... mridula sinha - current governor of goa manoj sinha - current railway minister giriraj singh - current minister 117.205.240.41 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)pratik singh
 * Please make specific article content requests supported by reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

a politly request
dear sir, plz.. post a real articals about bhumihar .. becoz..whole world is viewing only wikipedia.. other wise delete the wikipedia of bhumihar ..

fm-- rai pratik singh international bhumihar mahasangh117.205.240.41 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated MULTIPLE TIMES - specific article content supported by reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

RAI OF PURVANCHAL
Rai was the title of honour conferred by the British government (i.e. British Raj (British colonial rule)) to Brahmin landlords as well as other landlords. It showed association of person with power and wealth at the time of British era. The title pronounced by Britishers to lordly (landholder) Hindus was *Rai Bahadur or Rai Sahib but their Muslim counterpart was conferred the title Khan bahadur or Khan sahab. Now a day it is just a hereditary title..... Rai is a historical title of honour in India, and it is used as a surname mainly by Brahmin landlords, like Bhumihar Brahmins...

KINGDOM OF BANARAS, ZAMINDARI OF GAZIPUR , DEORIA, ALLAHABAAD , ANNAPURA , BERAON ETC WILL PROOF IT ....I DON'T KNOW HOW I WILL GIVE U LINK ...BUT,, DESR SIR ..U HAVE TO SEARCH .. list of notable bhumihar wid rai title from purvanchal - the bhumihar raj 1. gopal rai - minister of delhi. aap party 2. ajay rai ..congress candidate against pm narendra modi 3. gauri shankar rai, gazipur 4. krishnanad rai etc.. CHIEF JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT 1.Chief Justice of India Lalit Mohan Sharma 2. Justice N.P. Singh 3. Justice Nagendra Rai : 4. Justice Narayan Roy : 117.205.240.41 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)pk
 * Please provide a reliably published source that supports the content you wish added/changed in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad article about a brahmin community please correct it
Bhumihar brahmin term is new it is right but i will gie you when bhumihar term adopted by these brahmins maharaja of Benares were brahmins of clan bhuinhar brahmins It was the Maharaja of BENARAS - Ishwari Prasad Narayan Singh (1822-13 June 1889) who gave the nomenclature : BHUMIHAR and this was done somewhere around the mid-late 19 th century some 150 years from today. The Maharaja wanted the Babhans of Bihar to start adopting the word BHUMIHAR - a term he coined to indicate "LAND OWNING" class. And this is what BENARAS RAJAS are famous for - they were the most powerful and when they said something it had to be followed. When the Maharaja Ishwari Prasad Narayan Singh ordered something, even the BRITISH had to listen to them (I will be writing about that in detail), so how could anyone from this caste oppose him ? Babu LANGAT SINGH a magadh babhan of Muzzaffarpur took it on him to spread and familiarize the BABHANS of Magadh and the Paschim Brahmins of mithila and Tirhut with the Term BHUMIHAR. The BHUMIHAR MAHASABHA of 1892 was created for this purpose and even then Tirhut and Magadh wanted it as Paschima BRAHMIN SABHA and BABHAN Mahasabha - but again the then MAHARAJA of BENARAS - His Highness Maharaja Bahadur Sir PRABHU NARAYAN SINGH (26 November 1855 – 4 August 1931) the most powerful member of the community ordered the word BHUMIHAR to be accepted. And so, the BHUMIHAR BRAHMIN was born. Later, the Rajas and Maharajas of TEKARI, SHIVHAR, HATHWA and other smaller Zamindaris did everything to popularize the term "BHUMIHAR BRAHMIN". So, Folks when anyone says proudly he/she is a BHUMIHAR - the credit goes to MAHARAJA SIR ISHWARI PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH of BENARAS and the most powerful MAHARAJA ever - Maharaja Bahadur Sir PRABHU NARAYAN SINGH of BENARAS too.

i also want to tell you bhumihar as a brahmin community never born from  brahmin mother and rajput father and also never brahmin Buddhist. we brahmins have knowledge about what we are. these things are just a false propaganda from some other brahmin communties which fears from bhumihar brahmins.i will give you information that we brahmins have taken land grants from time of parshuram. brahmins are divided from time of parshuram. brahmin communities which are just like us are tyagi mohyal chitpavan niyogi nambdoori .singh is not a rajput title it is title started by guru govind singh Sikh guru. you cannot say bhumihars have brahmin origin you have to know bhumihar are brahmins. bhumihars are not only trikarma brahmins in some areas their are bhumihar brahmin which are shatkarma (which perform Six duties).you have to add these points 1-in bhumihar Brahmins their are in some places tradtional priestly Brahmin present like in hazaribag gaya prayag etc from ancient time till now. vishnupad mandir, old tretayugin dev surya mandir of aurngabad gaya have bhumihar brahmin priests. so you totally cannot say bhumihar brahmins are not priest 2- Brahmins are divided according to gotras Veda upveda area and also due to some other reasons some brahmins have same roots some have different roots same is applicable for bhumihars as a brahmin organisation and lord parshuram grace 3- bhumihar as a brahmin organisation today its moral values are decreasing so due to this reason they didn't want to live together. their is no marraiage relation exists presently between bhuinhar brahmins (Surname Pandey, Rai ) of eastern uttarpradesh and others like Magadh babhans (surnames - Singh Sharma dubey etc) similarly now chitponia babhans are separated magadh babhans separated paschima brahmin of mithila (surnames mishra Chaudhary thakur ) are now a distinct community , bhuinhar brahmins of eastern up are now a distinct brahmin community they themselves belive superior does not marry with others. Where as in Bengal and country of Nepal these brahmins are totally separated because in Nepal and Beng priest brahmins are more so they themselves separated.

4- Bhumihar is not Hindu caste. bhumihar brahmin is brahmin community as a organisation of brahmins. but now day term bhumihar for these brahmins have no relevance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuinhar Brahmin2 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

5- The most important thing is that these brahmins are not found in bundelkhand region of ??Madhya Pradesh they as separate group bhuinhar brahmins are only in eastern uttarpradesh. babhans in magadha region of bihar & Paschima only in mithila region of Bihar. so these brahmins are only in eastern uttarpradesh & Bihar .some population is in jharkhand & negligible population in murshidabad, maldah district of Bengal  and north of india in madhesi area of  nepal country. as mainly they are in east up & Bihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuinhar Brahmin2 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015
Please change the sentence in History part "they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women" to "they are the offspring of a union between Brahmin men and Rajput women" Because a son always comes under his father's caste, here, according to you Bhumihars are claiming that they are Brahmin then how can you write or allow a person to write "they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women", 'but truth is that anyone can only claim for their father's caste as per Hindu caste system. But this is a fake story which was spreaded to down the morality of Bhumihar Brahmins. I would like to suggest you to remove this sentence from Wikipedia.  All the sabha(group together meetings) was done to strengthen the Bhumihar Brahmin community and to dominate in the society as supreme one. ' Please correct your theory for Bhumihar:

"Bhumihar Brahmins was divided from Brahmins as ayachck(warrior) to protect Brahmins from Kshetriya. No any Brahmins and other castes consider Bhumihar as Shudra. Never any Brahmins denied to perform rituals in a Bhumihars house. Always Bhumihar comes above the Rajput community (kshetriya). There is a fight between Yachak Brahmins (priest) and Bhumihar Brahmins (Ayachak) for supremacy."

'''"A Bhumihar is a Brahmin. You can prove it by asking a Bhumihar's Gotra and Mool(origin), it is same as of the Brahmin which is considered by you. All the rituals of Bhumihar is similar to Brahmins, only difference is that Bhumihar Brahmin does not practice rituals as a priest." A Brahmin is identified on the basis of Mool(origin) and Gotra, which is documnted at Kashi, on the basis of this they are ranked in their community. ' Surname of Bhumihar Brahmins are Singh, Roy, Rai, Choudhary, Thakur, Sharma and other Brahmin Surname, these are based on their social status as landlord. '' These surnames (Singh, Roy, Rai, Choudhary, Thakur) also can be found in other castes based on their social status. Note: Thakur and Sharma are also surname of barber and Carpenter community. Now a days the surname Choudhary is kept by others SC/ST community people like- pasi, to hide their caste.

'''I am writing as being a Maithil Brahmin. I have an example for Bhumihar. I am a Maithil Brahmin with Gotra 'Shandilya' from Samastipur, Bihar and my origin is from Pachadhi, Darbhanga, Bihar. And with same Gotra 'Shandilya' and same origin (from Pachadhi, Darbhanga, Bihar) people they are residing in Vaishali, Bihar are called as Bhumihar Brahmin. ''' Now a days, the marriage relation is being established between Bhumihar Brahmin and other Brahmin in Bihar.

So I request you to update the wikipedia with correct matter.

Sumanpriyadarshi7 (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 12:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request bhumihar brahmin to remove abusive content
In Bhumihar article pls remove abusive content the term bhumihar brahmin origin from rajput men and brahmin women this term is abuse.

and add proper information change the term they also called bhuinhar to bhuinhar brahmin in Eastern uttarpradesh

Adding founding (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2015
bhumihar is pure brahmin caste

Vedant8103 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Abusive content WikiProject assessment Suggestion
Do replace the word 'Hybridity' with the the words Mixed Race. The word ' Hybridity ' is highly offensive and is not used for people. Hybrid is a term used only in context of animals/plants. rahila 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * The word comes straight out of a reliable source, so it is incorrect to say that it is not used for people. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh I see........how do you vouch for its 'reliability' ? It's only an ordinary third rate book ; hundreds of other books refute such rubbish abusive insinuations .........all humans are mixed ....there is no such thing as pure ....all castes in India are heterogeneous and in the world for that...... but why to mention an abusive extract from a wholly unreliable cheap inauthentic source ? I think you have the sense to understand that Ashwini Kumar's book is no treatise on civility and usage ? After all all humans are mixed and nobody is pureblood from heaven ? Am I correct ? Could you plz corroborate that piece of abusive rubbish from other reliable authentic sources ? Is there any other source let alone a reliable source ?

rahila 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect the problem here is actually found in the words preceding that one, ie The Bhumihars themselves dislike these narratives ... You may dislike it but Wikipedia is not censored and sources do speak of these relationships. The term itself is harmless and, indeed, in the context of inter-marriage etc it is a normal scientific/biological word. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is "highly offensive". It's completely inaccurate to say that the term is used "only in contexts of animals/plants". It's used for everything from cars to culture, including people (see Hybridity or try a Google Books search: most of the results are about human miscegenation and cultural intermixing. Plus, the term is in quotes (both in source and in this article). "Mixed race" is not correct, because Brahmins and Rajputs are not races. This is a case of I don't like it. utcursch | talk 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well sir, how self contradictory ? You say Hybrid is used in context of racial mixing ? Well to help your knowledge a bit, there are no races amongst human beings. We don't have 'human races '. Consequently their cannot be any racial mixing of humans resulting into 'Hybridity'. You assert that Brahmins and Rajputs are not races ? Well, again thats the truth as for all humans and consequently we cannot have 'hybrid humans' be it Bhumihars or the likes of all of us. Plz give us reliable sources to corroborate your assertion of the use of hybridity in context of humans. Plz also bother to categorize the qouted ' Ashwini Kumar's book ' as a reliable source in conformity with wiki criteria for reliability. Plz corroborate the assertion about Hybridity narrative about the Bhumihars with ' OTHER RELIABLE SOURCES '.

rahila 14:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * Kumar's book is based on his successful PhD dissertation. That makes it reliable in Wikipedia's sense. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Kumar's book the sole recourse here ? Even if it cannot be corroborated by any other Reliable Source ? Could you provide other Reliable sources in corroboration of Kumar's not so reliable source ? It seems to be a case of 'Cherrypicking ' when you discount all other reliable sources without an explanation and insist on one lone uncorroborated Unreliable source (read Kumar's book ). Plz refrain .rahila 15:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * Sole recourse for what? Legitimate use of the English language? That isn't cherrypicking. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Patheticrahila 17:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't ' speak of such relationship s ' .........its lies being spread ...the so called 'reliable ' source doesn't speak of any such relationships but merely points at some unfounded gossiping ............I think it requires elementary comprehension skills at most......


 * Well, that may be your opinion but it is "gossip" based on a successful PhD thesis. We are not qualified to challenge its veracity. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sole recourse to address the grave concerns of many who have tried to point out the fallacy of promulgating an insane uncorroborated unique view. I again exhort you to corroborate Ashwani Kumar's baseless claim to which some cling as the sole recourse. Ashwani Kumar has merely published his views which have not been supported by any bit of evidence. Ashwani Kumar's work is his lone opinion. Kindly address our concerns properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Our concerns? How many of you are there? - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to, when you say "insane uncorroborated unique view"?
 * The view that the word "hybridity" can be used for humans and their cultures? I've already provided links above, which support this view. I don't mind the term being replaced with something else, but the reference supports it and there is nothing offensive about the term. You're probably trying to translate that word in your native language, in which the equivalent might be used only for animals. In English, "hybridity" (please read this article) is used much more broadly.
 * Or the theory the origin of the Bhumihar caste is miscegenation of Rajputs and Brahmins? This theory has been mentioned by several sources other than Ashwini Kumar. Here are some of them: RB Mandal (p. 170), Sharat Chandra (p. 268), Girish Mishra and Braj Kumar Pandey (p. 52), and Ishwarlal Pragji Desai (p. 200). Like the article says, this is just one of the theories, and the Bhumihars don't like it.
 * utcursch | talk 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, as for your first contention , you seem to have added ' culture ' afresh. The talk was not about culture but about racial origin if i remember it precisely. If you qualify your statement in regard to culture it would be veritable and verifiable. However the use of the term hybrid is still highly debatable in context of humans. Yes, in India hybrid is never used for men.

Now, i know not if you come from India or not. If you wish to explore ......if you really wish to, then .....then believe me its not going in the right diretion at all .....Many profanities and cuss words found mention in adages and proverbs in regard to several communities .....your sources are bogus ......Mandal begins his assertion by calling the arrival of Bhumihars in north Bihar the arrival of Brahmins ...am i correct .....well then he goes on to give a strange logic in support of his self contradictory nonsense ...that is .....because Bhumihars are not found in other parts of India ...they have to be a mixed race ? Is that a source ? Is it an argument ? Such sources may befit a gossip but not a wiki discussion......Don't quote any rubbish to rub it in ......

The Kanyakubj vanshavali mentions Bhumihars as one of the five branches of Kanyakubja Brahmins in India.... .....Bhumihars have been traditionally  intermarrying with Brahmins for hundreds of years. Genetic research too has been favouring their Brahminical origins. Then why only Rajput men and Brahmin women ? How about the offspring of Brahmin men and Rajput women ? How about such unions in other parts of the country ? What is the status of recent Brahmin-Rajput ' hybrid ' children in Bihar as in other parts of India ? Are they recognised as Bhumihars ? Was there any such system in place in Bihar or other parts of the country where they recognised such hybrid children as a separate caste ? Were all such unions contemporary ? Was it a historical phenomenon ? Was it Institutionalised ? Was it sanctioned ? Where were these mass unions numbering several millions, documented historically ?

I hope you can answer these questions with all your reliable sources .......plz revert rahila 04:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * Not going to waste any more time here. This is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "That source doesn't agree with me. Must be nonsense." utcursch | talk 04:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You can do no better. Was not that difficult to guess. But deem it incompetent and unethical.

Is this the level of a wiki contribution ? Can your 'sources' fare better than baseless one liners ?

You can have several such bogus unworthy sources which only degrade the article. The problem underlying the discussion here is not of content but of veracity.Given all your insistence it is obvious that you have not understood the context.First purge yourself of any prejudices about my predisposition. I am not biased or bent upon proving the Brahimincal status or Brahiminical origins of the Bhumihar caste for that matter.

One must understand that the process of caste formation or racial evolution if that be, is a painstakingly long social historical economic biological process. Communities are not formed overnight. Its in this regard that the sources you quote must shed some light on the evolutionary social historic and biological processes through which the Bhumihar caste emerged .Your sources must also specify a historical period when these massive socio economic biological changes were brought about. Such great events must be clearly annalized in historical sources much as in other traditions.

You are mentioning proponents of a school of thought ? It must go beyond one liners .......we are not here to obey you afterall ? Is it? a healthy discussion helps all ....we must not run away from it ........rahila 06:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately the neutrality of the British researchers has given way to uninformed biased and prejudicial views of unresearched authors who may well be partisan. Problems arise when one quotes a one line from here and there without any prelude or followup. It then assumes the form of a scribble out of which no sense can be made. Wiki editing is not about quoting baseless one liners in the name of authentic sources .........all British ethnologists Crook, Buchanan, Grierson ,Risely  have been removed unexplainedly and the narrative selectively distorted by extensive Cherrypicking.

The British have written a lot about the castes and tribes of India, including the Bhumihars. user:Chrishitch


 * You only have one definition "Hybridity".  Hybridity IS NOW a term used about humans, especially their culture.  I've heard the word many times when it comes to sociology, anthropology and geography.    Hybridity was a term used by, what's a good name, "racists".  However, it is now a term used by scientists world-wide for another reason.
 * The source comes from an Indian writer in a book published in India.
 * It is clear you do not understand the sentence. It is also clear English is not your native language and you do not know how to fully write English.  Hybridity is used in quotes.  Also, "so-called" is used just before the word in the book, but not the article.   You should read the book to get the context and why hybridity is being used.  By using hybridity in quotes, the author of the book is specifically using this word for a purpose.   Right before the quote in the book, the writer gives British colonial accounts of Bhumihar's social origin.  The writer is saying Bhumihars don't like the hybridity the colonial British used to describe their origin.  Bhumihars do not like "Hubridity".  Not reading more of the book, I can't tell if the writer is saying 'so-called' as in "common term" or 'so-called' as in "misused term".
 * Long story short... "Hybridity" is correctly being used for a purpose.  But the article doesn't mention why hybridity is specifically being used.  Without knowing why it is being used, it can come off as racist.  If the article states the legends come from colonial British accounts, one can see why hybridity is used.  Bgwhite (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Long story short... "Hybridity" is correctly being used for a purpose.  But the article doesn't mention why hybridity is specifically being used.  Without knowing why it is being used, it can come off as racist.  If the article states the legends come from colonial British accounts, one can see why hybridity is used.  Bgwhite (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

1. I understand the sentence but not the context in which it is being quoted ( If the context is cultural then its correct and wholly acceptable, but if the context in which it is quoted is racial it's wholly incorrect and unacceptable. This is the precise reason it stands indicted ). I questioned the use of the term for humans in context of racial intermixing and not in the context of culture. Therefore plz qualify the quote ( clarify it's in context of culture ) or remove it.

2. That Indian writer ascribes this fantastical unfounded view to an undefined group of people ( would it not be right to call it gossip ) and has not researched about it or vouched for its truth anywhere. ( If only you quote colonial era authors there, it would appear credible).

The problem lies with the approach and methodology of the quoted authors. They have not said anything about the research on which their claims were based. They have neither given any proof nor any data. Instead they ascribe it to the opinions of some unknown groups. In other words they are reporting the views of some third person without proving or disproving it.

3. The colonial era ethnologists are much more systematic and reasonable. Their work is based on first hand research and is definitely third party opinion. Obviously they would be more welcome.

4.Quoting third rate unoriginal work which (lacks any prelude or followup) debases the quality of wiki articles. Lifting propagandist one liners from here and there doesn't give one the correct view of the entire process or thing at discussion.

5.Plz try to adopt a systematic approach. It would be welcome by all.

I have not come across any editor here who is willing to study the subject. Its been more like i am correct and he is not. Plz read the entire set of questions posted below and you get the whole picture ................ How, i know not if you come from India or not. If you wish to explore ......if you really wish to, then .....then believe me its not going in the right diretion at all .....Many profanities and cuss words found mention in adages and proverbs in regard to several communities .....your sources are bogus ......Mandal begins his assertion by calling the arrival of Bhumihars in north Bihar the arrival of Brahmins ...am i correct .....well then he goes on to give a strange logic in support of his self contradictory nonsense ...that is .....because Bhumihars are not found in other parts of India ...they have to be a mixed race ? Is that a source ? Is it an argument ? Such sources may befit a gossip but not a wiki discussion......Don't quote any rubbish to rub it in ......

The Kanyakubj vanshavali mentions Bhumihars as one of the five branches of Kanyakubja Brahmins in India.... .....Bhumihars have been traditionally  intermarrying with Brahmins for hundreds of years. Genetic research too has been favouring their Brahminical origins. Then why only Rajput men and Brahmin women ? How about the offspring of Brahmin men and Rajput women ? How about such unions in other parts of the country ? What is the status of recent Brahmin-Rajput ' hybrid ' children in Bihar as in other parts of India ? Are they recognised as Bhumihars ? Was there any such system in place in Bihar or other parts of the country where they recognised such hybrid children as a separate caste ? Were all such unions contemporary ? Was it a historical phenomenon ? Was it Institutionalised ? Was it sanctioned ? Where were these mass unions numbering several millions, documented historically ?

Thanks User :Chrishitch 117.214.68.235 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Brahmin-Rajput ancestry is just one of the theories, that has been mentioned in several sources, and is, therefore notable. The article doesn't claim that the theory is right, and adds that Bhumihars don't like it. It's same with Bhumihars' own Parashurama ancestry theory: it's obviously mythology (and therefore wrong), but it's mentioned in the article because it's notable, having been mentioned in several sources. The article does not omit the theory about Brahmin origin of Bhumihars either.
 * Also, when you say "genetic research", I presume you're referring to VK Kashyap etal's 2003 paper.  That paper states that Bhumihars were found "clustering with the Brahmin group", but doesn't deny that they were also found clustering with the Rajputs. In fact, a 2006 paper by VK Kashyap etal states: "In the East, Bihar Brahmin, Bhumihar, Kayasth, Rajput, Yadav, Bihar Kurmi, Orissa Brahmin, Khandayat, Karan, Juang and Paroja shared similar membership to multiple clusters revealing a common genetic structure." Feel free to add both to the article. utcursch | talk 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would much rather we added no genetic research to the article. It is generally found wanting due to problems that include people self-identifying caste affiliation, sample sizes, the rapidly evolving techniques and the number of qualifiers that the writers use in their statements. We've had this discussion on other caste articles and, at the end of the day, we're all related to millions of people and yet do not in fact carry DNA traces etc for all of them. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Utcursch ...........There could be several theories and there could be 'numerous' theories too. Theory implies assumption else it would be Principle. That's not the whole point.

1. I mean, how do we begin the text under the History subheading with 'myths' in the first place ? The text following the subheading should entail the historical accounts of the evolution of Bhumihars as a distinct caste and their mention by historians and historical texts documenting their journey through the ages ....... for example ....as in the Rajput  article

Origins

The origin of the Rajputs is the subject of debate. Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe that the term was not used to designate a particular tribe or social group until the 6th century AD, as there is no mention of the term in the historical record as pertaining to a social group prior to that time.[2] One theory espouses that with the collapse of the Gupta empire from the late 6th century, the invading Hephthalites (White Huns) were probably integrated within Indian society. Leaders and nobles from among the invaders were assimilated into the Kshatriya ritual rank in the Hindu varna system, while others who followed and supported them – such as the Ahirs, Gurjars and Jats – were ranked as cultivators.[1] At the same time, some indigenous tribes were ranked as Rajput, examples of which are the Bundelas, Chandelas and Rathors. Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that Rajputs "... actually vary greatly in status, from princely lineages, such as the Guhilot and Kachwaha, to simple cultivators."[1] Aydogdy Kurbanov says that the assimilation was specifically between the Hephthalites, Gurjars, and people from northwestern India, forming the Rajput community.[3] Pradeep Barua also believes that Rajputs have foreign origins, he says their practice of asserting Kshatriya status was followed by other Indian groups thereby establishing themselves as Rajputs.[4] According to most authorities successful claims to Rajput status frequently were made by groups that achieved secular power; probably that is how the invaders from Central Asia as well as patrician lines of indigenous tribal peoples were absorbed.[1]

Why doesn't the text under the History subtitle above speak of the mythical origins of the Rajputs instead of the historical accounts, as it does ?

2. Another very obvious mistake is the mention of views (regarding hybridity) held by an unknown people, uncorroborated and unfounded , lacking any historical or modern evidence , ' reported ' by Ashwani Kumar's book under the subheading History. I call upon you to establish this view as a ' myth ' contrasted with gossip or a view held by some unknown unquoted people. If at all it qualifies to be called a myth, it should have 'mythical 'origins much like the Parsurama story. Does it find mention in any of Hindu dharma's scriptures or writings ? If not, how you call it a myth ? Plz elaborate.

3. Hybrid is used in context of cultural mixing of humans ( agreed ). Plz qualify the statement made in the article, in context of culture in contrast to racial intermixing of humans.

Will address the genetic research issue soon.

plz revert [[Special:Contributions/117.214.68.235|117.214.68.235 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)]]


 * The source is reliable, the source mentions it, and utcursch has provided links for several others that do also. You need to read WP:IDHT, WP:TLDR and WP:TE because if this continues you are likely to be sanctioned in accordance with WP:GS/Caste. I realise that you do not like it - many Bhumihars do not also - but that is not a reason to remove something. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't burden yourself much with my perceived likes and dislikes as its none of your business. You have made insinuations to my supposed caste affiliations earlier too. Keep your views to the article instead. You have not done any thing better than parroting the same thing over and over again even if does not explain anything in context of the article. I again exhort all the editors to address the questions which have never been answered properly. rahila 17:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * Perhaps if you were not parroting there would be no need for others to parrot in response. Now, I suggest that you please drop this because the next step is indeed likely to be a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't bother whether many Bhumihars like it or not or whether you like it or not .Its not a question of linking or disliking something. I deem it an attempt to digress from the main discussion. The article is being manipulated to promulgate a baseless view and the issues must be addressed in the best interest of the article. rahila 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

Campaign for higher varna status Suggestion
Under the subheading - Campaign for higher varna status, in context of the motives and efforts of The Pradhan Bhumihar Brahman Sabha, 1889 , the following content might be added as it sheds some light on the early efforts of Bhumihars at gaining recognition as priestly Brahmins even as they boycotted Brahmins in performance of priestly duties.

The Sabha concentrated almost entirely on asserting their claim as Bhumihars to Brahmin status by starting schools to teach Sanskrit and purge the community of Brahmin priests.

(Francine R. Franknel, Caste Land and Dominance in Bihar: Breakdown of the Brahamincal Social Order in Francine R.Franknel and M.S.A.Rao ,eds.,Dominance and State Power in Modern India :Decline of a Social Order ,Vol 1 ,Delhi:Oxford ,1989 ,pg 63.)

rahila 10:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * I do not understand that quotation. Does it mean purge the Bhumihar community of Brahmin priests or purge the wider community? Why did purging the priests matter? Wasn't the primary purpose of understanding Sanskrit that it enabled study of the religious texts etc? (I do know that Sanskrit was considered to be the preserve of Brahmins, that no-one else was supposed to comprehend it.) - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism was shaped by Brahminism. Brahmins were the divine class which had purportedly originated from the head of the Hindu God of creation Lord Brahma while the rest of the three Hindu varnas originated from his chest thighs and legs in their respective order of sacredness or class. This was the dictum of the divinely revealed Vedas and thus a supreme revelation which was the basis of the supreme position of Brahmins in religion and society. This meant that Brahmin blood was divine and superior. The Brahmins were thus the only community which was divinely ordained to read/study religious texts Vedas, Upnishads etc and to propagate the divine knowledge.The non Brahmins , esp the shudras were prohibited from either studying the divine text. This meant that the knowledge of the divine texts was only a Brahmin preserve. The language of the divine texts was Sanskrit which was the language of the Gods. The Brahmins were supposed to be the only class who could learn teach or speak Sanskrit. Any violations of these dictums were severly punished.

The Bhumihars were a qnique class.They originated as a separate caste very late. They had many septs and clans which were of pure Brahminical stock ( not pushing my POV here ,so bear with it) much as many of their septs and clans were purportedly of Rajput stock.This coupled with the late origin of their distinct caste identity ensured that they largely continued with some of their original Brahimincal practices and retained some exclusively Brahiminical privileges as learning Sanskrit, studying sacred texts ,wearing sacred thread (janeu ) etc. This also explains why the Bhumihars were the officiating priests at some of the holiest Hindu temples and pilgrimages viz Gaya , Prayag etc which could not be possible even for some Brahmin communitites laet alone Rajputs and the rest.

However as the process of the census began, the British were confounded about the exact status of the Bhumihar community. They were hard put to categorize it under either the Brahmin class or the Rajput class as by this time the Bhumihars had fully emerged as a distinct community with a penchant for military service and agricultural pursuits ( both of which were non Brahmin avocations). Several Brahmin communities could not reconcile with the idea of assimilating an entire community who asserted their long lost pure Brahmin identity despite indulging on a large scale in non brahmin avocations for hundreds of years .This led to a clash. The Bhumihars avowed to establish their long lost Brahiminical identity .They declared that they were themselves pure Brahmins and should not invite Orthodox Brahmins to perform religious rituals but perform it themselves.

The Bhumihars thus avowedly shunned orthodox Brahmins in the performance of religious rituals and rites which at many places the Bhumihars had for several centuries been performing. The study of Sanskrit and Vedas ,wearing sacred thread, officiating as Brahmin priests at holiest Hindu pilgrimages and intermarriage with Brahmins in was the norm in several places.

Thus in short it was their tug of war with some staunchly orthodox Brahmin communities as to who was the purer Brahmin divinely ordained to perform religious duties. There were several less orthodox Brahmin communities who had tarditionally been intermarrying with Bhumihars and recognised them as their Brahmin brothers and thus were supportive of the Bhumihar claim .This was the reason that the Bhumihars got declared as Brahmins in the official census as well as by some Orthodox Brahmin caste associations which would not be possible for any other community.

Apologies for the long narrative.

rahila 14:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks but this doesn't answer my question. I was aware of the background but I still do not understand what I assume is a quotation from that source. I don't have a problem with the reliability of the thing but I cannot actually see it and I'm still not sure which Brahmins were being purged. I will have to dig around various proxy servers etc to see if I can get hold of the relevant pages. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Swami Sahajanand was at one time leading this struggle ....refer to his struggle

rahila 14:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So what? My question remains unanswered. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly explain your question if it supposedly unanswered. rahila 20:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

A REQUEST
if such articles are added then also add

Bhumihars have been the traditional priests in Prayag, at Vishnupad Mandir in Gaya as Gayawar Pandas and in the adjoining districts like Hazaribagh. (with refernce it is true please please please add this if it is not added then bhumihars will never know the fact that they are also priests brahmins in some places) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyaprakash ji (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You will need to provide a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight that can verify the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, the previous version of the article cited a work by Sahajanand Saraswati as the reference, but it's not verifiable since it's not available online. Also, Sahajanand was the chief of Bhumihar Mahasabha, which indulged in historical revisionism to glorify the Bhumihar history. So an independent source is needed -- I couldn't find any. utcursch | talk 01:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not being online is not considered a barrier to verifiability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Ashwani Kumar's CLAIM vs Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee's claim
I have tried long to point to a very inauthentic claim made by the author Ashwani Kumar regarding the legend prevalent in context of origin of Bhumihars from Rajput men and Brahmin women. The editors did not pay heed to my humble pointers. Now here is Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee claiming the opposite to Mr. Ashwani Kumar - The Bhumihars are insinuated to be the progenies of Brahmin men and Rajput women.

PART V, THE SEMI-BRAHMANICAL CASTES.

CHAP. I.— THE BHUINHAR BRAHMANS OP BEHAR AND BENARES.

There are various legends prevalent regarding the origin of the Bhumihar caste. The Bhninhar Brahmans theemselves claim to be true Brahmans descended from the rulers whom Parsu Ram set up in the place of the Ksatriya kings slain by him. The good Brahmans and the Ksatriyas of the country, however, look down upon them, and in- sinuate that they are of a mixed breed, the offspring of Brahman men and Ksatriya women.

pg 109

Kindly understand that these are highly debatable references as these quote insinuations and opinions of certain sections of people (which obviously are contradictory and incredible ) No, i am not pushing a POV here but trying to pint out a fallacy which is highly controversial. Quoting claims made by different people at different times contradicting each other only degrade the quality of the wiki article.

rahila 14:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * said that this issue was going nowhere when they closed the earlier discussion. It is still going nowhere because your quote actually supports what our article says, ie: there are different opinions. However, we're not going to use a source from a century ago when we have a much more recent source. Please, let's stop this now: you are not going to succeed and you could end up being topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The quotation begins with - As with many castes in India, there are numerous mythical stories regarding the origins of the Bhumihar community. One legend claims that their ancestors were Brahmins who were set up to take place of the Kshatriyas slayed by Parashurama.[9]   Now, i am continuing the quote from this very book of this very author from this very page, from this very paragraph (pg 109) - The good Brahmans and the Ksatriyas of the country, however, look down upon them, and insinuate that they are of a mixed breed, the offspring of Brahman men and Ksatriya women.. Unfortunately you wish to quote only half of this paragraph and quote a contradictory view from another author in continuation of the paragraph. Either you disregard and remove the whole paragraph alongwith the citation or include his full paragraph alongside Ashwani Kumar's view.

1. Pandit Jogenndranath Bhattcharjee in the same breath in the same paragraph ( the first two lines of which are selectively quoted as citation no 9) says that some castes insinuate that the Bhumihars were of a mixed breed, offsprings of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.

2. Ashwani Kumar says that the Bhumihars are the offspring of Rajput men and Brahmin women and he is quoted just after (the two selectively quoted lines of) Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee, in quote no 10.

Both authors are contradicting each other on whether it were Rajput men and Brahmin women or Brahmin men and Kshatriya women in the same paragraph of wiki article Bhumihar under the subheading ' Origin ' in quotation no 9 and 10 respectively. The problem is that the concluding two lines from the same paragraph as purportedly quoted from Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharya's work in pg no 109 have been deliberately removed.

Plz include the whole paragraph of Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee as you are in effect misquoting him and telling the partial truth or remove his partially quoted paragraph altogether as you cannot cherrypick.

I have made a humble and honest effort for all to see. If the wiki editors are not interested in seeing the truth then i wish Wikipedia the Best of Luck in creating better honest and transparent Projects in the future. You can ban me afterall.

[[Special:Contributions/117.197.66.251|117.197.66.251 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]]

Plz read quote 7 in place of quote 10 written mistakenly by me above.[[Special:Contributions/117.197.66.251|117.197.66.251 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]]

@Sitush   Castes are were formed some centuries ago. So you cannot discount major authorities like Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee who were amongst the pioneers in social research in India, selectively while quoting them at many place whimsically, by calling them obsolete. especially when several wiki articles still quote him and the same article quotes him. Even if they are old classical works you must quote them as they are or remove them altogether.The Bhumihars were not created as as community yesterday so the views of Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee are as relevant as any modern author's esp when both are recounting the same legend. Both authors are recounting versions of the same legend though differently. So in all earnest both versions should be included in the wiki article.

[[Special:Contributions/117.197.66.251|117.197.66.251 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]]

The quotation begins with - As with many castes in India, there are numerous mythical stories regarding the origins of the Bhumihar community. One legend claims that their ancestors were Brahmins who were set up to take place of the Kshatriyas slayed by Parashurama.[9]   Now, i am continuing the quote from this very book of this very author from this very page, from this very paragraph (pg 109) - The good Brahmans and the Ksatriyas of the country, however, look down upon them, and insinuate that they are of a mixed breed, the offspring of Brahman men and Ksatriya women.. Unfortunately you wish to quote only half of this paragraph and quote a contradictory view from another author in continuation of the paragraph. Either you disregard and remove the whole paragraph alongwith the citation or include his full paragraph alongside Ashwani Kumar's view.

1. Pandit Jogenndranath Bhattcharjee in the same breath in the same paragraph ( the first two lines of which are selectively quoted as citation no 9) says that some castes insinuate that the Bhumihars were of a mixed breed, offsprings of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.

2. Ashwani Kumar says that the Bhumihars are the offspring of Rajput men and Brahmin women and he is quoted just after (the two selectively quoted lines of) Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee, in quote no 10.

Both authors are contradicting each other on whether it were Rajput men and Brahmin women or Brahmin men and Kshatriya women in the same paragraph of wiki article Bhumihar under the subheading ' Origin ' in quotation no 9 and 10 respectively. The problem is that the concluding two lines from the same paragraph as purportedly quoted from Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharya's work in pg no 109 have been deliberately removed.

Plz include the whole paragraph of Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee as you are in effect misquoting him and telling the partial truth or remove his partially quoted paragraph altogether as you cannot cherrypick.

I have made a humble and honest effort for all to see. If the wiki editors are not interested in seeing the truth then i wish Wikipedia the Best of Luck in creating better honest and transparent Projects in the future. You can ban me afterall.

[[Special:Contributions/117.197.66.251|117.197.66.251 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]]

Plz read quote 7 in place of quote 10 written mistakenly by me above.[[Special:Contributions/117.197.66.251|117.197.66.251 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]]

@Sitush   Castes are were formed some centuries ago. So you cannot discount major authorities like Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee who were amongst the pioneers in social research in India, selectively while quoting them at many place whimsically, by calling them obsolete. especially when several wiki articles still quote him and the same article quotes him. Even if they are old classical works you must quote them as they are or remove them altogether.The Bhumihars were not created as as community yesterday so the views of Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharjee are as relevant as any modern author's esp when both are recounting the same legend. Both authors are recounting versions of the same legend though differently. So in all earnest both versions should be included in the wiki article.

rahila 20:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No-one said the list was inclusive - they are examples of the theories of origin. I'm even more confused now because at first you seemed to be saying that the "mixed" claims etc were unedifying and now you've added one. I'm sorry but it is incredibly difficult to work out what it is you are talking about. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Earliest Surveys

One of the earliest surveys conducted by James Princep categorised Bhumihars alongside Rajputs in the year 1827-28. Book - Banaras :The Making of India's Heritage City, Rana P.B. Singh ,Cambridge Scholars Publishing ,Newcastle upon Tyne ,U.K.

Throws some light on the earlier views on their status.

rahila 11:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And who was James Princep? I suspect this is yet another amateur from the British colonial period. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a wiki article on James Princep. I cannot post the wiki link here though.

He may have been an amateur or a pro, but he had done some detailed survey and is reported by a modern author , published by a publishing house of repute. If i remember it correctly you have discounted colonial era ethnologists except at places wherein they have been mentioned by modern authors. Princep's categorisation may be a window into the early past, to which we don't have any other sources in the present article.

rahila 11:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We do not necessarily show the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Harry, and we already mention one that discusses the position of Bhumihar compared to the Rajputs. I recently reverted one of your edits because you had clearly not read our article in full; it looks like you perhaps still have not done so. My query regarding Princep was precisely because we do not have an article about him. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not fair to call James Pricep any Tom, Dick or Harry. Moreover, he is one of the earliest surveyors. If only you have any other sources from 1820s could choose between them. Please clarify a bit how James Princep reported by another author does not qualify to be looked at .James Princep is a historian, antiquary , colonial administrator was the first European scholar to decipher the Asokan edicts ( the Brahmi and Kharoshti scripts), a great historian he was.

Compilations of his writings have been published as Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, Numismatic, and Palaeographic, edited by E. Thomas, 2 vol. (1858).

Do you mean to say that the article Bhumihar on wikipedia has been perfected to an extent where it doesn't need any more sources, inputs and edits ? That it is the absolute truth that doesn't need any qualifications ? That historians in the class of James Princep cannot be quoted at all ?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAAahUKEwiH5Yjwya3HAhXSCI4KHVfaA18&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJames_Prinsep&ei=fH7QVYe3CtKRuATXtI_4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFCw1HzTX2C0phjQKVjg3QfY49gtw rahila 12:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

rahila 12:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki does have an article on James Princep but the link cannot be pasted here, apologies.

rahila 12:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have mis-spelled his name, or your source has done so - James Prinsep. I cannot even find the relevant page in your source. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i mis-spelled it. Its mentioned on pg no 27.

The article Bhumihar seems to focus on their self-claimed Brahmin status much more than on their affinity and similarities to Rajputs. Could you make it more balanced vis a vis their similarities to Rajputs ,in that they have had a martial tradition similar to that of the warrior classes and that they have been serving as soldiers for long.

rahila 14:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, because there is no affinity etc. You are yet again misrepresenting the source - see here. You've done similar things at Martial race. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. I did not ever say that James Princep mentioned any affinity or kinship bonds. Did i ? Where exactly ?

James Pricep source was not meant to suggest any affinity or kinship. I referred to Princep only to suggest a very important and perhaps the only earliest source which shows the social perceptions about Bhumihars as sharing 'societal space' alongside Rajputs ( ranking them alongside Kshatriyas) in social hierarchy. It serves to indicate the general perception of the ' role ' and  'social ( not ritual ) status ' of Bhumihars in the early nineteenth century in that they were neither classified as Brahmins nor as Shudras.

The reference to affinity and similarities between Bhumihars and Rajputs was not based on any interpretation or study of of James Princep source that i cited earlier. Indeed it was my request to you to look into the matter from the angle of affinity and similarity ( of social functions and position) between Bhumihars and Rajputs, given it seemed to be a relatively unexplored ' perspective ' in the article. In other words it was not an essentially factual but merely perspectival suggestion.

I understand i made it a bit difficult to comprehend. Please bear with me a bit if you may.

rahila 15:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffery Witsoe makes a reference to some colonial census which categorised the Bhumihars as Shudras. Unfortunately however, he doesn't give any clue to the exact census he had referred to. Could you plz remove this ' ambiguous' and ' vague ' reference or clarify the reference in regard to the exact census ( date or nummber ). Such vague references make bad ciatations.

rahila 14:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The first Official colonial census was taken in 1871 AD, i reckon. So which were those colonial census exercises the citation referred to above relates ?

rahila 15:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, Jeffery Witsoe says that the the Bhumihars were categorised as Shudras while the article said the Bhumihars were categorised alongwith Shudras. This issue remains to be addressed too.

User:Chrishitch:rahila 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)


 * Yet again, you are removing things that you could easily fix. Your last point can be fixed by changing with for as, and the probability is high that the confusion stems from the work of Bhumihar pov-pushers anyway. Your penultimate point is irrelevant: Witsoe is clearly referring to early censuses, since he mentions that the sabha movement arose from 1889 as a result of prior classifications - that he is not specific regarding which of those early censuses is irrelevant, and he may well even be referring to some that took place after 1889 along with those that preceded that date. Nor was 1871 the first census in India, not by a long chalk.


 * I am going to leave a note on your talk page: enough is enough with your disruptive, point-y style of editing. I am also seriously thinking about whether this article might require a whole new level of protection so as to limit the effects of even well-intentioned "bad" edits. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case you go ahead with it. I don't concern myself with personal opinions,that is not what i am here for. The article warrants an open ended approach. Several layers of protection for misinformation and vague sources isn't a wise decision.

rahila 15:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The source has to be specific to some extent if it is not exactly precise. Well, we better not speculate upon the census/es Witsoe 'might be' referring to as it doesn't serve the purpose a bit. The categorisation of Bhumihars as 'Shudras' is diametrically opposite to the claim/perception or status of Bhumihars to Brahmin status and such a blatant contradiction must not go unnoticed or left to personal speculations based on vague source information. The most glaring contradictions deserve better accuracy and focus. Can you seek opinion of other editors here ?

rahila 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing about Bhumihars being classified as Shudras in censuses after 1889 (if not the earlier 'along with Shudras' thing) is ridiculous to say the least. No census exercise done after 1889 classified Bhumihars as Shudras or along with Shudras (if not in our imagination). In fact it's a pity that such false claims are being made. You refer this to third parties because your explanation does not suffice.

rahila 16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |


 * The contradiction between categorisation as shudra and as brahmin does not "go unnoticed" in the article, which has reliable sources for the various points and specifically mentions the uncertainties. It is quite obvious to me that you are yet another Bhumihar POV pusher, intent on sanitising this article so that it reflects only those aspects that might serve to glorify the community. We've had enough sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts here, let alone stray individuals with the same complete inability or unwillingness to understand how Wikipedia functions. Enough is enough: if no passing admin sees fit to topic ban you within the next few hours then I'll go out of my way to find one. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I did exactly that (before I saw your last message; took me some time to figure out the procedure). This circular discussion has gone on long enough. Abecedare (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BHUMIHAR - THE ARISTOCRATS
according to history, In 1891 British census report bhumihars were enumerated as Babhans under military and aristocratic class of society like Rajputs, marathas, jats, and Nairs. In the same report babhans were said to be offshoot of community of pure aryan blood, descended from some of the earlier settlers in Hindustan......

Of the 67000 Hindus in the Bengal Army in 1842, 28000 were identified as Rajputs and 25000 as Brahmins, a category that included Bhumihar Brahmins. The Brahmin presence in the Bengal Army was reduced in the late 19th century because of their perceived primary role as mutineers in the Mutiny of 1857, led by Mangal Pandey.The usual surnames/titles of the Bhumihar Brahmins are same as those of other Brahmins of Northern India. Being a fighter by caste few of them have Rajputana surnames/titles...123.63.229.37 (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We have discussed all of this before. The Raj censuses are not reliable sources, and the article already explains the putative Brahmin status. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

List of surnames
"Rai" is the most common Bhumihar surname in Uttar Pradesh. Please append it to the list on the page Varunrai5 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

TAKE A ONE PATH
SIR

Please take this matter seriously because in this wikipedia,here is mentioning that "muslim bhumihar" ,"bramhan" ,bhumihar bramhan" etc. these are not correct.Because if there are BHUMIHAAR then only BHUMIHAAR, no relation with bramhins and muslims because BHUMIHAAR's duties,nature of work and nature living and thinking are not related with BRAMHINS. Our work,duties,thinking and every thing corelated with kshatriyas so we we just one step up or eqal to kshatriyas.one step up from kshatriyas because,our great ancestor LORD PRASURAMA is the son of rishi jamadgni and his mother was renuka was a kshatriya. Dear all sirs and editor sir please remove these things like "muslim bramhins and babhan or bramhan"to this knowledge box. Ranjushahiwiki (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If it is reliably sourced then it stays. Is any of it not thus? - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Bhumihars are Not Brahmins
Bhumihar always claim to be a Brahmin but up till now they have no any historical evidence to back up their fake claims, neither any upper caste Brahmins like to engaged in marrying with them. Though wikipedia is not showing the neutral article but we can say that atleast they have managed a little bit.

They are basically Hybrid of many castes.As far as claiming Lord Parshuram as Bhumihar, this is a big lie. There is no reference to him as bhumihaar. Even the word ‘bhumihar’ is mentioned nowhere in our scriptures. Even the word ‘babhan’ is used for pure brahmins in puranas. Babhan bhagwan used to recieve alms and donations which is not considered as a characteristic of bhumihars. I hope you all know the full story. So, their origin is controversial .Except the bhumihars, no historian/academician or other castes accept their claim of being an extended branch of brahmins nor it has been proved yet by any measure. Still today, Bhumihars are barred from acquiring any post in Sanatan Hindu institutions like shankaracharya,Mahant,Pujari etc to which only Brahmins qualify. And the rules for acquiring these posts were made thousand of years ago. If bhumihars are not allowed today to acquire those posts then it can be substantially said thatthey were not allowed in the past also. Even if they were Brahmins ( though it is a rare possibility), it can be inferred that they were thrown out of Brahmin order once they broke the strict rules of brahminism observed in ancient times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.237.186 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Causes of flop Bhumihar theory
They keep different titles of different caste like Pandey, Mishra etc of upper caste Brahmins and Singh, Rai of Kshatriya and Sinha, Chowdhary of Kayastha caste including many more others. If you ask them why then they will not be able to give the answer, another reason is that they are mainly found in Bihar and then they migrated to another states and they are Mixed caste of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.

and the most interesting fact is that they are never trusted and a nick name is provided to them like (Hybrid)Dogla, Fraud etc

Bhumihar finds reference in modern times only .The theory is that some shudras were elevated to the rank of brahmins by a king in Bihar who had disputes with brahmins.The evidence which support it is that they have subcastes like domkatar(dom with weapon),dholbajja(drum beaters),Dugamia(literally meaning bastards).In indian context to know about the true status of castes one must dig into the subcastes which reveals more about their real origin.All claims of links with Parshuram and budhist returning to hindu fold is nothing but mere bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.237.186 (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Bhumihar are not Brahmin
Bhumihar is a sub-caste of the dominant shudra caste in India. Most people belonging to this caste live in Bihar, Jharkand, or Uttar Pradesh. It has been suggested that Bhumihars are illegitimate sons of Brahmin fathers and Kshatriya mothers. This is most probably an apocryphal story of which there are several in Indian caste system. There is another theory which says that once a king needed many more Brahmins than he had in his kingdom. To overcome this defeciency of Brahmins he promoted many Shudras to the elevated varna of Brahmins. The descendants of these Shudras turned Brahmins are now known as Bhumihars. This story, is perhaps the most credible story so far In mythological perspective, Bhumihars have always identified themselves with Shudra In mythological perspective, Bhumihars have always identified themselves with Parashuram, who had killed all the Kshatriyas from this planet 21 times over. It is said that Parashuram installed shudras to the thrones of the kshatriyas he had slain. The descendants of these shudras are Bhumihars.

Bhumihar and their relationship with other castes Pench in hindi means screw.It is said that if a bhumihar eats a nail it will come out as a screw implying that bhumihars have a twisted personality. This trait of bhumihar is famously known as bhumihar pench and because of this trait, bhumihars are disliked by all castes. Though they want to be associated with the brahmins, brahmins will not eat bhaath(cooked rice) with them. Similarly, all castes whether they are rajput, kurmi, yadav and harijan, hates bhumihar. Thereis a popular saying in rural India, that if you see a bhumihar and a cobra, you should kill the bhumihar first, because a bhumihar is more deadly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.237.186 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What kind of propaganda is running against Bhumihar Brahmins?
All unknown sources are being given credibility whereas the good article which existed earlier has been removed. Be ready for a legal action in that case.....................or remove or block this editor who has been running a propaganda to malign Bhumihar Brahmins. What is his credibility ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.58.146 (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihars believe that they have originated from brahmins when the society was having some changes. When brahmins were only limited to religious occasions rather than critical thinking, bhumihars began to be involved in farming thus, occupied a large area of land. Also bhumihars are not referred as babhans instead pure brahmins are referred as the term. Cvam pandey (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidences against Bhumihar
Firstly, I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to offend or hurt anyone. Instead, my intention is to depict the truth and to this regard, I have examined all evidences in detail. Each and every claim in this concern is backed up by solid evidence.

1.They have been responsible for establishing organizations as the Ranvir Sena and spreading casteist hatred.They are guilty of large-scale genocide of Dalits in Bihar and dastardly crimes against humanity.

2.However, on performing a detailed research of this community and its origins, I discovered that the Bhumihars were never regarded as Brahmins at anystage in history.

3.They first claimed to be Brahmins under the leadership of Swami Sahajanand Saraswathi in the 1880s. Still however, the British never ever recognized them as Brahmins.

4.Why should Bhumihars be mentioned separately, if they are, indeed, Brahmins? Also, the origins of this community appear unclear. Prior to the 1880s, very few writers have ever mentioned them.

5.One popular suggestion is that they might have descended out of illicit relationships between local Hindus and Perso-Afghan Muslim invaders. To this day, Bhumihars claim kinship with Iranians, most of whom are Muslims Muslim Bhumihar.

Thus, it is pretty obvious that this community has been attempting to claim Brahmanical ancestry in order to justify its hold on castiesm. Such elitist pretensions, are not backed by material evidences, however. Also, the community has been drawing strength through claims of descent from the mythical Parasuram or Chanakya, a pure brahmin. No evidence exists to back up these fake claims though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.7.88 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In what way are your comments related to improving the article? You're mostly just repeating what it says. That is not the purpose of this talk page, so perhaps keep your thoughts to yourself? - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Gangeswar Dev ( Bettiah Raj ), jaitharia Brahmin , who got land from rajas in the form of Alms , and started princely estate .....

Same as (Darbhanga Raj ) maithli Brahmin, Mahesh thakur , kameshwar Singh etc .......these are also Brahmin ,

Only Priestly function doesn't define Brahmin status.

Nowadays jealous people can create any propanganda regarding inferiority ,etc Pandit9999 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Pandit9999 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You can see, you don't have much information about other Brahmins it doesn't mean they are not Brahmin. You can approve Hindu Mythology, thoughts , gita , etc but it doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Keep your thoughts with yourself

We need not give any proof to anyone. Pandit9999 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you proof Hindu Mythology ? No, but so many people's blindly following this Hindu gita , Vedas and puras.

Because faith, emotions , blessings etc. So don't compare our religion and caste with present social scenario. You can't proof anything Pandit9999 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No proof of a significant Bhumihar population in former colonies
None of the references indicate that there is a population of Bhumihars in Mauritius, Suriname, Guyana etc as stated in the opening line of the article. Can this please be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien2016 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2017
Kindly ADD surname "Thakur", which is mainly used in Kanti , Muzzafarpur district of North Bihar Deepak kr Thakur (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thakur is a different caste not surname, Bhumihar is also not Caste it's a Culture of Zamindar Brahmin. When people start using " Bhumihar Brahmin " day by day, it becomes shorter , and nowadays Simply " Bhumihar " word is popular among social status. People cannot create caste but we can create a Culture as Bhumihar Brahmin. Pandit3333 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Morphdog (t - c) 16:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2017
Please add 'Rai' under Common surnames of Bhumihars. This surname can be found commonly in north uttar pradesh. Ashis10223 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
Bhumihars claim Brahmin status in most parts while also Rajput status in areas surrounding Azamgarh in UP and at many other places. Abhijit Tiwary (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

unsourced  Programming Geek talk to me 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bhumihar is just a group name not a Caste. First of all ,( Zamindar Brahmin ) Of Bihar and UP created a group name ( Bhumihar Brahmin ), simply called as Bhumihar. It's doesn't mean Bhumihar is a caste. Zamindar is status of power, position , Leader. Zamindar can be any caste ( Brahmin, kshatriya , vaish , shudra ) So, nowadays , don't judge the Caste from profession. Bcoz 80% Brahmins not performing priestly function, it's doesn't mean they are not Brahmin. Go somewhere else Pandit3333 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Princely states edit request
The article lists that Bhumihars controlled 9 princely state, which is wrong. Only Benares State was a princely state, rest of the estates were Zamindari estates. Even the list of Zamindari estates is incomplete. The list goes on to include Kharagdiha estate, Raj Dhanwar, Ledo Gadi, Kukraha estate, Bamangama estate, Kiajori(Chakai) estate, Kharna Ghatwali. The list goes on. You can find information about these estates in McPhersan Reports on Santhal Pargana, Final report on the survey and settlement operations in the District of Hazaribagh, and others in Gazetteers of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa more specifically in the districts of Hazaribagh, Monghyr and Santhal Pargana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai1112 (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ utcursch &#124; talk 16:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2017
Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women, if this right that what about those people who tell their gotra as bharadwaj as the wife of rishi bharadwaj was a rajput princes and the saint bharadwaj was brahmin then there child should be of mix breed but there children claim to be either a pure brahmin or a pure how is this possible. are't they contradicting themself. My point is if bhumihar are told to be of mix breed then all the rajput and brahmins having their gotra as bharadwaj must be of mix breed.Is it not a logic with facts. Rajanand1996 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This change should not be made as within Bhumihars, different Clans have got different lineage, legends and history.

I really hate this type of Wikipedia nonsense, first of all this is fake , and trying to defame the society status of powerful Brahmin ( Bhumihar ) , Britisher also played ( Divide n rule ) , nowadays Politician doing it , just for vote bank. Second, you make a list , nowadays other Brahmin subcaste marrying with rajput , etc etc ..... Like divyanka tripathi , rohit Sharma , ishant Sharma , rani mukherjee , kajol mukherjee , etc etc ...... So many people's at the local level also doing that , and still they are pure , this is disgusting ,......... If your thinking like this , then this is not your place , because nowadays Whole caste mixed with other caste ...every body know very well ......so stop doing non sense things, Singh , Thakur , Roy is manmade title , to show the powerful status , not caste , illiterate people are very dangerous Pandit3333 (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Pandit3333 (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Customs and Tradition edit request
The article says "Some Bhumihars in Muzaffarpur trace their lineage to Husseini Brahmins". This statement sounds wrong,it should instead be "Husseini Muslims in Muzaffarpur trace their lineage to Bhumihar Brahmins." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai1112 (talk • contribs)


 * ❌ The reference says "a group of Hindus participated in the Muharram procession with equal veneration [...] They claim their lineage to Hussaini Brahmin sect [...] Mostly Bhumihars, the group marched...". utcursch &#124; talk 16:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Shut up this nonsense. What's going on, saraswat Brahmin ( husseni Brahmin ) .......how can you relate to Bhumihar Brahmin. Go to hell Pandit3333 (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Pandit3333 (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you think, whatever you are writing , we will accept it , bloody nonsense , you will decide who I am , get lost Pandit3333 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Pandit3333 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:VNT. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The history of Bhumihars is much older than Hussain or Islam. So it doesn't sound logical to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:c284:59c7::2b1e:38a0 (talk) 13:11, October 16, 2017‎
 * If you can provide a reliable source that substantiates that claim, then it can be added to the article. We don't just take each other's word that something is true. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

These sentences are very worng.please correction.otherwise We are apply Cyber law crimes IPC section 70 to you.. ""One legend claims that their ancestors were Brahmins who were set up to take the place of the Kshatriyas slain by Parashurama but some non-Bhumihars have implied that they are the mixed-race offspring of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.[9] Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women, or that they derive from Brahman-Buddhists who lost their high position in Hindu society,and Some of the early censuses of British India categorised Bhumihars as Shudras"", these sentences are very worng.please  correction  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.60.143.190 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2018
Kshitij0303 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

please correct your information on bhumihar here is link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2018
It is a reqest to change the content of page as content provided by you is bit contradictory and inflammatory in nature and without any proof.proposed change is:-

Change the first paragraph in history section which is "As with many castes in India, there are numerous myths regarding the origins of the Bhumihar community. One legend claims that their ancestors were Brahmins who were set up to take the place of the Kshatriyas slain by Parashurama but some non-Bhumihars have implied that they are the mixed-race offspring of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.[9] Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women, or that they derive from Brahman-Buddhists who lost their high position in Hindu society. The Bhumihars themselves dislike these narratives involving "hybridity" or "fallen status", and claim to be pure Brahmins"  to  "Bhumihar are subclass of brahmins and were inherent close in the past. Reference:- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 Adi123478 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Adi123478 (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Fails verification. The genetic profile test results article does not say what you seem to want it to say and does not contradict the existing text.  Extending these limited results to the broad conclusion about the origin of an entire caste is textbook original research and therefore not allowed by the Core Content Policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
Please delete sentence on Chandrashekhar Singh, former Chief Minister of Bihar in early 1980s being a Bhumihar. He was not. He was a Rajput. Sinmad63 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of the first Premier and later Chief Minister of Bihar was Shri Krishna Singh and not Krishna Singh. Shri was part of his name and not an honorific.Sinmad63 (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —  Newslinger  talk   14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2018
Please delete sentence "but some non-Bhumihars have implied that they are the mixed-race offspring of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.[9] Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women, or that they derive from Brahman-Buddhists who lost their high position in Hindu society. The Bhumihars themselves dislike these narratives involving "hybridity" or "fallen status", and claim to be pure Brahmins.[7]" Source to verify the fact . It says "अर्थ-इस प्रकार भगवान् परशुरामजी के सम्बन्ध से भूमिहार जाति-भेद से नियुक्त हुए और कौशिकादि गोत्रीय भूमिहार ब्राह्मणों का वंश प्रवृत्त हुआ। जिनके आदिपुरुष महासौम्य भानुदत्ता हुए।" If you use google translator it means "In connection with Lord Parshuramji, Bhumihar was appointed from the caste-based and the Brahmins of the Kaushikadi Gothri Bhumihar Brahmins became inclined. Those who have been adept at mahamyamya Bhanudatta" Anand0904 (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)ANAND0904Anand0904 (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please delete sentence "they have also been called Bhuinhar.[6]" Bhuinhar comes under Schedule tribes where as Bhumihars comes under General Cateogry. Refer government of india website , List of scheduled tribes - S.No 5. Also remove "Some of the early censuses of British India categorised Bhumihars as Shudras, the lowest of the four varnas" as Bhumihars comes under General Category not in Scheduled Caste or Tribe as already mentioned in the existing bhumihar wiki. Anand0904 (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Anand0904


 * ❌ The sentences that you want to be deleted have reliable sources to back them up.
 * "स्वामी सहजानन्द सरस्वती रचनावली" is not an acceptable source: the mythical origin described by it cannot be presented as fact, or as a rationale to argue for removal of other sourced content from the article.
 * The current source in the article states that the Bhumihars have been called "Bhuinhars". It is irrevalent whether the name "Bhuinhar" has been used for an unrelated caste or not: the "List of Scheduled Tribes" that you're referring to does not oppose the source currently cited in the article. You can created the article Bhuinhar about the distinct scheduled caste, and add not to be confusd with at the top of this article.
 * If you have reliable sources that contest the claims supported by other sources in the article, please feel free to add them. For example, the source should explicitly state that the term "Bhuinhar" has been wrongly applied to the Bhumihars. utcursch &#124; talk 16:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You can include a separate section on notable Bhumihars. For example Sri Krishna Sinha, R.S. Sharma (noted historian), etc.Aster 72000 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Zamindari estates
The article says that bhumihar controlled 9 princely states and zamindari estates which is absolutely wrong. There were many more zamindari estates controlled by bhumihars. You should have read the Bihar, Bengal and Orisa District Gazetteer before pointing a number. There are atleast 10 more in Santhal Pargana, Munger and Hazaribagh that I can quote. A through reading of all the estate and tauzi no's from revenue department can give an exact figure. My humble request is not the quote any specific no if you are not very sure of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:50B:252E:0:0:EF2:F8A4 (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC) If you are going to count estates of Bhumihars, it is going to no in hundreds. I would like to question the person who has written that Bhumihars had nine zamindari estates, Can you ans me how many zamindari estates were there in British India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.9.193.152 (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not only bhumihar . we are bhumihar brahmin
Wriiten about bhumihar is not perfect. First read history. Ujjawal singh bhumihar (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The important thing on Wikipedia is reading and presenting what reliable sources say. This Brahmin claim has been raised here many times before: some in the community, and some sources, use the phrase Bhumihar Brahmin but the actual status is much more murky. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sitush What source makes you think that the actual status is murky? I feel it's just your opinion like the individual opinion of few other jealous and corrupt historians who have questioned it. I can just compare your opinion with the opinion of the members of Ambedkar society who thinks Rajputs are outsiders and are not upper caste. Ref: http://www.ambedkar.org/research/Rajput_Period_Was_Dark_Age_Of_India.htm

Being a believer, I have a faith system which makes me a Hindu and also a Bhumihar Brahmin and no one has the right to question ones faith system. There are many notable source of famous historians and even the British Indian Government accounts that makes it an undisputed fact that Bhumihars are Brahmins. Even the government records have used the term Bhumihar Brahmins. Asking Bhumihars to prove they are Brahmins is like asking you to prove that you are your grandfathers grandson with notable and reliable source only available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C184:DB0:9417:EFC6:E04B:A9AC (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sitush this is very bad. you are trying to divert the society. Bhumihar means nothing,It's a social status not a caste.not a single religious books mention this hypothetical word bhumihar. Its comes from ayachak Brahman. now modified and becomes Bhumihar Brahman. you are playing with emotions, bastard ........ Pandit52000 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems Sitush has some personal vendetta against Bhumihar Brahmins. Sitush should be blocked from this wiki page. There are enough source to support Bhumihar Brahmins. Sitush is simply not accepting the truth or he is blinded by his vendetta.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2019
Arunnambeesan (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. QueerFilmNerd  talk 05:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove reference 7 and 9
Please don't try to hurt anyone. You cannot proof god. It's doesn't mean not exists. Bhumihar word is hypothetical not a hindu caste, its comes from Ayachak Brahman sabha , earlier it was babhan sabha. Go read history of Banaras estate, Bettiah estate etc, you can easily get it. You know very well this jealous society. Here anyone can say anything without proof. Please Sir try to understand Pandit52000 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We have to base our statements on what reliable sources say and the article seems to be doing that. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sitush have you read the book mentioned as ref no 9. The chapter that talks about Bhumihar Brahmins does not have a single citation. I hope you are not a fool to not understand this unless you have something personal against Bhumihars.


 * Our sources do not need to have citations. We need to have them. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Bhumihar is a new and feudal name to Babhan community
Bhumihar is a word equivalent to jagirdar or zamindar. It has nothing to do with caste in british times. There can be Bhumihar Brahmin or Bhumihar Kshtriya[1]. Babhan was the name of caste presently known as Bhumihar in short or Bhumihar Brahmin. Bhumihar Brahmin subha aspired and tried to get this name changed to Bhumihar in census records[2]. That was accepted in later census records and mentioned as Babhan (Bhumihar Brahmin)[3]. Babhan to be brahmins of ancient Magadh who were speaking a dialect of 3rd century BC in which Brahmins were known to be Babhans or Bambhans[4]. In this wikipedia article, the author is  trying to portray that bhumihar became brahmin or started calling brahmin, it is a wrong fact. A caste known by babhan in common public stated calling themself bhumihar or bhumihar brahmin is the right fact[2][5].

[1] Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya,Page No-109 https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n132

[2]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch under heading status and the nineteenth century https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.id=ch3&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=d0e4900#X

[3]Census Of India 1931 Vol.7 Bihar And Orissa Pt.1 Report https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56026/page/n309

[4] Indo-Aryan races: a study of the origin of Indo-Aryan people and institutions : Chanda, Ramaprasad Page No- 165 https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173 Mangalsinhbabhan [5][8]Census of India 1931 (Census Of India 1931 Vol.7 Bihar And Orissa Pt.1 Report : Lacey, W.g. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56026/page/n309))

Bhabhan are different caste then bhumihar, bhabhan is colloquial of maithil-brahmin called in Mithila region of Bihar. It is not related to bhumihar both are different. Consulting anyone from that region can prove this. Hope anyone can change this from the page. Apurv Ranjan (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Maithili brahmin is different from babhan. Read reliable source not just saying of some people. Go to Magadh region you will found babhan mean bhumihar of today. Bhumihar name came to babhan community only after independence. Earlier times, babhan and Brahmin are considered different on ritual state. Later after independence, Bhumihar name gained popularity. collages and schools were opened with bhumihar name to popularize this name. Bhumihar of today were called babhan since ancient times. Only after effort of kashi naresh this name changed to bhumihar or more precisely Bhumihar Brahmin. Read records of colonial and precolonial era. Read following text. Mangalsinhbabhan

[1] Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya,Page No-109 https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n132

[2,a] The Tribes And Castes Of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary, Volume 1By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, https://archive.org/details/TheTribesAndCastesOfBengal/page/n139 (https://archive.org/details/TheTribesAndCastesOfBengal/page/n139)

[2,b] Census Of India 1901 Vol.1 (india ) (ethnographic Appendices) By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55922/page/n199 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55922/page/n199)

[3]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch Peasants and Monks in British India (https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.id=ch3&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=d0e4900#X)

[4] Indo-Aryan races: a study of the origin of Indo-Aryan people and institutions : Chanda, Ramaprasad Indo-Aryan races: a study of the origin of Indo-Aryan people and institutions : Chanda, Ramaprasad : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173)

[5] Refer Census of India from 1872 -1881–1891–1901–1911–1921–1931–1941. These census and ethnographic study by Indian and British historians and officers clearly tells about all the castes in India.

[6]Census of India 1931 (Census Of India 1931 Vol.7 Bihar And Orissa Pt.1 Report : Lacey, W.g. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)

[7]Statistical Account Of Bengal Vol.12 : Hunter, W.w. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.534069/page/n197)

[8] A Statistical Account Of Bengal Vol.xiii : W.w.hunter : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279433/page/n237)

[9]Report of a tour in Bihar and Bengal in 1879-80. Vol. 15 : Cunningham, Alexander : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/pli.kerala.rare.12155/page/n121)

[10] A Manual of the Land Revenue Systems and Land Tenures of British India : Baden Henry Baden -Powell : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/amanuallandreve01powgoog/page/n247)

[11]Report On The Census Of Bengal(1872) : Beverley, H. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.94529/page/n217)

[12] Bengal District Gazetteers Sahabad : O’malley L. S. S. : Fre (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206888/page/n59)e Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[13] Bengal District Gazetteers Darbhanga : O’malley L. S.s. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206867/page/n55)