Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Negative representation of Bhumihars

The whole content seems to be written by someone who has personal grudge with this community. There are multiple citations wherein sentences have been loosely quoted in such a way that anyone new to this will be churned into believing that this is an evil, unpure caste blatantly fighting for higher status.

For e.g

The very first sentence "The Bhumihars claim Brahmin status, and are also referred to as Bhumihar Brahmin" - sounds so negative

Citation no. 6 - Bhuinhar is a different caste (basically used for bhuinyan) and not at all same as Bhumihar. This was used as a derrogatory term for Bhumihars. Just because it has been used once somewhere doesn't mean it can be implicated on mass.

citation no. 30 - there is no history of the event mentioned here like what led to what. Massacre was wrong but the way the sentence has been put here leaves so little to address.

Citation 7 & 9 - Just because few people (with grudge) say it verbally, it does not entitle the theory to be put on paper with such audacity. Also it was Britishers who deteriorated the status of Bhumihars (who were land owners and thrones in path of british succession) socially

There are multiple instances of such wrong narratives in this article. Kabhiranjan (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Similar is done with us koeris they have made us dalits while no other caste is politically more strong as us in North india.For Rajputs they have added their birth from 🔥 Kuswaha (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is absurd. The Wikipedia in India is no more reliable Kuswaha (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Bhumihar(Brahmin)

Bhumihar is Brahmin , they are landholders , kings and warriors from the time of Sri Bhagwan Parshu-Rama , Ayachak brahman's are warrior brahmans from lord Parshurama inspiration. Bhumihar is one of the varna in ayyachak-Brahmins maily found in Purvanchal , Madhya Pradesh bundelkhand region and Bihar. Mayankrai045 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Should remove brahmin- rajput lines

Reference is only taken from a book, where the writer is himself not sure. Hence all lines related to bhumihar, buddhist and rajput mix should be removed.

This is hurting for all community. Monisays2u (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Some important information about bhumihar which majority of people explained Akash Singh bhumihar (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Akash Singh bhumihar (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhumihars are sub caste of brahmin they don't claim brahmin status we have proof Akash Singh bhumihar (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have proof; please supply it to support your statements / suggested changes. Jack Frost (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

"change hindu caste to hindu high caste" 2405:204:A19F:6ECB:0:0:571:C0B0 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: What makes them a "high caste"? I don't see a source for that, and in any case WP:NPOV means we should usually avoid using non-neutral languge. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Bhumihar are Brahmins , please remove "Bhumihar claims Brahmin). This as othe ayachak Brahmin like Mohayal etc. Mayankrai045 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please process it. Mayankrai045 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The information appears to be reliably sourced--regentspark (comment) 12:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Genetic profile of Bhumihar brahmins

As the research published in Annals of Human Biology, National Center for Biotechnology Information ( US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health ) on Sep-Oct 2003. Which was done on "Genetic profile based upon 15 microsatellites of four caste groups of the eastern Indian state". It was found that the DNA genetic profile of bhumihar clustering with the Brahmin group. As expected, since Bhumihar is known to be a subclass of Brahmin.

Reference : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898

We do not used genetics in caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Traditional proof of Bhumihar brahmins

"Mool" The way to learn "Veda" (The ancient literature of Hinduism) is one of the keys to distinguish between brahmins of different origin and "Gotra" the followers of the ancient scholar "Rishi". There is no disparity between bhumihar brahmins and any other brahmins of northern states of India.

As Wikipedia is not a verified and authentic encyclopedia. so here anyone can write anything junk without proof and ignoring factual evidence. I understand the frustration of some Society, Who are jealous and quotes irrelevant information about bhumihar brahmins. From Genetic to Spiritual and traditional there are no proofs against bhumihar. So please change the word "claim to be brahmin" to a "sub-caste of brahmin".

This is Wikipedia. You may not like it but WP:V applies. There is nothing to stop you from saying differently elsewhere but not here. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Risley view is indicated in wrong way

[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)

On the basis of use of brahmaical gotras and terroterial clans for inhibition of marriage among babhans had led Risley to show possibility of babhans to be an offshoot of Rajputs. He never shown firmly that babhans are rajputs. He has said a possibility, which was later disapproved by Mr Yogendra nath bhattacharya, who had shown that similar kind of terroterial clans and brahmaical gotras exist in sarswat and maithils which do not make them offshoot of rajput.

Do not mention that Risley believed such thing. It was the possibility he has just mentioned. Mention risley book on citation too so that things get clear.

H. H. Risley isn't a great source for any caste info but if he called them Babhan then probably we should say so because it is the term that will apoear in Raj era documents which people still refer to. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Socking

Editor wikip6 (talk · contribs) has been sock-blocked & has been very disruptive at other articles. I suspect that they have here, too, so we either need to revert to a "last best version" or someone needs to do a careful check. I have fixed/removed some misrepresentations of sources but would be surprised if there are not more. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted. Far too many problems. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Varna status and occupation

Utcursh (and anyone else interested), we have an awkward contradiction that we need to deal with & I am unsure of how best to do it.

The article says ... other communities did not give them the ritual status of Brahmins, as most of them were cultivators during the British Raj & cites Arvind Das (1982). No problem except if you take a look at Kushwaha you will see the equally valid statement Some Kushwaha reformers also argued, in a similar vein to the Kurmi reformer Devi Prasad Sinha Chaudhari, that since Rajputs and Bhumihars and Brahmins worked the fields in some areas, there was no rational basis for assertions that such labour marked a community as being of the Shudra varna.

Any thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I believe this was after the Bhumihar campaign to claim Brahmin status had become somewhat successful. Page 83 of William R. Pinch's book:

The concern with personal dignity, community identity, and caste status reached a peak among Kurmi, Yadav, and Kushvaha peasants in the first four decades of the twentieth century. But widespread, though sporadic, apprehensions over such issues extended well beyond [...] by the end of the nineteenth century two influential, landed communities of ambiguous social rank in the Gangetic core, Bhumihars and Kayasths, had already made claims to superior status.

Maybe we can add relevant bits from this book to the article. utcursch | talk 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhumihar are Rishikul Kshatriya

ऋषिकुल क्षत्रिय, जिन्हे बोलचाल की भाषा में भूमिहार या त्यागी कहा जाता है, का इस राष्ट्र में अहम योगदान रहा है।

राष्ट्रकवि रामधारी सिंह 'दिनकर', राम बेनीपुरी, गोपालसिंह 'नेपाली', राहुल सांकृत्यायन, मगही कोकिल जयराम सिंह जैसे प्रभावशाली लेखकों और चिंतकों ने हिंदी और मैथिली के साहित्यिक उपवन को अपनी रचनाओं से सिंचित किया है।

बिहार कोकिला शारदा सिन्हा, "विनोद राय", "डॉ के. के सिन्हा", "ईशान किशन" "अर्जुन शर्मा" "रविकांत शर्मा" "दीपक शर्मा" इत्यादि इसी समुदाय से आते हैं।

मगध के महान पुष्यमित्र शुंग और कण्व वंश दोनों ही राजवंश भूमिहार (क्षत्रिय) थे। भूमिहार (क्षत्रिय) भगवन परशुराम को प्राचीन समय से अपना कुल गुरु मानते हैं। Advocate RS Rai (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmin a new name for caste known as babhan in past

     While the 1901 census was in the compilation stage, Bhumihar associations filed numerous representations with E. A. Gait, the director of census operations for Bengal and Bihar, which argued that, for the purposes of the census, the term “Babhan” should not be used to describe them and instead they should be classified as Bhumihar, or landed, brahmans. Ninety years earlier, in his survey of what later became Patna and Gaya Districts of Bihar, Buchanan had noted with some disdain that Bhumihars (to whom he referred as Magahi and military brahmans) “have betaken themselves entirely to agriculture and arms, and cannot be considered as belonging to the sacred order.” He consequently ascribed to them kshatriya status. Gait followed suit in his census report at the turn of the century, though he left the question of Bhumihar status officially unresolved: “The best opinion at the present time is perhaps in favour of the Brahmanical origin of the Babhans, but it would be incorrect to say that they are, therefore, Brahmans still. In the eyes of the general Hindu public they constitute a separate caste, which is generally, but not always, regarded as slightly superior to that of the Rajputs [regarded as kshatriya].[1]
    Babhan or bhumihar brahmin (bhuinhar a distorted  colloquial of bhumihar  term) are the ancient brahmins of magadh. There was large influx of sanskrit speaking brahmins from midland to magadh area. The local brahmins of magadh were known by the local  babhan name different from the sanskrit speakers. This term is found on inscriptions of ashoka in sense of brahmins of magadh.[2] 
    The Babhans have always been large influential caste in bihar. They had brahmanical  gotras titles and family names as also similar customs. They use brahmanical  titles and surnames of mishra, pandey and tiwari along with rajputs ones of rai, singh and thakur. They perform half the rituals prescribed for brahmana. A great majority of them are zamindars and have assumed secular titles of raja and maharaja like the rajputs[3] 

[1]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch(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)

[2] Indo-Aryan races: a study of the origin of Indo-Aryan people and institutions (https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173)

[3]Bihar Through The Ages by Diwakar, R. R. (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.150067/page/n729)

ऋषिकुल क्षत्रिय, जिन्हे बोलचाल की भाषा में भूमिहार या त्यागी कहा जाता है, का इस राष्ट्र में अहम योगदान रहा है।

राष्ट्रकवि रामधारी सिंह 'दिनकर', राम बेनीपुरी, गोपालसिंह 'नेपाली', राहुल सांकृत्यायन, मगही कोकिल जयराम सिंह जैसे प्रभावशाली लेखकों और चिंतकों ने हिंदी और मैथिली के साहित्यिक उपवन को अपनी रचनाओं से सिंचित किया है।

बिहार कोकिला शारदा सिन्हा, "विनोद राय", "डॉ के. के सिन्हा", "ईशान किशन" "अर्जुन शर्मा" "रविकांत शर्मा" "दीपक शर्मा" इत्यादि इसी समुदाय से आते हैं।

मगध के महान पुष्यमित्र शुंग और कण्व वंश दोनों ही राजवंश भूमिहार (क्षत्रिय) थे। भूमिहार (क्षत्रिय) भगवन परशुराम को प्राचीन समय से अपना कुल गुरु मानते हैं। Advocate RS Rai (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

the Possible origin of Bhumihar - Born of Treachery

This all can be traced back to The Shungha Empire they were a brutal ruling family who executed the Bhuddist monk . See, Kshatriya got their power from politics as they are the rulers , generals , governors and soldiers , but still Brahmans are on a higher Varna because their power comes from religion if there is anything the people fear more than tyrants , ghosts and demons they are Hoda and Brahmans convinced that God wanted Brahmans to be the highest but as people were turning to Buddhism they still feared a Kshatriya because they were still a ruler but they did not feared Brahmans as they can’t say that god won’t forgive as the people were following other god now so the Brahmans influence was on decline thus , they thought to rebel against the ruler at the time the later Maurya . this was a local rebellion as the power of later Maurya extended just to the heartland of Maurya the region of Eastern UP and Bihar . Pushymitra Shungha was the Amatya or Prime minister of the muarya who conspired this revolt so they assasinated the Maurya king and took power in their hands . As in modern day Bihar most of the Bhumihar are centre’s in Muzzafarpur , Jehanabad , Muzzafranagar , Vaishali which is all quite near to Pataliputra Deepsingh 0611 (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• God not Hoda Deepsingh 0611 (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhumihars are not brahmin. We are forbidden to act as priests. We're 'Rishikul Kshatriya' who earn their livelihood by the sweat of their brow in peace times and take up arms and fight during wars. Advocate RS Rai (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Myths & Attempt to denigrate the Babhans

There has been false stories & myths being circulated to defame the Babhan Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya Kumar Pandey (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This women Heba Aiysha have now removed bhumihars name from 200 year old Kanyakubja Vanshavali without going through it. This itself invites a legal action. Add to it she added new Varna page in Bhumihars Wikipedia page and put out all rubish stories without any substantial proof. Rai950 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Help me administrators

I went through a reference of Jeffery witsoe in the article and after viewing all census reports from 1809 to 1931 i found no reffrence where bhumihars were classified as mentioned in citations. Hence according to me the the reference is clearly wrong. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shakib khan1985: that is the incorrect use of a help me tag. I have replaced it with an edit request tag - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir the reference given by jeffery witsoe on this page is wrong. The citation states first of all is a tertiary source with no reference within it. Moreover being a masters student of sociology I went through all census record in British period and found the sentence from source wrong. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ifa you understood my point I want you to have a discussion with me on this. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Shakib khan1985, Please can you provide some opposing sources? Currently the information for both Kayastha/Bhumiyar of Bihar seems well sourced. I do not know what Arun Sinha's qualifications are but if he is a modern historian or Anthropologist then he can be considered WP:HISTRWThanks LukeEmily (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(copied from Heba's talk page)

update:

I was searching for the qualifications of Arun Sinha and came across these links:

https://www.facebook.com/arun.sinha.9693

https://penguin.co.in/book_author/arun-sinha-2/

Bihar College of Engineering, Patna

Class of 1973

Dayanand High School, Mithapur, Patna

Class of 1966 · Patna, India

https://www.facebook.com/arun.sinha.9693: Journalist, Writer, Film maker. Currently Editor of The Navhind Times, Panaji, India. Written four books, AGAINST THE FEW: STRUGGLES OF INDIA'S RURAL POOR(Zed Books, London, 1991); THE HEDONIST EMPIRE (novel, Peacock Books, 1996); GOA INDICA: A CRITICAL PORTRAIT OF POSTCOLONIAL GOA(Bibliophile South Asia, 2002); and NITISH KUMAR AND THE RISE OF BIHAR(Penguin/Viking, 2011). Was the first Fellow of the Reuter Foundation from India to study at Oxford University for a year in 1983-84. Worked as Assistant Director to Film maker Shyam Benegal on the 52-part television series Bharat Ek Khoj based on Nehru's book, Discovery of India

Sinha is an engineer who studied film making and took an interest in journalism. That puts him very low on WP:HSC. Historical scholarship is generally not: Journalism

I think we can use journalists for simple and non-contentious topics like caste of politicians but not for varna. For example, I have seen some maratha journalists write caste of Marathas as Kshatriya which is definitely false. Also, Sinha is an engineer - does not have a degree in anthropology or history or sociology etc. Not sure if we can use him for varna opinions - should we ask Sitush? CC: @Shakib khan1985:, Heba Aisha, your thoughts? LukeEmily (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

LukeEmily, We are using Sinha not for determining Varna, but because of his works regarding political history of Bihar.The politics and caste are associated and we have seen social stratification in Dalit castes too with political empowerment. Chamars usually consider themselves superior that Pasi and other dalit castes. Sinha's statement is kept in his own word to saw rapid changes in 1900s in status of some communities. Plz see the section on politics describe the rise and fall of the caste as well.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Further page 126 and 125 of this source also suggests that Brahmin donot recognise Bhumihars as being a part of their community. Infact the said page also mentions that:

Sanskritization?
Kumar, Ashwani (2008). Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar. Anthem Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-84331-709-8. They(Bhumihar) got enrolled as "Bhumihar Brahman " in colonial census to seek higher status like other peasant castes ex: Koeri and Yadav. They(Bhumihar) also formed caste based organisation to seek higher status.

Heba Aisha (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Kumar Ashwani is already mentioned in the page , all I am saying is that bhumihar seeked the status of route Brahmins after being classified as a separate upper caste (dwija). They were never been classified as shudras ( like Bengali Kayasthas ) in any of the census. I just want you guys to suggest a primary source ( original British census) which said as mentioned in the citations. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Unlike Koeri and Yadav , bhumihars were unanimously classified as upper caste in census reports. They went for Sanskritisation for the pure Brahmin status. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have gathered links of most the British Aditi kes on bhumihars prior to the formation of bhumihar Brahmin sabha in 1889. Where should I post them???? Shakib khan1985 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173 The author here is a renowned Indian ethnographer. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you guys not reverting Arun Sinha’s reference . He is not a historian and just passed a opinion. Those sort of references are not at the level of wikipedia kindly revert it.

Shakib khan1985 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

first of all see the article edit history, genetics related stuff are not allowed in caste articles. Second the source that is used at present explicitly says that they were recognised as Shudra in some of the census. Also the census itself is aWP:Primary source. We need its interpretation by a third party independent author. And the current source is one such. There is no case to remove the stuff sourced from such a high quality publishers.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary source????? Written almost 150 years after British census by a non-academic person(kumar Ashwini,Arun Sinha). Please go through through definition of WP:Primary. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LukeEmily I think this source will be appropriate for varna of Bhumihars. Development and Democracy in India. The writer is not a journalist and satisfies the needs you want to see.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Shakibkhan I would advice you to read policies, and also User:Sitush/Common#Castelists as you seems unaware of common editing policies in this area. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This have been through this by Sharma 5 years ago and his book is about regarding political and economic changes after land reform. How can we use this for varna history of bhumihars??? Shakib khan1985 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Shakib khan1985 and LukeEmily don't post on Sitush talk page, he donot seems interested. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Our discussion here is about varna history of bhumihars rather than there history regarding land reforms( a lot of high quality literature is present on that too)Shakib khan1985 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush/Common#Castelists every thing is according to that ( I am the only one talking about real British sources). Shakib khan1985 (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Shakibkhan there is no historic source about Bhumihars itself. Currently check all the sources....I am sure that by the definition of reliable sources you are giving....there will be nothing to write. I have already cleared, since they had no role in history like other castes (except Rajputs and few Maratha castes) hence very little writing exists on them.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

British era sources or census are not allowed. Their interpretation in modern books are allowed.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If source exist which discuss about "only varna" of bhumihar then bring. Otherwise as of now from all sources used on this article it is clear that they are obviously not Brahmin Heba Aisha (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please guide how can I post link in this talk page. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why British era census no allowed???? Shakib khan1985 (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know any census prior to British are not allowed. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

page 238..You need to read that castelist...it is a set of rules which are required to edit caste related articles. (you will know why british period census etc are not allowed.. Since many people come here from time to time to discuss changes in the Varna Status, its not possible to explain each and every rule)Heba Aisha (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Kindly read review of above mentioned books (sadashivan is popular for degrading Brahmins) in this book. Shakib khan1985 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why I am asking you to read policies, every community thinks itself to be descendants of some mythical heroes. Even upper caste like Rajput are mixture of Shudra and Tribals but if you ask them, they will claim to have descended from sun and moon. The review about which you are talking are from people of those community only and it holds no water to doubt authenticity of an author because of that. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Reply to LukeEmily

I have added a social history of India to determine varna, and I think it donot suffer from lack of WP:HSC.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha is knowingly insulting Bhumihars

ms. heba aisha, opinions of Raj era ethnographers are not allowed on wikipedia on caste. Quoting zoologists from 1800 on caste is also not allowed. you delete it from main page or I will on unlock. what is your problem with Bhumihar. Bhumihar are Brahman not shudra. correct your mistake miss. Anamika Pandit 1999 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The source Nitish Kumar and rise of Bihar(2011) is a modern source and use of sources published before 1947 is considered doubtful. plz see WP:Citing SourcesHeba Aisha (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Bhunihars are Brahmins, read book: Sun Worship in India: A study of Deo Sun-Shrine by A.B. Saran and Gaya Pandey. The records since 15th century are cited in the well researched book. Unlock the page. If you still don't believe go to Gaya and check our genealogical records with the Pandits who manage pind Daan there. Varunrai5 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Heba aisha and sitush are propagandist trying to malign the history of babhan/Bhumihar. Arun sinha, S N shivdasan as well as Witsoe Jeffrey writes something absurd and offensive about babhan/bhumihars without citing the primary source of their statement. Books and article by kumar suresh singh a noted indian anthropologist have not been given space. People of india by anthropolical survey of india have been written and compiled by kumar suresh singh assited by 470 noted scholars, containg all major communities in pan india. Their article is violation of wikipedia and a unauthenticated remarks by some tom dick and harry is very important for these wikipedians. Its total hegemony of some people on wikipedia to malign this platform by showing their personal grudges. Here Tom dick harry is very important and renowned writers are barred from citation. Caste articles should be judged by neutral and knowledgeable authors not by tom dick and harry who give importance to unauthentic sources which hardly signifies anything. I request wikipedia to take action on these moderators and make the article sensible rather than a propaganda machine to show grudge. There should be an option of report abuse in wikipedia so that unauthentic writers and their article can be reported so that self correction can take place in the article. Unauthenticated statements and sources should be refrained from citing. primary source of statements should be also cited so that the reader can judge themselves. Do not make wikipedia a platform to defame others and boast someone. I feel pity over wikipedia that such biased authors are promoted on so sensitive caste or community issue.I repeatedly request as well as plead wikipedia to let platform be edited by sensible people rather than jealous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.119.172 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Babhan/Bhumihar Brahmin /Zamindar Brahmin

The caste earlier known as Babhan or magdhi brahmin got name changed to bhumihar brahmin in 20th century. It was an attempt of few landlords especially kashi naresh to patronize this feudal term over old babhan name. Francis Buchanan has mentioned this caste as magadhi brahmin and military brahmin as well as babhan. Babhans are ancient magadhi brahmins of magadh as suggested by ramprasad chanda ramprasad. Bhumihar means holder of bhum as suggested by jogendra nath bhattacharya. Bhumihar is a feudal term has nothing with origin of caste but landholding of babhans in 18th and 19th century. see following references :

[1] Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya

https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n132

[2,a] The Tribes And Castes Of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary, Volume 1 By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir,(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)
[2,c] A glossary of judicial and revenue terms
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023050762/page/n115

[3]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch (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 (https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173)
[5] Hindu Tribes and Castes by  Matthew Atmore Sherring (https://archive.org/details/hindutribesandc00shergoog/page/n67)

[6,a] Census of india 1901, Census of India, 1901 : (https://archive.org/details/cu31924071145571/page/n405)
[6,b] East India (Census) [microform] : General report of the census of India, 1901 

( https://archive.org/details/pts_eastindiacensusg_3720-1115/page/n513)

[7] 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.
[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)
[9]. 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)
[10]. A Statistical Account Of Bengal Vol.xiii : W.w.hunter (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279433/page/n237)
[11]. Report of a tour in Bihar and Bengal in 1879-80. Vol. 15 : Cunningham, Alexander : (https://archive.org/details/pli.kerala.rare.12155/page/n121)
[12]. A Manual of the Land Revenue Systems and Land Tenures of British India : Baden Henry Baden -Powell (https://archive.org/details/amanuallandreve01powgoog/page/n247)
[13]. 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)
[14]  Caste And Race In India by   G.s. ghurye (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.78637/page/n119)
[15] Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281614/page/n67)

[16] Ethnography by   Baines, Athelstane, Sir

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31432/page/n35)

[17] The Tribes And Castes Of The North-Western Provinces And Oudh, Vol. 2

(https://archive.org/details/tribescastesofno02wcro/page/64)

[18] Warren Hastings And Oudh by    Davies, Cuthbert Collin

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.49887/page/n135)

Francis buchanan account

[19] An Account Of The District Of Shahabad In 1812- 13

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.100303/page/n203

[20] Bihar And Patna In 1811-1812 Vol. 1  

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.49019/page/n325

[21] Account Of The District Of Purnea In 1809-10

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56956/page/n217

Bengal district gazetter by o malley

[22]. Bengal District Gazetteers Sahabad : O’malley (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206888/page/n59)
[23]. Bengal District Gazetteers Darbhanga : O’malley ( (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206867/page/n55)
[24] Bengal District Gazetteers Muzaffarpur : O’malley

( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206879/page/n53)

[25] Bengal District Gazetteers Saran : O’malley

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105556/page/n59)

[26] Bengal District Gazetteers Patna : O’malley

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279687/page/n57)

[27] Bengal District Gazetteers Gaya : O’malley

( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69905/page/n111)

[28] Bengal District Gazetteers Gaya : O’malley                                                                         ( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55891/page/n77)
[29] Bengal District Gazetteers palamu : O’malley                                                                         

( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206883/page/n69).

Some old records

[30] The ethnology of India by  Campbell, George, 1824-1892; Dalton, Edward Tuite. Kols of Chota-Nagpore

(https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofindia00camp/page/66)

31] Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by    Asiatic Society (Kolkata, India)

(https://archive.org/details/journalasiatics00asia/page/n279)

32] The Church Missionary Intelligencer, A Monthly Journal Of Missionary Information
(https://archive.org/details/churchmissionar02socigoog/page/n354)

Modern views

33) Magadhnama By Kumar Nirmalendu 

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Tn-4DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=magadhnama&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivjN-a1_vnAhXljeYKHcI8AVoQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

34) India’s communities by anthropological survey of india by Kumar Suresh Singh 

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=Jw9uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume

Some other records

[35] Journal of the American Oriental Society by American Oriental Society

https://archive.org/details/journalvolume04socigoog/page/n90

[36] Memoirs on the History, Folk-Lore, and Distribution of the Races of the North Western Provinces of India, Vol. 1

https://archive.org/details/memoirsonhistory01henr/page/24

[37] Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol 2

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281524/page/n225

[38] The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol Xxiii Singhbhum

sufficient amount of british era books has been cited above (none of them states babhans as sudra, it is grudge of few people in modern times to make babhans as sudra)(during british era this caste was more popularly known as babhan only which can be verified by anybody). people of india by kumar suresh singh ( a govt of india initiative). please stop quoting book based on some persons view who are neither historian or ethnographer. Bhumihar is hardly a century or two century old term but babhan caste existed since ancient times and they were lord since ancient times in magadh and adjoining area.

Though the editor is blocked, I saw it as my duty to explain everything that may keep people visiting this page to believe that, why wikipedia is a reliable source? There exist User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, which is an effort by senior editors in this topic area to juxtapose various discussion results and reliable source related discussion together. Basically, those people who visit caste related pages are ignorant of policies of wikipedia and end up with a belief that editors have personal grudge with their caste. But regarding bulk of sources mentioned above: these are all raj era sources and hence aren't reliable in comparison to modern scholarly works for the reason quoted below from the above castelist:

the Raj and pre-Raj work suffer from particular problems. For example:Their authors were, almost without exception, administrators rather than historians and anthropologists

Many subscribed to theories of scientific racism and/or in their administrative goal tried to pigeon-hole people in ways that did not reflect reality Few could speak the local languages and were reliant instead on interpreters, who often came from the Brahmin castes and had a vested interest in selective interpretation There was little attempt at critical thought, leading to inconsistencies and outright contradictions The British desire for order unleashed a cacophony of competing claims etc as people jostled for position in what was effectively a new society, with parameters defined by the Brits. At the extreme, entire self-identifying communities appeared and disappeared in as little as a decade as they attempted to manipulate the census etc. Census of India prior to independence

Sanskritisation .

Heba Aisha (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No body has considered bhumihar related to any tribe bhuyan. Bhum and its variant only meant landholder or landlord like bhumiya(bhumiya rajput of bengal , baro bhumiya of assam and bengal).Its a landholding designation not any caste. Caste name was babhan or magadhi brahmin until 1911 tereafter name changed to babhan(bhumihar brahmin) now shortened as mere bhumihar. Thakur designation is used by many tribals,Rajputs, Nais, Babhans, Maithili brahmin as well as bengali brahmin does it mean thakur are tribals or nais. Its a feudal title not any caste similarly until 19th century bhumihar term was used by babhans, some of rajputs, lords of assam as well as landholders of munda and oron tribe. It only designate a landholding state not any caste. Article on wikipedia is written solely to malign the image of babhan caste. just mention t== Babhan/Bhumihar Brahmin /Zamindar Brahmin ==

The caste earlier known as Babhan or magdhi brahmin got name changed to bhumihar brahmin in 20th century. It was an attempt of few landlords especially kashi naresh to patronize this feudal term over old babhan name. Francis Buchanan has mentioned this caste as magadhi brahmin and military brahmin as well as babhan. Babhans are ancient magadhi brahmins of magadh as suggested by ramprasad chanda ramprasad. Bhumihar means holder of bhum as suggested by jogendra nath bhattacharya. Bhumihar is a feudal term has nothing with origin of caste but landholding of babhans in 18th and 19th century. see following references :

[1] Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya

https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n132

[2,a] The Tribes And Castes Of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary, Volume 1 By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir,(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)
[2,c] A glossary of judicial and revenue terms
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023050762/page/n115

[3]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch (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 (https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173)
[5] Hindu Tribes and Castes by  Matthew Atmore Sherring (https://archive.org/details/hindutribesandc00shergoog/page/n67)

[6,a] Census of india 1901, Census of India, 1901 : (https://archive.org/details/cu31924071145571/page/n405)
[6,b] East India (Census) [microform] : General report of the census of India, 1901 

( https://archive.org/details/pts_eastindiacensusg_3720-1115/page/n513)

[7] 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.
[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)
[9]. 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)
[10]. A Statistical Account Of Bengal Vol.xiii : W.w.hunter (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279433/page/n237)
[11]. Report of a tour in Bihar and Bengal in 1879-80. Vol. 15 : Cunningham, Alexander : (https://archive.org/details/pli.kerala.rare.12155/page/n121)
[12]. A Manual of the Land Revenue Systems and Land Tenures of British India : Baden Henry Baden -Powell (https://archive.org/details/amanuallandreve01powgoog/page/n247)
[13]. 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)
[14]  Caste And Race In India by   G.s. ghurye (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.78637/page/n119)
[15] Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281614/page/n67)

[16] Ethnography by   Baines, Athelstane, Sir

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31432/page/n35)

[17] The Tribes And Castes Of The North-Western Provinces And Oudh, Vol. 2

(https://archive.org/details/tribescastesofno02wcro/page/64)

[18] Warren Hastings And Oudh by    Davies, Cuthbert Collin

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.49887/page/n135)

Francis buchanan account

[19] An Account Of The District Of Shahabad In 1812- 13

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.100303/page/n203

[20] Bihar And Patna In 1811-1812 Vol. 1  

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.49019/page/n325

[21] Account Of The District Of Purnea In 1809-10

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56956/page/n217

Bengal district gazetter by o malley

[22]. Bengal District Gazetteers Sahabad : O’malley (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206888/page/n59)
[23]. Bengal District Gazetteers Darbhanga : O’malley ( (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206867/page/n55)
[24] Bengal District Gazetteers Muzaffarpur : O’malley

( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206879/page/n53)

[25] Bengal District Gazetteers Saran : O’malley

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105556/page/n59)

[26] Bengal District Gazetteers Patna : O’malley

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279687/page/n57)

[27] Bengal District Gazetteers Gaya : O’malley

( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69905/page/n111)

[28] Bengal District Gazetteers Gaya : O’malley                                                                         ( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55891/page/n77)
[29] Bengal District Gazetteers palamu : O’malley                                                                         

( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206883/page/n69).

Some old records

[30] The ethnology of India by  Campbell, George, 1824-1892; Dalton, Edward Tuite. Kols of Chota-Nagpore

(https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofindia00camp/page/66)

31] Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by    Asiatic Society (Kolkata, India)

(https://archive.org/details/journalasiatics00asia/page/n279)

32] The Church Missionary Intelligencer, A Monthly Journal Of Missionary Information
(https://archive.org/details/churchmissionar02socigoog/page/n354)

Modern views

33) Magadhnama By Kumar Nirmalendu 

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Tn-4DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=magadhnama&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivjN-a1_vnAhXljeYKHcI8AVoQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

34) India’s communities by anthropological survey of india by Kumar Suresh Singh 

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=Jw9uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume

Some other records

[35] Journal of the American Oriental Society by American Oriental Society

https://archive.org/details/journalvolume04socigoog/page/n90

[36] Memoirs on the History, Folk-Lore, and Distribution of the Races of the North Western Provinces of India, Vol. 1

https://archive.org/details/memoirsonhistory01henr/page/24

[37] Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol 2

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281524/page/n225

[38] The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol Xxiii Singhbhum

sufficient amount of british era books has been cited above (none of them states babhans as sudra, it is grudge of few people in modern times to make babhans as sudra)(during british era this caste was more popularly known as babhan only which can be verified by anybody). people of india by kumar suresh singh ( a govt of india initiative). please stop quoting book based on some persons view who are neither historian or ethnographer. Bhumihar is hardly a century or two century old term but babhan caste existed since ancient times and they were lord since ancient times in magadh and adjoining area.

Though the editor is blocked, I saw it as my duty to explain everything that may keep people visiting this page to believe that, why wikipedia is a reliable source? There exist User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, which is an effort by senior editors in this topic area to juxtapose various discussion results and reliable source related discussion together. Basically, those people who visit caste related pages are ignorant of policies of wikipedia and end up with a belief that editors have personal grudge with their caste. But regarding bulk of sources mentioned above: these are all raj era sources and hence aren't reliable in comparison to modern scholarly works for the reason quoted below from the above castelist:

the Raj and pre-Raj work suffer from particular problems. For example:Their authors were, almost without exception, administrators rather than historians and anthropologists

Many subscribed to theories of scientific racism and/or in their administrative goal tried to pigeon-hole people in ways that did not reflect reality Few could speak the local languages and were reliant instead on interpreters, who often came from the Brahmin castes and had a vested interest in selective interpretation There was little attempt at critical thought, leading to inconsistencies and outright contradictions The British desire for order unleashed a cacophony of competing claims etc as people jostled for position in what was effectively a new society, with parameters defined by the Brits. At the extreme, entire self-identifying communities appeared and disappeared in as little as a decade as they attempted to manipulate the census etc. Census of India prior to independence

Sanskritisation .

Heba Aisha (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No body has considered bhumihar related to any tribe bhuyan. Bhum and its variant only meant landholder or landlord like bhumiya(bhumiya rajput of bengal , baro bhumiya of assam and bengal).Its a landholding designation not any caste. Caste name was babhan or magadhi brahmin until 1911 tereafter name changed to babhan(bhumihar brahmin) now shortened as mere bhumihar. Thakur designation is used by many tribals,Rajputs, Nais, Babhans, Maithili brahmin as well as bengali brahmin does it mean thakur are tribals or nais. Its a feudal title not any caste similarly until 19th century bhumihar term was used by babhans, some of rajputs, lords of assam as well as landholders of munda and oron tribe. It only designate a landholding state not any caste. Article on wikipedia is written solely to malign the image of babhan caste. just mention the census report in which babhans have been considered as sudra. Quote any primary document not any absurd writing based on somebodies saying. In which year that has happened i want to know. it is true that many fables were written about babhans origin indicating their origin from jarasandha sacrifice but that was a fable. Until early 20th century babhan term only indicated bhumihar brahmins and from babhan term many jealous people fabricated stories stating babhan means fallen or sham brahmin but in early 20th century same term as discovered on ashokan edicts in sense of brahmins of magadh led others to presume babhans were buddhists. These theories all ready have been stated but non of british has classified babhans as sudra. It was totally an effort of kashi naresh to coin and promote sanskritized bhumihar brahmin term over old babhan name. wikipedia has become a platform to show grudge and jeolousy. you say british era citations are violation and only writing insinuations of british era rather any fact of british era or thereafter. Have you cited noted historian ramprasad chanda work. He clearly says babhans are ancient magadhi brahmins. Just go through article by people of india by kumar suresh singh. It is an official book of anthropological survey of india (independent india) just write that article it is govt's view and independent view. Most of the citations in this article quotes about british aricles without mentioning primary sorce and presumes something which is very wrong. Babhans were known as magadhi brahmin or military brahmin at the time of francis buchanan and Montgomery Martin at that time bhumihar or its variant like bhumiya does not meant any caste rather it only meant landlord or person involved in management of land. In aiene akberi just brahmin or zunnardar term has been used for babhan lords. In balbant nama (18th century) of balbant singh only brahmin ruler term was used rather bhumihar. Only after 19th century bhumihar term started indicating a caste and to refer babhan ( Magahi brahmin ) lords. wikipedia about caste is very much biased and full of fictional facts and fabricated stories. Very pitiful to see such a condition. No body is there to check the authenticity of the content. What ever i have written is given in the citation above or the book i mentioned thereafter. stop writing fabricated stories about babhans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.119.171 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

people of india by kumar suresh singh has many flaws, go through User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, (Sitush is from cambridge and is a very experienced editor in this area) to get what is considered reliable and what's not? Also, the "belief" which you wrote above exist in all castes regarding their origin. Even if you ask a Dalit community, they will also claim origin from any mythological creature just like "twice born" caste do. The primary source like british era census are not reliable as I mentioned above in quote. Many writers have made neutral comments on the basis of that and that's wat we use on wikipedia.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Witsoe, Jeffrey book has been cited for mentioning bhumihar/babhan were mentioned as sudras in british record. I never found primary source nor the author has mentioned its entirely a false statement. Babhans or bhumihar were related to bhuyan tribe is also an absurd statement. I already told bhum and its variant was used in medieval period to represent a landlord or chiefstan not any caste later bhumihar or bhumihar brahmin term was popularized for babhan caste. kamarupa history by E A gait clearly mentioned that Bhum and its variant is more like a title than any caste. [3]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch (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 (https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173). 

Kumar suresh singh's anthropological survey of india clearly mentioned everything and he was director of anthropological survey of india. He has written not only about a single community but he have edited almost all comunities living in india. please mention authentic source and primary source should be cited. In Balwant-náma, of Fakír Khairu-d dín Muhammad balbant singh was clearly mentioned as a brahmin having kithu mishra as forefather, balbant singh was kashi naresh and one of the most prominenet babhan lord (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-india-as-told-by-its-own-historians/balwantnama-of-fakir-khairud-din-muhammad/1A20A67344A29807358D704BA577E4C8). Quote aine akberi and other books of 16th or 15th century. I am not a anthropology student but well known anthropologist like KS Singh should not be ignored. Do not quote unauthenticated statements without any primary source. History is not based on insinuation or gossip but based on facts and proofs in favor of facts. Babhan term itself some ignorant started saying a term for sham brahmin out of jarasandha sacrifice but in early 20th century same term was discovered on ashokan edicts in sense of brahmins of magadh. Francis Buchanan and Montgomery martin have mentioned this community as magahi brahmin. Journal Of The Asiatic Society Of Bengal 1875 Vol Xliv Part I By J wise Baro Bhuiya page 181 clearly mentioned baro bhumiya and many of bhumiya were muslims of afghan or turkish descent. Bhumiya or bhum is an indian version of zameen, or jagir or zameendar. Bhumihar, Bhowmik, Bhumiya all meant landlord in mediaval period before popularity of persian term zameendar in east. It is true that some of the earlier history writers of colonial era confused it with bhuiya tribe. they were separately mentioned as dravidian bhuiya in almost all records in 19th century. History of assam by e a gait [1]. Arun sinhas book has not mentioned the year in which bhumihar were mentioned as sudra and in which year they were promoted. Its totally a bullshit statement. Babhan/bhumihar were mentioned as military and aristocratic community as do tyagis of up. In almost all records of british era prior to 1911 pertaining to bihar bhumihar term was hardly used, this caste was rather known as babhan or military brahmin. The very name itself suggest classification of brahmins into two broader categories one is priestly class in which most of them fell and military brahmin class in which babhans and tagas fell. Babhan under leadership of sahjanand sarswati campaigned for priestly class identification rather a military class which certainly they constituted at that time so british were reluctant. Non of the british authors have mentioed babhans as sudra. Its totally a fabricated statement of later 20th century. You go through any census report or any ethnographic study of colonial period non of them has mentioned babhans as sudra. Some certainly have fabricated myths indicating their low origin promoted to brahmanhood but that was busted when this babhan term was found on ashokan inscription in reference to brahmins of magadh. British authors have clearly told myths and insinuation as myth or insinuation not fact. The fact was babhans were mentioned as par with brahmins and rajputs of that era constituting a military brahmin class as do their counterpart tyagis do in uppar ganga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.185.236.51 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not quote unauthenticated statements without any primary source, plz see WP:Primary, there exist a long list of wiki rules we need to follow. Its not a blog where we can choose preferred source to write what we like.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The best way to change the stuff is to bring a non raj era modern secondary source by good publication which explicitly writes bhumihars as Brahmins.If you are able to bring that we will happy to change it.But as per my knowledge all the sources available just talks about their claim of being Brahmin and converge on similar origin. Infact, I know in recent time also both of them are counted as different castes ,as I m updated with politics related news of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Plz see the book u cited is also a raj era book, A History of Assam.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

people of india uttarpradesh as well as bihar by kumar suresh singh is report of govt of independent india published by anthropological survey of india. Kumar suresh singh is a noted burocrate as well as achademician and anthropologist 1)people of india bihar [2] 2)people of india uttar pradesh [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/_/tBMwAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA6qWa2M3uAhUd63MBHfWUAZMQ7_IDMA96BAgSEAI Do you think statements by arun sinha ( Just a mere journalist whose credential is questionable, do all journalist write truth or sensible only) is more qualified and a recognised and well known anthropologist is less qualified. I already told you are writing about Raj era and relying on statements which does not cite the report in which such thing happend during Raj era. During Raj era only caste census took place thereafter in independent india no such census took place. 3)Peasants and Monks in British India By William R. Pinch ·[3] 4)Magadhna by By Kumar Nirmalendu[4] 5)Indian communities by kumar suresh singh [5] 6) Bonded histories : genealogies of labor servitude in colonial India [6] citation 6 clearly tells about tribal bhuiya and bhumihar/Babhan. There are lot of books and records and ancient which suggests babhans to be brahmins engaged in military activities . I do not find any colonial record mentioning babhan/bhumihar as sudra. They constituted a military brahmin community distinguished from in general priestly brahmins on the basis of military involvements. 7) Mughal administration and zamindars of bihar [7] citation 7 clearly tells bettia raj as well as Hathua raj as brahmin dynasties which are now part of bhumihar brahmin or babhan caste. The very name bhumihar or bhuinhar is a corrupt word of bhumidharka as suggested by Suniti Kumar Chatterji a noted linguist( an article or letter of kumar suniti kumar chattejee is given in By Kumar Nirmalendu book magadhnama.). Yogendra nath bhattacharya have also considered bhumihar a indian language synonym to persian counterpart jamindar as well as jagirdar. Since influence of mohamdan rulers led patronizing of arabic as well as persian words in native tongue, still In east india Bhoom and its variant only denoted landlord of different types. Many of historical findings in the modern india is certainly an effort of many well known british historians, ethnographers and writers like alexander cunnigham, francis bucchana, E A gait and many other indian historians of british era like Ramaprasad Chanda. Ashoka and their edicts was also discoverd by british. Not all Brish era work bad and not independent era book are best. especially of a journalist or fable writer are not qualified enough until they cite the primary source of their statement. please do the necessary changes and make article more sensible rather than a propaganda . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.185.236.52 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the book u mentioned talk about origin of Bhumihars, there is just mention of bhumihar in these books and journals in another context. And about people of india I m not the one who decided whether it is reliable or not. Senior editors had the consensus before I joined wikipedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Shudra statement is by Sadashivan who is a sociologist I think, not a journalist. Also, go through books you are pointing example: Jogendra nath Bhattacharya also says that they belong to some caste called bhuyan, which is also said by Sadasivan. Jeffery witsoe is also a scholar who says that were noted as shudra in british censuses. I don't know how you read all british india censuses altogether( humanly impossible), I can't still see any source calling them pure brahmins. It is true that they hold some of the small principalities but that doesn't prove Brahmin or Kshatriya status as we know of many shudra kings too.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I never told sadashivan as journalist just go through above paragraph. Arun sinha is a journalist and his view about babhan/bhumihar is personal because he never have cited the primary source. Jogendra nath bhattacharya never has stated babhans/Bhumihar related to bhuiya. Go through his aricle. In which text (primary source babhans have been firmly said as sudra) these absurd things are written. You are just giving more weightage to gossip. Neither of the book by arun sinha or jeffery witsoe a ethnographic text to be relied. people of india by kumar suresh singh( renowned sociologist or anthropologist [8] unlike sadashivan whom no body knows) is a govt accredited text compiled by 470 scholars is baseless for you. Sadashivan have not stated babhans related to bhuiya. The bhumihar name itself became popular only after 20th century before that this community was known as mere babhan or magadhi brahmin. I think you are an adamant person not yielding even after giving valid citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.185.236.55 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Bihar men samajik parivartan ke kuchh ayam(literal meaning in English "Days of social changes in bihar" [9] clearly tells about different communities and their political as well social aspirations. This book have properly mentioned citations from which they have derived facts. I do not find primary source in which babhans were mentioned as sudra. The caste earlier known as babhan or magadhi brahmin get name changed as bhumihar brahmin where bhumihar merely indicated landholding or person involved in management of land as found out by Francis Buchanan, James wise, E A Gait, Yogendra nath bhattacharya, Suniti kumar chatarjee. All the citations have been given aforesaid paragraphs. Wikipedia is violating community neutrality and spading misinformation and somebodies assumption. It is true that jealous neighbors of babhan insinuate babhans as mixed race and raised to brahmins in jarasandha sacrifice on the basis of babhan term itself by which they were known until early 20th century. The same term was discovered on eastern ashokan edicts in sense of brahmins of ancient magadh as suggest and proved by noted historian Ramprasad chanda. On the basis of bhumihar making assumption is totally baseless because till british time babhan term was more frequently used rather feudal term bhumihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.119.175 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC) [10]your same wikipedia states babhan/Bhumihar has nothing to with baro bhuiya or bhuyan on wikipedia page of baro bhuiya and same wikipedia has made babhans or bhumihar a part of bhuiya. Just a convenient attempt to spread a propaganda. Most of the authors here have ill motive to spread a propaganda.It is neither a historical or knowledgeable page rather a grateful attempt to spread lies. I will stop writing and accept truth in the fact that babhans were sudra if you find any british era primary source mentioning that. Babhans were classified as dwij ( twice born) in almost all british documents earlier records mentioned them as military brahmin rather than in general priestly class of brahmins. You have always cited secondary sources or gossip not mentioning the time of document in which it happened. Based on somebodies gossip we can not make inference.Citing british priod event and not citing the primary source is mere a gossip and assumption. History is not based on assumption but on facts which certaily you people do not have. I always reiterate to introduce the primary source in which babhans were categorized as sudra. Babhan will always be babhan. Babhans do not need wikipedia approval for their caste status but spreading lies is crime which you are committing repeatedly and intendedly. Babhan were brahmins or not is one question but they were categorised as sudra is another question. Almost all colonial era ethnographers(indian as well as foreigner) have shown babhans have brahmaical origin but were not involved in priesthood in 19th century. Just go through william pinch text which have given ample of citation of all of his statements which i myself have verified with the primary source( You can also also verify it, books available on internet archive, thank to internet archive which is providing the primary source). I do not find any primary source in all the book taking about sudra theory. This theory or myth is post colonial and very new. They are making unfolded assumption for simplification which hardly exist. do not make wikipedia as presumptionpedia or assumptionpedia.

Credentials

Credentials of Mr Arun Sinha himself are very doubtful. https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/child-abuse-charge-against-editor-1.304966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.190.114.118 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

As per book reference, Hindu Tribes and Castes authored by [[ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/M._A._Sherring]] , a very substantive material, which says Bhumihar were type of Brahmins who survived on farming and not on begging. Bhumihars are descendants of KanyaKubj brahmins

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Hindu_Tribes_and_Castes.html?id=VYnlAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Also Learned Chinese traveler has iterated the same stating families of the Kshatriyas were extict and brahmins have given up asceticism. These Brahmins were ruling here and there in the place of Kshatriyas and they were referred as 'Sang he Kang" translated by professor Hoffman as 'Land seizer' which subsequently referred as Zamindaar and Bhumihars.

Reference:

https://hindisamay.com/vividh/swami-sahjanand-saraswati-rachnavali/Sahjanand-vol-1/chapter-8.htm RufinaSmith (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)