Talk:History of the Backward Caste movement in Bihar

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... Its a stub and not promotional, it deals with history of agrarian movement in an Indian state and i am going to expand it ib two weeks.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I am expanding it after sometime with:

[1] [2]Heba Aisha (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Heba you are showing personal grudge everywhere. 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. Go through william pinch book, cited below, gives the exact state with citation which can be verified on internet achieve.   I told you babhans fought to get recognized as bhumihar or landed brahmin(priestly class which certainly they were not and constituted landed aristocrat). Babhan were known as military brahmin and were placed equivalent to rajputs which babhan landlords felt insulting. They conseder themselves superior to rajputs in ritual state so such campaign took place. Babhan were never been considered as sudra, its a total lie you and sitush are trying to spread everywhere. if it is true cite the primary british source in which they were categorized as sudra. 1)people of india bihar [3] 

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 ·[4] 4)Magadhna by By Kumar Nirmalendu[5] 5)Indian communities by kumar suresh singh [6] 6) Bonded histories : genealogies of labor servitude in colonial India [7] 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 [8] 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 . 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. [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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.203.180 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)