Talk:Bhumihar

Please remove this misleading information from Wikipedia and check and correct these references.

text

== Request to remove biased and unsourced claims from the Origin section ==

Dear Editors and Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the removal of highly biased and incorrect claims from the 'Origin' section of this page. Some users have recently added misleading sentences suggesting that the Bhumihar community is of "mixed caste" or tribal descent. These claims are based on manipulated or weak citations, which directly violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS) guidelines.

Historically, authoritative government records, academic research, and judicial decisions have firmly established that Bhumihars belong to the Brahmin lineage (specifically classified as Ayachak Brahmins). To restore the neutrality of this page, please review and verify the following highly authentic and peer-reviewed historical references:

* **Elliot, Henry Miers (1869).** ''Supplemental Glossary of Terms Used in the North West Provinces'', Volume 1. London: Trübner & Co. pp. 23-25. (He explicitly records that Bhumihars share the exact same Gotras and lineages as Sarvariya and Kanyakubja Brahmins).
* **Calcutta High Court Judgments (Late 19th Century).** In historical caste-status lawsuits, the High Court judicially examined the rituals, Gotras, and Upanayana (sacred thread) ceremonies of the Bhumihar community and legally recognized them as a branch of Brahmins.
* **Risley, Herbert Hope (1903).** ''Census of India, 1901'', Volume VI (Bengal). Calcutta: Government Printing. (The official census classified Bhumihars under the 'Dvija' or twice-born category, recognizing their high social status and orthodox Vedic rituals).
* **सरस्वती, स्वामी सहजानंद (1916).** ''ब्रह्मर्षि वंश विस्तार'', पटना: सीताराम आश्रम प्रकाशन. (Provides extensive textual, shastric, and historical evidence of the community's Brahmin roots before they adopted land-owning and agricultural roles).

Kindly review these reliable academic sources, remove the misleading paragraph/citation manipulation, and keep the page under protection to avoid further vandalism. 

Thank you. ~2026-45714-00 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Raj era sources are generally not recognised as RS about caste. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the Shudra and Bhuiya claims based on the cited sources

The cited sources should be checked against the exact wording used in the article. George (2016, p. 242) discusses a scholarly hypothesis that Bhuiyans may have contributed a “strain” to Bhumihar Brahmins; this is not the same as establishing that Bhumihars were themselves Bhuiya or were descended from Bhuiyas as an established fact. Similarly, Witsoe (2013, p. 31) refers to colonial census categorisation as Shudra, but this should be presented in its historical context rather than as an unqualified statement of Bhumihar varna status. I therefore request that the wording accurately reflect the limited claims made by the cited sources.Raidilip (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we need quotes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Witsoe, Democracy Against Development, p. 31, is the cited source for the Shudra statement. Purushottam Kumar, “Bhumihars Struggle for Brahmin Status (1857–1911),” pp. 739–741, is the cited source for the 1865 and 1881 census statement. I agree that the exact quotations should be checked against the wording in the article.Raidilip (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I am asking you to provide the quotations that support your claim of what the source says. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Kumar (1995), p. 739: “they were placed third in the ad-hoc census of 1865 in U.P. and Bihar” and “finding themselves in the third position in the Regular Census.” The passage does not describe this “third position” as “Shudra.” —Raidilip (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What has this to do with either George or Witsoe? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

My point regarding Witsoe is not that he does not make the statement. He does. My question is what specific census or underlying source Witsoe's statement is based on. On p. 31, he states that the colonial census categorized Bhumihars as Shudra, but the passage does not identify a census year or table. Could the underlying census source be identified? —Raidilip (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Quote? Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Witsoe (2013, p. 31) writes that “the colonial census also categorized them as shudra.” My point is that this passage does not identify the specific census year, census table, or underlying census source. —Raidilip (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Because there may have been more than one, we do not analyse RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Witsoe mentions “the colonial census,” but the cited passage does not identify a specific census year or census table. That is the distinction I was pointing out. —Raidilip (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest also adding Nandan and Santhosh (2020), “Associational Structures and Beyond: Evolution and Contemporary Articulations of Bhumihar Caste Associations in Bihar, India,” Journal of Historical Sociology 33(4), pp. 665–680. This recent peer-reviewed study describes Bhumihars as a “landowning upper caste” and discusses their historical claims to Brahmin status. It would provide useful modern scholarly context alongside Witsoe. DOI: 10.1111/johs.12304. —Raidilip (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Write bhumihar Brahmin in place of bhumihar only

Description of suggested change:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-51617-59 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This seems to be a request to change the article title to "Bhumihar Brahmin". If so, this would require a requested move discussion and can't be accomplished through an edit request. Day Creature (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)