Talk:Dhangar

Too much conflation between Dhangar and Hatkar

This article is very freely expanding specifically Hatkar/Bargi-Dhangar information to the Dhangar class overall. The "domineering race of Rajputs" comment, the "Holkars were Shivaji's best soldiers" bit, etc. are all explicitly about Hatkars in the footnotes. There is now an article Hatkar, and I submit that all info not about the broad Dhangar community be placed in the specific sub-group articles, and referred to only in summary as needed in Dhangar. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging Biroba

Hi Heba Aisha, Instead of merging Biroba with Dhangar page, I would recommend merging Biroba and Beerappa, they are the same god. It has been the exclusive god of Dhangars and Kurubas which make up 9% population of Maharashtra and Karnataka respectively. I would also recommend merging Mhasoba and Mhaskoba, they are the same god and I don't see any reason to have two separate pages for them. It is one of the popular gods of Dhangars and Marathas. I can add more content to both those pages after the merger, I have references on both of them. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC).

@Anthony gomes 92: are there any reliable sources supporting the equivalence? Otherwise, I suggest keeping separate. Klbrain (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Relation with gujjars

They are related with gujjars 49.36.209.60 (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2025

The request to add below things in dhangar page. 1.Hande Hanumappa Nayaka was a Dhangar chieftain from Solapur (Source: Indian History Proceedings). He should be added to the Notable Persons section.

2.There is substantial evidence suggesting that the Dhangar population is the second largest in Maharashtra, second only to the Maratha-Kunbi clan cluster. This should be added to the Current Situation section. 2409:4081:2D12:725B:558F:B7DF:7F0A:802D (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi you! The source that you give for the first statement is not specific enough. Name of author, year, page number are lacking. We have an article about him: Hande Hanumappa Nayaka which confirms that he was a chieftain, but nowhere in the article is Dhangar mentioned. So please specify your source. (Also, unfortunately, I don't have this book Indian History Proceedings, so even if you tell author, year, and page number, I personally won't be able to perform the edit. If you can find an online source, that would be much better.)

2. Please provide a source! Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

For first request source is proceedings of public meetings of twenty second session 29th october,1945 by indian historical records commission. In that it is clearly mentioned hande family originally belongs from solapur,maharashtra.and he belongs to kuruba/dhangar(shepherd) caste. 2409:4081:2D12:725B:0:0:FE48:3400 (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

And for second request you can check british gazzatters.in that you can check dhangar population in bombay presidency,hydrabad state and berar and central provinces(from this 3 province,modern Maharashtra is carved out).You can check for any year year from 1881 to 1941.And i am not going to provide you links for this. You are editor of article, you should do that on your own. 2409:4081:2D12:725B:0:0:FE48:3400 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done You did not provide the requested sources. Lova Falk (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

PS 2409:4081:2D12:725B:0:0:FE48:3400. There is not one person who is "editor of article". An article is made by the collaborative efforts of many volunteers. You can also contribute, by requesting specific edits and giving the specific sources for those edits. Lova Falk (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

1.I am giving this authentic source of "indian historical commisions record".

url : https://ia802906.us.archive.org/32/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.35483/2015.35483.Proceedings-Of-Public-Meetings-Twenty-second-Session-29th-October-1945_text.pdf

in this doc on page 30 ,it is mentioned that hande hanumappa i.e. hande family was of kuruba(shepherd) origins and originally hailed from the solapur district.so this marathi kurubas are called as dhangars.

2.if you can mention that hande hanumappa also imprisoned burhan nizam shah I of nizamshahi dynasty,add it also.

url: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.282973/page/n121/mode/1up?view=theater

mentioned on page 77. Dhangar007 (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2025

Following changes i am expecting:

1.In current situation section of the page add the line "Dhangrs formed a large section of landholders in Poona District(Pune District)."

Source:GAZETTEER of BOMBAY PRESIDENCY.

VOLUME XVIII. PART II.In this refer agriculture section.Page.No.2

follow the below url,it will directly land you to the source. URL : https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_ALYBAAAAYAAJ/page/1/mode/2up?q=dhangars

The following fact is wriiten on page number 2.(Page indexing is according to the gazetteer itself, not the page indexing given on the archives website)

2.In current situation section of the page add the line "Dhangars also formed a large section of landholders in Sholapur district(Solapur District),many of them having landholdings over 100 acres."

Source:GAZETTEER of BOMBAY PRESIDENCY VOLUME XX (SHOLAPUR)

follow the below url,it will directly land you to the source. URL: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281427/mode/2up?q=dhangars

The following fact is written on page number 218,392,395,399,401,403,405.(Page indexing is according to the gazetteer itself, not the page indexing given on the archives website).

3.In current situation section of the page add the line"Many of them held Patilki offices in Vidharbha region,particularly Yavatmal district.In Yavatmal District Dhangars/Hatkars held patilki rights of 138 villages."

Source:CENTRAL PROVINCES DISTRICT GAZETTEERS YEOTMAL(Yavatmal) district.

follow the below url,it will directly land you to the source. URL: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.39422/page/n5/mode/2up?q=hatkars

The following fact is wriiten on page number 58.(Page indexing is according to the gazetteer itself, not the page indexing given on the archives website)

4.In current situation section of the page add the line "Dhangars/Hatkars also have several Patels in Aurangabad District"

source:GAZETTEER

OF

AURANGABAD,1884

follow the below url,it will directly land you to the source. URL: https://archive.org/details/gazetteerofauran031184mbp/page/n293/mode/2up?q=patels

The following fact is wriiten on page number 280.(Page indexing is according to the gazetteer itself, not the page indexing given on the archives website)

5.In current situation section of the page add the line "Also there were some Dhangars in Satara District who held Patilki rights"

Source: Gazetteer Of The Bombay Presidency Vol.xix

follow the below url,it will directly land you to the source. URL: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.106202/page/n65/mode/2up?q=headmen+dhangars

The following fact is wriiten on page number 48.(Page indexing is according to the gazetteer itself, not the page indexing given on the archives website)

1. FINAL NOTES:

1.Add all of the above facts in current situation under the subsection "Landholdings and Patilki rights".Rather than adding separate lines combine all this lines in a single paragraph with proper citations. 2.There are few changes in name of place like british called Pune,Solapur,Yavatmal as Poona,Sholapur,Yeotmal respectively. Dhangar007 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please create a separate edit request for each change you want made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sir,you just have to make new subsection “Landholdings and Patilki rights.” in the “Current situation” section.

in that section you have to just add following paragraph

"Dhangars formed a large section of landholders in Poona District (Pune District). Dhangars also formed a large section of landholders in Sholapur District (Solapur District), many of them having landholdings over 100 acres. Many of them held Patilki offices in Vidharbha region, particularly Yavatmal District. In Yavatmal District Dhangars/Hatkars held Patilki rights of 138 villages. Dhangars/Hatkars also have several Patels in Aurangabad District. Also there were some Dhangars in Satara District who held Patilki rights."

For each line in this paragraph,i have already provided valid citations in my previous talk,you can refer that.

Note:You have to just add all this lines in a single subsection “Landholdings and Patilki rights.” this are not separate edit requests,just one single paragraph. Dhangar007 (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice: What about half subdivision of Dhangars that is called Khatik. Also Kahtiks are part of division of Dhangars that have not been mentioned. There are historical evidences of Khatik being a division of Dhangars like other divisions like Hatkar, Khutekar, Gavli etc. Please complete this information.

Divisions

Notice: What about half subdivision of Dhangars that is called Khatik. Also Kahtiks are part of division of Dhangars that have not been mentioned. There are historical evidences of Khatik being a division of Dhangars like other divisions like Hatkar, Khutekar, Gavli etc. Please complete this information. Preetbkumar (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)