Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 2

message: Bhumihar is a Hindu caste, mostly found in Bihar & Uttarpradesh. They are land holders and they consider themsevles to be superior to Brahmin community. They observer all brahmin rituals and some have brahmin surnames. They also have kshatriya surname as well as surname of backward castes. They usually do not marry outside the community but in Mithilanchal there are Maithil Brahmins who have got relation among Bhumihar. There is very high dowry in this caste. This community has given great Leaders like Dandi Swami Sahjanand Sarswati & Raja Narayan. In addition to this Rastrakavi Dinkar also belong to this community. Bhumihars are only 3% of the population. They face major challance from Maovadi Communist as they are treated fedual caste( Zaminadars)and also from OBC as they are dead against Caste based reservations. Unfortunately, they are also not accepted by Brahmins because they have produced more talented Sanskrit Scholars such as Dr.Karan Sharma, Swami Ramprapanna Acharya & Swami Ranga Ramanuja Acharya. In fact, Uttradhi Math is run by Bhumihar Brahmin having its headquarter in Treta Patna.This community has become major threat to other Brahmins Roji Rotee. They have political rivalary and traditional rivalary with Rajputs as Mythologically, Bhagwan Parsuram captured Siezed the land from kshatriya and gave to these brahamins presently known as The Bhumihar. Initially, When Dr. Shri Krishna Singh became the chief minister of Bihar, he was opposed by Anugrah Babu a Rajput by caste, but later, He joined his fold. A very few Bhumihars have job at the moment and they have lost the land also.... But still they are rude ......l
[edit]
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. There is 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumihar"
Plz dont use words which may hurt sentiments of some communities.This is not the right place.Holywarrior 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content moved to talk page 

message: 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),Dogmaiya(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.   
- :
I rolled back the page, and restored above contents, as talk page should have most of the discussions. --Bhadani 15:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanswered question 

message: I request wikipedia to protect the page with saner version. Whole article is flawed and full of dubious claims for no rhyme or reasons. Even people listed as famous people seem to be having no linkage with this community.Holywarrior 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Misleading Article 

message: "bhumi", meaning "land" is OK. But the"haar" is not from "ahaar" (food). I think "haar" is from "haran" ie snatching or grabbing- "hri" dhatu means "collecting"(aharan) which may be a more sober interpretation.. So a bhumihaar could be somebody who snatches or grabs land.. or ironically somebody whose land has been lost to natural disaster, or more likely, robbed or grabed by somebody else..Thus depending on what context it is used Bhumihaar can mean these two opposite things. When it is applied in the context of a land-lord it has a connotation of a kind of a cunning "land-shark". On the contrary when applied to a poor it could mean one whose lands have been taken away by social or financial oppressive force.
The Bhumihaar is more frequently applied to a particular kind of higher cast landlords whose social status have varied depending on time and place. It could be the ancestral history of someones family which might have earned the person a "bhumihaar" title.
It sounds logical to me that "bhoinhar" might have come from "Bhumihaar"; and "Bhuian" might have also come from the same, though another alternative for "Bhuian" is "bhumipal" or landlord. "Bhumipal" means somebody who who protects and develops a land and "bhumihaar" possibly means somebody who grabs or robs a land. but there were times during feudal-like nature of the ownerships of lands when the "protector"s robbed  the "protected". So there was this dual character in the landlord. In the history of Bengal, there were 12 powerful "bhuian" jaminder/landlords known as "bara-bhuian" in  bengal who resisted Akbar's attempt to regain the control of Bengal. Raja Pratapaditya Ray was the foremost of them. But the social status of these "bhuian"s might have been different from that of the Bhumihars of Bihar about whom I dont have much knowledge.
Dr.saptarshi 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a probable meaning of "bhumihaar" 

message: The write up on Bhumihar clans mentions that Maharaja of Tekari was an Eksaria Bhumihar.This is not correct.Infact,he was a Domaticar Bhumihar.There are many villages, near by Tekari,namely Jamuara,Ahiyapur,Kaithi etc, where many Domaticar Bhumihars live.Many of their famlies were Jamindar families during British period.Family of Tekari rose to fame when Nababs of Murshidabad became defacto rulers of Bihar-Bengal.Earlier than that they were dewans of Bharatpura Riyasat; situated in present day Patna district.
Descendents of Bharatpura family invariably add 'Dhari' to their names.In recent times, Late Rajan Dhari Sinha had been a prominent member of this family. Their gotra is 'Atharab' and are supposed to have migrated from Deccan some time in antiquity.  
Thanks
C.P.Singh
Just now I went through Dr.saptarshi's views regarding meaning of the word 'Bhumihar'.He suggests that the word segment 'har' means grabing or 'Haran'.Thus,the word in totatality, in Saptarshi's views,means land grabber.It seems that Saptarshi is totaly knave.Here 'har' means jewel. That means these people have land as jewel.Otherwise har also means loosing.Hence,the word also may mean those who lost the land.However, har never means grabing.Neither in Sanskrit,nor in Hindi or even in Bangla.
Thanks
C.P.Singh
every thing that we say on any matter is disputed until it is supported by facts.people denouncing BHUMIHARS are not able to produce proofs which could substantiate their assertions.For ex. one editer says that a king in Basti gave power to rule to lower castes and gave them recognition as Brahmins to sattle a score with Brahmins.Moverover, as a proof he sites the domkatras being the subcastes.now this fact that these doms are a subcaste is again not proved.Also,which king will be so fool that just to settle a score with someone ,will give power to other so that in near future that person, one day, raise the sword against him to expand his boundaries. Hence there is no merit in these arguments.
these are only heresies floated by the envious castes on the success of this great race.
            Now what we ,the Bhumihars Claim, is well supported by the facts.
The lands that we posses make us the land oweners, thus justifing the title BHUMIHAR.
we claim Parashuram to be our originator is supported by the fact even in modern age we resort to arms when needed to save ourselves and the example is Ranveer Sena.Parashuram  had organised a sena which cleaned the earth of atrocious khsatriyas,so have Bhumihars to counter lower castes who see formers'  properties with saliva oozing out of their mouths.
the indian caste system is so complex that the casts that were backword in ancient times are in the same state even after the country bearing them as a liability in the form of RESEVATIONS.So,if had Bhumihars been a low caste,
they would not have been able to assume power(by becoming kings ,chief ministers,ministers ) and land(an undisputable fact) in modern time.
RAI SAHAB
Dear Pinak pani
Dont just edit prove your points too.You should quote sources to relate bhumihar to brahmins.Holywarrior 12:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From main page

message: - I donot know how to access the original report.However,it is clear that it is something about Bhumihars;some are pro and some are anti.However,bothsides have relied mostly on heresays and unfounded history.Bhumihars severally link themselves with Parashuram.They forget that story of Parashuram is a mythology.This is not a serious history.No one will accept this theory and they are right.It is correct that Bhumihars donot find mention in ancient literature.Perhaps this subcast gradually separated out in last 1000=1500 yrs.There have been several Brahman Kings or dynasties scattered over various regions of the country in historical period.Perhaps first among them was Pushya Mitra Sunga who succeeded Moryans and successfully defended the empire from 2nd invasion of Greeks.Sunga were succeeded by Kanvas;but they didnot survive for long.Then threre was Kadambas in south.Punjab was defended for a long time by a Brahman dynasty popularly known as Hindushahies.The last king of Sindh 'Dahar' and his father 'Chach' were also Brahmans.Infact in many cases Brahmans succeeded Baudh rulers.Perhaps they made last ditch effort to save the empires/Kingdomes from disintegration.This has been the case with Pushyamitra,Hindushahies and Chach/Dahar.Infact, in Bihar-Bengal region also the Budhist ruling dynasty of Pals was succeeded by Sens and Karnats.They also were Brahmans frm Deccan. In fact, it was Sens and Karnats who are credited to resurrect hinduism in Bihar-Bengal region.They invited Brahmans from Kanyakubja to repropagate hinduism.Local Brahmans who had abondoned priesthood and adopted other livelyhoods during preceding Budhist hegemoney actively collaborated with new rulers and benifitted.They might have got land grants,appointed as state officials and helped reputed Brahmans from outside to settle and spread hinduism.With incoming of new priests from Kany akubja etc the local Brahmans separated themselves as Bhumihar Brahmans.Brahmans were notorious for inforcing cast system.The new commer Kanyakubjas would not marry even with other Brahmans like Sarayuparins or Sakaldwipies.Perhaps this helped local Brahmans to separate out as Bhumihar Brahmans.Infact in villages Bhumihars are generally called 'Bhabans'.  - Chakrapani   
- ::Chakrapani, This website is not a discussion board and therefore it's inappropriate to post your opinion. You can't say in the article things like, "I think..." because that is your opinion and may not be a fact. State the fact in the language which present it as a fact. Charvak 
I have recovered these comments from history to help editorsHolywarrior 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovered from history 

message: I find that some users are indulging in anuthorized action like placing templates to be placed by administrators only. Any user doing this may be blocked for disruptive activities. --Bhadani 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the page and it shall be lifted in a day or two. --Bhadani 17:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: I find that this has become a really useless page with so many useless information. Please try to make the page encyclopedic. Such pages affect the credibility of wikipedia. --Bhadani 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of persistent efforts on my behalf having failed to stop uselss information on this page, I feel highly frustrated. I would request the editors to avoid editing in a style which lowers the credibility of wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing this page from my watch list. I will see it after few months. --Bhadani 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless

message: Kindly stop reverting to versions where the links point to Punjab, as opposed to a specific usage of the term. It's really bloody annoying, cuz I've busted my chops trying to remove disambiguation links to Punjab. —  riana_dzasta • t • c  14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

message: One editor 59.144.178.112 had expresses himself,his comments has been reverted because he had tried to change others comments too.Plz don't take offence.He can make his point whatever it may be.I would request him to comment either below the existing comments or in a separate section.Putting comments within existing ones is considered vandalism.I would rather ask all editors to join hands to build up this article.Holy---+---Warrior 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all cocerned editors 

message: I think Bhumihar are found in Bihar only whereas Tyagi are found in UP,am not aware much about these two but if their identity is different they should not be merged.
Holy    +   Warrior 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhumihar/Tyagi Merger 

message: On Famous_Bhumihars, we see the list of people who are Sinha. As far as I know they can be Bhumihar, but can not be Bhumihar Brahmins. Additionally there are people who claim to be Bhumihar Kshatriya also. What about them. This article should be about Bhumihars and there should be a distinction drawn between Bhumihar Brahmins and otherwise. This I am saying only because not every Bhumihar claims he is a Bhumihar Brahmin also. 
And another thing, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar was not regarded as the national poet (Rashtrakavi). This is the honour given to Maithili Sharan Gupt only. Please discuss this issue here. If I do not listen to any one for some time, I will start making changes. Thanks  --APandey 13:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Bhumihars?