Talk:Rajbanshi people

@Ekdalian:

"In West Bengal and Bihar, they are known as "Rajbongshi and "Rajbanshi", " in Assam as "Koch," and "Koch-Rajbongshi," and in Meghalaya mainly as "Koch." Though the community is known by diverse names in different states, their origin is the same, that is, "Koch." (Roy 2018)

Source for above citation is Kapil Chandra Roy (2018), "Demand for Scheduled Tribe Status by Koch-Rajbongshis", Economic and Political Weekly, 53 (44)

Above citation is simply inconsistent with the distinguish template "Not to be confused with Koch people or Koch (caste)." Rajbongshi itself is a heterogenous group, no way all these social groups - Rajbongshis, Koch tribe and Koch caste could be of same origin. This is a lame claim for political demand and it is completely opposite to anthropological studies. Northeast heritage (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed Rajbanshi_people#cite_note-11 . Northeast heritage (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, Kautilya3, LukeEmily, Satnam2408, and CharlesWain:, I would request you all to share your valuable opinion considering that the user Northeast heritage wants to remove sourced information from the article. I have reverted the same more than once; and as you are aware, I believe in consensus. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently, the source is only used to support the alternate names of this community viz. Rajbanshi, Rajbongshi and Koch-Rajbongshi. For that, it seems OK. If someone has a better one, they can replace it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Rajbanshi_people#cite_note-Ramirez-14-13 Citation just after end of first line includes use of "Koch-Rajbongshi". Northeast heritage (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I did not understand why the sourced content needs to be removed. @Northeast heritage:, are you saying that the source(Roy) is incorrect? Are there any different sources that say otherwise?LukeEmily (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Quoted text above is simply incorrect. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Simply saying incorrect is equivalent to WP:OR! You need to support to view citing sources which say otherwise. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ekdalian:

  Wilson&Bashir 2016 discusses Historical origin of Rajbanshi. They provide multiple examples to prove Rajbanshi is not a homogeneous group. You can verify yourself. I am quoting the conclusion of the section given in the peer-reviewed article.

  In summary, various discourses on Rajbanshi origins present conflicting interpretations. Nevertheless, neither history nor studies in anthropometrics or linguistics characterize them as a homogenous group. Moreover, determining Rajbanshi preferences for identifi cation is challenging and requires further ethnographical investigation.

  Northeast heritage (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not so much a question of correct or incorrect, but of different views about which groups can be subsumed under the (Koch-)Rajbanshi. Roy writes: It has been argued by a section that “Koch” and “Rajbongshi” are different from each other while another section of people argues that these two constitute a single community. Among these, a few argue that only the “Koches” are tribe but not the “Rajbongshis,” hence increasing the degree of confusion to a greater extent. From the following paragraph, it is clear that Roy adheres to second view (= "these two constitute a single community"). This is however inconsistent with the final paragraph of the lede, which follows Kondakov (2013) and distinguishes the Indo-Aryan speaking Rajbanshis (described as a confluent ethnicity that unites groups that have converted to Hinduism in recent times) from the tribal ST-speaking Koch in Meghalaya.

We cannot have a separate article about the Koch that speak a Sino-Tibetan languages and have not undergone this sociocultural assimilation process on the one hand, and at the same time lightheatedly say in a note they are the same group as the "Sanskritized" Rajbanshi. –Austronesier (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Rajbanshi as a social and cultural group can subsume multiple groups, but when it comes to origin of the group, whose claims matter - Rajbanshi intellectuals who are pre-selecting historical details to support a specific theory or Historians/Anthropologists ? Northeast heritage (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think Roy (2018) is providing a different definition than Kondakov (2013) or Ramirez. @Northeast heritage is misreading these sources. Roy repeats where "Koch-Rajbanshis" live, after Nalini Ranja Ray (2009), and he says very clearly. He states that "The Koch Rajbanshis, who were primarily animists, were immensely influenced by the process of sanskritisation which was largely patronised by the royalty." So he clearly defines that Koch-Rajbanshis as those who were originally animists, who later on were sanskritized due to the influence of the Koch royal family ("rajbanshi") and then began calling themselves as "Rajbanshi" to claim Kshatriya status in the 19th century.

Kondakov says the same thing: "The Koch of western Meghalaya also claim relationship with those empire-building Koch. On the other hand, Koch is known as a Hindu caste found all over the Brahmaputra Valley (Majumdar 1984: 147), and receives converts to Hinduism from different tribes (Gait 1933: 43)." Kondakov calls the "Rajbanshis" as "empire-building", and distinguishes the Koch of western Meghalaya as those who have maintained their original animist practices. Of significance here is that the animist Koch "also claim relationship" with the empire-building Koches (Rajbanshis).

Therefore, the two groups are related but different. And there is no difference between Roy's definition and Kondakov's definition.

I disagree with the removal of Roy (2018) from the definition and lead. I shall restore status quo ante. Chaipau (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't interpret inner thought of the Author. Northeast heritage (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Today when Rajbanshi or koch-rajbanshi term is used, it includes people whose ancestors were koch and whose ancestors were not koch. So it is ridiculous to argue that author is using that term only for people whose ancestors were koch.

Rajbanshi article is filled with numerous example where Rajbashi as social group originated from multiple ethnic groups. Northeast heritage (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What you find objectionable in the Rajbanshi people is true of nearly all groups, except possibly the Sentinelese people or other isolated groups. The Koch people themselves have different divisions, and some of them are close to or have merged with the Rabha people. The notion, that indigenous groups are "pure" linguistically and ethnically, is not borne by evidence. It makes no sense to project today's ethnic groupings to the past. Chaipau (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing like projecting today's ethnic groups to the past in this article like Ahomisation. History of Rajbanshi is tenable since the time of Warren Hastings because a Rajbanshi had written a ballad on Rajbanshi people during that time. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have restored status quo ante. But we could still use this space to discuss and create WP:CONSENSUS for a change. Chaipau (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What I removed was already undone. Now you are removing all my edits like adding source, citation fixing. Don't you need fulfill WP:CONCENSUS to remove all my edits without any mistake? Northeast heritage (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for pointing it out. Chaipau (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Ekdalian: I think all the participants agree that the Rajbanshis (also Koch-Rajbanshis nowadays) have heterogeneous origin, as opposed to the claim by the Author. So it make sense to modify the quote. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please ping other involved editors as well; you need to involve all concerned in order to arrive at a consensus! Ekdalian (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I assume we have consensus to modify the quote i.e. Removing "Though the community is known by diverse names in different states, their origin is the same, that is, "Koch."". To close this discussion. As per Ekdalian's comment, Pinging @LukeEmily, Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier, and Chaipau: Northeast heritage (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any consensus (as you have assumed) in the above discussion! Ekdalian (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently, the only purpose of the quote here is to support the alternate names of the community, and it is part of the reference, not used as part of the article's text. Not sure why it should be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah. So keeping only the required part and removing the incorrect part. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I removed it earlier but it was reverted by Ekdalian and he asked me to seek consensus. So I started this discussion and I want to leave this discussion. Based on comments from multple editors I felt we have consensus that the "origin" part of the quotation is wrong and so it can be removed. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ekdalian, There are so many citations/references based on historical records which prove that not all Rajbanshis come from Koch. Im signing off. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Northeast heritage: I don't see a problem removing that particular part from the quote. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!Northeast heritage (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

To The Wikipedia Administration.

Respected Sir/Madam, I belongs from Rajbanshi Kshatriya Community, I follow the Wikipidia. I follow the Rajbanshi people page in Wikipedia last few months and then I see so many incurrect unethical woard and information, after that I try to currection the woard and Information with reference, few woard and information alredy currected but so many mejore unethical woard and information are not currect at present. Last day I try to correction the atpersent incurrect information and woard with reference, but unfortunately that try delited by a person. That person insulted me and my community, including Indian constitution. These are very serious issue.

So, I pray to you stop all unethical wark and correct all incurrect information. Thanks, SARATBOW (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Difference between Rajbanshi Kshatriya Caste and Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi)Caste:

Rajbanshi Kshatriya and Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste do not belong to the same caste. "Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste belongs to Poundra Kshatriya (Sujat Kshatriya) and Ariyan language group". But “Koch-Rajbonshi caste belongs to Koch caste and language belongs to Tibeto-Barmi group”. In Gourbanga Rajbanshi Kshatriya races are mixed with Dravidian and Austrian races.

The Mongoloid population mixed with the Kamrup Rajbanshi Kshatriya race a lot. But in the western part of the Ratnapeeth of Kamrup, the mixture of these two types is very less, it can be understood. So three kinds of influence are to be seen in the Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste. This premise confuses many. Koch and Rajbanshi do not belong to the same caste. But many Koch people at one time (after 1911) declared themselves as Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste.

Not without mentioning one thing here. That is, under the influence of the Kshatriya movement of the 19th-20th century, along with the Bratya Kshatriyas, some other castes, including the Koch caste, declared themselves as Rajbanshi Kshatriyas and changed their titles (das, mandal, sarkar, koch, etc.) with the Bratya Kshatriyas. Along with taking the titles Ray, Baman, Singha, Chowdhury, etc.) This had a great influence in Lower Assam, Cooch Behar and the Dooars of North Bengal.

But interestingly "Roy, Chowdhury, Singha, Sinha, Barman, the use of surnames was from ancient times among the Rajbanshis in the districts of Rangpur, Dinajpur, Rajsahi, Bogura and undivided Purnia. But later in the Koch race, that mistake was broken and introduced himself as ‘Koch-Rajbanshi’. {When the movement started in Assam demanding a separate Kamtapur state, since then (late 20th century),We are wellknown that time a student body called "All Koch-Rajbanshi Student Union (Akrashu)" made in Assam.}

The Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) language belongs to the "Tibeto-Barmi" group and the caste belongs to the Mongoloid group. But the Rajbanshi (Kamtapuri) language belongs to the Ariyan language group and the caste is Rajbanshi (Poundra Kshatriya). In the 4th century BC, after being defeated by the Magadha king Mahapadma Nanda, a large number of Poundra Kshatriyas took refuge in Ratnapith of Kamarupa, Nepal and Orissa. So still living in Sambalpur area of Orissa state and the language is also Rajbanshi.

Even modern research has proved that the language of the Poundra Kshatriya people of ancient Pundrabardhan has changed in many ways over time and today the language is called Rajbanshi (Kamtapuri) and even this language is known by different names from place to place. For example: Tajpuri, Rongpuri, Goalpariya, Suryapuri, Barendri, Western Kamrupi, Banga-Kamrupi, Banga-Assamese.

Linguists have proven that two languages arose directly from the Banga-Kamrupi/Banga-Assamese language: 1) Bengali and 2) Assamese. From that point of view, Rajbanshi language (Banga-Assamese/Banga-Kamrupi) is the mother of Bengali and Assamese languages. But linguists have succeeded in proving that the Koch language belongs to the "Tibeto-Barmi" language family. At present Koch people are protesting in "Meghalaya" demanding preservation of "Koch language", even in Assam. Here "Koch-Rajbonshi language" refers to the language of the Koch race. But as a result of dhamantkaran Rajbanshi caste is now divided into different sects like: Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian. Not only is it anthropologically proven, but if you take a closer look yourself, you will understand the physiological path of the Rajbanshi Kshatriya race and the Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) race. Especially between "Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste" and "Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste", the skin color of "Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste" is relatively brite. Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste has higher under eye bones than Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste, The Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) people have a wider front of the nose and the middle part of the two eyes is small as compared to the Rajbanshi Kshatriyas. The Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) race has broad shoulders and heavier body than the Rajbanshi Kshatriya race. But due to living side by side for a long time, the Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste and the Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste had matrimonial relations. As a result, in many Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste or Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste families, children born from the same mother's have the two type body structure of two brothers or two sisters. But in those families where that mixture did not happen, the facial structure of the children of those families is the same. This mixture is more common in Assam and Assam bordering West Bengal. Also seen in other places. In families in which this admixture is found, there is no difficulty in understanding the matter by investigating the previous family marital history of the family. But painfully, many people make various wrong comments about the Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste without knowing it, it is never desirable.

Due to living side by side for a long time, most of the Koch people have forgotten their own language and there they speak Rajbanshi (Kamtapuri), Bengali and Assamese. In the future, if the Koch language is not protected and taught, this ancient Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) language will be lost forever from the world. That is by no means desirable. The authorities should take some action in this regard.

Similarly, Rajbanshi (Kamtapuri) language should be included in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and Rajbanshi language should be given the status of classical language. At present the official language of Nepal and West Bengal, the Rajbanshi language. The Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) race some difference to the Rajbanshi Kshatriya race in terms of worship.

I am also showing one or two examples. Eg: 1) "Hudumdyao Puja" is prevalent among "Koch-Rajbonshi caste", but this puja is not prevalent among Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste. 2) "Gambhira (Gamira) festival" is prevalent among "Rajbanshi Kshatriya caste", but this festival is not prevalent among Koch (Koch-Rajbonshi) caste. But there are exceptions to everything. Since the two races have been matrimonial due to living side by side for a long time.

Note: Not without presenting an important point here. The popularity of the above mentioned "Gambhira (Gamira) festival" in Maldaha, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogura, Rajshahi, Haldibari block of Cooch Behar district, Terai region of Jalpaiguri district, Siliguri sub-division and undivided Purniya district is but one thing attesting, "Rajbanshi Kshatriya Jati" is an people of the ancient Pundrabardhana.

The Rajbanshi Kshatriyas defeated the Kirats of Pragjotishpur in the 4th century AD, established a new dynasty and named the kingdom "Kamrup", the dynasty known as the Barman dynasty of Kamrup. Later, the rule of various dynasties was established in Kamrup, among them the rule of Roy dynasty is important in history. Prithu Roy was the last Maharaja of Kamrup. Sandha Roy, son of Maharaja Prithu Roy, founded the "Kamtapur Kingdom" in 1228 AD after the fall of Kamarupa.

Later, in the 15th century, Kamtapur was occupied by the "Khen Dynasty". In 1498 AD, Kamtapur was conquered by the Muslim rulers. But those rulers did not last long. Kamatapur was then divided into many parts and anarchy ensued. Finally, in the year of 1515 the rule of the Koch Dynasty was established in Kamtapur and new name Coochbehar.

Reference: 1) A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India by Upinder Singh. 2) Chandragupta Maurya and His Times by Radhakumud Mukherjee. 3) India in the Age of the Nandas / Chandragupta and Bindusara by Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri. 4) Rajbanshi Kshatriya Jatir Itihas by Upendra Nath Barman. 5) The Origin and Development of the Bengali language. By Suniti Kumar Chatterjee. 6) Kamtapuri Bhasa Sahityer Ruprekha. By Dharmanarayan Barma. 7) Linguistic to Sociolinguistic Reconstruction. By Mathew WS Toulmin. SARATBOW (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The above is full of contradictions and misrepresentations. The entire edit should be deleted. Chaipau (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please prove your comment, with authentic evidence. SARATBOW (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey SARATBOW, please provide modern scholarly work by reliable authors in order to support your statements! Ekdalian (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I already provide old and modern evidence. Please provide old and modern evidence your end. SARATBOW (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to provide references along with author & publisher names, url if possible (read WP:V) or else relevant quotes along with exact page numbers and ISBN. Ekdalian (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference Books name and writers are Internationally femus. Please collect books from book shop. Thanks. SARATBOW (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It is upto you to provide the same as per WP:BURDEN. You need to understand the rules and conventions followed in Wikipedia; provide full citation as mentioned above if you want a constructive discussion. Ekdalian (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, can you please review the recent revert! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: It is a part of the quote within the reference which is unneeded as of now. Since the purpose of the source was to support the iteration viz- "Rajbanshi", "Rajbongshi" and "Koch-Rajbongshi", of the subject, which it does without that particular part. I agreed to its removal in July here. However, the remaining quote also mentions another term "Koch" which is particularly used for the people in Meghalay. Problem is, we already have another article - Koch people, dealing with that. SO it is kinda confusing as far as the name "Koch" is concerned for this particular community. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Deshi Muslims, also known as Koch–Rajbongshi Muslims, are an indigenous Muslim community of Western Assam. They trace their origin to the conversion of Koch and Koch–Rajbongshi populations to Islam, with early figures such as Ali Mech often cited in historical accounts. Concentrated mainly in the Goalpara region, Deshi Muslims preserve a distinct cultural identity rooted in their pre-Islamic Koch–Rajbongshi heritage. Their traditional language is the Goalpariya/Rajbongshi dialect, and their cultural practices closely resemble those of the local Koch–Rajbongshi population. As one of the oldest native Muslim groups of Assam, they are culturally integrated with the Assamese society while maintaining their unique historical identity. Sofique07 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)