This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Koch is officially notified ST by Government of India. http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf
2. In Assam Officially , There is Koch-Rajbanshi people. http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvrfca7yFSI%2f925Go7SY9937UQ98B5lbFdbKCi85fJtx2wivIdOyNDx
3. Koch and Rajbanshi are different Scheduled caste peoples in West Bengal , India http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf
3. Rajbongshi is title. Origin of People with Rajbongshi title is debatable. And Rajbongshi identity itself very confusing. Halder, Tarun Kr. (2017-06-25). "Koch Rajbanshi identity question - An analysis from historical perspective" (PDF). International Journal of Applied Research 2017. There exist Rajbongshi people in Bangladesh and Assam who claim to have different origin of Indo-Aryan & Dravidian Hindu & Kshatriya.
4. So, Koch people , Koch-Rajbanshi people and Rajbognshi people separate three article will be appropriate because As per Government record Koch(ST in Meghalaya , SC in WB ) , Koch-Rajbansi (OBC) and Rajbanshi(SC in WB) .
5. Rajbongshi people article is misleading original history and identity of Koch people and Koch-Rajbanshi people . Wikipedia is best website for information. Rajbongshi people article is hiding identity of Koch people . And Koch people want to be identified separately because they have own language. Sir , @ Malcolmxl5: @ Oshwah: Kindly look into this matter. Thank you PerfectingNEI ( talk) 12:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The mongoloid tribe is a Koch tribe but after converted into Hinduism the great Koch family introduce themselves as a rajbanshi Rajuraaz1 ( talk) 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Koch Rajbangshi are not related to Islam and Nashya Shaikh... We bebongs to koch Dynasty.. The historical evidence says the we are koch Rajbangshi people under the leadership of Biswa Singha ( father of Narayan and Bir Chilarai) Pankaj koch ( talk) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You are providing a wrong information about koch Rajbangshi people.. I will case a file against u Pankaj koch ( talk) 12:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please remove the wikipedia page. This Rajbongshi Page, There some inappropiate information are posted. Gobinda31 ( talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Change the TITLE NAME from RAJBONGSHI PEOPLE to Gariya Moriya People. Check the histroy and write correct information on this page. Information Posted in your page related to Gariya Moriya Community not RAJBONGSHI PEOPLE. Gobinda31 ( talk) 03:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you mad?This page is clearly about Koch Rajbongshi people.Why you are saying to change the name? Koch-Rajbongshis and Garia Marias are totally different people. Manasakash ( talk) 11:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: the reference you keep inserting about the Rajbongshi association being Dravidian, please note the following:
Do not keep reinserting this discredited issue again, as you did in [3], [4], [5], etc.
Chaipau ( talk) 10:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
That acute observer Bryan Hodgson classed the Koch with the Bodo and Dhimal and the same view is taken by Buchanan and in the Dacca Blue Book. On the other hand, Colonel Dalton considered them to be Dravidian, and Mr. Risley, while admitting an intermixture with Mongoloid stock, holds that Dravidian characteristics predominate. This divergence of views seems to have arisen from the confusion caused by the use of the term Rajbansi, which originally referred to an entirely distinct community of Dravidian affinities, but was afterwards adopted by the Koches west of the Manas river, who, when they attorned to Hinduism, appropriated the caste name of the most numerous Hinduized community in their neighbourhood.
Gait clearly states a Dravidian speaking community Rajbanshi, and corrected Risley, he didnot refer to Risley but corrected him Homogenie ( talk) 07:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
See comments in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gait_1906_a_reliable_source_for_this_particular_claim and also WP:RAJ. Sources like Gait can only be used with exceptional care, but clearly not if their framework is completely outdated, such as the use of "Dravidian" as a racial term. Modern secondary sources won't heal this when they uncritically quote obsolete terminology. We can mention obsolete stuff for historical interest (e.g. "Gait (1906) proposed a "Dravidian" affiliation in a now abandoned racial sense"), but *not* in Wikivoice. In mean, in all earnest, how can you uncritically cite in an 21th-century encyclopedic article from a source that speaks of "Mongoloid stock"? – Austronesier ( talk) 08:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Dalton has stated that the Koches were all very dark and displayed the thick protuberant lips and maxillaries of the Negroand therefore he considered them as belonging to the dravidian Stock
the second observation
Buchanon and Dacca Blue Book class them with the Bodos and Dhimals. So did Endle, who has classed the Rabhas, the Meches, Dhimals, Koches, Dimacas, Hojais, Lalung, Garos, Hajongs and such other tribes within the fold of the great bodo race
So, the observation about the Koches are different and there exist people in present North Bengal and Bihar who speak dravidian languages, it is said rajvamsi originally were a dravidian affinities group. Homogenie ( talk) 12:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
certianly scientific racism is wrong) and at the same time indulge in its fruits, that's weird. And no, race is not a "spectrum". Individual physical appearance is. Talking about race is the antithesis of a spectrum. Race means "individual A belongs to taxon 1, while individual B belongs to taxon 2", and on a larger scale, "ethnicities B and C belong to taxon 3, while ethnicity D does not". That's the very concept of race, and this kind of thinking is pseudoscientific crap. To call WP's rejection of pseudoscience "political correctness" flies in the face of scientific consensus in modern biology and anthropology. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Can we please also throw out the references to "Mongoloid" in the sections "Origin" then? There must be a way we can cite from Nath without relying on his obsolete wishy-washy terminology. Nath says that most Koches physically resemble Bodo groups, but "in some limited areas" (p. 4) display more "southernish" South Asian ancestry which he ascribes to more recent intermarriage. In the end, only modern genetics can come up with meaningful observations for the purpose of determining the orgin of the Koch Rajbongshis. – Austronesier ( talk) 11:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Austronesir Rajbongshi is Indo-Aryan speaking community. Here the Proof https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201198 2409:4065:E89:DE03:4C4E:C009:CD22:8A15 ( talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: physical description of groups doesnot fall under racism, it is only when you terms like Mongoloid, Dravidian, etc. You can put physical description as pages like this use them Huns, Turks
@ Austronesier: These group is like the Ahoms, this group dont necessary speak indo aryan language everywhere, it is much more related to the Koch dynasty, ramirez 2014 has clarified it, furthur more this group is a accumulation of different tribes, why is these being removed , the author nath (1989) has clearly wrote it in his book, the koches has groups like koch, mech, garo
@ Austronesier and Fylindfotberserk: need your help here.
What we should not do is project our current ethic identities to the past communities. Just because they are associated with a name "koch" does not mean anything.
For example, why should there be so much material of the Koch dynasty in Koch_people#History.
Chaipau ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Please continue here the discussion from User_talk:Chaipau#koch-rajbongshi_notable_people Chaipau ( talk) 13:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier: Please note the creeping Mech-ization of this article. I have tried to remove some of it today. Cherry-picked quotes are a bane! Chaipau ( talk) 08:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we have an opportunity to make this a reliably sourced NPOV article and remove the top maintenance banner. @ Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier:. Chaipau ( talk) 03:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Please make your objection here. I undid your revert because you seem to misread it. It is not about primordiality, It is about the beginning of scholarship since the early 19th century. Northeast heritage ( talk) 19:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
So why does this sentence not included the Paliya? Sorry, you cannot create ethnographies in Wikipedia by WP:CHERRYPICKED sentences from poorly worded sources.The Rajbanshis, stated Buchanan-Hamilton, were the Koches who had adopted Hindu rituals and manners since the sixteenth century, following the princely family of Cooch Behar.
the association was made for census purposes.In the nineteenth century the view expressed by census superintendents of Bengal was that the Rajbanshis were ethnically identical with the Koch and Paliya.
Safe haven123, please point me to the source that says Kamarupa was "unclean", as you claim in this edit? Chaipau ( talk) 10:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
To The Wikipedia adminstration, Respected Sir, Few time ago I follow a very serious issue. This Article are mentioned "Rajbanshi and Koch-Rajbanshi" are same Cast. But actually Rajbanshi Cast are Kshatriya Community and language is Rajbanshi-Language (Ariyan). But Koch-rajbanshi Cast are Koch Community and language is Koch-Language (Tebet-Berma Language).But Presently they are accepted Ariyan Language (Kamtapuri/Rajbanshi language) and Matrimonial Relations with Rajbanshi-Kshatriya Cast. So, I pray to you, verifay the actual information. This is very serious issue. And again Apple to you, present incurrect information willbe suspend and after verification upload the actual correct information. Thanks.🙏 hat SARATBOW ( talk) 16:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
To The Wikipedia Adminstration, Respected Sir, Few time ago I follow this page updated one day ago, but few very serious issue at present the page. 1)1st Para: The Rajbanshi,also Rajbongshi is a actually spoken Indo-Aryan language family from ancient time, but unfortunately indicate Tibeto-Burman languages in this page. So,I pray to you correction the issue. Actually Koch-Rajbanshi people(Koch) is a Tebeto-Burman speaker. But present time Koch-Rajbanshi (Koch) People speake Rajbanshi language. 2)History content: Jogendra Nath Mandal actually belongs to Namasudra Community. He not to belongs Rajbanshi and Koch-Rajbanshi community but unfortunately impute in this page. So, I pray to you, verify the actual information. Issues are very serious. I again apple to you, present incorrect issues willbe suspend and after verification upload the actual correct information. Thanks. SARATBOW ( talk) 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
Northeast heritage ( talk) 04:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)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.
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)
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.
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).
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Koch is officially notified ST by Government of India. http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf
2. In Assam Officially , There is Koch-Rajbanshi people. http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvrfca7yFSI%2f925Go7SY9937UQ98B5lbFdbKCi85fJtx2wivIdOyNDx
3. Koch and Rajbanshi are different Scheduled caste peoples in West Bengal , India http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf
3. Rajbongshi is title. Origin of People with Rajbongshi title is debatable. And Rajbongshi identity itself very confusing. Halder, Tarun Kr. (2017-06-25). "Koch Rajbanshi identity question - An analysis from historical perspective" (PDF). International Journal of Applied Research 2017. There exist Rajbongshi people in Bangladesh and Assam who claim to have different origin of Indo-Aryan & Dravidian Hindu & Kshatriya.
4. So, Koch people , Koch-Rajbanshi people and Rajbognshi people separate three article will be appropriate because As per Government record Koch(ST in Meghalaya , SC in WB ) , Koch-Rajbansi (OBC) and Rajbanshi(SC in WB) .
5. Rajbongshi people article is misleading original history and identity of Koch people and Koch-Rajbanshi people . Wikipedia is best website for information. Rajbongshi people article is hiding identity of Koch people . And Koch people want to be identified separately because they have own language. Sir , @ Malcolmxl5: @ Oshwah: Kindly look into this matter. Thank you PerfectingNEI ( talk) 12:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The mongoloid tribe is a Koch tribe but after converted into Hinduism the great Koch family introduce themselves as a rajbanshi Rajuraaz1 ( talk) 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Koch Rajbangshi are not related to Islam and Nashya Shaikh... We bebongs to koch Dynasty.. The historical evidence says the we are koch Rajbangshi people under the leadership of Biswa Singha ( father of Narayan and Bir Chilarai) Pankaj koch ( talk) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You are providing a wrong information about koch Rajbangshi people.. I will case a file against u Pankaj koch ( talk) 12:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please remove the wikipedia page. This Rajbongshi Page, There some inappropiate information are posted. Gobinda31 ( talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Change the TITLE NAME from RAJBONGSHI PEOPLE to Gariya Moriya People. Check the histroy and write correct information on this page. Information Posted in your page related to Gariya Moriya Community not RAJBONGSHI PEOPLE. Gobinda31 ( talk) 03:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you mad?This page is clearly about Koch Rajbongshi people.Why you are saying to change the name? Koch-Rajbongshis and Garia Marias are totally different people. Manasakash ( talk) 11:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: the reference you keep inserting about the Rajbongshi association being Dravidian, please note the following:
Do not keep reinserting this discredited issue again, as you did in [3], [4], [5], etc.
Chaipau ( talk) 10:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
That acute observer Bryan Hodgson classed the Koch with the Bodo and Dhimal and the same view is taken by Buchanan and in the Dacca Blue Book. On the other hand, Colonel Dalton considered them to be Dravidian, and Mr. Risley, while admitting an intermixture with Mongoloid stock, holds that Dravidian characteristics predominate. This divergence of views seems to have arisen from the confusion caused by the use of the term Rajbansi, which originally referred to an entirely distinct community of Dravidian affinities, but was afterwards adopted by the Koches west of the Manas river, who, when they attorned to Hinduism, appropriated the caste name of the most numerous Hinduized community in their neighbourhood.
Gait clearly states a Dravidian speaking community Rajbanshi, and corrected Risley, he didnot refer to Risley but corrected him Homogenie ( talk) 07:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
See comments in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gait_1906_a_reliable_source_for_this_particular_claim and also WP:RAJ. Sources like Gait can only be used with exceptional care, but clearly not if their framework is completely outdated, such as the use of "Dravidian" as a racial term. Modern secondary sources won't heal this when they uncritically quote obsolete terminology. We can mention obsolete stuff for historical interest (e.g. "Gait (1906) proposed a "Dravidian" affiliation in a now abandoned racial sense"), but *not* in Wikivoice. In mean, in all earnest, how can you uncritically cite in an 21th-century encyclopedic article from a source that speaks of "Mongoloid stock"? – Austronesier ( talk) 08:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Dalton has stated that the Koches were all very dark and displayed the thick protuberant lips and maxillaries of the Negroand therefore he considered them as belonging to the dravidian Stock
the second observation
Buchanon and Dacca Blue Book class them with the Bodos and Dhimals. So did Endle, who has classed the Rabhas, the Meches, Dhimals, Koches, Dimacas, Hojais, Lalung, Garos, Hajongs and such other tribes within the fold of the great bodo race
So, the observation about the Koches are different and there exist people in present North Bengal and Bihar who speak dravidian languages, it is said rajvamsi originally were a dravidian affinities group. Homogenie ( talk) 12:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
certianly scientific racism is wrong) and at the same time indulge in its fruits, that's weird. And no, race is not a "spectrum". Individual physical appearance is. Talking about race is the antithesis of a spectrum. Race means "individual A belongs to taxon 1, while individual B belongs to taxon 2", and on a larger scale, "ethnicities B and C belong to taxon 3, while ethnicity D does not". That's the very concept of race, and this kind of thinking is pseudoscientific crap. To call WP's rejection of pseudoscience "political correctness" flies in the face of scientific consensus in modern biology and anthropology. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Can we please also throw out the references to "Mongoloid" in the sections "Origin" then? There must be a way we can cite from Nath without relying on his obsolete wishy-washy terminology. Nath says that most Koches physically resemble Bodo groups, but "in some limited areas" (p. 4) display more "southernish" South Asian ancestry which he ascribes to more recent intermarriage. In the end, only modern genetics can come up with meaningful observations for the purpose of determining the orgin of the Koch Rajbongshis. – Austronesier ( talk) 11:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Austronesir Rajbongshi is Indo-Aryan speaking community. Here the Proof https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201198 2409:4065:E89:DE03:4C4E:C009:CD22:8A15 ( talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: physical description of groups doesnot fall under racism, it is only when you terms like Mongoloid, Dravidian, etc. You can put physical description as pages like this use them Huns, Turks
@ Austronesier: These group is like the Ahoms, this group dont necessary speak indo aryan language everywhere, it is much more related to the Koch dynasty, ramirez 2014 has clarified it, furthur more this group is a accumulation of different tribes, why is these being removed , the author nath (1989) has clearly wrote it in his book, the koches has groups like koch, mech, garo
@ Austronesier and Fylindfotberserk: need your help here.
What we should not do is project our current ethic identities to the past communities. Just because they are associated with a name "koch" does not mean anything.
For example, why should there be so much material of the Koch dynasty in Koch_people#History.
Chaipau ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Please continue here the discussion from User_talk:Chaipau#koch-rajbongshi_notable_people Chaipau ( talk) 13:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier: Please note the creeping Mech-ization of this article. I have tried to remove some of it today. Cherry-picked quotes are a bane! Chaipau ( talk) 08:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we have an opportunity to make this a reliably sourced NPOV article and remove the top maintenance banner. @ Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier:. Chaipau ( talk) 03:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: Please make your objection here. I undid your revert because you seem to misread it. It is not about primordiality, It is about the beginning of scholarship since the early 19th century. Northeast heritage ( talk) 19:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
So why does this sentence not included the Paliya? Sorry, you cannot create ethnographies in Wikipedia by WP:CHERRYPICKED sentences from poorly worded sources.The Rajbanshis, stated Buchanan-Hamilton, were the Koches who had adopted Hindu rituals and manners since the sixteenth century, following the princely family of Cooch Behar.
the association was made for census purposes.In the nineteenth century the view expressed by census superintendents of Bengal was that the Rajbanshis were ethnically identical with the Koch and Paliya.
Safe haven123, please point me to the source that says Kamarupa was "unclean", as you claim in this edit? Chaipau ( talk) 10:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
To The Wikipedia adminstration, Respected Sir, Few time ago I follow a very serious issue. This Article are mentioned "Rajbanshi and Koch-Rajbanshi" are same Cast. But actually Rajbanshi Cast are Kshatriya Community and language is Rajbanshi-Language (Ariyan). But Koch-rajbanshi Cast are Koch Community and language is Koch-Language (Tebet-Berma Language).But Presently they are accepted Ariyan Language (Kamtapuri/Rajbanshi language) and Matrimonial Relations with Rajbanshi-Kshatriya Cast. So, I pray to you, verifay the actual information. This is very serious issue. And again Apple to you, present incurrect information willbe suspend and after verification upload the actual correct information. Thanks.🙏 hat SARATBOW ( talk) 16:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
To The Wikipedia Adminstration, Respected Sir, Few time ago I follow this page updated one day ago, but few very serious issue at present the page. 1)1st Para: The Rajbanshi,also Rajbongshi is a actually spoken Indo-Aryan language family from ancient time, but unfortunately indicate Tibeto-Burman languages in this page. So,I pray to you correction the issue. Actually Koch-Rajbanshi people(Koch) is a Tebeto-Burman speaker. But present time Koch-Rajbanshi (Koch) People speake Rajbanshi language. 2)History content: Jogendra Nath Mandal actually belongs to Namasudra Community. He not to belongs Rajbanshi and Koch-Rajbanshi community but unfortunately impute in this page. So, I pray to you, verify the actual information. Issues are very serious. I again apple to you, present incorrect issues willbe suspend and after verification upload the actual correct information. Thanks. SARATBOW ( talk) 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
Northeast heritage ( talk) 04:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)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.
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)
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.
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).
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)