Talk:Rajbanshi people

Koch-Rajbongshi

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)

Keep the discussion at one place ie, WP:INB. Don't spam every talk. Wait for other to give their opinion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:35, 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)

Publishing wrong information

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)

Nobody is relating Rajbongshi to Islam. But nashya Shaikh article clearly says they are related to Rajbongshis. The related ethnic groups parameter should mention groups linked linguistically, not by religion. As an example, Punjabi Muslims, Punjabi Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus are all related through their Punjabi language. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:11, 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)

This is not the case. You are making WP:POV edits and this type of threats will get you blocked. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Information about Rajbongshi Community

Please remove the wikipedia page. This Rajbongshi Page, There some inappropiate information are posted. Gobinda31 (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because your community is not shown to be Greatest community in the world doesnt mean the information is wrong. Pls make constructive edits based on real evidences rather than your own thoughts. C1MM (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction Community name.

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)

Dravidian

@Homogenie: the reference you keep inserting about the Rajbongshi association being Dravidian, please note the following:

• Nath refers to Gait's History of Assam, via notes and Gait refers to Risley [1].
• Please look at this discussion. [2], which I had pointed out to you in an edit summary.

Do not keep reinserting this discredited issue again, as you did in [3], [4], [5], etc.

Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Gait doesnot refer to Risley, infact if you read properly you would notice that Gait corrected Risley mistake of Koches having Oriental features (east and south east asian features) not Caucasian features. Here is the Quote:

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)

• Gait is just as problematic as Hogdson, Risley and Dalton because he too was a colonial officer writing about ethnicities.
• Gait did not reject Risley—he just explained the difference between Risley, Dalton and Hogdson with a speculative spin of his own. He specifically attributes another un-named community with "Dravidian affinities", where clearly he is using Dravidian as a racial category.

Please do not keep reverting. You are inserting racial references into Wikipedia with this edit.

Chaipau (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Gait doesnot speculate, he claims that there is a Dravidian speaking community, and he claims affinities- which meant a Dravidian speaking group, he doesnot claim a racial group, also it is opinion given Nath, why is there so hurry to remove this single sentence?? all opinions must be inserted, no one loses anything in inserting a single line. Homogenie (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR. Where is Gait claiming it is linguistic affinities and not racial? He is using "Dravidian" the same way Risley is using the term.

The reason for the removal is given clearly. The claim that Nath mentions uncritically is sourced to colonial ethnographers, which are not reliable sources in this matter.

Also, under WP:NOTEVERYTHING, not everything said deserves to be in the Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Gait said affinities, which could mean language, no reason to remove this when it gives us a different glimpse of the word "Rajbanshi". Besides, here SARKAR(1992) you are using Sarkar who refers to Dalton, Risley, Bryan Hodgson who are colonial ethnographers, how is it that you can add a author who refers to Risley, Dalton, but others can?? you are WP:CHERRYPICKING a single line out the whole to give a different meaning to the article Homogenie (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be making some assumptions about my intentions. As I have stated above, my intentions are solely based on what I understand by Wikipedia policies and conventions.

• That Gait might be referring to linguistic affinities is clearly false, because he was trying to explain away the discrepancy between Dalton and Risley. The explanation was a means to reconcile the two, not reject either of them. If Gait was referring to linguistic affinities then he should have said so explicitly - but he didn't. So please do not keep using this argument. Inserting this with your own explanation is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
• I have used both Sarkar as well as Nath on many different occasions. But if an author is quotable in one instance does not mean they are quotable in all. Nath here quotes Gait in toto, without any critical comment - and, therefore, the assertion by him is "fruit from the poisonous tree".

Chaipau (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Gait_1906_a_reliable_source_for_this_particular_claim. Chaipau (talk) 14:45, 5 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)

@Austronesier: this is like middle school. [6], [7]. Chaipau (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Not all colonial observation are wrong. It is certain that Mongoloid as a racial term is outdated and so is Dravidian but the people who surveyed the area saw the physical features of the two groups as completely different, the first observation

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)

The highlights in the quotes are wrong, obnoxious, and disdainful. Chaipau (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The quotes are wrong, this is what written in the book, this are not my wordsHomogenie (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If they are wrong, then why are you WP:EW-ing to add them here? [8], [9], [10], [11]. You have been reverting me, Austronesier and Robo Zay. Chaipau (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the content of book wrong about the different views regarding koches. Also here Sarkar 1992 you are using the term mongoloid and dravidian which are outdated terms, the author is putting reference to colonial times, how is it that you can use a outdated terms while you keep reverting others when they do the same Homogenie (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So let's look what's the difference between Nath's book and this WP article: Nath's book has c. 250 pages, while this article has less than 25k bytes in scope. Obviously, the format of Nath's book allows him to include everything that has been written about the Koch people for historical interest. This is something we obviously cannot do here. Given the encyclopedic format, we have to consider WP:due weight. And part of this consideration is that solid modern scholarship has priority over obsolete racialist BS that (disdainfully and in a dehumanizing way) categorized South Asian ethnicities and castes based on superficial features such as skin color and lip shape. And I don't support to give any weight to such fluff here unless in the context of articles about scientific racism. Adding it in this article does not provide any useful information about the Koch-Rajbongshi people. –Austronesier (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Well i wanted to add this because there is a huge controversy about who is Koch and Koch Rajbanshi like this Include Koches in ST list, not Koch Rajbongshis: AAKA tells GoA, also to much political correctness may lead us to think that a group which oriental looks is similar to a caucasian group, certianly scientific racism is wrong, but what does it denies, it denies that race cannot be calculated in scientific terms but that does not mean a group with caucasian features is same as the groups with oriental features , are Chinese similar to Pashtuns in their facial structure, race is a spectrum but that doesnot mean we cannot recognise the difference between a Chinese and a Pashtuns, similarly between a dark looking caucasian features (no racism) vs a group having oriental feature Homogenie (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Looks" and "features" are no longer used today, please do not use these arguments here.
• Wikipedia has no business in these "tribalization" controversies. I can see this happening in other pages as well. Please stop this.
• J N Sarkar was used in Koch dynasty in the form that was acceptable, as Austronesier pointed out; but now I see that this is problematic and have removed it.

Chaipau (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

One cannot object to scientific racism (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)

Not just that, but this article has to be rewritten (the top banner says it all). Currently it sounds like a screed for making the community a scheduled tribe (WP:NOTADVOCACY). Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Well, the first lede sentence with the degrading "assertive" leaves a different first impression. Even though it is well sourced, they way it is used here is quite remote from the author's intentions. It reminds me of Lumbee-bashing in the US. –Austronesier (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: True. Both the tendencies are present here (and in other pages of ethnic communities from NE India/Assam). [12]. We need more vigilance in this area. Chaipau (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan speaking

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)

You need to sort this out with User:Homogenie, who objects to this addition. To help you out a bit: @Homogenie, who are then the non-Indo-Aryan speaking Rajbongshis? Isn't language shift part of the package that defines Rajbongshi identity? –Austronesier (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The linguistic change from tibeto-burman language to a indo aryan language of the rajbanshi is actually properly mentioned in lower section of the article Homogenie (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So what should keep us then from calling the present-day community Indo-Aryan speaking? –Austronesier (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The group is a amalgation of different tibeto burman tribes united under the name of Koches who formed the Koch dynssty which was given to them by uppercaste hindus, later the name koch gave them a horrible taste so they changed the name to rajbanshi in early 1900s to claim to belong to the koch dynasty. So the group is mostly related to the people who formed the koch dynasty rather than a language, a member of this group might be living in garo hills so they might speak garo a tibeto burman language, while living in bangladesh they will speak bengali a indo aryan language, so this group is much more related to the group who formed the koch dynasty than to a particular language, and so the first sentence of the article says rajbanshi as a assertive group belonging to the koch dyansty Homogenie (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Homogenie's account mixes up a number of things. The use of Koch is fluid. There is a well-defined Koch group of ethnic peoples. Additionally, there exists a Koch "caste" in Assam where all previously ethnic non-Indo-Aryans find themselves in - from Tiwa, and other communities. And then there is the Rajbanshi people who are called the "nation-building" group associated with the Koch dynasty/Koch kingdom. The Rajbanshi people are those who changed their nomenclature in the west - Nepal, North Bengal and western Assam (which was not part of the Ahom kingdom). But it seems not all did, because West Bengal lists Koch and Rajbanshi separately.

The Rajbanshi people wanted to improve their social status in the last decade of the 19th century and aspired to kshatriya caste. Now the aspiration is for scheduled tribe status. This is quite similar to what happened in the Boro people - they aspired to higher social status with the Brahma movement, and now enjoy scheduled tribe status and autonomous district controls. All this has pit ethnic groups against one another, and we see the ethnicization playing out in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not the place to discuss the validity of the claim that traces Koch-Rajbongshis to the Koch dynasty. We know that all over the world and also in NE India, communities construct and re-invent history for self-assertive purposes. But that doesn't de-exist those communities as self-identifying social groups. So again, who among the people who presently self-identify specifically as Koch-Rajbongshis (which is the topic of this article, and not the people factually or vaguely associated with the Koch dynasty) actually still speak ST languages? –Austronesier (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks, I've readded about indo-aryan speaking as there is no more objection from homogenie.

@Homogenie: Please provide a reliable source that the people who identify as present-day Rajbanshis (or "Koch-Rajbongshis" etc.) speak anything other than IA languages. The IP has provided a source, Ramirez (2014) says the same thing. –Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Physical description

@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

Reintroducing races through the backdoor? –Austronesier (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

How is this group even linked to a language

@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

@Homogenie: Please provide a reliable source that the people who identify as present-day Rajbanshis (or "Koch-Rajbongshis" etc.) speak anything other than IA languages. The IP has provided a source, Ramirez (2014) says the same thing. –Austronesier (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This article needs a complete re-write. I don't understand the purpose of this article. It seems to be caught in the cross-fire of propaganda.

For example:

• The etymology section is more concerned about explaining "Koch", whereas it should explain "Rajbanshi".
• The history section spends too much space describing the Koch dynasty, which has its own page and therefore is not needed here, and not enough describing the community. The history section should focus on how the community came to be described as "Rajbanshi" and how it was formed.

This article does not describe how disparate regions have Rajbanshi communties (Nepal, North Bengal, Assam) etc., and needless to say these communities speak different languages (Indo-Aryan).

Chaipau (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. While much of the identity-construction of Rajbanshi activists revolves around the Koch dynasty, we can't present their communal POV in Wikivoice. It is important to have some background information, but it shouldn't be expanded here into a (POV-)fork of an existing article. The article should focus on the actual community, from its emergence to its present status (including ST aspirations). –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier and Fylindfotberserk: need your help here.

• Of late text from Koch dynasty has been creeping into this as well as into Koch people.
• But there are really four different things and we need to keep them apart.

• Some people/peoples
  • Nation-building Koch (eventually Rajbanshi following a movement, late Sanskritization, mostly in North Bengal and Goalpara)
    • Koch dynasty (early Sanskritization)
  • Koch people (not/minimally Sanskritized, Meghalaya)
  • Koch caste of Eastern Assam, an intermediate stage of an established process of upward caste mobility open to many different ethnic groups

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)

I concur. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable people

Please continue here the discussion from User_talk:Chaipau#koch-rajbongshi_notable_people Chaipau (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Mech-ization

@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)

Improve

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: Yes, remove the banner if necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, removing this. I added a banner in a section instead. Chaipau (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I added an ethnographic paper by Rajib Nandi and this paper is very good. I would suggest rewriting the article becaue it presents Rajbanshi's claims to legitimise their Kamatapur movement based on colonial ethnography. History section claim that Koches climbed caste hierarchy and claimed Kshatriya/Rajbongshi identity but this claim is very recently accepted by Rajbongshis based on colonial ethnography. Earlier they criticised colonial ethnographers and denied their possible common-origin with Koches.

Since it's Rajbongshi article, it should begin with Rajbongshis, if their history can't be pushed beyond colonial era, so be it. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a political tussle in those lands now, and some other ethnicities look at assertive narrations such as that related to the Kamatapur movement warily. Wikipedia, OTOH, has no business either legitimizing or delegitimizing movements and national aspirations. There is not need to rewrite the article. Nandi's article might be a RS for the an article on the Kamatapur Movement, which is what it deals with. Chaipau (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Without being WP:FORUMy, I would say there are some contradictory claims in the article. These things need to be balanced. Some source are PhD theses so we need to take care of WP:DUE and Nandi is peer-reviewed ethnographic paper which is undoubtedly a comprehensive study about Rajbanshi. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Early 19th century

@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)

Please do not make disingenuous arguments. There is a general consensus on not using colonial sources here in Wikipedia (WP:RAJ). There also exists an understanding not to use colonial ethnographers in particular---Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F. And there exists a WP:CONSENSUS that we will not use colonial ethnographers in this page itself. See Talk:Rajbanshi_people#Dravidian. So stop inserting these ethnographic claims. They add nothing but noise.

Besides the claim you have made in your edit, is just a sentence plucked from a foot note. The text has this to say:

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.

So why does this sentence not included the Paliya? Sorry, you cannot create ethnographies in Wikipedia by WP:CHERRYPICKED sentences from poorly worded sources.

Besides these categories and ethnicities were very often created or associated expressly for colonial purposes. For example as this sentence shows:

In the nineteenth century the view expressed by census superintendents of Bengal was that the Rajbanshis were ethnically identical with the Koch and Paliya.

the association was made for census purposes.

And Francis Buchanan-Hamilton was a botanist or at best a zoologist. How does he qualify as a ethnologist? Yes, his observations can be used for modern critical scholarship, but is not acceptable uncritically here.

@Austronesier and Fylindfotberserk: please do note this issue coming up again. Please do not shoehorn this colonial claim in the article. Chaipau (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This article says Koch and Rajbanshis are same community (You too advocate this, Right?). I was curious to know and I found so I added who is the first person to discover this connection. I don't understand how my edit is problematic. My source is peer-reviewed article so it is reliable.

I agree it appears to be Cherrypicking as i didn't write more because i couldn't read the article (I thought i will write later from other articles but now it seems it's not possible because I don't want to waste my time convincing you). But Rajbanshi history is attested since early 19th century so you may try to write the section. Northeast heritage (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Unclean Kamarupa

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)

Difference between Rajbanshi-Kshatriya and Koch-Rajbanshi

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)

@Chaipau: Could you look into this matter? Thanks. -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, the information is reported in the literature and available here in Wikipedia.

• The Koch people are those who have maintained their non-Indo-Aryan languages, and follow non-Hindu traditions.[13]
• The Koch caste/jati in Assam are those who are in a Caste-Tribal continuum and receives members from different tribes.[14]
• The Rajbanshi people are an assertive identity related to those who took on that name after the movement by Panchanan Barma. They are related to the Koch people,[15] but they have taken to Indo-Aryan languages. Many in India are Hindu, and some in Bangladesh are Muslim.

There are a lot of political positioning regarding these identities, and Wikipedia should not concern itself with these. For example, a section of Koch people ally with the Rabha people in the Brahmaputra valley...

Chaipau (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Thanks. According to a research paper, half of the Rajbongshi samples had TB specific paternal lineages, but the rest are typical of the neighboring Indo-Aryan speakers (Bihar, Bengal, Nepal, Assamese). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

...and the Koch people have Austroasiatic cultural traits. It is, as Ramirez has said, "complex". You are so right! Chaipau (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Rajbanshi People Page

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)

I believe Chaipau cleared it in the above section. There seem to be three different groups - the Koch tribe, the Koch caste and the Rajbanshi people. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sir, The Koch tribe, The Koch caste and Koch-Rajbanshi people’s are same caste. Today, they speak various Indo-Aryan languages, though the past might have spoken Tibeto-Burnan languages, this is right. But The Rajbanshi,also Rajbongshi are a same Cast and Kshatriya Hindu verna. Rajbanshi(Rajbongshi) is a Indo-Aryan speaking community. This issue already proof by many linguist. So, Rajbanshi (Rajbongshi) and Koch-Rajbanshi are not same community and are not same language speakers. Thanks. SARATBOW (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please write the changes you want here in specific sentences, supported by sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Rajbanshi(Rajbongshi)is a Indo-Aryan speaking community. This subject already prooved by many linguist. (Supported by sources: 1)The Origin and Development of the Bengali language. By Suniti Kumar Chatterjee., 2)Kamtapuri Bhasa Sahityer Ruprekha. By Dharmanarayan Barma., 3)Linguistic to Sociolinguistic Reconstruction. By Mathew WS Toulmin. SARATBOW (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

OK.. mention a sentence in quotes and the changed one according to you in quotes side by side. It will be easier to understand. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)