Talk:Kushwaha

Population estimate

The population estimate of 5.00 crore for kushwaha appears grossly exaggerated. It may be close to 1.5 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.92.26 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, We have numerous times asked you to remove the stigmatised Shudra Varna status from the Kushwaha page because all the information about caste status had been given by the rich landlords during the British rule in India. British relied on rich landlords but to maintain their power Indian landlords played the caste card and put agricultural community under Shudra varna but agriculture caste are not shudra. They may be poor but not Shudra. All the farmer community in India are civilized and cannot be put in Shudra clan. Wikiknowcorrect (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Is this community also known as the Kachwaha? - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

as per my knowlegde separate.they are listed as a obc caste evidence here just like lodhi who also claim rajput origin but are obc and not part of the rajput community.i can give you further examples of such groups like Rajput Mali etc.Pernoctator (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That source does not say that they are different from Kachwaha. In fact, it does not even appear to mention Kachwaha. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

it shows that they (the kushwaha) are a separate obc group not the rajput clan Kachwaha.Pernoctator (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How does it show that they are not the clan? OBC has regard to social groups, some of which are not necessarily castes. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

you mean to say the rajputs or atleast one of their clan is obc.i don't think so alteast not in uttar pradesh,rajasthan,delhi.the central government also does not list rajput as obc if my facts are correct.Pernoctator (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Any chance that you could indent your replies? I am not saying that you are wrong about the subject matter here. What I am saying is we need sources, not personal knowledge and synthesis. These OBC lists are always a complete mess. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

obc list mess yes maybe.what do you propose then redirect ?.Pernoctator (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing anything yet. I want to work out what the heck is going on. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

look here what this says [1] koeri and kacchi caste have merged to become kushwaha.Pernoctator (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See [2] - numerous sources saying Kushwaha and Kachwaha. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's true.Kushwaha comes under OBC Category. As per Hindu varna systems not only Kushwaha but some other casts also falls under Kshtriya Varna. (Like Yadav,Kurmi,etc.) Get confirm with your resources.Historically and Mythological that varna system in Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofKushwaha (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And your source for that is? Bearing in mind that you misrepresent the varna situation of Kurmis and Yadavs, I am not massively confident here. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I was correct. The varna situation is the common, messy sanskritisation issue, as per my recent edits, and including a change in their belief regarding from whom they claim descent. It also appears likely that Kushwaha is akin to Yadav, ie: a name used by various castes that form a loose grouping based on a common traditional occupation. It needs more work, though. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

but it is a separate caste no ? not the same as kachwaha clan.Pernoctator (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the sources that I have found, it is can refer to one of three or four "subcastes", and some think that includes the Kachwaha. That is what the article now says because we have to reflect the reliable sources. I am reasonably sure that this lot could all be rolled into one article but need to do more work on that. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, We have numerous times asked you to remove the stigmatised Shudra Varna status from the Kushwaha page because all the information about caste status had been given by the rich landlords during the British rule in India. British relied on rich landlords but to maintain their power Indian landlords played the caste card and put agricultural community under Shudra varna but agriculture caste are not shudra. They may be poor but not Shudra. All the farmer community in India are civilized and cannot be put in Shudra clan.Another thing is that all agriculture communities in India cannot be put in the same group based on the occupation because any community can change its occupation over the course of time. Yadavs are believed to be the ancestors of Krishna. So instead keep all the groups separately. Grouping of castes by British government was solely done to reduce complexity. Wikiknowcorrect (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

editing

well there is no edit war, I am going to add here. I request people with a little knowledge to please refrain from writing. Further to clarify, Kachwaha (of Rajasthan) and Kushwaha are two different groups.

You are joking, aren't you? Please read about consensus, verifiability, reliable sources and citing sources. You are welcome to participate in discussions and sensible edits to the article but you must not be disruptive. What you are doing amounts to vandalism, since it removes sourced content to such a degree that it completely misrepresents the subject matter in so far as any of us have managed to work out what the heck it is. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I have read all, that's why my edit. I dont want to repeat again and again that only people knowledgeable about subject write about it. Pls stop parroting accusations (vandalism lah...). let's constructively write about the article and dont write if you dont know about the subject. Truth always triumphs 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthalwaystriumphs (talk • contribs)

Dear Writer, your written article is 90 % incorrect, which has no any historical evidence based, you written just on your assumption and your view, Kindly must edit this article, or remove. Please Read this Kushwaha/Kachwaha/Koiri/Maurya/Murao/More are the different title of Kushwaha they a are the Kshatriye community of India, They are Suryavanshi, they claim to the son of God shree Ram (kush) but in recent age they have different social status in different states Rajsthan/Maharastra/MP– Kushwaha are in Rajput (General Class) but in Bihar & UP due to the cast based politics and lower economical status they are in OBC , and they are considered as backward class. Origin & History- The origin of kushwaha is from Maurya Kshatriye class from Maurya Empire who have the great Indian history, but after Kalinga war by the Great king Ashoka Maurya (ruled more than 15 countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire ) – he left war and adopted peace and BUDHISM, Turning To backward – The last ruler of Maurya Empire was Brihdrata(185 BC) who was killed by his army chief PushyaMitra Shunga (Pandit ), with a very conspiracy in Patliputra(Patna), Then Pushyamitra and his followers killed the King family and mass of Maurya community people. Since then maximum of Maurya either changed their title / converted to Budhism, The cast based politics in Bihar did injustice to the decent Maurya class. Since Hindu religion and sentiment was always in Pandit hand so they pushed them in Surdra varan also in some area.

During the Mughal and islam , since they were land lord and forced to pay heavy taxes (>30% ) OR convert to Islam But they never converted to Islam and paid heavy taxes, so they became poor. The last kachwaha/Kushwaha ruler was king Man singh , decestor of Jai singh from Rajsthan Jaipur, Ajmer/Amer/ who was the Decent Rajput of Rajsthan . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachwaha Still Maurya and kushwaha are one of the 36 clan of Rajputs from Suryavansh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput_clans or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rava_Rajputs

                                                  Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsinghindia (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 

KUSHWAH ARE RAJPUT KUSHWAH AND KACHWAH ARE SAME THE WHY YOU ALL ARE NOT CLARIFY THAT KUSHWAH ARE RAJPUT Surya2308s (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, We have numerous times asked you to remove the stigmatised Shudra Varna status from the Kushwaha page because all the information about caste status had been given by the rich landlords during the British rule in India. British relied on rich landlords but to maintain their power Indian landlords played the caste card and put agricultural community under Shudra varna but agriculture caste are not shudra. They may be poor but not Shudra. All the farmer community in India are civilized and cannot be put in Shudra clan. Wikiknowcorrect (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Peasants and monks in British India.(willam r. Pinch) where is write and proof the koeris is a shudra caste Vicky Singh 2021 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally feel that this article regarding kushwaha is completely biased. It is against the sentiment of Kushwaha people.what’s the point of putting Kushwaha community in sudra varna. They are the Kshatriya community of India like any other Kshatriya group.I kindly request to edit this post or just remove this article Suryavanshi123 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Please Discuss

It s regarding reference no 2 ((Inclusive value chains: a pathway out of poverty)) EDA Rural system started in 1999- 2000, then, then how come Kushwaha Community is known as beekeeping Community Traditionally. That was not the only cast which was given this opportunity so every cast which was benefited by that program must be treated traditional beekeepers.

Kindly explain.

Thanks, HistoryofKushwaha 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that you have been referred previously to WP:OSE. In any event, therein lies your answer. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Plus you must know about WP:VERIFY - to call any group beekeepers would need a reliable source, but in this case they are call traditional beekeepers - that means before the EDA Rural system, it means for generations. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen reference page and some other pages as well but can't find any thing which proves Kushwaha Community to be called as Traditional Beekeepers. Before EDA what was the scenario is not being given in the cited source so have to be presumed as you did. In that case there is no point to discuss as you can defend your move by assuming things you own. And you defend well while using WP:OSEand WP:VERIFY.

By the way I can cite more than one source from different authors/books that can prove Kushwaha Community as Traditional agricultural Community.

HistoryofKushwaha 21:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofKushwaha (talk • contribs)

The article already refers to the Kushwaha as being traditionally an agricultural community, and is sourced as such. Your issue appears to relate to the beekeeping side of things. That also is sourced. Are you questioning the source? - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that but interpretation and presentation of that information is questionable.Even very first paragraph of introduction of Kushwaha supposed to be precise.Because that source not calming that Kushwaha were Traditional beekeepers they were doing it just 10 to 12 years before so cant be treated as traditional beekeepers. That Information must be written under Classification not as Introduction.

Secondly Cited sources has explained itself that there were writer who had given proofs and claimed that Kushwaha were Hindu Kshatriya Community then why it's not written in introduction as "Kushwaha is a Hindu Kshatriya Community of Indian subcontinent." And rest you already explained under Classification.

Third point: as you mentioned in Under Classification "though the physical labour inherent in their cultivator occupations intrinsically defined them as Shudra." There is long debate and sources are available which are proving that Physical labor is not the only criteria to called any individual or community as Shudra. Then why presentation of information on cited sources seems unfair. Correct me if I am wrong this article could be written in different way while citing same sources then not able to understand why only this kind, where you are presenting information unfairly. HistoryofKushwaha 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Classification" in infoboxes refers to their current status in the Indian positive discrimination system for social groups, eg: forward class, other backward class, scheduled tribe etc; elsewhere, it is obviously a more broadly construed definition. I am not going to dig around for it now but there was a consensus obtained fairly recently at WT:INB that we do not refer to varna in the lead sections of articles because in many instances the devil is in the detail. If you want to challenge that consensus then you are of course free to do so but I think that you really should find the original discussion first and perhaps also take note of WP:TE - consensus can and does change, but the discussion definitely was not too long ago. Your third points directly relates to that discussion. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I got your concern in reference to Lead section but here talking bout "Classification". Why "The Kushwaha were traditionally a peasant community and considered to be of the stigmatised Shudra varna.[7]" this sentence is written with confirmation when cited link itself refer confusion and disputes its own by different authors. If you are not writing Kushwaha community a Hindu Kshatriya Community then why Shudra on the basis of given link. Then message supposed to be neutral and reader should interpret the message instead his own instead of influencing him by writing strong comments on something/status.

With due respect I am making few changes in classification hope will you see this in a new light of current scenario. HistoryofKushwaha 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofKushwaha (talk • contribs)

Pinch is explicit and we have had this discussion previously. I have reverted you: we are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Read About Kushwaha, all you have written here is totally incorrect. www.Kushwaha.in

or you can ask for more real and true info about kushwaha from Me gtalk- devkantyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privatesecrate (talk • contribs) 07:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am tired of giving evidence but some of here are biased writer who has taken oath no way you are going to change it.http://books.google.com/books?id=num2I4NFGqIC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=kushwaha+as+agricultural+caste&source=bl&ots=RbDJiP1vn-&sig=0q5PXMIR2U-OdCfKoETdjdD8EGo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ha7IUfKZBI-o9gTApIDQAQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=kushwaha&f=false--Harics456 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This reliable source books prove that kushwaha were kshatriyas.http://books.google.com/books?id=jWhq-8nNnqcC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=books+on+kushwaha+caste&source=bl&ots=a1dCrWTUtQ&sig=OX_NGCGGd8iALPFc92lcDqhBPSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X7LIUa6GNoHW9ATH34HgCw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=books%20on%20kushwaha%20caste&f=false --Harics456 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC).

SO could you please respectdly take out that sudhra out from there because it contradicts with more than one reliable sources. Will be so kind of you all biased writers. Thanks--Harics456 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not biased. I've no idea what you mean by "who has taken oath". I cannot see page 25 of the "Facinating Hindutva" source (your second example) and so would need an extensive quote from that, especially since you seem to have real problems in understanding what sources are saying. Those problems are yet again evident in your first example above, which does not say that Kushwaha are kshatriya but rather that the Kushwaha Kshatriya Mahasabha was established - that's the usual caste association malarkey connected with the sanskritisation process etc that is already mentioned in the article. No-one denies that the Kushwaha (or, at least, the vocal element of that community) claim kshatriya origin but, as I'm sure I've said before, claiming it is not the same as being recognised as it. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush talk ...the link i am providing. check the page 25 where gangalal prasad clearly states that he proved kushwaha as kshatriya caste who is from india neither kushwaha. And he has stated this in 1921. I am being polite to you. What else resource you want. You seems clearly biased. Wikepedia is never consdiered reliable source because of the people like you only.No professor recommend wikepedia because of biased people who write what ever you feel like reliable source. I am shutting my mouth alot while writting this no any curse but i dont think that penetrate you unless i will use it but i am getting blocked for that. Check page 25 http://books.google.com/books?id=jWhq-8nNnqcC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=books+on+kushwaha+caste&source=bl&ots=a1dCrWTUtQ&sig=OX_NGCGGd8iALPFc92lcDqhBPSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X7LIUa6GNoHW9ATH34HgCw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=similarly%20in%201921%2C&f=false--192.231.63.253 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained that I cannot see that source and will need an extensive quote, Harics. I'm happy to consider it but the history surrounding these claims made on Wikipedia is extensive and rarely ever supportive of them. In any event, if Prasad were acceptable then we would show both opinions, not theirs alone. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I cant copy the source and i dont know why you are nt able to see it. just click the link above i gave and you may have access and check page 25. IF nt say me idea how should i show you that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.63.253 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This note is to the author of this article. This information published in this article is completely incorrect. The kachhawa (also known as Kushwaha) are Suryavanshi. They are Rajputs without any doubt and ruled from Narvar. The Rajas shifted their capital from Narvar to Indurkhi, to Biswari, to Lahar (now in Madhya Pradesh), and finally to Rampura (UP) in late 13th century. The clan split into 2 at Narvar, with one going to Amber (Rajasthan). The Jaipur royal Family and the Rampura royal family are both Kachhawa. The Kachhawas are one of the the 3 oldest rajput clans in India. Devendra Singh<1. "The Golden Book of India"; LETHBRIDGE, Roper, MacMillan & Co., 1893 p. 442 2. "Whittakers Almanac", p.665 3. “Hand Book of Rajputs” A.H. Bingley, p 88 4. Manual of Titles edited by J.S. Mackintosh, 1877,p111 > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.101.182 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Koeri is a politically dominant caste Kuswaha (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete the article

This article has been written by some paid writer and contains incorrect information. It may be deleted urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.10.50 (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your first claim has no basis in fact whatsoever. Second, even if it were true, it's not grounds for deleting the article, it's grounds for fixing it. Now, what exactly do you think needs to be improved? Please be sure to include reliable sources to support the changes you suggest. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kushwaha doesnt come under sudhra varna neither do beekeeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harics456 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can produce reliable sources which support that claim, we will add them to the article. If you cannot, then please just find another website to worry about; Wikipedia is based on sources, not people's personal opinions/claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You really made me to do research to make you know that kushwaha were never in sudhara varna. I finally found the link where it states kushwaha as growing kshatriya varna .(http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=ch3&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress). Read this and be polite to others if you are paid writers.I really had to do reasearch to make you know that Me myself kushwaha knows about my caste than anybody else.Please sir now change that. I have provide with you the resource.In this article they have misspelled kushwaha with kushvaha. I dont think you need article for that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harics456 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to read the link you gave. If you read the whole thing (instead of just searching for Kushvaha), you'd see that the whole point of the book chapter is that the Kushwaha were classified as Shudra, and who then underwent a deliberate attempt to raise their status to Kshatriya. This is all explicitly covered in the article already. So, it may be worth adding that source, but it makes exactly the opposite point that you want. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC).

If you really want me to pay for my reasearch just take out that sudhara varna and bee keeping out from my cast. I come from agricultural family. not sudhra varna. I would be happy if you pay for my what you give me headache for so long almost a year.

Now I can say being biased towards this community(http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=ch3&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress). the link i provided clearly states kushwaha more as kshatriya. You whole thing is about from pinch where there also state kushwaha as kshatriya. there are also resource down the artilce , press statement by authour where they are indicating kushwaha as khastriya. What else i need to provide you now? Please I really mean it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harics456 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Harics, it was almost certainly me who added the material from the book that you link. I've just scanned through it again and cannot spot where the author "clearly states kushwaha more as kshatriya". Could you perhaps copy/paste a 'small piece where he says this? I'll gladly take another look at that and read around it. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

By contrast, the nineteenth-century antecedents of the Kushvaha-kshatriya movement reveal distinct cosmological associations with Shiva and his divine consort, Parvati. Kushvaha-kshatriya identity was espoused by agricultural communities well known throughout the Gangetic north for an expertise in small-scale vegetable and (to an increasingly limited extent after the turn of the twentieth century) poppy cultivation. Prominent among them were Kachhi and Murao agriculturalists of central Uttar Pradesh, Kachhvahas of western Uttar Pradesh, and Koiris of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh.[50] Made up of such skilled agriculturalists, these communities had long since come to the attention of colonial administrators and ethnologists. Both W. W. Hunter in the 1870s and H. H. Risley in the 1890s recorded the legend that Koiris and Kachhis were created by Shiva and Parvati to tend the vegetable (Risley mentions in particular radishes, murai, hence Murao) and flower gardens of Banaras, a mythological reflection of the importance to their identity of both agricultural skill and Shaiva belief.[51] Indeed, Risley characterized the majority of Koiris in Bihar as Shaiva or Shakta (followers of shakti, the female personification of cosmic energy) and observed that “Vaishnavism has hitherto made little progress among them.” Buchanan, eighty years earlier, had noted that most Koiris in Bihar followed Dasnami sanyasis, while many in the Gorakhpur region adjacent to Ayodhya as well as in Purnia in the east had already begun to look to Ramanandis for spiritual guidance.[52]. Please dont be biased towards this community. You only reading from pinch but if you are from india and stayed in india then you should have known about kushwaha caste better.Please its never came in sudhra varna. The link i provide is whole topic about changing from vaishnav to khsatriya but you guys are not understanding. I just wanted you guys to remove sudhra but you are not listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.176.10 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I saw that bit. Unfortunately, you have taken it out of context. He says that after noting that the Kushwaha mounted a campaign to be reclassified as kshatriya which (of course) was a very common thing to do. It doesn't make them kshatriya. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Really after giving you so much of evidence you dont want to take out that sudhra varna. What should i consider this as ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.176.10 (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You should consider it as correctly following Wikipedia policies and correctly reading sources. The article discusses the shudra/kshatriya stuff in some detail, using reliable sources. We don't take something out just because you do not like it. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush talk is biased writer toward this community . He has been writing bad stuffs about kushwaha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harics456 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Harics, the paragraph immediately preceding that which you quoted above is the first of the chapter. It includes:

By the late nineteenth century a parallel and qualitatively different brand of social reform had begun to emerge that was, strictly speaking, independent of any direct institutional connection to the Ramanandi or any other Vaishnava sampraday. Rather, this new reformism originated in the jatis assigned shudra status and was for the most part spearheaded by articulate, educated members of those stigmatized communities. Whereas shudra and untouchable involvement in Vaishnava religiosity, whether as lay devotees or as sadhus, was predicated on a Ramanandi disdain for status, these new jati reformers sought personal and community dignity on their own by the unqualified assertion of status. Such assertions occurred among a broad range of agricultural and artisanal jatis who had in common an ascriptively shudra past, and the discussion in this chapter reflects that socio-occupational variety. Of particular interest, however, given their centrality to Gangetic agriculture and relative demographic strength, were the kshatriya campaigns mounted by Kurmi, Yadav, and Kushvaha peasants.

... and then the paragraph ends. Can you not see from this that Pinch is saying the the Kushwaha were shudra but aspired to be classified as kshatriya? Surely, you are aware that many castes made similar claims and perhaps you are even aware of the term sanskritisation? Communities or even individuals can make any claim that they choose - I, for example, might claim to be from Mars - but unless society generally accepts it then the claim does not develop any real status. Our article refers to the movement - he calls it "kshatriya campaigns" - described in the quote above. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Kushwahas are Kshatriyas Prajeshkushwaha (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion required

This article portrays a community in negative light and contains incorrect information. It may be deleted urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.80.153 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See above - this article has had about 130 editors, accusations of being written by a paid editor are nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But one particular writer named Sitush who is a paid writer had done most of the edition to an article. He was also misusing his powers by banning anyone who protsted and reverting the changes during last year. This artcile doesn't, I repeat doesn't portray a community in proper light. Further such writers from outside India dont possess knowledge about an Indian community. Hence request urgent deletion of this article without any further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.21.147 (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Make that accusation again and I will protect this talk page. Sitush is not a paid writer, and never has been. That's a personal attack, and absolutely forbidden. Furthermore, Sitush is not an administrator, and thus can't ban anybody. And it's absolutely false that only writers inside of India can write about India--people can write on anything they can verify with reliable sources--something you, so far, have not done. Get some reliable sources, tell us explicitly what should be improved or changed, or don't comment here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

kushwaha doesnt come in sudhra varan.please delete this line. u cant write anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.63.253 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's supported by a reliable source. If you have another source that contradicts that, we can add both, but to remove it you'll need to show that the source doesn't meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is protected how can I provide source to edit it Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xxxxxxxxy: Here is what you have to do. You have to go to the page and click "View Source" at the top. Then, it will give you instructions. CLCStudent (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Urgent Deletion required

This article doesn't represent an Indian community correctly. Many sentences portray the community in a negative light. Therefore, It is requested that this article be deleted without any delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.105.98 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time. If you have other reliable sources, present them. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderate request Speedy Deletion

In line with demands by other members, I request speedy deletion for an article which presents a community in a negative way. Further, comments by moderators such as 'situs' and 'Qwyrxian' may be noted and these moderators be suitably disciplined. There writer 'situs' is a paid write who geta paid to write articles witha certain intent. Wikipedia must take action against such persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.109.201 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no justification for deleting an article simply because someone doesn't like it. The subject is notable, and we don't delete articles on notable subjects. I'm now protecting this page against IP editing because of the number of personal attacks on a specific editor - who is not a paid editor by the way. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

I blocked Harics456 for edit-warring and told him/her that if they agreed to resolve the dispute on this talk page they could be unblocked. The reply was "I will come back again tomorrow. be ready to block me again". I would like to avoid this so have protected the page for 3 days to see if Harics can come to some agreement. When that expires if the edit-warring continues a longer block will be in order. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended. I can see page 25 of Fascinating Hindudtva, and the relevant bit says "Nsncuriyas. in ivie, tne ramous Arya samaji snri sarya vrat Sharma Dwivedi of Sikanderpur near Farrukhabad pub- lished Telivarna Prakash from Allahabad, proving the Teli caste to be Vaishyas. Similarly, in 1921, Shri Ganga Prasad Gupta wrote a book, published from Banaras, in which he proved the castes like Koiri, Kachhi, Murad and Kushwaha to be Kshatrivas. Another book Kurmi Kshatfhfl Itihas, pub- lished from Banaras in 1927, was written by Arya Samaji Shri Abhayanand Saraswati, who claimed the important agri- cultural caste Kurmi to be Kshatriva, while the book Mali luti Nimay, published in 1935, established the genealogy of the Basailiya Pali caste." Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems thst I added our content referencing Gupta etc last year when the book was available to me. Since the article already covers the issue, does so with the benefit of more modern, genuinely academic sources and puts the claims of the 1920s caste evangelists in the context of the sanskritisation phenomenon, I see no reason to change it. - Sitush (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

::: Dougweller you should yourself decide how much this sitush talk is biased towards this community. Now when i provided the reliable source who is from india , he has backed up saying that ancient thing...using the recent source as modern...let me tell you one thing sitush history is history, wether its written today or 200 years back. we should know how much i am cursing to you and your family from inside but cant say it over here because i will violate the rule. There are many pages on wiki where there is no problem, this page is nt attacked by none other than your administrator sitush talk. He underscore more on sudhra varna to state kushwaha which is untrue and higlighting it more than kshatriyas which is true. I havebeen tired of saying this but am nt getting response even i have provided relaible source from 3-4 books. You need to decide or you need to give me the way where i can sue this page as well this sitush talk on wikiped. he has taken oath not to change his world.he is uncomprising person who can flexible. You guys need to decide after i have provied so many source ,.. ... he is still acting,,,, before me many persons come and refute about this but sitush only igonored it.this sentenced used by sithush talk on this page . you can predict it as how unpolite and he is biased and good administrator can never write like this (I am not proposing anything yet. I want to work out what the heck is going on. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)). I really need to flag this page. Kindly give me information how i should this. Blocking is nt the cure , solving is the cure which sitush doesnt want to do it. Thanks .--192.231.63.253 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Obvious sock is obvious, this is Harics456 evading his block. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want the article to say that is not already said? - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise Harics was blocked again. If/when you return, Harics, you need to take more care - a lot of the various IP contributions above also seemed to be you and, in fact, I accidentally called an IP by your name because of that. Please take a read of WP:NPA and WP:BLOCK before continuing here, and given your use of the word "sue" above I think you might be well-advised to read WP:NLT also.- Sitush (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Why you deleted this content from talk ??? This content is 100% right, your should brush up your history knowledge then write any content, blocking anyone is not a solution but the solution is to find the fact. Please Describe Maurya caste in past and step by step please describe who are them in present ???? It will show your history knowledge.

Dougweller you should yourself decide how much this sitush talk is biased towards this community. Now when i provided the reliable source who is from india , he has backed up saying that ancient thing...using the recent source as modern...let me tell you one thing sitush history is history, wether its written today or 200 years back. we should know how much i am cursing to you and your family from inside but cant say it over here because i will violate the rule. There are many pages on wiki where there is no problem, this page is nt attacked by none other than your administrator sitush talk. He underscore more on sudhra varna to state kushwaha which is untrue and higlighting it more than kshatriyas which is true. I havebeen tired of saying this but am nt getting response even i have provided relaible source from 3-4 books. You need to decide or you need to give me the way where i can sue this page as well this sitush talk on wikiped. he has taken oath not to change his world.he is uncomprising person who can flexible. You guys need to decide after i have provied so many source ,.. ... he is still acting,,,, before me many persons come and refute about this but sitush only igonored it.this sentenced used by sithush talk on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsinghindia (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sitush

Dear Sitush, you are the main author of this article with a lot of 'sourced' content from internet. You are writing on a very large number of topics. May I benefit from your extensive knowledge by knowing more about you such as your academic background. thanks - Kolkata boy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.215.114 (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the article, none of it is sourced to content from the internet. All of the sources are from scholarly journals or books. Many of them happen to have links to the article or an abstract on the internet, but they're originally print sources, from high quality publishers. As for Sitush's qualifications, you can ask, but he is under no obligation to tell you. Wikipedia does not require that people have any particular qualifications or experience--merely that they be able to read and understand sources and follow our rules, like the requirements for information to be verified by reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Experience and a reasonably good brain. ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good work Arvindgcti5 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, We have numerous times asked you to remove the stigmatised Shudra Varna status from the Kushwaha page because all the information about caste status had been given by the rich landlords during the British rule in India. British relied on rich landlords but to maintain their power Indian landlords played the caste card and put agricultural community under Shudra varna but agriculture caste are not shudra. They may be poor but not Shudra. All the farmer community in India are civilized and cannot be put in Shudra clan. Wikiknowcorrect (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct please remove shudra status as no prove exist Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DELETE URGENTLY CASE Against Wikipedia

Dear writer , i appreciate you write about the Kushwaha community, but the area you mentioned Kushwaha from Sudra Varan is completely wrong and baseless, Kushwaha is a decent community in ancient from Kshatriya varan , They are evolved from the Maurya Empire, even you will find many Maurya in Kushwaha when India capital was in Patliputra and there was Maurya Empire before mugal since then Maurya/Kushwaha/Koiri community was evolved from the Decent Kshatriya clan , since after the killing of last Mauryan King Brihdrata by Pandit community since then there were cast based politics started since many of Maurya converted to Budhism so the pandit community the founder of Hinduism were scared and started cast based politics to suppress the community

Please read the Indian history in Detail you will find so amazing things

Please Delete the word Sudra Varan from your article, otherwise we are millions in quantity, we can revolt against Wikkipedia and on the basis of dis reputation we can block Wikipedia from major part in India .....

i still politly request to Delete this article.. Try to understand . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsinghindia (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources to substantiate your points. You probably should read WP:NLT also. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Kushwaha is real kshatriya Suryavanshi.kushwaha belongs to Lord Ram community suryavansha.Kushwaha is a real Thakur community.Thakur word came from suryavansha( Lord Ram).So immediatly delete wrong word sudra varna from here now... Yogendra kushwaha (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This article should be deleted otherwise shudra status should be removed Kuswaha (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please Delete the word Sudra Varan from your article, otherwise we are millions in quantity, we can revolt against Wikkipedia and on the basis of dis reputation we can block Wikipedia from major part in India .....I m bringing my fellow castemen koeris here it will be last day of baseless Wikipedia and casteist editor s Kuswaha (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kachhi (caste)

Both the articles points to the same group/community of people Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 20:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Both caste are entirely different there is no evidence present in any book that they belong with same group/community of people,they do only marriages with each other in few states so marriages does not prove them same caste. Yes if it is merge with Shakya caste it is right. Pappuverma11 _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 20:14, 06 April 2015 (UTC)

• I just moved Pappuverma11's comment from a separate section - see this. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to the knowledge of everyone, Kushwah proper is a Rajput clan or community but the Kushwah presented in the article is a Kachhi community, a vegetable grower or seller, claiming to be Rajputs. I feel personally that the eminent editors are wise enough to mark the difference in both, yet if needed, tell me. I can list the sources making difference in both right here. Please be just and honest in publishing facts. And, yes, I am not against creating/ converting the separate articles for Kachhi Kushwah and the Rajput Kushwah. Both the communities are to be dealt separately. -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 18:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a different issue, Mahensingha. By all means present sources etc but it would be better done in a separate section and, yes, it would entail creation of a separate article if things seem ok. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Respected Sitush, First of all let me whole heartedly appreciate the way you suggested and guided Pappuverma11 on the issue on his Talk page. And yes, as I said earlier also that I am not against creating separate articles for Rajput Kushwah and Kachhi Kushwah. Please note Shakya is also a refined name for the same Kachhi community as the Pappuverma11 asserted. These are certainly two distinct communities, but as present Kushwaha article points to Kachhi/ Kurmi etc., which all have separate articles to address the communities distinctively. It is not a fact in present form and what I know and fully believe that you know it better than me due to having vast experience of dealing with caste related articles. Please look into the matter.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 19:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support

1) Kachhi does not refer to a group of castes. It is a synonym for Kachwaha or Kushwaha. There is no such thing as Kachhi Kushwaha and Kshatriya Kushwaha, they are all the same. Kachhi, Kushwaha, Kachwaha, Kurvaka, are all synonyms.

2) There are other castes like Shakya, Maurya, Saini etc which are also incorrectly presumed to be Kachhi by people who do not know history or do not believe in evidences. But this is a myth and the reason for this misconception is that in recent history all these castes shared common geological location, along with common social/economical/political status. If you look at history Kushwaha, Maurya, Shakya, Saini are all separate castes. Some were kshatriyas and some were not.

3) Kushwahas did rule a number a princely states like Jaipur, Alwar, Maihar, Talcher, Narwar which does indicate the Kshatriya Status. But Kushwahas is a vast and huge community having somewhere around 1.5 to 2 crore population scattered in different parts of mainly north and west India. Kushwahas in some parts were economically and politically strong (like Rajasthan) and are thus considered as Kshatriya. While Kushwahas in other parts were not that lucky. This lead to poverty and illiteracy among the community. And this lead to the term 'Kachhi'. Kachhi is a derogatory reference to Kachwahas. It origins from the psychology of people to call less important people by shorter names.

Conclusion: I support merger of Kachhi and Kushwaha articles but there should be balanced information consisting of evidences. I would also suggest this article to be handled by editors who do not belong to Indian subcontinent as that would lower the possibility of bias.

Regards: anonymous.rebel.000@gmail.com

Kachhi, Kachwaha, Kushwaha, Kurvaka etc all these similar sounding names are same community. The changes in names happen because of influence of regional dialect. Just like Chandra Gupta Maurya was known as Sandrokottos and Androcottus in foreign Greek and Latin accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya).

Do you have any reliable sources for supporting what you claim. I very well know the difference between the Original Kushwah as well as Ancient Maurya and present kachhi/Maurya/Koeri etc. and even the caste histories know this. So please search and provide the sources to prove that all the Kushwah are same. You are also suggested to sign your comments here--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support : Maharashtra, Page 864 edited by B. V. Bhanu

Clearly states that Kachhi , Kushawaha , Kachwaha , including those who claim Kshatriya status belong to same Kachhi community.

@Greg Pandatshang, Joshua Jonathan, Ogress, Mahensingha, and Sitush: I believe its time that Kachhi, Kushwaha and Kachwaha articles are merged under Kushwaha.

Closing, given that this is both stale and contentious. Klbrain (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• oppose: Kachhi is one subgroup ......numerous others group like koeri dangI use kushwaha so no merger Editor wikip6 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Hello. There are most wrong information about kushwaha community.Kushwaha is a kshatriya suryavanshi community.But there are we found,you given shudra varna status.it's totally wrong.Plz edit by this informtion.It's correct about kushwaha community.

Extensive unsourced text collapsed

Kushwaha (sometimes, Kachwaha)[1] is a community of the Indian subcontinent, which has traditionally been involved in agriculture and knows as agriculturiste The term has been used to represent at least four subcastes, being those of the Kachhis, Kachwahas, Koeris and Muraos. They claim descent from the mythological Suryavansh (Solar) dynasty via Kusha, who was one of the twin sons of Rama and Sita. Previously, they had worshipped Shiva and Shakta. The Kushwaha (also spelled as Kachavaha,Kachawaha,Kacchavahas, Kachhawa, Kuchhwaha,Kachhawaha,Kushwaha, & Keshwala including Kacchapghata, Kakutstha, and Kurma) are a Suryavanshi Kshatriya clan who ruled a number of kingdoms and princely states in India such as Alwar, Maihar, Talcher, while the largest kingdom was Jaipur (Jainagara) which was founded by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II in 1727. The Maharaja of Jaipur is regarded as the head of the extended Kachwaha clan. Kushwaha caste is found in large numbers in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh as well as in Nepal and Mauritius. They claim descent from Shri Kusha, the eldest son of Shri Rama. Kushwaha are locally called Koiri or Koiry (Bihar), Kashi or Kachi (Around Varanasi and MP), Maurya (Uttar Pradesh), Shakya (Uttar Pradesh and Nepal) as well as bhagirathi and sagarvanshi (Saini”Sainya”) or Gehlaut (Western Uttar Pradesh). Legend and early history Lord Sri Rama (center) with wife Sita, brother– Lakshmana and devotee Hanuman. Rama and Lakshmana are always shown to be ready for battle, with bow and arrow, as it is their Kshatriya dharma to fight. Rama was from Suryavanshi lineage. The Kachhawas belong to the Suryavanshi lineage, which claims descent from the Surya (Sun Dynasty) or Suryavansha of the ancient Kshatriyas.They are descent from Raghav (Raghuvanshi) as they claim descent from Kusha eldest of the twin sons of Rama, belongs to Raghav (Raghuvanshi) clan, hero of the Ramayana, to whom patrilineal descent from Surya is in turn ascribed. Indeed, the name Kachawaha is held by many to be a patronymic derived from the name “Kusha”. However, it has been suggested that Kachwaha is a diminutive of the Sanskrit conjoint word ‘Kachhahap-ghata’ or ‘Tortoise-killer’; Tortoise in Sanskrit being Kashyapa, although there may be several connotations for the interpretation of these terms. According to Vishnu Purana, bardic chronicles and popular tradition; Sumitra was the last king of this dynasty in Ayodhya. In the fourth century BC Mahapadma Nanda of Nanda Dynasty included Ayodhya in his empire and Kushwahas were forced to leave. Kurma was son of Sumitra thus migrated from their parental abode and established them self at the bank of the river son, where they constructed a fort called the Rohtas (Rahatas) fort. Demographics J&K: Dogra, Kushvanshi,Kushaal Himancal Pradesh : Kushwaha, Punjab: Kushwaha Haryana : Kushwaha Delhi: Kushwaha ,Kachwaha Rajasthan: Kushwaha, Kachawaha (Including Sub Branches like Shekhawat,Nathawat,khangort,Rajawat) Gujarat: Kushwaha Madhya Pradesh : Kushwaha,Kuchhawaha, Mori , Bhadoriya Uttar Pradesh: Kushwaha, Raghuvanshi, Verma(Burma) Raghuvanshi West Bengal: Kushwaha, Kushvanshi Maharashtra: Kushwaha,Kachwaha Origin Today, the Kushwaha generally claim descent from Kusha, a son of the mythological Rama, himself an avatar of Vishnu. This enables their claim to be of the Suryavansh dynasty but it is a myth of origin developed in the twentieth century. Prior to that time, the various branches that form the Kushwaha community - the Kachhis, Kachwahas, Koeris, and Muraos - favoured a connection with Shiva and Shakta.[2] Ganga Prasad Gupta claimed in the 1920s that Kushwaha families worshiped Hanuman - described by Pinch as "the embodiment of true devotion to Ram and Sita" - during Kartika, a month in the Hindu lunar calendar.[3] Classification Suryavanshi ?????? ?? ??????, ???? ??? ???? l ?????? ????? ???, ?? ???? ????? ll Kushwaha Kshatriya belongs to Suryavansha ( Lord Ram Vansha). Identification as Kushwaha Kshatriya From around 1910, the Kachwaha and the Kushwaha, both of whom for much of the preceding century had close links with the British as a consequence of their favoured role in the cultivation of the began to identify themselves as Kushwaha Kshatriya.[4] An organisation claiming to represent those two groups Kushwaha & kachwaha petitioned for official recognition as being of the Kshatriya varna in 1928.[5] This action by the All India Kushwaha Kshatriya Mahasabha (AIKKM) reflected the general trend for social upliftment by communities that had traditionally been classified as being Kshatriya. The process, which M. N. Srinivas called sanskritisation,[6] was a feature of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century caste politics.[5][7] The position of the AIKKM was based on the concept of Vaishnavism, which promoted the worship and claims of descent from Rama or Krishna as a means to assume the trappings of Kshatriya symbolism .. The movement caused them to abandon their claims to be descended from Shiva in favour of the alternate myth that claimed descent from Rama.[8] In 1921. His reconstructed history argued that the Kushwaha were Hindu descendants of Kush and that in the twelfth century they had served Raja Jaichand in a military capacity during the period of Muslim consolidation of the Delhi Sultanate. Subsequent persecution by the victorious Muslims caused the Kushwaha kshatryia to disperse and disguise their identity, foregoing the sacred thread and thereby becoming degraded and taking on various localised community names.[9] Gupta's attempt to prove Kshatriya status, in common with similar attempts by others to establish histories of various castes, was spread via the caste associations, which Dipankar Gupta describes as providing a link between the "urban, politically literate elite" and the "less literate villagers".[10] Some communities also constructed temples in support of these claims as, for example, did the Muraos in Ayodhya.[3] Kushwaha Rajput A Kachwaha family ruled at Amber, which later became known as the Jaipur State, and this branch is sometimes referred to as being Rajput. They were chiefs at Amber and in 1561 sought support from Akbar, the Mughal emperor. The then chief, Bharamail Kachwaha, was formally recognised as a Raja and was invested into the Mughal nobility in return for him giving his daughter to Akbar's harem. A governor was appointed to oversee Bharamail's territory and a tribute arrangement saw Bharamail given a salaried rank, paid for from a share of the area's revenue. The Rajput practice of giving daughters to the Mughal emperors in return for recognition as nobility and the honour of fighting on behalf of the Empire originated in this arrangement and thus the Mughals were often able to assert their dominance over Rajput chiefs in north India without needing to physically intimidate them, especially after their rout of rulers in Gondwana. Classification as Backward Caste See also: Other Backward Class Kushwahas are classified as a Other Backward Caste (OBC) in some Indian states.[11] In 2013,,and some state kushwaha are in General caste like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh , Gujrat , Maharashtra. Haryana government added the Kushwaha castes to the list of backward classes.[12] Kushwaha mainly know as Upper Backward caste.

Monikas.singh100 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This is not a spot the difference competition.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you must cite reliable sources to back up every part of your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2015

Kushwaha is a decent Kshatriya clan of Rajputs from ancient history to modern history, Kushwaha evolved from Maurya from Mauryan Empire ( The Formation of India), we made india, we given name to India, We win the world, Our Last kachwaha Rajput (Kushwaha) king was from Rajsthan, Raja Jai Singh, Man Singh, etc. In ancient time, agriculture or farming were considered as superior work (In olden days this saying was very famous: uttam kheti madhyam vyapar, nishidh chakri:- means Farming was one of the greatest career, farmer were called another God, They had acquired a high honor in Society) and a major population of this community were involved in farming, they were wealthy and flourished. But during the Mughal period they were heavily charged for various taxes. And during British raj they impoverish and they become poorly off (daridra). And hence they almost became as Shudras These Pandits pushed kushwaha in OBC deliberately because majority of Kushwaha were poor Because we paid heavy duty taxes and fight for our religion from Muslim kings, they all were Land lord from ancient. Now these pandits can’t make fool, Due to your hatered acts and poverty all the Shudra varan of Hindus converted to ISLAM. 123.237.136.59 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, your have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Furthermore, your comment is not the Neutral point of view which we require in our articles - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

Rakeshrbl (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

the article is written with brahmanical bias where idiot brahmins claim themselves to be fatemaker of everyone, so better remove the arguments suggesting shudra varna for kushwaha, better donot speculate. Saurabh334001 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maurya

Maurya is a surename used mainly in Uttar pradesh and bihar they belongs to Agricultural community called koeri.Maurya claims them to be kshtriya as they belongs to Mauryan dynasty.Maurya falls under Other backward caste (OBC).Kushwaha,Singh,Verma,Shakya are surename mainly used by Mauryas.

Right side 4 U (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

Hi There, This information published on the "Kushwahas", is factually incorrect. The Kushwaha clan of rajputs have ruled from Narvar (Raja Sora Singh/Sodh Deo, Raja of Narvar) from around 960 AD. The Kushwahas are one of the 3 original rajput clans of India. Traditionally, belong to a Suryavanshi family, or family of the Solar race, claiming descent from the illustrious Kush, son of the legendary hero Rama, ruled successively through the kachawa (also known as Kushwaha) princely houses of Narvar, Lahar and Indurkhi. The ancestor of the family was Raja Sora Singh/Sodh Deo of Narvar. The Rajas shifted their capital from Narvar to, Indurkhi, then to Biswari, then to Lahar (now in Madhya Pradesh), and finally to Rampura. The Kachawa clan spread out to Budhneta – Rampura – Gopalpura – Machand – Rarua – Buhara – Khaksis – Chandawli etc, which then became known as Kachhawaghar (from Kashmir to Ayodhya). One of his descendants was Raja Ram Shah, the founder of Rampura, and who built the fort at Rampura in the late 12th century, after defeating the Meaus, the original inhabitants of the area. The area of the state originally consisted of 48 villages, which extended from present Madhya Pradesh to the borders of districts Jalaun, Etawah and Aurraiyya. Historically Rampura has been and continues to be the base for the leader of the Kachawa clan of Rajputs of this area, which is referred to as Kachhawagarh (#3). The title is hereditary.

Raja Sora Singh/Sodh Deo, Raja of Narvar expelled his son Dulha Rai, from Narvar. Dulha Rai and his older son, Kaikul Deo, then went to Nindbadi near Kroili Dausa in Rajasthan, where they fought battles at jamva ramgarh and went on to Amber. His son Kaikul Deo ejected the Minas and Budgujars for Amber. Kunwar Kaikul Deo stayed in Amber and established himself. He started the Rajasthan branch of the Kachhawa clan. Raja Sora Singh of Narvar, made his younger grandson Kunwar Baikul Deo, Raja of Narvar and head of the Kachhawa clan.

The author's claim that they got accepted as "shatriya" in 1920s, is absolute nonsense. Below a a list of reference books, some of which were written in the late 1870s. 1. "The Golden Book of India"; LETHBRIDGE, Roper, MacMillan & Co., 1893 p. 442 2. "Whittakers Almanac", p.665 3. “Hand Book of Rajputs” A.H. Bingley, p 88 4. Manual of Titles edited by J.S. Mackintosh, 1877,p111 5. Jalaun - A Gazetteer, by Drake-brockman, D. L. p63

I can provide you more detailed authentic information, if you want, get in touch. Bhaluthebear (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Raj sources, such as you have cited, are NOT considered reliable sources, particularly for caste, clan and tribal information. You need to find reliable sources written by reputable historians and published in recent years. - Arjayay (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay,

I am not sure what you mean by "Not reliable" sources. Some of the these sources are official British/Indian government sources. My father is the current Maharaja of Rampura ( I understand there are no longer any royal families in India), my Grandfather, when he was the Maharaja of Rampura, was officially acknowledged by the British as the Maharaja of Rampura state. Our family are Kushwahas/Kachwahas, and considered the head family of the clan. We are rajput shatriya and have always been. Our coat of arms has a turtle, which was why the clan were refered to as Kuchwahas. They spanned from Ayodhya to Rotas refered to as Kachwagarh. What you have stated in your wiki is absolutely incorrect. Kushwahas were never shudras. I have with me documents from Mughal times, where in the emperor has acknowledged the Maharaja of Rampura state and endorsed his regal power. I think you should get your historical facts right before publishing. Bhaluthebear (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, we work off reliable sources. The William Pinch source, among others, is a modern account written by a professional in the field and published by a respected press. The Raj sources were written by amateur ethnologists whose primary function was as administrators and who were told that they should document things as a means of controlling the population following the 1857 rebellion. Many, such as H. H. Risley, were proponents of scientific racism and hadn't a clue how Indian society worked, hence the mess that they created.

It has long been accepted on Wikipedia that sources generally from before World War II can be problematic - there is an essay about some of the issues at WP:HISTRS. Further, it has long been accepted that Raj era sources are not reliable, both for the reasons highlighted in that essay and due to numerous community discussions on individual article talk pages, at WT:INB, at WP:RSN, at WP:DRN, WP:ANI etc. I once tried to collate some of those - see User:Sitush/Common#CasteSources.

We're not going to change that consensus any time soon, and what you think you know may well be true but without sources that are accepted as being reliable to back up your opinion, it will not get into the article. Mughal era documents are definitely not going to persuade us any more than Raj era ones. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and please do not forget that not all rulers were Kshatriya. There were Brahmin and Shudra rulers, for sure. I also think you need to get a grip on the issue of sanskritisation. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, based on what do you consider William Pinch as a more reliable source than, A.H. Bingley or J.S. Mackintosh or Indian government archives. Some of you references point to recent new paper article. I don't think any of your sources are any more reliable than mine. The caste system in India existed long before the Mughal or British era. As stated above, we are Kushwaha Rajputs, belong to the Shatriya caste and are still considered as rajput shatriyas. My ancestry goes back to the rules of Narvar from where the clan split into 2 (circa 987 AD), one going to form the Jaipur Kushwaha branch, and other moving from Narvar to, Indurkhi, then to Biswari, then to Lahar (now in Madhya Pradesh), and finally to Rampura (circa late 12th century). Our family history has not been disputed by any India Historian or the rajput community in general, todate, and we consider that to be more reliable and authentic than any other, including William Pinch. You stated all pre-independence records as unreliable, next you will be disputing the Vedas as unreliable.

Bhaluthebear (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Vedas are unreliable on Wikipedia. So, too, are the Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe but you are not entitled to insert your beliefs into articles unless you can provide a source that the community here accepts as being reliable. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the comments made on your wiki, by the community, I would say the community does not accept your article as reliable. The who purpose of wiki was so the community could add to the info, but this particular wiki article is locked down and unless the community agrees with your point of view, or what you consider reliable, nothing can be changed. But as you stated, I will believe in my own family history and as long as the rajput community also believes in our history, it does not matter, because what you have to say will not change the facts.Bhaluthebear (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Kushwaha community is, generally speaking, not considered reliable for matters relating to themselves. Nor are the views of any other caste about their respective articles. It is well-known that many members of castes do not take an objective/encyclopaedic approach to the subject. We certainly would not take their word for it because one of the definitions of a reliable source is that it should be independent of the subject matter. Indeed, that has been one of the reasons why various special sanctions regimes exist for this topic area. I will leave you a note about those on your own talk page in a minute. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I won't bother - you have already been blocked. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

kachhis are kushwaha and shakya and kachhwaha now you have to checked this vaild book here is proof kachhi shakya saini and kachwaha are same https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n300/mode/2up

Sources from the British Raj era are not considered reliable for use on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, So atleast you can rely on William Pinch book. Can you please give me reference from his book where he mentioned Kushwaha as Shudra Varna as his research is latest. He clearly mentioned that in his book he never claimed that Kushwaha belong to Shudra Varna.Could you provide any recent credible source where it is mentioned that Kushwaha belong to Shudra.If you are unable to provide any evidence. We need to book a case against you and wikipedia in India under Indian Penal Code section 499-500 for defaming a community by giving it a wrong status in the article and wikipedia is supporting it. Wikiknowcorrect (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The citation is right there in the article, from Pinch and starting at p. 81. I should report you for that legal threat, by the way - see WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019

kushwaha is an agricultural kshatriya hindu caste of India . Kushwaha caste is found in large numbers in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh as well as in Nepal and Mauritius. They claim descent from Shri Kusha, the eldest son of Shri Rama. Kushwaha are locally called Koiri or Koiry (Bihar), Kashi or Kachi (Around Varanasi and MP), Maurya (Uttar Pradesh), Shakya (Uttar Pradesh and Nepal) as well as bhagirathi and sagarvanshi (Saini”Sainya”) or Gehlaut (Western Uttar Pradesh).

The Kuchwaha (also spelled as Kachavāhā,Kachawaha,Kacchavahas, Kachhawa, Kuchhwaha,Kachhawaha,Kushwaha, & Keshwala including Kacchapghata, Kakutstha, and Kurma) are a Suryavanshi Kshatriya clan who ruled a number of kingdoms and princely states in India such as Alwar, Maihar, Talcher, while the largest kingdom was Jaipur (Jainagara) which was founded by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II in 1727. The Maharaja of Jaipur is regarded as the head of the extended Kachwaha clan.

Legend and early history

Lord Sri Rama (center) with wife Sita, brother– Lakshmana and devotee Hanuman. Rama and Lakshmana are always shown to be ready for battle, with bow and arrow, as it is their Kshatriya dharma to fight. Rama was from Suryavanshi lineage. The Kachhawas belong to the Suryavanshi lineage, which claims descent from the Surya (Sun Dynasty) or Suryavansha of the ancient Kshatriyas.They are descent from Raghav (Raghuvanshi) as they claim descent from Kusha eldest of the twin sons of Rama, belongs to Raghav (Raghuvanshi) clan, hero of the Ramayana, to whom patrilineal descent from Surya is in turn ascribed. Indeed, the name Kachawaha is held by many to be a patronymic derived from the name “Kusha”. However, it has been suggested that Kachwaha is a diminutive of the Sanskrit conjoint word ‘Kachhahap-ghata’ or ‘Tortoise-killer’; Tortoise in Sanskrit being Kashyapa, although there may be several connotations for the interpretation of these terms. According to Vishnu Purana, bardic chronicles and popular tradition; Sumitra was the last king of this dynasty in Ayodhya. In the fourth century BC Mahapadma Nanda of Nanda Dynasty included Ayodhya in his empire and Kushwahas were forced to leave. Kurma was son of Sumitra thus migrated from their parental abode and established them self at the bank of the river son, where they constructed a fort called the Rohtas (Rahatas) fort.

Refer this link

http://kushwaha.in/kushwaha-our-identity/ 203.163.248.154 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019

Deepaksnvs143 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Some Kushwaha reformers argued that Rajputs, Bhumihars and Brahmins also work in the fields, hence the Kushwaha community cannot be associated with the Shudra varna due to being a farmer and doing farming

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Classification

Dear sir/Madam, Please note that Kushwaha Community classification given as "sudra varna" is very offensive and hurts the sentiments of kushwaha community. It is requested to give classification as "The Kushwaha are included in the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) category in the Indian states of Bihar,[42], Uttarpradesh, Chhattisgarh,[43] Delhi,[44] Haryana,[45] Jharkhand,[46] Karnataka,[47] Madhya Pradesh,[48] Odisha,[49] Rajasthan,and West Bengal etc.

It seems that User "Sitush" is intentionally hurting the sentiments of kushwaha community. There is no base to keep kushwaha community in "Sudra Varna".

For example "Classification of The Yadavs are included in the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) category in the Indian states of Bihar,[42] Chhattisgarh,[43] Delhi,[44] Haryana,[45] Jharkhand,[46] Karnataka,[47] Madhya Pradesh,[48] Odisha,[49] Rajasthan,[50] Uttar Pradesh,[51] and West Bengal.[52] In the state of Uttar Pradesh the Social Justice Committee reported over representation of Upper OBCs, specially the Yadavs in public offices and suggested creating sub categories within the OBC category[53] and the Yadav/Ahir are the only group listed in Part A of a three-part OBC classification system introduced there following the official report of 2001.[54]

Pagelink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav#Classification

Then why are you not doing the same for kushwaha community. One more Example i can give you "The majority of Mauritians declare themselves Vaish rather than Koiri or Kurmi".

My Suggestion: If there is conflict of opinion then kindly remove the classification section from the article. There is no need to give classification "kshatriya, vaishya or shudra" which will hurt sentiments of cores of kushwaha community. No one is sure which classification is accurate. When there is dought its better to remove that thing.

Thanks Amrit Raj Bharatiya samman (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CENSORED. This article has really deteriorated in recent months. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes we will remove it as Kushwahas are mainly vedic kshatriyas Professor669 (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert

This article has yet again gone through a spate of disruptive editing. I have spent some time trying to sort out the good from the bad but, as should be evident from my recent edit summaries, it is pretty hopeless in part because so many citations are fake.

I will be reverting to a "last best version" in a few hours. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Expanding various section from where Sitush had left.Added Political advancements during 1990s i.e Laloo Prasad, recruitment in British Indian Army as stated by George kunnath and presence in Mauritius.Also role in communist uprising.....various writing exists....and economy section....post land reforms the tenant castes have improved their lot, which is also in George kunnath as well as Arun sinha's book.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Further someone may claim that Jagdish Mahto is a single person why stuff about him is written here.so i would like to mention that.....a number of people were involved from this community as i have read....ex. Dasu Singh but since Mahto was the leader so i have mentioned only about him.Like the Bhumihar article mentions Sri Krishna singh and other such person.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

kushwaha are the Agriculturist kshatriya community which are found in northern-western-eastern-central regions of india. They have various subscaste/ subtitle of kushwaha most common are kachwaha, koeri, kushvaha, kachhi, mauros. They are descent from the mythological Suryavansh (Solar) dynasty via Kusha, who was one of the twin sons of Rama and Sita. Along with Vishnu,they also worshipped Shiva and Shakta. 2409:4063:4D88:A64F:901F:E1C:5CF9:F1BA (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

2402:8100:24E7:3318:0:0:27B5:57E8 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now kushwaha is Forward backward caste in Bihar and please remove the shudra varana

Please provide sourcing for the change you want made. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021 (2)

106.67.124.123 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

In Bihar kushwaha were consider as forward backward caste

Here you can check https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Backward_Castes

You can't source to Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

whats happeninng to wikipedia . This is totally unacceptable , really ashamed of you . What the hell are you publishing , almighty . KUSHWAHAS can never be "SHUDRAS". How can be someone a Shudra ; who is engaged in agricultural activities & who is providing you food , how????????? In this article , you mentioned the disgusting line ever for my community - 'myth of origin', are you all serious guys ???????? Your article is hurting our feelings . Please dont allow anybody to edit any kind of article and specially who dont have any kind of knowledge. These people are writing good things about their commiunities and writing bad about other communities . I request you , Please look at this matter once . thanking you 27.62.224.124 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's an actual edit requested in there. If you'd like an edit made please describe the exact edit and provide sources. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Classification

It is totally against the sentiments of the people that you have given a sudra tag to them. They never were a sudra and are always a Kshatriya. You can’t write about any caste just my reading articles of some foreign writers. I request you to remove it. Suryavanshi123 (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

Kushwaha caste comes under OBC category and General category in some states. This caste do not belong to MBC category in any state. The news 18 arctic reference is not a correct article. Please remove the MBC term from this article. For your reference you can search on government website. http://www.bcmbcmw.tn.gov.in › ...PDF Web results CENTRAL LIST OF OBCs FOR THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ... 2409:4064:50D:3EF5:0:0:1122:C8B1 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

117.99.90.146 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I m not a kushwaha but I know that they are descendants of Mauryan Kings.They hold strong positions in area where Maurya Dynasty was established like Patliputra,Vaishali,etc.Moreover they also have saini regiment which was destablished.Yes they took farming as occupation but beekeeping is not their job.They are Kshatriyas of Ancient India.Please edit this as soon as possible.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

KUSHWAHA cast is Shree Ram and Sita sun of kush ke bans

KUSHWAHA cast is Shree Ram and Sita sun of kush ke bans 14.139.187.225 (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

please change Kushwahas are classified as a Most Backward Caste (MBC) in some of the states of India to Kushwahas are classified as an Other Backward Caste (OBC) in some of the states of India

because the citation link attached nowhere tells in which specific particular states they are Most Backword Class. Also, there is nowhere on the government list or on the official government website which says that Kushwahas belong to MBCs. Please read the article thoroughly, they never mentioned which states!

Also please remove the attached citation number 45 completely.

The below link is the proof for the same- It is the Centre list of OBCs http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvxbegUDuc3MN4eB5E3Ecc1drRPAf1qXQ%2Bl0IqIfhjN1xHrf4i2h5g0#:~:text=Kachhi%20Kachhi%2D-,Kushwaha,-%2C%20Shakya in which on number 3 you can see Kushwaha mentioned and on number 45 Maurya is mentioned.

Half-baked information/incomplete information even from news outlets does not necessarily say that the information is true. We should only rely on government-authorized data. These castes are so sensitive things, playing politics in and around that. Any journalist who writes any blog and publishes with no proof attached can't be considered a truth. Have suffered a lot because just after searching Kushwaha caste/Maurya caste the very first thing which comes up in google search results is Kushwahas are MBCs in some states and those states are never mentioned either in the citation attached and even anywhere on Government websites.

Please let me know if any other information/proof is required, I'll be more than happy to provide the same.

Thank you, looking forward to stern action. Mauriarity (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I don't fully follow your argument. Are you saying that Source 45 is not reliable? It certainly does mention the MBC classification. The fact that this paragraph does not include any specific states does not mean it should be removed. Saying that "we should only rely on government-authorized data" goes against current policies on reliable sources; please ensure that you are familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines before suggesting edits.

Please consult the above-mentioned policies and guidelines, and ensure that your edit request complies with all relevant policy. Since I expect some argument to develop from this, please ensure that consensus is achieved if you are suggesting a potentially controversial edit. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, in one of the article, Kushwaha's are mentioned as More Backward Class(not Most). Can you see different articles are mentioning it differently?

Also, for citation number 45, below it is mentioned that editor views are personal, when did personal views are becoming the source of truth for Wikipedia?

You asked me to establish the consensus, please read the comments on citation number 46 dated to 2014, they have hugely criticized this sort of journalism as it is unnecessary creating the differentiation in the community. The government of India or the State has never created such things officially, if they would have then it must have been mentioned in some of the official docs, but there is none.

No Caste group having a wiki page has the subsection 'Classification as xyz Caste'. It is just a mere politics. Maybe, if you guys were tagged inappropriately then you might have understood the pain and disharmony, the differentiation that we are facing because of this section in our daily lives.

Looking forward to some action for a greater cause(harmony and respect in the society- falsely classifying as anything). Mauriarity (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

History of kushwaha

Kushwaha/mauryan belongs from chandra gupt mauryan dynasty. Its also called (वन्सज्) of chandra gupta mauryan.. 2402:3A80:1192:F418:0:0:69E0:50D6 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy updation of the below request

In Classification section, please change Kushwahas are classified as a Most Backward Caste (MBC) in some of the states of India to Kushwahas are classified as an Other Backward Caste (OBC) in some of the states of India

Hi, in one of the article, Kushwaha's are mentioned as More Backward Class(not Most). Can you see different articles are mentioning it differently?

Also, for citation number 45, below it is mentioned that editor views are personal, when did personal views are becoming the source of truth for Wikipedia?

You asked me to establish the consensus, please read the comments on citation number 46 dated to 2014, they have hugely criticized this sort of journalism as it is unnecessary creating the differentiation in the community. The government of India or the State has never created such things officially, if they would have then it must have been mentioned in some of the official docs, but there is none.

No Caste group having a wiki page has the subsection 'Classification as xyz Caste'. It is just a mere politics. Maybe, if you guys were tagged inappropriately then you might have understood the pain and disharmony, the differentiation that we are facing because of this section in our daily lives.

Looking forward to some action for a greater cause(harmony and respect in the society- falsely classifying as anything).

Mauriarity (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: As stated in the previous request, please establish a consensus first, especially as all sources do use MBC classification. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

Kushwaha are classified as OBC in most of Indian states AkashKr.Kushwaha (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @AkashKr.Kushwaha: What reliable sources can we consult to verify this? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

Sagar raj kushwaha (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Khuswaha is classified as General category in many regions of india

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Khuswaha category

Khuswaha belongs to Kshatriya varna hence classified as General category in many regions of india Sagar raj kushwaha (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources of population in Bihar

Multiple sources bases on Bihar Caste Based Survey states the population of Kushwaha in Bihar is 4.27%.

The survey report, titled Bihar Jaati Adharit Ganana (Bihar caste based survey), has also said that total population in the state is 13 crore. Among the Other Backward Class group, the Yadavas comprises 14.26% while the Kushwaha and Kurmi castes forms 4.27% and 2.87% respectively.

The survey found Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) comprise 36.01% of the population, Backward Classes 27.12%, Upper Castes 15.52%, Scheduled Castes 19.65%, and Scheduled Tribes 1.68%. Among the Backward Classes, Yadavs constitute 14.26% of the population while Kushwaha and Kurmi are 4.27% and 2.87%.

Kushwaha and Kurmi communities form 4.27 per cent and 2.87 per cent of the population, the caste survey said. Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar belongs to the Kurmi community. 103.49.116.253 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Kushwaha population in nepal

355707 (1.22%) census 2021 nepal 5.195.231.140 (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)