Plight of land owners in Bihar .
Mo
Hindus..
BHUMIHARS:How the mighty have fallen in Bihar
By Mammen Mathew
<Picture>Mean, arrogant, vicious and callous — these are
some of the images Bhumihars evoke in the popular psyche of
Bihar.
Hunted by myriad Naxalite groups, and derided by upper
castes like Brahmins and Rajputs, Bhumihars have been
accused of dominating Bihar politics and arrogating for
themselves a disproportionate share of the state’s
resources.
Yet, in the last three decades, their representation in the
state assembly and Parliament has steadily diminished, and
their control over land and bureaucracy has been
progressively weakened. In 1967, Bhumihars were the second
largest social group in the assembly, claiming 34 out of 318
seats. Their leader, Dr Krishna Singh, was Bihar’s first
chief minister. Today, there are only 17 Bhumihar MLAs. In
fact, even this number exaggerates their political clout.
For, only six of them belong to the Bharatiya Janata
Party-Samata Party combine; the remaining largely belong to
parties propagating agendas contrary to the very interests
of Bhumihars.
Their position of eminence has been gradually usurped by
Yadavs, who total more than 100 in the current Assembly. In
addition, opportunities in government jobs have shrunk for
Bhumihars because of the reservation policy. No wonder,
ordinary community members are unable to fathom the
hostility other castes harbour towards them.
BJP MP Dr CP Thakur, however, explains, “The hate against
the community emanates primarily due to the incumbency
factor. We enjoyed power for several decades. There was
arrogance, a feeling of superiority which alienated the
rest. After we replaced the Rajputs from the numero uno
position, the feeling that we were the ruling caste felled
us.”
Indeed, the story of caste/class conflict in Bihar is also
the story of Bhumihars scaling dizzy heights of power and
prosperity, and then finding other social groups combine
rapidly to challenge their hegemony. In the interregnum,
community leaders invented genealogies to lay claims to an
upper caste origin, organised education movements,
consolidated control over land and made a concerted bid for
power under leaders like Dr Srikrishna Singh.
Identity crises have always dogged Bhumihars. In opposition
to Brahmin and Rajput vanshavali (genealogy) writers
classifying Bhumihars as Shudras, community leaders claimed
descent from Lord Parashuram, who slew the Rajputs and
handed over the land to Brahmins for cultivation. Even
famous peasant leader Swami Shahajanand tried to win a
better social status for his caste brethren. In his
Brahmarishi Vansha Vistar, Shahajanand argued that Bhumihars
were those Brahmins who, under the influence of Gautam
Buddha’s rebellion against the caste system, reformed
themselves.
The travelogues of Megasthenes, Fahien and later Caudwell
and Cook were quoted to buttress the theory that Bhumihars
were an ancient caste of Brahmins who were perennially
associated with bhoom or bhuin — the land which they
cultivated after occupying it forcibly — and thus the
nomenclature of Bhumihar. Landed Brahmins with commands in
Akbar’s army are mentioned in Ain-e-Akbari; the king of
Benaras claimed to be a Bhumihar as did several zamindars
and smaller rajas in Bihar.
Historians, however, place the origin of Bhumihars in the
10th century AD, about the same time as the Kayasthas
appeared on the scene. This ambiguity about their roots,
sociologists feel, manifested in Bhumihars taking a medley
of caste names such as Khan, Sinha, Singh, Thakur,
Choudhary, etc, thus confusing others, while claiming a
better status for themselves. But their sanskritising
pretensions were not accepted by the upper castes, and
during the 1901 census, Brahmins and Rajputs forced the
British government to classify Bhumihars as non-Brahmins.
In the early part of this century, there were two distinct
trends in the Bhumihar community. There was Swami
Shahajanand who radicalised the Bhumihar peasantry,
emphasised on the community owning land and educating
themselves, and ploughing their agricultural surplus into
trade and commerce. Simultaneously, Bhumihar zamindars found
their own leader in Sir Ganesh Dutt.
Divergent economic interests pitted Bhumihar peasants
against zamindars from their own caste, but there was also
remarkable consolidation on issues of education and
employment. And Dutt played a central role in this. Elected
to the Governor’s Council in 1921 and 1928, and virtually
functioning as chief minister, Dutt opened several schools
and colleges in Bhumihar-dominated areas. Shahajanand’s
influence on the Bhumihar peasantry saw them take to modern
education in large numbers, and prepare the ground for
challenging the entrenched caste groups, especially
Kayasthas.
Thus, in 1927, out of the 354 Zilla Board members in the
state, 75 were Bhumihars, even though they accounted for
just 2.9 per cent of the state’s population in 1931. In
1934, 54 per cent of the Congress Executive Committee (CEC)
members were Kayasthas; Bhumihars were represented only
marginally. By 1937, Bhumihars comprised nearly 16 per cent
of the CEC, and the Kayasthas only 21 per cent. In the
elections held under the Government of India Act, 1937,
Bhumihars cornered the three important positions for
themselves — Sri Krishna Singh became Chief Minister, Ram
Dayalu Singh was elected Speaker, and Sir CPN Singh emerged
as Leader of the Opposition.
Control over political power usually finds its echo in
bureaucracy — and this was true of Bhumihars too. When
Rajandhari Singh became chairman of the Bihar Public
Services Commission in 1940, Bhumihars were recruited in the
lower echelons of the state administration. Soon, they began
competing in the civil services, enrolled in medical and
engineering colleges, and began winning mining contracts in
Chottanagpur. That they were the new elite of Bihar
manifested in the anointing of Sri Krishna Singh as the
state’s first chief minister in Independent India.
Replacement of one group of political elite by another is a
social theory few deny. This has happened in Bihar with
telling ramifications for Bhumihars. In 1967, they had
emerged as the second largest group in the state assembly.
But, ironically, their decline also began in this very
period. For one, newly empowered intermediary peasant or
backward castes (because of the land distribution and the
Green Revolution) were straining to challenge the hegemony
of the Congress. Social groups like Yadavs and Kurmis were
seeking new caste combinations to capture power — but they
had to wait for a few decades before they could replace
Bhumihars, just as the latter earlier supplanted Kayasthas.
Argue Shrikant, a Birla Foundation researcher on caste, and
Prassana, a documentation expert, “In 1969, the all-powerful
Bhumihar political group in the Congress decided to join the
Congress-O and throw in their lot against Indira Gandhi.
This was their make or break year. Gandhi, however,
consolidated herself and ensured that Bhumihars never
regained their pre-eminent position.”
Yet this development did not substantially diminish the
clout of Bhumihars. As Durga Prasad, a CPI executive
committee member, points out, “That the community was still
influential can be discerned from the fact that it took over
the leadership of the CPI and CPM. The district of Begusarai
(dominated by Bhumihars) came to be known as the Leningrad
of Bihar.”
Dr CP Thakur, however, traces the decline of Bhumihars to
their increasing isolation among upper castes. In post-1947
Bihar, Rajputs and Bhumihars were two distinct groups of
elite jockeying for power. But with Sri Krishna Singh
becoming Chief Minister, the balance titled in favour of
Bhumihars. This animosity between these two groups, says Dr
Thakur, received further fillip in 1989: the Rajputs moved
out of the Congress and joined the Janata Dal, accentuating
further the traditional animosity between these two groups.
But nothing undermined the domination of Bhumihars more than
Mandal. For one, they, unlike others, refused to accept the
politics of social justice; their virulent opposition to
Mandal meant they could not (unlike, say, Rajputs) be
accommodated under the dispensation of Laloo Prasad Yadav.
Says Dr Thakur, “This is why Bhumihars have become the
victims of Laloo’s Dalit politics.”
Saibal Gupta, Deputy Director of the Asian Development
Research Institute, however, perceives a combination of
social and economic factors behind the decline of Bhumihars.
“Agricultural productivity has plateaued, investment is
scarce, and there is little scope for diversification. Also,
lower caste labourers are increasingly asserting
themselves.” This means agriculture is no longer a
profitable proposition. The Bhumihar youth is angry also
because Mandal has shrunk job opportunities.
But why is the anger of lower castes directed against
Bhumihars? Says Gupta, “It’s true that Rajputs and Kurmis
have as much land as Bhumihars. But the latter has become
the landowners’ most visible face because their firepower
surpasses those of other groups. Their confrontationist
policy has provoked Naxalites into targeting them. The
fighting capacity of this caste, which benefited from
contract works and proximity to power during the earlier
Congress regime, can be gauged from the fact that only their
private armies — the Brahmarishi Sena and Savarna Liberation
Front, etc — held the ground the longest. Again, the Ranveer
Sena was formed by Bhumihars even though Rajputs and
Brahmins have joined it in large numbers.” It thus appears
Bhumihars are paying the price for not accepting the changed
political scenario in the state.
Intellectuals among Bhumihars decry the strident tone their
caste leaders often adopt. Says Devendra Singh, principal of
a college in Sandesh, Ara, “The anguish of being labelled
killers is much. I know of people in the Sena who have
condemned the killings of women and children. But affected
by economic blockades, and facing an apathetic
administration, and a biased police, caste leaders have no
option but to strike back against the excesses of the Reds.”
Asks N Pandey, an Ara-based lawyer, “What do we do when we
find ourselves cornered. Tell me, weren’t we being killed
before 1995, the year the Sena was formed?”
Dr DD Guru, an economist at the prestigious AN Sinha
Institute of Social Studies, Patna, feels the emergence of
intermediary castes has sharpened social contradictions.
After 1989, lower castes, emboldened by the pro-backward
Janata Dal-Rashtriya Janata Dal regime, have increasingly
begun questioning the caste hierarchy. Thus, the more the
erstwhile elite confront the new situation with power at
their command, the bloodier the outcome will be. Divested
from power, shut out from jobs, and threatened in their
fields, Bhumihars find themselves marginalised and isolated.
nanafa...@my-dejanews.com
Their Ranvir sena can be made more useful by massacring BD muslims instead
of Dalits
In article <g8eL2.9953$mi3....@nnrp3.clara.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kunal Singh
Mo wrote:
> Everybody has rights in India except the enterprising
> Hindus..
Yes, the poor land-owning Hindus, they have no rights at all, according
to the BJP!
BHUMIHARS:How the mighty have fallen in Bihar
Ah, but many a mighty has fallen in Bihar. The political buck generally
stops in Bihar where the fighting is he fiercest. Those who want money,
compromise when it comes to losing money. Those who want peace
compromise when it comes to losing life. Those who are exceedingly
reasonable, are frequently convinced by their enemies to give in. But
for those who want power, the fighting never stops. And there aren't
many places in the world whose people would be willing to fight for two
decades to defeat their perceived enemy as Ajatshatru did.
The Bhumihars are pretty lucky, others have faired worse. I've got to
read the details regarding Mihiragula, the terrible Hun, who finally
managed to take over Patna after laying seige to it. Someone has said
that they would forward some details to me as the Biharis, before
surrounding and killing him in guerrilla warfare, made sure to humiliate
him and they bent him, and then broke him for conquering Patna! And
just when the BJP thought that they had taken over Patna..! Ha, ha, ha.
Hunted by myriad Naxalite groups, and derided by upper
castes like Brahmins and Rajputs, Bhumihars have been
accused of dominating Bihar politics and arrogating for
themselves a disproportionate share of the state’s
resources.
Of course the naxalites are hunting for them. When you issue a
challenge claiming to be tough in Bihar, you're quite likely to get a
response! And that is what the Bhumihars have gotten! No big
surprise! It is quite hilarious, but the Rajputs in North Bihar were
for a time threatening to turn the Ganga red with blood (Anand Mohan
Singh). Upper caste politicians have a habit of making grandiose claims
to garner the support of other upper caste people. According to most
political observers, the Rajputs were humbled by the Yadavs.
> By Mammen Mathew
>
> <Picture>Mean, arrogant, vicious and callous — these are
> some of the images Bhumihars evoke in the popular psyche of
> Bihar.
>
And don't forget slick. Just about everyone considers Bhumihars slick.
.. stuff deleted ..
> Their position of eminence has been gradually usurped by
> Yadavs, who total more than 100 in the current Assembly. In
> addition, opportunities in government jobs have shrunk for
> Bhumihars because of the reservation policy. No wonder,
> ordinary community members are unable to fathom the
> hostility other castes harbour towards them.
Their position was bound to be "usurped." As by some estimates the
Yadavs form the largest single section of Hindu society in Bihar.
Jehanabad is the Magadhan region. The response to the Ranvir Sena's
threat to massacre more Dalits wasn't "Oh but why must you kill us
oppressed lower caste people!" It was a direct and simple "we will TAME
you!"
Knowing the history of different people I believe is certainly a great
advantage, for the history can often denote the nature of a region. And
to quote the Puranas, the Magadhans are "irrepressible"
