Talk:Bania (caste)

Bania name history

According to Various census of India the word Banya is derived from sanskrit banijya or trade; and as the name implies,lives solely for and by commerce.Banias hold a considerable area of land in the east of the provinces; but it is very rarely indeed that he follows any other than mercantile pursuits.The commercial enterprise and intelligence of the class is great ,and the dealings of some of the great banyas houses of Delhi, Bikaner and Marwar of of most extensive nature.However the banyas of the villages are mostly poor.

They r true citizens of nepal????? WTF! NPOV!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.25.208 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Various census of India Page cxxviii

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=OJuJTZmRGpHirAeNsIDcDg&ct=result&id=RwEJAAAAQAAJ&dq=ahirs+of+bikaner&q=bikaner

Merging with Vaishya not recommended

Just like Rajput and Maratthas are two distinct subcastes of Kshatriya; Baniya is a subcaste of Vaishya ; coming mostly from West India and descended probably from Baniya kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.114 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone did an unattributed copy/paste of a section of the Vaishya article recently, and then other communities were added to that list-paragraph that were not even in the sources (eg: the source for Arya Vaishya referred to those in Jaffna but ended up here as those in a multitude of states). I've just now removed it. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Assam

An anon has added this (twice) because they think the Assamese Bania should not be confused with the caste referred to in this article. They are, apparently, a distinct community. This is entirely possible but, if so, they should have their own article and the confusion is averted by using one of the many {{Other uses}} templates at the top of both articles. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Image

Images like File:KITLV 87170 - William Johnson - Bania women in British India - Before 1860.jpeg were imperial tools of knowledge production, that borrowed from scientific racism and were often grossly inaccurate. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Better to discuss that at WP:INB and build up a consensus there, since many ethnic articles use British era images, for example Rajput. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well some image is better than no image. @TrangaBellam:, I linked the image above. I don't see any problem in this image. Why do you find it problematic? --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read-

'Race, Caste and Tribe in Central India: The Early Origins of Indian Anthropometry' by Crispin Bates.

Pinney, Christopher (2013-06-01). Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78023-152-5.

Gaskell, Nathaniel; Gujral, Diva (2018). Photography in India: A Visual History from the 1850s to the Present. Prestel. ISBN 978-3-7913-8421-4.

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Ok, I will read when I find time. If you have already read it, perhaps you can summarize in a few lines what your objections with this image is. Your comment in the beginning of this thread is a general comment that may apply to some images, but I dont see how it applies to this particular image. To be clear, I don't see any problems in this image, like you are saying and I am against removing this beautiful pic. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I will quote the relevant parts. Give me some time. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, a summary from you will be even better. I am not sure if copy posting the quotes for this is worthwhile. It is up to you though. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the reason be, if it is necessary, the discussion should be at WP:INB. We can have a sitewide removal of images from the British period if the consensus gets us to that. Lets not cherry-pick being antagonistic to this specific image. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I am against removal of this image. or any site wide removal of images. Reeks of censorship to me. Folks are free to discuss this whereever they like, I will oppose it there. A discussion on this page is necessary for content related to this article. So we are talking on the right place. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: Well make it two then, I'm in support of removal neither. I was suggesting a possibility since TrangaBellam was like......imperial tools of knowledge production, that borrowed from scientific racism and were often grossly inaccurate. That would include many images and articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, ok. I have no doubt that such a proposal will "go down like a shot dog". Walrus Ji (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

...Early photographic projects in India took form within a much broader museological discourse which created parallel registers of images, artifacts and records of behavior...

...There were also many enthusiastic amateurs who took ethnology as their subject. The Indian Amateurs Photographic Album, which was issued in twenty-four parts between December 1856 and October 1858, contained a section on the Costumes and Characters of Western India. Many of these later appeared against montage landscapes in William Johnson’s The Oriental Races and Tribes,Residents and Visitors of Bombay: A Series of Photographs with Letterpress Descriptions (two volumes, 1863 and 1866)...

...Johnson’s anthropological quest for difference is made clear in the title he chose for the work. The volumes contained ‘numerous representatives of almost all the races and tribes of the Indian Continent and islands’ and he signaled that one of his concerns was with systems of identification that included physiognomy and, in the case of Hindus, bodily marks, and, among Parsis and Muslims, costume...Johnson also provides short notes on how best to recognize Christians, Bene Israel, Chinese, Malays, Arabs, Persians and Africans...

...The illustrations in this work showed exemplars or ‘types’ and the lengthy letter presses gave lists of identifying features, which included costume and material artifacts. Particular attention was devoted to markers of difference, to visible signs which could be tabulated against group identities. This quest for difference tended to make the women of a group of more interest, since their costume and material culture were identified as being more resistant to change...

...William Johnson had referred – in his Oriental Races and Tribes – to the distinct physiognomy of different groups. Such ideas concerning the readability of physiognomy derived in the short term from the work of Lavater...Lavater suggested that individuals’ moral beauty could be judged on the basis of external characteristics, what he called their ‘corporeal beauty’, and he ‘went back to the ancient search for occult analogies between physical characteristics, moral qualities and animal forms, attempting to reduce physiognomics to an exact science’...
— Pinney, Christopher (2013-06-01). Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78023-152-5.

Also, this etc.

The photographer of the photo is William Johnson and the source is The Indian Amateurs Photographic Album. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Thanks. Interesting read. I believe we all agree that an image is needed in this article. if there are better more encyclopedic images to replace this, I would be interested to look at them. Until that proposal is put forward, I would let this image remain. This image is highly informative in my opinion. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree; the concept of imaging people of different castes is weird in itself. Assuming you believe that images derived from scientific racism/eugenics are good enough, I will let the images remain. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is "the concept of imaging people of different castes weird in itself"? Of course, if you like to pretend caste isn't an issue in Indian culture, you might think that. Otherwise, it doesn't seem especially wierd in itself. As so often, historical Indian issues are being projected onto the nasty British, as though they invented them. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Invention - nah. Please refrain from irrelevant ad-hominem attacks and (maybe) read the last few decades of postcolonial scholarship. Or, please provide sources that rejects Pinney. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not either irrelevant or an ad-hominem attack. I think you are misunderstanding Sitush's purpose there; "the last few decades of postcolonial scholarship" are often quite as unreliable as Victorian Raj ethnographers, with their own agendas. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You want Marxist scholarship, stating these same facts? I can provide them. Any other variants? I am sure that the Lead Curator of the British Library has some agenda, as well.

Anyways, you need to provide reliable sources that claim Pinney/Edward's accusations to be wrong. The books have been subject to very positive reviews, I see. So, .....

My area of scholarship is centered on castes; very feeble chance that I will fail to understand something. Susan Baily (mentioned over Sitush's essay) is a post-colonial scholar. As is Metcalf. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You are roping in all sorts of people with the claim that they share your view that "the concept of imaging people of different castes is weird in itself". I very much doubt this is the case. Analysing & criticising what they made of these images is a very different thing. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We are not having a discussion about whether its weird or not to put any image. We are discussing an image published by a certain 19th century person named William Johnson and I have presented three sources that take a negative view of his photographic ventures and links them to scientific racism. There are also issues of accuracy because the actual author is unknown and WJ chose of the hundreds of images (often anonymous), mailed his way. You started off on a tangent about how I believe that caste is a British invention, how Pinney and others critiquing these imperial projects ought be not given much weight (??) because they are postcolonial scholars with "some agenda" and are continuing in the same vein.

Once again, I hope that you have sources which rejects arguments by Pinney (and others) and you choose to present them over here. It will be a learning experience for me. If you have some photograph of Baniya from within last 30-40 years, please feel free to replace with it. I won't object assuming that the new source is a RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, User:Sitush/CasteSources#Writings_of_British_Raj_administrators that I found on a caste-talk-page is quite nice. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I will let the image remain, as it shows the picture of 2 bania ladies from 17th century. As simple as that. If there are 'arguably' better images than this, I would like to discuss the replacement. This discussion seems to have run its course. I would suggest we focus our energies at other places where help is needed. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's see. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There will be some element of racism in practically everything the British (or Europeans) did in India. It is as if it is a brand new discovery! But we are not going to lose sleep over that. If there is something wrong with the specific image, please raise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am happy for this image to go. Looking at two awkward-looking women getting photographed by a strange foreigner adds nothing to our understanding of Banias. Bring me the photograph of a sethji sitting behind a desk and counting money (just kidding). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam, you added to this article a note that says "It's doubtful if the converts self-identify as Baniya" and removed references from this article that supported the sentence in the lede. The source you used to support your unnecessary note says no such thing. Additionally, whether converts who are of Bania origin self-identify as such is of no consequence. I have noticed a pattern where you have followed other editors, including myself to different articles in bad faith. I am certain that you are in violation of Wikipedia's policy of sockpuppetry, evinced by your use of complex templates and citations that would normally take a new user months to learn, and think I have a good idea of who you are. If the disruption continues, I will not hesitate to escalate this. This is your first and only warning. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Plz unlock for Editing

We want to add notble people / Personalies who belong to baniya community. Unitedbaniya51 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

There are certain conditions. First, you have to have Wikipedia articles for them to be considered notable (WP:GNG). Second, you have to provide reliable source(s) that the individuals belong to the caste if dead. Third, if the person is alive, you have to provide a source in which the person self-identifies his Bania caste, like an interview, where he/she says something like "I am a Bania" or something similar. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

@Unitedbaniya51: Please discuss your issues (along with sources) here first instead of edit warring and adding unsourced content in the article? I told you multiple times, that the article requires scholarly WP:HISTRS compliant sources, that too post British era. That is no Wikipedia articles as sources, no Joshua Project, no news articles, no social media links. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gahoi is sub caste of baniya and many caste belong to baniya community. Fir ye 2 3 nam hi kyu likhe h . Kesa source chaiye apko. Kya hum bhawgan ko bulai batane k liye ki hun baniya h Unitedbaniya51 (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Unitedbaniya51: Joshua Project is not reliable. See better caste articles like Jat people. There the sources are WP:HISTRS complaint as far as ancestry is concerned. Look, I understand your frustration, there is a reason why Indian caste articles are have much less data since information in reliable sources are less. Please bring a good book source, post 1947 that is WP:HISTRS compliant, that says Gahoi are Bania. That's all. Oh.. and converse in English please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gahoi samaj ki official site to h source Unitedbaniya51 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That will contravene WP:PRIMARY and WP:Independent/ We need independent source, not associated with the community. Find a book by a historian and bring it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the newer sources (post 1947) I found, are referring works of pre-independence British writers and civil servants, making them unreliable per WP:POISON. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Please include Halwai caste in this Baniya page, Halwai belongs to Vaishya Baniya Category yet they are not been mentioned here Medham99 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Bania (caste) → Bania (community) – according to the 3rd line of the article. Ritez (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Caste is the normal word for this. There's nothing to be gained by changing it to the vague "community". PepperBeast (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: While I understand that the nomination is far from fulfilling the general expectations and relies on cherrypicking of single sentence, however, it is also clear that the article talks more about "community" than any particular caste. I think this is a good faith request and the existing evidence indicates that we should support it. CharlesWain (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chanchaldm: kindly share your opinion.CharlesWain (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. This article isn't a about caste, but generic term which may be used for various occupational(trading) communities.Chanchaldm (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Community" probably isn't the right word, either in the title or the article. Would "social group" be better? Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  It isn't a single social group either. They are just different jatis that fall in the Bania category. Chaipau (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnbod:, @Chaipau:, @Chanchaldm:, Bania isn't a single consolidated social group or caste as such. It's not any particular community, but different trading groups may be identified as Bania. Should we rename this article as Bania? IMHO mentioning caste or community inside bracket is probably unnecessary.CharlesWain (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not while Bania is a disam page. "Social group" still seems best - what is a "single consolidated social group" exactly? We couldn't use "category". Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent removal of content

Recently information sourced to Hardiman, David (1996). Feeding the Baniya: Peasants and Usurers in Western India . Oxford University Press. pp. 62–92 was removed [1] on the grounds of "vandalisation of page by user- Chariotrider555 by adding undebated and untrusthworthy information from apparently biased sources with a possible intention of maligning the community and to enforce and create stereotypes about an extremely large and diverse community." The information added does not constitute vandalism as it was added in good-faith to improve the article. I did not ask for consensus on the talk page as I was making a bold edit. The information is unlikely to be untrustworthy as it is reliably sourced to a book whose focus is the Baniya community, is written by a academically qualified historian, and published by an academic publisher. As the content was added in good-faith and reliably sourced, I believe it should be retained but would like to discuss if any changes should be made to improve it. User:Wikigeek365. Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

@MRRaja001: I don't think Madhya Pradesh should be added, since per the source [2], they are mostly from Rajasthan and Gujarat, that is migrants, not native, similar to West Bengal where most people belonging to the "Bania" caste are Marwadis. Though Bengal has its own vaish group called "Banik". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Hi mate, How are you doing. Coming to point, Bania are from Gujarat and Rajasthan I agree but they are concentrated in Madhya Pradesh as well. I will list the citations below please go through them.

• Madhya Pradesh District Gazetteers: Morena By Madhya Pradesh (India), p. 76, Banias They form the wealthy and well-to-do section of the population and most of the trade and business is centralised in their hands. Maheshwaris, Agarwals Oswals etc., are some of their sub-sections. {{citation}}: line feed character in |title= at position 43 (help)
• Madhya Pradesh, District Gazetteers: Chhindwara, p. 76, Banias They form the wealthy and well-to-do section of the population and most of the trade and business is centralised in their hands. Maheshwaris, Agarwals Oswals etc., are some of their sub-sections.
• Madhya Pradesh, District Gazetteers: Betul, p. 76, Banias They form the wealthy and well-to-do section of the population and most of the trade and business is centralised in their hands. Maheshwaris, Agarwals Oswals etc., are some of their sub-sections.

Baniyas population is about 6.86 percent of total population of Madhya Pradesh as per 1981 census. Looks like they're concentrated in many districts. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: OK 'Maheshwaris, Agarwals Oswals etc' originate from Rajasthan / Gujarat region, that way many Marwadi banias are concentrated in West Bengal, and I'm sure many sources will support it. I believe that can be added, what do you think? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mate, Baniyas are in all states, but not concentrated like in Madhya Pradesh. In Madhya Pradesh there are also many political leaders from this community. Coming to West Bengal i didn't find any significant references stating their population strength. If you find anything share with me I'll go through them and tell my opinion. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001, I'm fine. How are you? Coming to the discussion, Banias have presence in West Bengal since the British Raj. A lot of notable Marwaris of India like Aditya Vikram Birla are from West Bengal (largely concentrated in urban areas) or have links with the state. Skimming through I got these links demonstrating it - [3] [4] [5] [6]. And here some links talking about the large concentrations of Marwari banias in West Bengal [7] [8] [9] [10]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Mate, we can do one thing. We can write as they are native of Gujarat and Rajasthan but are also concentrated in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. What do you say? - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 19:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

MRRaja001 I'd agree to such an arrangement. The original version of the article only had Gujarat and Rajasthan mentioned anyway. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Go-ahead Mate. You only change it. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 21:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

MRRaja001  Done - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

lingayat Vani

lingayat vani caste is prominent in marathwada region of maharashtra. They were veershaiva Hindu by faith and were traders, zamindars and sometimes priest by profession. They usually kept weapons like swords and some are even believed to be warriors in nayaka- veerashaiva kingdoms..[11] I think this should be added in the article.[12][13] PerspicazHistorian (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@PerspicazHistorian, How is "Lingayat Vani" relevant or related to this articel. All I see the mention of the term "Lingayat Vani" in the sources, nothing about there relation with the subject matter (Vaishya-Bania) caste having origins in Rajasthan-Gujarat. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Modh Baniya as heading

As modh baniya/Vaniya are from same community. So, people won't be consfused about their dual identities. HistorianV (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

Change the title that baniyas are richest hindu caste because in the latest survey kayasth have become the richest cast in hinduism reference = https://currentaffairs.adda247.com/richest-caste-in-india/ Spirithero (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Not sure what you want changed. I don;t see the phrase "richest hindu caste" in the article, nor the word rich/richest. Also, write it in one place, not in older comment and at the top. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)