Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Bhumihar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Bhumihar brahmin/babhan

Some of the historic accounts by renowned authors mentioning bhumihar Brahmin / babhan community.

1)Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly url= http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

2)The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA59&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20brahmin%20origin%20by%20historians&f=false

3)Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CGMqAQAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw

4)Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=D5lQutvzAp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20&f=false

5)Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=voe3AAAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ

6)Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dxDWbsztdVQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Evolution+and+Spatial+Organization+of+Clan+Settlements:+A+Case+Study+of+...++By+Saiyad+Hasan+Ansari&source=bl&ots=Z2K627D9Qw&sig=p0YFJjE2ASP6v09wVCn3DY6riRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tKMUVOqGKonjuQShw4DoAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Evolution%20and%20Spatial%20Organization%20of%20Clan%20Settlements%3A%20A%20Case%20Study%20of%20...%20%20By%20Saiyad%20Hasan%20Ansari&f=false

7)Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. url==https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar

8)Hindu caste and sect by yogendra nath bhattacharya url==https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n136/mode/2up

9)Census of India 1891 by British Indian Govt. url==https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up

10)Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ... By Susan Bayly url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA203&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

11)The State at War in South Asia By Pradeep Barua url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bhumihar&f=false

12)Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1

Note : Bhumihar Brahmin/ Babhan/ Bhumihars (short name of bhumihar Brahmin) are names to same community. Sometimes they are also called as Bhramarshi. Brahmin is a priestly class in hindu community, but many Brahmins were landlords during British and mughal era.

Hi everybody, whatever books I have mentioned earlier are the books from renowned Historians or social activists. None of these books have mentioned any relation of bhumihar with rajput. Bhumihar (i.e. Babhan, which is an old name for bhumihar brahmin which had been used in early colonial census of british india (ref 9)) is a distinct community different from rajput, but having Brahminic (of brahmin) origin. It is a total bias to write a tale and false fiction mentioned in ashwani kumar book (i.e. Bhumihar made up of union of rajput and Brahmin). You can find a lot about the plight of dalit ( i.e. so called downtrodden section of society who are not at all downtrodden in present time and politically awaken since independence) in his (aswani kumar) book, but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned massacres in which Maoist (i.e. naxalite) and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan. Any kind of cruelty should strongly be condemned but writing only one corner is also prejudice. This book is a totally biases against upper Class and trying to emphasize only on false tales and fabricated story which has come out of sheer jealousy. There are some bad persons in all community which have been over hyped in ashwani kumar's book. Entire babhan community has been made culprit in his book. If anyone is writing anything in Wikipedia he should write all the issues, and not merely some defamatory and derogatory tales, which is not at all true. Ashwani kumar has written many fictitious stories about babhan/bhumihar which cannot be simultaneously true. Rajput is a community which come into existence only after fall of Harshavardhan kingdom. (Refer Rajesthan by RK gupta and s r bhakshi. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gHNoU2zcDnIC&pg=PA1&dq=rajput+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qr8eVKO8MZKTuATy3YLwBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rajput%20origin&f=false or you can refer book from eminent historian like Satish Chandra for medival india.) Initially they (Rajputs) were centered around north-west India and some part of central India. They came to eastern India only at the time of emergence of Islamic force in western India (i.e. around 1200 AD or Muhammad ghori period). Bhumihar brahmin is a new name to babhan community which gained popularity in late 19th century and popularised by babhan landlords as well as sahjanand saraswati. In early british census report(till 1891 census) they were enumerated as Babhans under aristocratic and military community along with rajputs, nairs and marathas. So I request wikipedians to remove this fairy tale which has been fabricated by some jealousy community out of sheer jealousy. Please put up historic fact about babhan community rather than some fabricated story. Swami shahjanand saraswati was a peasant leader and social reformer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahajanand_Saraswati) who advocated mere priesthood for babhans rather than landlord ship and wanted inclusion of Bhumihar Brahman/Babhan in mere donation taking Brahmins list and also attempted to abolish zamindari (landlord ship) from bihar. Babhans were already included in aristocratic class till 1891 british census. There is hardly any book or early historical evidence giving relation of bhumihar/Babhan with rajput. It is a pure myth to associate bhumihar with rajput which are two distinct community. So please put down the myth and include the materials from reliable and credible citation regarding bhumihar/ babhan community. Bhumihar is a Sanskrit word for zamindar or jagirdar which means landlord or landholder. Swami shahjanand saraswati books (Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar) are cited by most of the Brahmin community for reference like kanyakubj Brahmin, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins) Saryupareen Brahmins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saryupareen_Brahmins) Jujhautiya Brahmin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jujhautiya_Brahmin). In many of the sites the sahjanand thoughts are distorted before presenting which is pathetic.

One more point I want to mention is that a new fictitious and imaginary theory has evolved recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and in colonial era. Babhan (Bhumihar) has been categorised as shudra along with kayastha in British colonial census report.(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the early British census report and one book abstract which evidently tells the falsehood of the above statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt url==https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24179313M/Census_of_India_1891 & url==https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up) and (Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress & url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) above books clearly show that babhans were considered and listed as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas till 1891 colonial census. They(babhans) fought to get included in mere priestly (i.e. donation taking) Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Bhumihar name was not used to list this entire community till 1891 census report. This entire community was listed with the name babhan till 1891 census under military and aristocratic category. There after sahjanand demanded abolishion of zamindari (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/zohkohb0i282t94/Area%20Studies/public/SouthAsia/Misc/Sss/whpsnts96.html) and inclusion of babhan as mere priestly and donation taking brahmin list (since they have brahmnic origin). Bhumihar word was also popularised and created by their groups(sahjanand group) which included kashi naresh. 1901 onward, bhumihar (i.e. babhan ) was categorized under mere priestly brahmin category. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact. We are talking about British India census claim without any substantial fact to verify that claim. some People have started unnecessary inclusions in wikipedia which is not at all historic. I feel that British census report statement or claim can be verified from the same census report not from mere supposition of an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bpandey89: WP:TLDR. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to push a partisan point of view and that you need to work constructively with other editors if you wish to improve this article. Thank you for your attention.  Philg88 ^♦talk 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also trying to put up neutral point of view. Defamatory things without historical facts should not be put on the wikipedia. This thing i am repeatedly telling since the beginning. My aforesaid blog is never intended to defame or popularize some sect of society but i wanted to point out the erroneous statement as well as fictitious stories (many may regard as legend). These things should not be put on the wikipedia. Wikipedia is generally referred by novice to know the starting knowledge of something. Putting up flaw full statement should be therefore avoided in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

some editors of this page have extreme hostility and grudge towards babhan community. They are consistently putting up defamatory and fabricated tales as well as deeds of some rough elements of the babhan community. some rough element is present in all the community. Do you people feel that entire babhan community is made up of roughs. It is total bias which they are showing. Whenever i tried to put up some neutral point of view they delete my statement stating the neutral point of view issue. Some rough elements are present in all the community that does not mean that one should write on the front page of wikipedia. If people are so keen to write why not they put IS on islam wikipedia. I know doing this is wrong because some people do not define masses. Many of the statements present on babhan community wikipedia is taken from unreliable and unacceptable source in the name of neutral point of view. It is sheer hostility toward this specific community. Please take corrective action against it and put up some acceptable facts rather than fables or legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi sitush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Bhumihar_Brahmin),i have communicated with Jeffrey Witsoe in which he has told that he is also not firm about the question of " babhan listed as shudra in census record along with kayastha"( if you require i will send you conversation). I have mentioned William pinch (refer aforesaid citation 12) book which have cited many books as well as census record stating that earlier census record listed babhan as military and dominenet community. Francis buchan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Buchanan-Hamilton) has told them as militant brahmin since they have brahminic origin but many of them have adopted agriculture and war. Jeffrey Witsoe has not cited any book or the census record claiming that statement. In communication with him he told that this is a small issue if incorrect he will change it in his next edition. I feel you have special grudge or hostility towars this community so only putting up some crap material. you have done enough, if you are so sure why do not you cite any census record in which such claim has been made. Do not make wikipedia a tool to show ur hostility or grudge. Willium pinch has cited proper books for all the statement he has made. you are consistently removing willium pinch book ciation and putting up a book which ahs not cited the book from where he got such an idea or inference. Do not show hostility on wikipedia, it is not facebook where you can put any unauthentic news or fiction or mere supposition. You have raised question over the authenticity of the material by sahjanand saraswati who has national recognition and acceptance as a hero and eminent leader. He always demanded removal of zamindari so he was against many of the babhan landlords and helped yadav peasants during independance(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/zohkohb0i282t94/Area%20Studies/public/SouthAsia/Misc/Sss/whpsnts96.html). Do not narrow down your view and see the person from a single perspective. It is just like telling an elephant as a cylindrical pipe after touching its trunk. repeatedly i am telling put up some authentic material material rather than suppostion or myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If Witsoe changes his mind in a later edition of his book then we can change the article. You really, really have to stop attacking me because you are already on extremely thin ice here and could well find yourself permanently excluded from anything to do with this subject. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sitush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Bhumihar_Brahmin), do you think that Willium pinch book as well as francis buchanan statements and census report 1891 are false and the book you are repeatedly putting up is true. Francis buchanan has done an exhaustive survey and his survey is regarded as the first british account in bihar and eastern uttar pradesh province. you have not answered my question i.e. which year british census record has really mentioned them as shudra. It is totally obvious from the census record that bhumihar name came quite late in the society and babhan name was used for this whole community which was listed as military and dominant community till 1891 census (refer willium pinch book reference 12 and census record 1891). The census report 1891 (which i have mentioned earlier)clearly says that kayasthas were termed as pure shudras not babhans. That statement (about kayastha) is also historically not correct but british census has mentioned that. I will not write anything if you give me the census record claiming the statement you are repeatedly putting up. you are complaining that i am targeting you but your complain is totally false because you are not able to find any british census document supporting your claim. It is mere grudge or hostility. I know some babhans are popular for many bad deeds but babhan has also given rajkumar shukla and sahjanand saraswati kind of people. So do not put false things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not use Raj census records directly because they are known to be poor. We use them only in the context that they are used by reliable secondary sources, ie: where secondary sources comment about them. Therefore, it would be pointless of me to try to fulfil your request as it would make no difference. That rationale is also why we do not use Buchanan and other awful Raj sources etc directly - I'm sure you have been told this before, something among your massive screeds. Please do not forget that I am not the only person who has been involved with this article, nor the only one who has seen your comments about it. I suggest that you drop this stick. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sitush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Bhumihar_Brahmin), You are not using British census stating it to be poor and derogatory sometimes, but you are making false statement or supposition referring it to be present in British census record. It is totally mockery of truth. you have said that the words of francis buchan is also not reliable but the earlier british census record is based on his survey also. If you do not want to refer british india census record questioning its neutrality point of view then why you are referring it indirectly and adding some false statement on it. Read willium pinch book where he has mentioned citation for all the statements (^[1]). Do not blindly get prejudiced about something which is not at all true otherwise give some substantial evidence backing that statement. Wikipedia is not a place to show hostility but a place to put historical account, if discussing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained that we can mention the census when a reliable secondary source does so, and in the context that the source refers to it. I am not going to waste my time replying any further because you quite clearly are not listening. This issue has been done to death here and has been reviewed by other people familiar with the problems of caste articles, such as Utcursch. If you do not like it, perhaps go write whatever you wish on some other website? As our article says, the situation changed over time and the Bhumihars are pretty notorious for not liking the earlier situation to even be mentioned. That's your problem, not mine. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you (sitush) say that the source you are putting up is reliable and willium pinch book (^[2]) which speaks different from Jeffrey Witsoe is unreliable. Jeffrey Witsoe has not mentioned any authentic text citing that specific statement. It is his hypothesis to explain some points in his book. He has merely assumed that what ever happened with kayastha same might have happened with babhan. But is totally false. we are living in a democratic world so we have write to ask the authenticity of the statement. You should know that Britishers started census in India in 1871 but the exhaustive survey was done in 1881 onward and the last survey was on 1931. Till 1891 babhans were classified as military and dominant community. Bhumihar brahmin name was adopted for this entire community during later part of 19th century, which was popularized by big zamindars (landlords) and bhumihar brahmin sabhas. you are trying to pass some unreliable and false fact which is obvious from willium pinch book as well as census record under Jeffrey Witsoe's umbrella. we have right to know the date and the colonial census record which have really mentioned such claim. To prove something you can not take some false news. you should be confident on the news or information you are putting up. Jeffrey Witsoe is has not mentioned any reliable citation regarding his this particular claim. willium pinch is also a historian (http://wpinch.faculty.wesleyan.edu/research/) who has given proper citation for all the statements in his book.

Bhumihar have brahminc origin and the very name babhan suggest that, which is evident from willium pinch, francis buchan, sahjanand saraswati, and jogindra nath bhatacharya as well as willium crooke statements. A lot of resentful theories have came out during later half of colonial era which was utterly stated by some of the hostile communities or resentful persons and written in some of the britisher documents led Babhans make Bhumihar brahmin sabha.Bhumihar is a sanskrit word which merely mean landlord or landholder and comparable to zamindar or jagirdar titles of mohamdan times.(see yogendranath and Susan Bayly) Most of the britishers and indian historians have also contested those resentful and mythical theories ^[3]. Pandit yogendra nath bhatacharya has also contested the theory made by Mr risley who have considered babhans to be offshoot of rajputs. His(risley) theory of tribal division and Gotras of bhumihars are similar to rajputs led him to conclude so, but same kind of tribal division as well as gotras exist in maithils (maithil brahmin ) and sarswat brahmin. His(risely) survey was insufficient to arrive at that conclusion. Swami sahjanand saraswati have made an exaustive survey of all the bhumihar clans and published it, which clearly states that kinwar clan as well as some other clan of bhumihar and rajput has same brahmanic origin. No british document really state that bhumihar to be shudra, which is a fictitious tale of recent origin. Babhan has become a point of making fictious tales by any person. I strongly object on the theories which does not have any evidence and are based on mere supposition and grudge. Some people are deliberately finding out all those tales and mere suppositions, to past on wikipedia to demoralize this entire babhan community. Most of the Bristshers as well as indian historians have objected the fallen brahmin theory and just indicated that they lost their priesthood status because of military services and aristocracy (it is evident from the books which i have mentioned above by Susan Bayly ). Some people have made babhan a fluid material which can be subjected to any fictitious theory or fairy tales. If anybody except sitush is also there on wikipedia please do not delete my edits because i know the resentful thought of this person can hardly be quenched. I have give the sufficient and credible citation for each and every statement i have introduced in wikipedia. Some resentful guys have led me to study about babhan community thoroughly and some of the books also i have mentioned on this community which are credible enough to be studied and relied. So i urge you all not to deleate statements which are neural, unbiased and made by renowned authors. -User:Bpandey89 (User_talk:Bpandey89) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@sitush what ever material you are putting up is a crap and none of the historians you have personally pasted is renowned or well known. In the name of neutrality you are consistently putting up spurious things which is not at all acceptable. You are alleging others that they are just copy pasting material but i feel that is much better to paste material from renowned authors than pasting spurious and fabricated opinions which do not have any historical relevance. Do not do such things. I have elaborately presented all the points of confusion present in your brain.You are deleting most of the credible and reliable accounts on the topic. Do you think your patronized authors like ashwani kumar, jaffry wotse and arvind das personally have done any survey to find out the clans and traditions of babhans to really arrive at some points. Customs and beliefs of any community is not at all origin of any 100 year interval it has genesis in much ancient past. All the british and indian historian account have considered babhans a dwija (twin born) community. The very name Babhan suggest that we are brahmin of magadh region since it is a pali word and pali was language of magadh during ashoka and other rulers. All the historical evidences and customs as well as tradition points toward brahminic origin. Even francis buchanan has told that all the best historical account of that time have suggested their brahminic origin which is crap for you and some insinuated fictitious tales you have considered credible. It is height of hostility please do not do so in the name of neutrality. If you are so keen why do not you do a survey and research on babhan community. Bpandey89 talk 08:47 25 December 2014

I want to add 1901 census report, which clearly says that babhan is a mere pali term for brahmin and present in ashokan edicts. There are some greek and chinese travellers of ancient times have clearly stated that brahmins in magadh have left donation taking in pursuit of agriculture and landownership and called Sang he Kang ( land-seizer) in chinese. Most of the theories points toward brahminic origin of this particular communityand are generally regarded as superior to rajputs. (^[4]) (^[5])Hybrid theory is a myth and of present origin which came out of jealously. Babhan listed as shudra in british colonial census is a mere supposition of Jeffrey Witsoe because none of the british census have really stated this. I have listed 1891 as well as 1901 census records, which clealy state the falsehood of the statement by jeffrey witsoe. Some persons are spreading spurious material in the name of neutrality. If anybody is so confident then please cite the british census record. Babhans were always considerd twin born cast during british times and most of the british text mentioned them as military brahmin. please see the battle of madarpur also that clearly indicates the origin of bhumihars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madarpur) Bpandey89 talk 12:17 26 December 2014

Kinwar rajput and Sakarwar rajputs as well as kinwar and sakarwar bhumihar have same brahminic origin. So some of these Rajputs are also known as bhumihar rajputs in the azamgarh district but the word bhumihar is mainly used for bhumihar brahmins rather than bhumihar rajputs. (^[6]). Bhumihar have brahminic origin and are similar to tyagis of western uttar pradesh (^[7]). The glossery of the book "Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century" by Susan Bayly has just mentioned bhumihar to be north indian brahmins with tradition of land holding and solders.^[8]). Bpandey89 talk 16:13 26 December 2014

The caste hierarchy was mentioned in british india census report only after 1891 census report. ^[9] This hierarchy listing system was not there in any of the earlier census report. This clearly indicates that bhumihars(i.e. babhan ), tyagis (i.e. taga), and bhats were mentioned as second rank in british census report above to rajputs. None of the british census record has mentioned bhumihars to be shudra. It is the mere supposition of the author jaffry watsoe to explain the caste sabhas (committees) formation during early 20th century.He should also know that saryupari and maithil brahmins also formed sabhas to strengthen their caste integrity and identity at that time. I have told many times to remove this bullshit material which suggests bhumihars had been listed as shudras in british report. It is a false propaganda to defame a community or a new conspiracy theory. If some wikipedians are so sure regarding this issue then why not they find the census record suggesting their claim. some wikipedians are consistently getting indulged in proliferating and propagating conspiracy theories just to defame some community. It is shameful and insensible. Probably jeffry watsoe or some wikipedians are getting confused with bhuiyar whom some early british census reporters also get confused with bhuinhar (bhumihar). In order to eliminate this confusion british census reporters have told bhuiyar as dravidian bhuinhar (see willium crook book ). In order to eliminate this confusion babhan word is mostly used and where ever simply bhumihar is used, babhan term was also written along with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 January 2015