Anxious About Caste Survey, Bihar’s Bhumihars Seek Change In Name

The Bhumihar community in Bihar is facing a new phase of anxiety and internal debate. The Bihar caste survey conducted by the Nitish Kumar government and digitisation of land records has triggered fresh identity concerns. A section of the community wants the caste name to be officially recorded as “Bhumihar-Brahmin” before the 2027 national caste census, fearing that removal of this label could permanently weaken their upper-caste status.

Ashutosh Kumar, founder of the Bhumihar-Brahmin Ekta Manch Foundation, alleges that the caste survey of Bihar 2023 deliberately fragmented the Bhumihar population into four to undercount them.

He further says, “Every caste had a single column, be it Yadav, Rajput, Kurmi, but Bhumihars were divided into four columns: Bhumihar, Bhumihar-Brahmin, Bhunihar, Bhuihar. As a result, our actual population of 4–5 per cent was reduced to 2.87 per cent. Meanwhile, backward castes were shown as a larger percentage for political gain.”

Circle Of Influence

The Bhumihar caste, which constitutes only 2.86 per cent of Bihar’s total population, is regarded as one of the most politically influential communities in Bihar. Within the 10–11 per cent Hindu upper-caste population of Bihar, Bhumihars rank third in numerical strength, after Brahmins (3.65 per cent) and Rajputs (3.45 per cent). Yet, in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, Rajputs and Bhumihars enjoy representation nearly four times higher than their population, which highlights a significant imbalance between demography and political power.

In the recent Bihar Assembly elections, the number of Rajput MLAs increased from 18 to 32, while Bhumihar MLAs rose from 17 to 27. Bhumihars are primarily concentrated in Bihar and parts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, but in Bihar, they have successfully preserved their political clout from Independence to the present day, maintaining relevance for all major political parties through a strong and enduring political identity.

Ashutosh also rejects the idea that Bhumihars are uniformly wealthy, calling it a manufactured myth. He claims to have visited around 5,000 villages, where he found that nearly 90 per cent of upper castes are now working as labourers. He demands constitutional status for the Upper Caste Commission in Bihar, similar to SC, ST, OBC, and EBC commissions.

Former director of the A. N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies, D M Diwakar, dismisses the Upper Caste Commission as vote-bank politics. He argues that the Mandal Commission categorised castes on educational, social, and economic criteria, and that Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Kayasthas, and Bhumihars were not backward on any of these counts.

It is also said that in the early power struggles of independent Bihar, Shri Krishna Singh, a Bhumihar leader, outmanoeuvred the formidable Rajput leader Anugrah Narayan Singh. Though both were senior Congress leaders, when Bihar formed its government in 1946, Shri Krishna Singh emerged as Chief Minister. After the 1951–52 elections, Bihar’s first Assembly polls, he continued as Chief Minister. In this way, he ruled Bihar from 1946 to 1961 (nearly 14 years) while Anugrah Narayan Singh served as Deputy Chief Minister and Finance Minister.

Drawing Power From Land-Ownership

From “Shri Krishna Babu” to “Sushasan Babu”, one phrase has repeatedly surfaced in discussions on Bhumihar dominance: “Bhumihar Raj.” In Bihar’s early years, Jayaprakash Narayan wrote a letter in the Searchlight newspaper to Chief Minister Shri Krishna Singh stating, “You have turned Bihar into a Bhumihar Raj.” Similarly, when Nitish Kumar assumed power in 2005, the popular political remark was: “The crown for Kurmis, the rule for Bhumihars.”

Although the community experienced a temporary contraction in political influence during the 1990s, it was never pushed to the margins. From the Congress to the Communists, Bhumihars have played the role of standard-bearers in Bihar’s politics. It is often argued that when socialism and backward-caste politics became fully entrenched under Lalu Prasad Yadav, Bhumihars identified Nitish Kumar as an alternative within the same political churn, repositioning themselves strategically.

Although no Bhumihar has become Chief Minister since 1961, the community has remained politically relevant through positions such as Deputy Chief Minister and control over key ministries. Between 1990 and 2005, during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s regime, Bhumihar dominance declined, but it was restored after Nitish Kumar came to power. When the NDA government was formed in November 2005, three ministers belonged to the Bhumihar caste—two from JD(U) and one from BJP—while their number of MLAs stood between 12 and 15.

D M Diwakar further tells Outlook, “If you take political influence - Namdhari Singh Dinkar, a Bhumihar, was part of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Cabinet. Nehru could not ignore him. And even today, leaders like Lalan Singh, Giriraj Singh, Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, and Vijay Kumar Sinha occupy key positions in state and central governments. This community has always been politically, professionally, and educationally dominant and remains so.”

Shifting Political Loyalties

According to Dr. Rakesh Ranjan, Professor of Political Science at Patna University, Bhumihars have demonstrated remarkable political flexibility, enabling them to shift comfortably between political parties without ideological hesitation.

Dr. Ranjan explains, “They are called Bhumihars because they have traditionally been land-rich. Naturally, this also made them financially strong. Their hold over the contracting and business sectors has been substantial. For a long time, they were a core vote bank of the Congress in Bihar, and their dominance continued until the era of former Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra. During Lalu’s rule, they were politically cornered, but once Nitish Kumar came to power, they regained strength, because Bhumihars are widely believed to have played a decisive role in bringing Nitish to power.”

Among the communities in Bihar known for highly aggressive voting behaviour, analysts count Yadavs among OBCs, Paswans among Scheduled Castes, and Bhumihars among upper castes.

Ranjan further notes that caste existed at the social level in Bihar long before 1990, but its explicit political reflection emerged only after the Mandal–Kamandal phase, when caste began to play a direct role in electoral politics.

This period marked a large-scale drift of Bhumihars away from the Congress, coinciding with the political rise of backward-caste–based regional parties. Two towering figures emerged from this churn: Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar. During Lalu’s tenure, an anti–upper caste perception gained ground, prompting Bhumihars to embrace Nitish Kumar as a political alternative, particularly because he was allied with the BJP, then widely perceived as an upper-caste party.

It is believed that, as Bhumihars were politically sidelined under Lalu. Therefore, they strategically assumed that Nitish Kumar’s rise would ensure their revival, with representation in ministries, boards, commissions, and key sectors of governance.

This identity struggle has divided the community into two factions. One of these wants to preserve the “Bhumihar-Brahmin” identity to safeguard their traditional social prestige. The other one demands inclusion in the OBC category, citing changing economic realities, which would allow access to reservations and government benefits. The 2023 caste survey strengthens this argument, as 27.58 per cent of Bhumihars reported themselves as economically poor.

The Mandal Effect

Bhumihars are generally regarded as a landowning, agrarian upper caste of North India, though historians differ on their precise origins. They are commonly believed to have emerged in medieval Bihar, traditionally identifying as Brahmins who abandoned ritual duties for agriculture, earning labels such as “cultivator Brahmins.” Historically, they were influential zamindars and taluqdars, and today are concentrated mainly in Bihar, with smaller populations in eastern UP, Jharkhand, and West Bengal.

Any discussion of Bhumihars in Bihar is incomplete without Begusarai, long considered their political bastion. Between 1960 and 1980, Begusarai was a stronghold of the Communist movement, led largely by Bhumihar peasants. However, post-Mandal politics pushed them away from the Left. They emerged as open opponents of reservation and became the ideological anchor of upper-caste consolidation, leading to the formation of groups like the Ranvir Sena.

Founded in 1994 in Bhojpur district, Ranvir Sena emerged amid escalating Naxalite activity and land conflicts. Under Brahmeshwar Mukhiya, it functioned as an armed, caste-based militia and became infamous for massacres such as Bathani Tola (1996) and Laxmanpur Bathe (1997). After Mukhiya’s murder in June 2012, the organisation became largely defunct, though its imprint on Bihar’s politics remains.

Chandan Kumar, the grandson of Brahmeshwar Mukhiya and president of the Bharatiya Ranveer Party, says the Ranvir Sena was not formed to protect landlords but to defend small farmers owning two to four bighas of land who were being labelled as feudal. He maintains that the fight was not against any caste, but against Naxalites—a conflict in which the government was also involved.

Chandan Kumar argues that the current debate around Savarnas and Bhumihars is linked to UGC rules and the alleged misuse of commissions meant for OBCs, SCs, and STs. He calls for a strong Savarna commission to address what he describes as baseless allegations of exploitation against upper castes. At the same time, he opposes caste-based commissions altogether, saying that upliftment should be based on economic backwardness, not caste, and that caste-based bodies only deepen social divisions.

Veteran journalist Manikant Thakur observes that Bhumihars have led movements against reservations, wielding influence in wealth, agriculture, politics, and bureaucracy. He concludes that among the upper castes, Bhumihars are widely perceived by backward communities as the most dominant and assertive.

Bihar’s politics has also witnessed strongman leadership from within the Bhumihar community, particularly between the 1990s and early 2000s. Figures such as Anant Singh (Mokama), Surajbhan Singh (Saran–Chapra), and Munna Shukla (Vaishali) became symbols of muscle power, crime-linked politics, and territorial dominance, where authority often rested more on control than on law.