Talk:Barak Valley

Barak Valley

Sign -OOUI JS Saurav Mazumder Id-2409:4065:E:250E:68D4:C791:AF35:BEFE. Trappist the monk plz correct the demography of lakhipur tehsil of cachar district in the trend section of Barak Valley. The existing number of Hindus and Muslims mentioning there is of lakhipur tehsil of Goalpara district and not of cachar as there are two lakhipur tehsils in Assam. Earlier I have requested in the Talk:Barak valley page but you didn't have responded it yet. Here's the link https://www.s/www.censusindia.co.in/amp/subdistrict/lakhipur-circle-cachar-assam-2100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D82:2973:401C:769F:2AC3:B632 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the demography part

There was a wrong number citations of Hindu and Muslim population in the trends section of lakhipur tehsil of Cachar district. Lakhipur tehsil have a hindu majority. The lakhipur Hindu and Muslim population here in the trend section is that of Goalapra district tehsil not of the Cachar as there are two lakhipur tehsils in Assam. Here, below is the real link of Lakhipur tehsil demography of cachar. https://www.s/www.censusindia.co.in/amp/subdistrict/lakhipur-circle-cachar-assam-2100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:E1E:D337:5C94:7D1E:D591:3C3B (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the demography part

There was a wrong number citations of Hindu and Muslim population in the trends section of lakhipur tehsil of Cachar district. Lakhipur tehsil have a hindu majority. The lakhipur Hindu and Muslim population here in the trend section is that of Goalapra district tehsil not of the Cachar as there are two lakhipur tehsils in Assam. Here, below is the real link of Lakhipur tehsil demography of cachar. https://www.s/www.censusindia.co.in/amp/subdistrict/lakhipur-circle-cachar-assam-2100. Plz Change/edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:E:250E:68D4:C791:AF35:BEFE (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Dialect of Barak Valley

It would be important to reconsider whether the actual dialect of the majority of the people of the valley has remained purely sylheti, or has attained a new linguistic form of its own. I propose to change it to cachari (to distinguish it from indigenous Kachari) to mark the evolution of the dialect into a new one with the amalgamation of a much larger retinue of colloquial assamese words. Azorahai26 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep Rituparno Dhar (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barak Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070514045222/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/ to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable People

I Bhaskardebroy (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sylheti is spoken by the majority in Barak valley

Sylheti is spoken by the majority in Barak valley. It is a fact! Though it might not be reflected in census data accurately. It is also used for inter ethnic communication. Why is it placed after Bengali and Hindi?? Truthfulsoldier (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source ?

@Fylindfotberserk: scroll.in is 'unreliable' here but scroll.in is considered valid in the statehood demand section ? Keep your dumb Bengali nationalism out of Assam. Stay neutral or refrain from editing Assam & Tripura related pages. These sources are more valid than self-declared typical Bengali "historians" like Bhattcharjee who "believes" stuffs.Tizen03 (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: Stop making personal attacks, I'm not Bengali nor everyone reverting your edits. Check this edit summary instead. The "copy-vio revdel" edit summary was added by mistake, the one meant for the IP user when they added copyrighted content. The Scroll source doesn't mention Barak Valley so what you added in original research, not to mention the content was copypasted. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Plz change the trends section lakhipur tehsil Hindu Muslim population as it is totally wrong according to 2011 census Hindus are majority in Lakhipur tehsil. 2409:4065:280:446F:2129:F30F:296:19BD (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2021 (2)

www.censusindia.co.in/subdistrict/lakhipur-circle-cachar-assam-2100 here is the reference of my Earlier claim based upon the hindu Muslim population of lakhipur tehsil... In the wikipedia it is wrong as because the lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district. 2409:4065:280:446F:9BC2:795C:68BC:2AB (talk) 19:29, 2 January 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2021

www.censusindia.co.in/subdistrict/lakhipur-circle-cachar-assam-2100 here is the reference of my Earlier claim based upon the hindu muslim population of lakhipur tehsil... In the wikipedia it is wrong as because the Lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district and not that of Cachar. Change X (Lakhipur circle Hindu 48,692 (17.42%), Muslim 226,120 (80.88%) into Y (Hindu 178,163 (61.04%) and Muslim 95,476 (32.71%) as it is the correct trends based on demography part. Another change is the description that X (Hindus are majority in two tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar and Udharbond, while Muslims are majority in Lakhipur, Katigora and Sonai circle according to 2011 census) into Y (Hindus are majority into three tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar, Udharbond and Lakhipur, while Muslims are majority in Katigora, Sonai circle according to 2011 census). 2409:4065:D93:87D6:76AD:3631:DFF5:3A7C (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. www.censusindia.co.in/ is not a official govt website; need a better WP:RS. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding demography part

the Lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district and not that of Cachar. Change X (Lakhipur circle Hindu 48,692 (17.42%), Muslim 226,120 (80.88%) into Y (Hindu 178,163 (61.04%) and Muslim 95,476 (32.71%) as it is the correct trends based on demography part. Another change is the description that X (Hindus are majority in two tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar and Udharbond, while Muslims are majority in Lakhipur, Katigora and Sonai circle according to 2011 census) into Y (Hindus are majority into three tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar, Udharbond and Lakhipur, while Muslims are majority in Katigora, Sonai circle according to 2011 census). Here is the references -: 2409:4065:D89:B355:262F:EAAD:4F82:8D9F (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The source you provided has only one link, about some applicaion [1]. No mention of religious stratification in the PDF. Bring some explicit source, perhaps from government census source(s). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

In the wikipedia it is wrong as because the Lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district and not that of Cachar. Change X (Lakhipur circle Hindu 48,692 (17.42%), Muslim 226,120 (80.88%) into Y (Hindu 178,163 (61.04%) and Muslim 95,476 (32.71%) as it is the correct trends based on demography part. Another change is the description that X (Hindus are majority in two tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar and Udharbond, while Muslims are majority in Lakhipur, Katigora and Sonai circle according to 2011 census) into Y (Hindus are majority into three tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar, Udharbond and Lakhipur, while Muslims are majority in Katigora, Sonai circle according to 2011 census). Below is the official governmental link, plz check it out. www.censusindia.gov.in › dchbPDF Cachar - DISTRICT CENSUS HANDBOOK 2409:4065:E00:8EBF:8AA4:4DC4:5ED7:D519 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I checked this, nothing on religion. I searched these figures. Can you mention the exact pages? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Regarding lakhipur tehsil

In the wikipedia it is wrong as because the Lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district and not that of Cachar. Change X (Lakhipur circle Hindu 48,692 (17.42%), Muslim 226,120 (80.88%) into Y (Hindu 178,163 (61.04%) and Muslim 95,476 (32.71%) as it is the correct trends based on demography part. Another change is the description that X (Hindus are majority in two tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar and Udharbond, while Muslims are majority in Lakhipur, Katigora and Sonai circle according to 2011 census) into Y (Hindus are majority into three tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar, Udharbond and Lakhipur, while Muslims are majority in Katigora, Sonai circle according to 2011 census). Below is the official governmental link, plz check it out. etrace.in › Census › Subdistrict Web results Villages and Towns of Lakhipur Tehsil of District ... - Etrace.in 2409:4065:403:DE41:53:CAD1:4A91:28B4 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

In the wikipedia it is wrong as because the Lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district and not that of Cachar. Change X (Lakhipur circle Hindu 48,692 (17.42%), Muslim 226,120 (80.88%) into Y (Hindu 178,163 (61.04%) and Muslim 95,476 (32.71%) as it is the correct trends based on demography part. Another change is the description that X (Hindus are majority in two tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar and Udharbond, while Muslims are majority in Lakhipur, Katigora and Sonai circle according to 2011 census) into Y (Hindus are majority into three tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar, Udharbond and Lakhipur, while Muslims are majority in Katigora, Sonai circle according to 2011 census). Below is the link 2409:4065:403:DE41:C229:E4C5:39C:A880 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request of above (19 January) which was rejected because not in source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Lakhipur tehsil demography in trends section

In the wikipedia it is wrong as because the Lakhipur tehsil demography here is of Goalpara district and not that of Cachar. Change X (Lakhipur circle Hindu 48,692 (17.42%), Muslim 226,120 (80.88%) into Y (Hindu 178,163 (61.04%) and Muslim 95,476 (32.71%) as it is the correct trends based on demography part. Another change is the description that X (Hindus are majority in two tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar and Udharbond, while Muslims are majority in Lakhipur, Katigora and Sonai circle according to 2011 census) into Y (Hindus are majority into three tehsils of Cachar district namely Silchar, Udharbond and Lakhipur, while Muslims are majority in Katigora, Sonai circle according to 2011 census). Below is the link 2409:4065:E99:37F2:DFA:63C6:B2D2:6EE4 (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bengali refugees arriving at Cachar from Sylhet.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Immigration/Refugee

I have created this section to for us to collaborate on immigration/refugee issues in this article. Chaipau (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(Continued from User_talk:Chaipau#Barak_valley) Chaipau (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

State demand

The state demand, Barak_Valley#Statehood_demand, require proper reliable sources. Who is making this demand, which districts are being demanded, etc. Right now, most of the citations are about Mamta Banerjee, who is a chief minister from West Bengal, and who is not from Barak Valley. Most of the news reports are on the NRC issue. If reliable sources are not available, then we will have to delete the entire section, irrespective of the citation-packing. Pinging Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources in the latter half of the section do mention the statehood demand ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). This sentence → Silchar is the proposed capital of Barak state – is not supported by the accompanying source ([7]) which isn't reliable either. The first sentence of the article which has reliable sources seems to be SYNTH-ridden. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, these look like reliable sources. The map is not reliable though. The call is for Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi to separate. The map shows Dima Hasao and Hojai as well. Chaipau (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the map needs to be updated or removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar:, The map you added here includes regions that are not considered not part of Barak state demand, which should only include Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj districts, as explicitly written in TNE and The Hindu sources. Please correct it. Pinging @Chaipau:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If a map has not been submitted by those demanding a separate state, we should not have one in Wikipedia either. Making a demand via media is not the same as making a demand officially. Chaipau (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I forgot the obvious. Thanks for reminding me. This is not an official map. Pitush Puttar can you provide an official map, if not it will be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes soon it will be updated. Pitush Puttar (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please point us to the source map? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: I have reverted some of your problematic edits. Please discuss your changes here. Chaipau (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

One thing how come "The Statesman article" is not a reliable source in that context which you have removed by citing NPOV. Can you explain? Pitush Puttar (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

@IP, these additions have been reverted, since the sources are not verifiable/can't be crosschecked. Please find reliable sources from government agencies for census purpose. And first propose the changes here in Talk:Barak Valley per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, so that the content is verifiable and without any original researches. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The only changes you made wrt to the sources is this portal, which doesn't seem to be a reliable source portal to begin with. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Check more. The only portal in the above revision that seems reliable as far as census is concerned is "lsi.gov.in", but then again we would need links to explicit page(s)/article(s) that would support the content. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the state demands should be attributed to the organisations, not the the entire people. The organisations naturally would claim that they represent all the people. But this is not necessarily true. Some of the organisations could be demanding a separate country, as has happened in the case of the Boro people. And not all the people could be demanding a state. Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Agreed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Etymology

The source https://cachar.gov.in/information-services/history-of-cachar from the official Assam Govt. website have clearly stated the origin of the word Cachar in best two possibilities.

1st theory of possibilities The Kacharis gave this name Cachar when they ruled this land.

2nd theory of possibilities The word Kachar in Sylhette (Bengali of Sylhet) means a stretch of land at the foot of a mountain. Hence the name Cachar might have been given by Bengalies of Sylhet as the land is surrounded by mountains. Pitush Puttar (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

These theories are mere speculations. Cachar comes from Kachari. The kingdom of Govinda Chandra was called the Kachari kingdom and the district was named Cachar by the British. There is no evidence the name was taken from a Sylheti language word. Nevertheless, you may mention these speculations within WP:WEIGHT, but not here. Please discuss these speculations in "Cachar" named articles. Discuss only the etymology of Barak here. Chaipau (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The official page of the Assam govt is a district page, and these are not WP:RS. They are maintained by webmasters who write whatever fancies them. These are not written by historians. Chaipau (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Speculations are for you people. Citation have clearly mentioned two possibilities one from the Cachari Kingdom and another from Sylheti language origin. The citation is taken from official website of Cachar district of Assam and you are saying it's not authentic and maintained by webmasters and all. Does the official citation state that it is being maintained by webmasters who write anything. Lol. If history from official website of Cachar is not authentic then what will be authentic source ?

You said - Please discuss these speculations in "Cachar" named articles

The controversy have stated here and know you are saying to discuss it in Cachar page. Are you out of your mind or you don't understand English? The name Barak is of recent origin and before that it was known or called as Cachar Valley. So that history of Etymology of Cachar should be there in accordance with the article as without it Etymology is incomplete/invalid. Pitush Puttar (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: I would like to remind you of WP:CIVIL. This article is about Barak. The etymology section should deal with the etymology of "Barak". There are articles called Cachar district and another one called Undivided Cachar district. Please discuss the etymology of Cachar in those articles, not here. Chaipau (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't your understand English or what ? The name Barak is of recent origin nd before that it was known as Cachar valley as a whole. Regarding moving this to those articles which you have mentioned is fine but this doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be here. So Etymology of Barak is incomplete without mentioning the Etymology of Cachar (the original name of the valley before Karimganj was merged into it).

I hope you understand brother. Pitush Puttar (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: the name Barak valley is not just a new name but an entirely different region. Even though Karimganj was a sub-division of the Cachar district, post-Independence, it was part of Sylhet pre-Independence. Furthermore, The Cachar region included the entire Kachari kingdom---both the plains (Govinda Chandra's domain) as well as the hills (Tularam Senapati's domain). So, no---the Barak Valley is not just a new name of the Cachar region. There is no need to define the etymology of Cachar in this article. Barak Valley has a specific meaning today. It is a division that includes the Karimganj, Hailakandi and Cachar districts today. Chaipau (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The name Barak is a new name and before that it was known as "Cachar Valley" (Govinda Chandra's Cachar kingdom). It may be a different region today due to present administration setup & conditions, but it's historical geography can't be ignored for present scenario based on administration as simple as that. Karimganj was a part of Sylhet Division and was merged into the valley soon after partition (Sylhet referendum). Thereafter it was re-named as "Barak" & that's why I have stated above that the name Barak is of recent origin in previous discussions page. Before that it was Cachar Valley comprising today's administrative geographical Districts of - Cachar, North Cachar Hills and Hojai as well.

So, in order to know the present we need to know the past Etymology of that area as well. So, There is a need to define the etymology of Cachar in this article because a portion of Cachar Valley that is plain Cachar or Cachar district is still located at Barak valley Division. Regarding Hailakandi, It was created in 1989 by Assam government and before that it was a part of Cachar plains or Greater Cachar district. A big portion of historical Cachar valley is in Barak valley & Barak valley was well known as Cachar Valley before 1947 as a whole. So, Etymology of Cachar should have a consideration in this way in this page because of all those reasons that I have told/stated you above.

Regarding moving this to those articles which you have mentioned is fine but this doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be here. Pitush Puttar (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"Etymology" means the origin of words or names and the changes in meaning over time. Obviously, we want to deal with the etymology of "Barak valley" here.

If you want to address the historical geography of the Barak valley, you have to do that in the "history" (or a possible "historical geography" section), not the etymology section. Etymologies do not inform historical geography. Chaipau (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I know what Etymology stands for and I am discussing its historical geographical aspects only for your understanding and convenience. Oow brother, I am not talking about about historical geography of Barak valley but actually talking about present Etymology (Barak) and It's past Etymology (Cachar) name.

If the present and recent Etymology "Barak" is there, then Past Etymology "Cachar" (The original and past name of the valley) should be also there.

Historical Etymology go hand in hand with Present Etymology and without mentioning the past we can't know the present. In that context, It's very important to mentioned otherwise there will be confusion and this will create controversy.

Barak name is recently given. Before that the geographical area of Cachar hills (today's Dima Hasao) and Cachar plains (today's Cachar and Hailakandi) are together known as Cachar Valley (Kingdom of Govinda Chandra and Tularam as you have mentioned above).

So mentioning Historical "Cachar" Etymology is very important as today's historical Cachar Valley plains (That is Cachar and Hailakandi) are located in Barak valley region which is of recent origin.

I hope now you understand. Pitush Puttar (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming the Cachar hills were part of Cachar valley? Sorry, this is not a place where you can claim whatever comes to your mind. The Cachar plains and the Cachar hills constituted the Kachari kingdom, before the British came in. Karimganj was part of Sylhet till 1947, not part of Cachar. So Barak Valley is not another name of Cachar valley. Etymologies have no meaning when it comes to historical geography. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article - Clearly mentioned that Barak valley excluding Karimganj as a whole was once called or known as Cachar Valley and the origin of the name "Cachar" have two possibilities with reliable reference.

So it's talking about Past Etymology of geographical area what is now known as "Barak". The term "Cachar" Etymology was there since from the ancient time & Barak was once called or known as Cachar as a whole (the original and long lasting name of the valley till 1947 prior to the inclusion of Karimganj in it).

Today, they are divided because of administrative purpose but this doesn't changed the fact that Historical Etymology "Cachar" shouldn't be here. Pitush Puttar (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you making the things complicated man?? Don't you understand or what? When did I say ? Please stop act like stupid.

I have said that Cachar Hills and Cachar plains were together constitute Cachar Valley before Karimganj was being merged into it and that Cachar valley is the kingdom of Cachari Kingdom (Govinda Chandra's and Tularam respectively) which includes Barak's Cachar and Hailakandi and Autonomous North Cachar Hills today.

Cachar Valley that constitute Kingdom of Cachar (Hailakandi, Cachar and North Cachar hills) excluding Karimganj constitute Kingdom of Cachar or Dimasa Cachari Kingdom.

Before pointing finger directly on me just know that it's not you/me but the citations that have mentioned it I.e the two possible possibilities in the article.

Where did I say Karimganj was a part of Cachar before 1947 in the above discussions? When did I say Barak valley is another name of Cachar Valley? Lol. It was the past name of Barak valley and the name "Barak" is of recent origin.

& yeah that Kingdom of Cachar is the Cachar Valley of the past.

Cachar valley (Kingdom of Cachar) was the old name of Barak valley.

You last sentence- Etymologies have no meaning when it comes to historical geography.

I have stated that I was explaining you about the geographical history of the region before coming to Etymology & yeah I am talking about historical Etymology & not historical Geography. Mind it.

Plus, Cachar Valley (Kingdom of Cachar) comprising NC Hills, Cachar and Hailakandi) together is the old name of Barak valley.

If Barak (present Etymology is mentioned for the region) then why not Cachar (past Etymology/name of the region) which have a valid point as far historical Etymology is concerned. Pitush Puttar (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Barak valley history

The source have clearly mentioned that "The Bengalis have been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal".

That same source that is In its chapter 2 (Early history of Barak valley) have also clearly mentioned that "The region of Barak valley was included into several Indian kingdoms most particularly Pragjyotisha, Samatata, Gauda, Harikela and Banga".

The source is reliable as per as Wikipedia:Reliable sources and hence I have reverted back your edit. Pitush Puttar (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

In its (Preface part) It have clearly mentioned that "Sylheti (Cachari) speaking people have been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal". Pitush Puttar (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: Please provide the page numbers for these quotes. Chaipau (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

First once is located at the Preface context. And the second one is located at Chapter- 2 (Early history of Barak valley) as I have stated above. Pitush Puttar (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: give the page numbers. This is a legitimate request so the quotes can be verified. Chaipau (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Page numbers are not mentioned only Chapters are mentioned which I have stated you above.

For the one no. That is, "The Bengalis have been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal" is present in (Preface) part of the article. It is located at the topmost part.

2nd no. That is "The region of Barak valley was included into several Indian kingdoms most particularly Pragjyotisha, Samatata, Gauda, Harikela and Banga" is present in the Chapter- 2 under the title - (Early history of Barak valley) respectively. Pitush Puttar (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar, there wasn't a language called Bengali at the dawn of civilization. Bengali as a language was defined around the speech from the Nadia district. Cachar was, in fact, part of Kamarupa, not Vanga (a kingdom from the southwestern part of Bengal), till the 10th century or so. In fact, it was not just Cachar, but Sylhet and the Nidhanpur copperplate inscriptions issue by Bhaskaravarman are a testimony to that. The colony was established by his ancestor, Bhutivarman.

These rhetorical statements are just fringe claims, and do not belong in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: What does "Sovereign Bengal" even mean here ? Define that first. And no, the source isn't even reliable. That is the only source available on the internet that talks about "Bengalis living since the dawn of Sovereign Bengal".

And there's no such thing as "Cachari", it's a term used by colonial era Bengali Muslims settlers of Cachar Valley. The actual word is "Kachari" which refers to a number of different but related native ethnic groups throughout Northeast which includes groups like Chutia people, Sonowal Kachari people, Dimasa people and many more. Tizen03 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Kindly do look into this matter Tizen03 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The source is reliable as per as Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

No more nonsense discussion needed. Pitush Puttar (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: Keep discussions civil here. This ain't your FB page. You couldn't even provide a single reliable source yet have the audacity to reply with "No more nonsense discussion needed". The reference you provided is just a random dude making claims without any citations to back them to begin with.

And moreover kingdoms like Vanga, Gauda never even ruled Sylhet or any neighboring areas, yet your reference mentioned that Barak Valley was a part of such kingdoms, that alone proves how "reliable" your source was. Provide references for that or it will be removed as well.

Tizen03 (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source and you are repeatedly removing it. You are continuously targeting Bengali community living in Barak valley and it is against the principles of Wikipedia policies.

The source clearly states that Bengalis have been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal in its foreword and preface part.

The citation is reliable as per as Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

& yeah Wikipedia go by source and not by your opinion.

Keep your opinions within yourself as Wikipedia go by source and not by your opinion.

And now that historian dude is random. Hahaha what a joke. His claims derived from all the sources provided by in his book.

Pitush Puttar (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Have a look. Pitush Puttar (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: They won't say anything, because anyone with brains can see you are including nonsensical information here. Since when Gauda, Vanga etc ruled Sylhet, forget about Barak Valley at this point. Read about the actual extent of Gauda, Vanga kingdoms first. Learn basic Indian history before making Wikipedia edits. Your lack of knowledge about South Asian kingdoms alone says you are not meant to be here.

That "historian" of yours is a random dude. A guy who wrote bogus claims without backing them isn't a "historian". None of his sources claims anything even close to "dawn of Bengal civilization". This is why no other real historians used such phase, except for that random dude you claimed to be a historian.

I'm challenging you, add more reliable sources to it & I won't remove that piece of info. Tizen03 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@SalamAlayka: @Snusho: @Saurmandal: @Materialscientist:@Arjayay:

Just see what he' saying.

In the source historian Atiqur Rahman have clearly stated that "Bengalis have been living in Barak Valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal. This sentence is clearly located in foreword and preface part of the source (topmost part) and User: @Tizen03 is continuously deleting that line from Barak valley wiki page continuously.

Pitush Puttar (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Brainless fellow, try to have some brain. It's seems that you have some mental issues with Bengali people or you are out of your brain. Try to become less Bengaliphobiac. It will be good for your mental health. & yeah Keep your dumb assumptions out of Wikipedia. You are not the owner of Wikipedia.

The history that you are claiming is without references and Wikipedia run on reliable references and not on your dumb advises, assumptions on history.

Go and find some references that claims that bengalis have not been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal. Can you ? I bet no.

Go and find some sources which says that Barak valley was never a part of Gauda and Banga Kingdom. Can you ? I bet no.

Wikipedia go by reference and that book (Indigenous People of Barak Valley by Atiqur Rahman) have clearly stated that -

Bengalis have been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal in foreword and preface part. And yeah it have nothing to do with Mughal Empire as you are mentioning there.

Lol! half knowledge is dangerous.

The same reference have clearly stated the ruling dynasties of Barak valley in accordance with time that "The region of Barak valley was included into several Indian kingdoms most particularly Pragjyotisha, Samatata, Gauda, Harikela and Banga during its course of history. During 6th to 7th century, the Region was under the rule of Pragjyotisha-Kamrupa Kingdom. During 11th century AD, the region of Barak was under the rule of Shrihattha state. After the fall of that empire, Barak valley came under the rule of Tripuri kings". It have mentioned Kamrupa Kingdom which you are stating in the above again and again. It have also mentioned that - Chilarai, the Koch general have captured the region in 1562 AD and ruled it for several years. In the 17th-century, the last Koch ruler's daughter married the king of the Kachari kingdom, and the rule of Khaspur passed into the hands of the Kachari rulers, who eventually moved their capital from Maibang (North Cachar Hills) to Khaspur (Cachar plains). Under Hairamba kingdom the Dimasa Kachari kingdom have flourished again who have established their capital at Khaspur, Plains of Cachar and in 1832 AD the Kachari kingdom lost its sovereignty and eventually came to an end because Britishers have captured the region as an invading force.

So, What are you trying to proof?

I just can't stop my laughing.

Pitush Puttar (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Clown, this is Wikipedia, not your Fb pages. Atiqur Rahman isn't a historian, but a random dude making claims without references just like you. Dude who writes his own original ideas isn't a historian. Nowhere in his book did he mention any reference to back his claims about "dawn of Bengali civilization" lol, you call that a "reliable source" ?

1-"Go and find some references that claims that Bengalis have not been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal." - There are no references that proves that to begin with.

2-"Go and find some sources which says that Barak valley was never a part of Gauda and Banga Kingdom." - Clown, just read the respective Wikipedia pages of those kingdom & you will get some basic idea of such kingdoms. For starters one can - Vanga Kingdom, Gauda Kingdom.

3-"Wikipedia go by reference and that book (Indigenous People of Barak Valley by Atiqur Rahman) have clearly stated that" - Don't behave like a frustrated kid here. Atiqur Rahman wrote those without providing any reference, those were his original claims. And Wikipedia is a collective contribution, it doesn't work according to your feelings, thus talk pages were provided to sort out disputes, but you are behaving like a 10 year old.

4-"So, What are you trying to proof?" - Trying to prove how incompetent you are. Not only you have no idea about any South Asian history, your also seems to don't understand English.

5 -"Lol! half knowledge is dangerous." - Now should I laugh ?

Provide references other than Atiqur Rahman. I bet you can't.

Search all over internet, yet you won't find any. That alone prove how unreliable your citations were.

Tizen03 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Half brain born 🤡 hate mongers like you are disgusting phenomenon in a platform like Wikipedia.

Keep your propaganda out of this page.

No certificate is needed what sources are reliable or what are not from you.

It seems you haven't read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I can't help you if you cant read that. Sorry. Pitush Puttar (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Do whatever your half brain tells you to do. It doesn't change the fact and that reliable citation.

1-"Go and find some references that claims that Bengalis have not been living in Barak valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal." - There are no references that proves that to begin with.

So What Atiqur Rahman reference have claimed from the beginning? Lol 🤣! Kiddo do learn some English first. & now you are saying he is not historian and a random dude. Where is the proof that he is random dude and not historian? Where is that citation? Have you find it ?

Don't teach me history. Wikipedia go by reference & not by your bla bla black sheep opinions. Pitush Puttar (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: Clown this is the first paragreaph from that article, read this until it gets inside your head - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

1-"So What Atiqur Rahman reference have claimed from the beginning? Lol 🤣!" -- Clown you really have trouble understanding English ? Who is Atiqur Rahman ? Has he provided reference in his book to back his claim ?

Atiqur Rahman wrote his own original ideas without providing any reference, & you just cited his book lol. Can anything from his book be proven ? NO lol. He's no historian, you consider him as such because it suits your narrative to spread your propaganda. Nothing from his book can be proven. Gauda, Vanga etc never even ruled now Eastern Bangladesh lol.

You couldn't even provide a single reliable source till now. The only reference you can find is by Atiqur Rahman, lol. Because real historians wouldn't write nonsense like Atiqur Rahman lol. Clown do you know what "reliable" means ?

2- "Keep your propaganda out of this page." - says someone who sourcing his entire information from a random dude he found on the internet lol. A source that cannot be verified with any other reference.

Keep your propaganda out of Wikipedia, you seem like a frustrated person who didn't get his name on NRC. If your source is "reliable" then provide other sources to back it up. Couldn't find any ?

Tizen03 (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chaipau: what can be done about this guy ? Tizen03 (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Snusho: , @Arijeet Mallik: @Sutyarashi: @Dev0745: @খাঁ শুভেন্দু: @বাক্যবাগীশ: @UserNumber: @Asmitghosh3: @Tithi.sarkar: @শৌমেন মান্না: @Arkadeep Dey: @শরদিন্দু ভট্টাচার্য্য: @Naren marik: @Shubhrojeet: @Adrishbanerjee: @Titodutta: @Swastik Mridha: @Kpaul24: @সুরঞ্জিত মাঝি: @রিপন দাস: @Jeet Dev: @Soumo Dutt: @Subhayan Mukherjee Tito: @Debjitpaul10: @Ei to ami akash: @Ku423winz1: @Soumyadeep176:

Bengalis have been living in Barak Valley since the dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal. It was located at preface and foreword part of the citation/reference.

&

Under Early history of Barak valley (Chapter-2)

The region of Barak valley was included into several Indian kingdoms most particularly  Pragjyotisha, Samatata, Gauda, Harikela and Banga during its course of history. During 6th and 7th century, the Barak Valley was a part of Pragjyotisha-Kamrupa along with other neighbouring districts of Eastern Bengal. In Sylhet, there is a hillock which is known as 'BhagadattarTilla' and the legend suggests that this was the capital of king Bhagadatta of Pragjyotisha. During 11th century A.D. the Barak Valley was an independent Shrihatta state.

Citation - Indigenous people of Barak valley have clearly stated it. But the User: @Tizen have been continously removing it by saying that those are just claims by a random dude. As per as him, He is not a historian.

Have a look and clarify it. 👇

Source -

It is also located at the history article of Barak valley page.

Earlier User @Tizen have also claimed that source is not reliable.

But all the history section of this page is filled with that source as citations I.e Atiqur Rahman one's - "Indigenous people of Barak valley" and the source is reliable as per Wiki reliable source. Pitush Puttar (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear from the source of Atiqur Rahman Barbhuiya that Bengalis are the indigenous people of Barak valley and the Barak valley was ruled by the several Kingdoms of ancient Bengal and Pragjyotisha. The source is also completely reliable as per wiki reliable source. I don't know why the User: Tizen03 is continuously removing this information and why did he bring the context of NRC here in the discussion? Snusho (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please list page numbers of Atiqur Rahman's book where these claims are made. Please make sure these claims can be verified. I have read sections of the available text, and no where do I see Cachar being part of a "Bengal". It was not part of Bengal Sultanate (from the 14th century) nor was it a part of the subsequent Mughal Bengal Subah. When the Ahoms planned to invade Bengal in the 17th-18th century, the Kachari kings aligned with the Ahoms, since they are "thapita-sanchita" rulers of the Ahoms. The British did not conquer it till 1834, and it yoked it with Assam. When was Cachar (not including Karimganj, which was part of Sylhet) part of which Bengal formation? Chaipau (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: Finally you have added information from some reliable sources.

1- "As per as him, He is not a historian." - You know who a historian is ? Had Atiqur Rahman been a "historian" he would have added references in his book instead of making bogus claims without any proofs.

2- "Dawn of their civilization in Sovereign Bengal" - So you couldn't find this phase written by any other historian, that alone proves the nonsense Atiqur Rahman wrote.

• You won't find such phases in any other sources because "Bengali" was never a single linguistic group until the British came in. Bengali identity was created due to political reasons, very similar to Hindi/Urdu identity. It was formed by absorbing similar but independent languages which even Bengali linguistics has grouped under Bengali–Assamese languages. Initially they even included Odia, Assamese & Maithili, but socio-culturally strong groups like Odia, Assamese & Maithili rejected such identity, very similar to how Punjabi speakers rejected Hindi identity unlike Rajasthani, Bhojpuri etc which are considered as dialects of Hindi now.

3- Now that you have read several sources, you know how history works right ? History should always be proven by discoveries made in the modern world.

• But what does this line even mean ? -- "In late 10th century A.D, king Srichandra of the renowned Chandra dynasty of eastern bengal incorporated the entire region within his Vanga Kingdom under Harikela dynasty".
  • As per this we learned Srichandra was from Chandra dynasty, but then again what does "under Harikela dynasty" even mean here ? Was he from Harikela or Chandra dynasty ? Fix this or will be removed.
  • And where does Vanga kingdom come from ? "It was located in southern Bengal, with the core region including present-day southern West Bengal (India) and southwestern Bangladesh." - this line is from 1st paragraph of Vanga Kingdom itself. That kingdom never even ruled what is now considered Eastern Bangladesh. So, stop including that in this article repeatedly.

4- Moreover, I doubt that there was ever an independent Srihatta kingdom, will be checking the references you provided.

Tizen03 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: Do you even know what the Mongols means ? Or are you just adding random words you find on the internet ? Dimasas are no way related to the Mongols but rather Kacharis or Bodo–Kachari people, not to be confused with the tribe Boro people. Tizen03 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation clearly stated Mongolian word for Dimasa Cacharis as their origin.

Then? Pitush Puttar (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

& yeah Dimasa Cacharis are not Aryans by race.

https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/what-is-dnla-northeast-rebel-group-of-dimasa-tribe-that-lost-6-members-in-assam-encounter/664034/ Pitush Puttar (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar, please do not use race terms in Wikipedia. Race is not a scientific. Specifically Mongoloid should not be used. The article says: Mongoloid is an obsolete racial grouping of various peoples indigenous to large parts of Asia, the Americas, and some regions in Europe and Oceania. The term is derived from a now-disproven theory of biological race. You should not use it even if you find it in an otherwise reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: are you lacking this thing called 'brain' ? Before adding info research on the topic first. You seem like a very frusted kid with multiple 'history' Facebook pages & with a lot of free time in hand.

Mongols refers to an ethnic group of who are mostly found in what is now Mongolia, the ethnic group Genghis Khan belonged to. The Mughals who establish Bengal Subah (Mughal Emprire) based on which modern Bengal was born were also of Turco-Mongol origin. Dimasa people are not 'Mongols'.

A lot of citations throughout the internet are old thus used outdated terms including in the citations your provided, so use your brain before adding more information.

At this point you are just trying hard to collect information trying to prove that you are not a Bangladeshi. Tizen03 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hahaha carry on dumbass half brain. Lol !!! Mad bronze like you are good for nothing. Keep your lecture within your dumb rotten brain 😂. It seem's you have a lack of understanding capabilities. Overcome your Inferiority complex bro. Seeks a Mental asylum immediately. I feel bad for you.

It was not about Mongols which you are talking about and yeah I was speaking about Indo-Tibeto *(Mongoloid race)* Burman ethnic groups with that of reliable reference/source. Understand idiot.

Don't poke your nose in nonsense things if you don't understand anything. Pitush Puttar (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Try to eat less pork Chinese Immigrant @Tizen03 Mental block. It will good for your brain and Mental health. Corona spreader. Pitush Puttar (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pitush Puttar: illegal Bangaladeshi immigrant watch what you write. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. You wrote "Mongols" not "Mongoloid" you clown. Know the difference as Bengal was ruled by Turco-Mongols for almost a thousand years. Your forefather have always worshipped their Mongol origin rulers (Sultanates & Mughals), and most Bengalis continue to worship them.

"Don't poke your nose in nonsense things if you don't understand anything" you halfbred Mughal worshipper. Tizen03 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Martyrs of Bengali language movement 19th May, Barak valley.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article has major NPOV and OR issues. Tagging @Fylindfotberserk. It is using very non-standard names ("Cachar Valley" for Kachari kingdom, etc.) for one. Chaipau (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Agreed. Please do the needful. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)