Jump to content

Talk:Lachit Borphukan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Lachit Barphukan)

Untitled

[edit]

I am using materials from http://www.hvk.org/articles/0801/92.html which may be copyrighted. However as this is a speech by Lt Gen S K Sinha, I don't think there might be any issues. Knowledgable persons, please have a look into the issue and advice.

Moreover, some fine tuning is still required. I am working on them. Works to do:

  • Proof reading & language correction
  • Putting ref links
  • Better writing, if possible with some ref.s to years.

...

MOVED

[edit]
abidwasim has moved this article from "Lachit Borphukan"to "Lachit Borphukan, The Great Commander", as to enlist his name in the wiki article "List_of_people_known_as_The_Great" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidwasim (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text

[edit]
  • There is an ambiguity in the sentence containing the name Momai Tamuli. It was Momai Tamuli who rose to Borborua from humble beginnings, not Lacit. And Borborua is the governor of upper Assam, not lower Assam (I changed it), and a Borbarua could be called the Commander-in-Chief (though this is not clear, because sometimes the Burhagohain became the commander-in chief) of the Ahom army. But is that what you mean? Chaipau 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, ambiguity is there. I'll try to fix it. I am not sure whether a Borbarua equivalent to C-in-C, I think this is a rather civil administrative post. As for Burhagohain to be C-in-C, I am not sure about that either. As far as I know, Burhagohain, along with Borgohain & Borpatragohain (later added) was the supleme trio with the highest power after the king. The power of these three together may even axceed the king's power at times. Obviously, Burhagohain, being the highest office holder minister, had a lot of power over the army also. but could he be called C-in-C? Not sure.
As far as I am aware, there was no Commander-in-Chief in the Ahom army, because there was no Ahom standing army. Each military campaign had its own field commander, decided on a per-case basis, with foot soldiers from among the paiks. There are examples of Xandikois, Phukans and Neogs leading different campaigns. For the Battle of Saraighat, Atan Burhagohain did provide support and a second flank at the rear, if I remember correctly. It must have been one of the best defensive campaigns in world military history. To bring that out, we need to do some military research.
Another great general from Assam was Chilarai. Chaipau 15:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most probably you are right about everything you mentioned. I am using the "most probably" that I am also writing from memory because I am not having access to authentic assamese literature where I am staying (Silchar). There are not much available on the 'net also. I'll try to visit a library next time I go to Guwahati & bring some more facts.
As far as military research is concerned, Gen S K Sinha already have done some. We need to find some way of getting access to his work, if possible contact him (I think this will be very tough, if not impossible). Please give some idea where to start.
I am very much aware about Chilarai. He also needs national/international focus.
  • An alternative spelling for the name is Lacit. In other pages on Wikipedia, the "Lacit" spelling has been used. Would you consider changing the spelling to Lacit? It is also closer to the way the Assamese pronounce the name. It is not very difficult to do. Just move the page to "Lacit Borphukan", without the quotes. It will create a redirect from the Lachit Borphukan page to Lacit Borphukan. Chaipau 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think although assamese people don't pronunce the "pratham cha" or the ch sound hard, if we use Lacit instead of Lachit, non-assamese speakers might interprete it as Lakit. So I am for keeping Lachit rather. What do you say? (I'll try to give the IPA transcription) Prabhakar 05:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The IPA transcription would be very good.
Generally, different native speakers have different English transliteration schemes, and they are likely to interpret it differently. If you want to target just the north Indian speakers, Lachit might be a good idea. But others might still mistake it. For example, a native English speaker from North America would pronounce Lachit as "lak-hit". No matter what you do, someone will pronounce it wrongly. Therefore, it is best to keep spellings in all languages (not just in Assamese) in the native style. For example, "Mbeki" is pronounced "Embeki". Yet the African people stick to the way they spell it. The French know that people will pronounce their name correctly only if they insist others follow the French convention. Chaipau 15:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This pronunciation of "ch" as a kind of aspirated "k" prevails in scotland/ireland and in some east european countries also (e.g. Loch Ness). I had once a discussion with Prof Tabu Taid (probably you know him) and I remember him saying that this sound is not very much common in English. I'd still stick to Lachit (but if you insist, I have no objection to adopt Lacit). Prabhakar 03:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In some languages it has the "x" sound (e.g Bach). As you can see, "ch" has different sounds different languages. The north Indians will pronounce it the hard "ch" way. The North Americans will pronounce it as either "k" or "k-h". The Germans might pronounce it as "x". And none of this comes close to the way the Assamese speak it. So it is best to keep it the way the Assamese spell it, or in a way that will invite others to ask a native speaker how to pronounce it.
This seems like a minor point. But it is an important principle if you consider the way we have generally introduced so much noise in these issues. Chaipau 09:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should we put a paragraph for Lt Gen S K Sinha for his work on Lachit Borphukan? Prabhakar 08:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
    • Maybe a paragraph of his work on Lachit Borphukan in Gen S K Sinha's own page. The credit of his work goes to him, not to Lachit Borphukan. You may refer to his work at the bottom of the page, which you have already done.
    • Most of the material actually goes under a separate article Battle of Saraighat.

Chaipau 20:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Saraighat Vs Lachit

I thought putting the portion on Battle of Saraighat would be relevent as I am trying to put it emphesizing Lachits credits, even at the cost of duplicacy of 4/5 lines.

Prabhakar 08:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about now?

[edit]

Please go through the re-edited article. I have moved a great portion to Battle of Saraighat.

Prabhakar 09:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is wonderful. Thanks. Chaipau 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

If anyone's watching this article, I suggest that they go through the text with a little care and remove some of the peacocking. I'd prefer not to do it myself... Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Sariaghat

[edit]

I request the editors not to delete this section as it will add more flavour to this article and will show how brave Lachit was, this will also show the particulers about that battle. I will request contributers to add few more contents from the refrence which i had given if they agree on my point. I some one have any arguments or objections i am ready for discussion. Regards--Sandeep (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC) dear friend i had done reasonable changes by adding inline links still as you have issue i had changed some line links but i think rest is required.--Sandeep (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lachit Borphukan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lachit Borphukan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lachit Borphukan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

[edit]

LACHIT BORPHUKAN BELONGS TO LAN FIMA FAMILY OF AHOM TRIBE NOT FROM CHUTIA TRIBE. AS REFERENCE ANCIENT SCRIPT WRITTEN IN AHOM LANGUAGE. Chow Mridu Pawan (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - India Development Gateway (InDG),InDG is a Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India initiative and is executed by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, Hyderabad.

References

  1. ^ http://as.vikaspedia.in/education/9859b89ae9f0-9ac9c19f099e9cd99c9c0/9ae9ae9ae9ae

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

[edit]

LACHIT BORPHUKAN BELONGS TO LAN FIMA FAMILY OF AHOM TRIBE NOT FROM CHUTIA TRIBE. AS REFERENCE ANCIENT SCRIPT WRITTEN IN AHOM LANGUAGE.[1] Chow Mridu Pawan (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://as.vikaspedia.in/education/9859b89ae9f0-9ac9c19f099e9cd99c9c0/9ae9ae9ae9aendia Development Gateway (InDG),InDG is a Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India initiative and is executed by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing

Wiki Editor

[edit]

I don't understand what problem editor Chaipau has with me. I corrected a simple thing. Even here he had to put his nose. Isn't it a Wikipedia thing that an editor can correct certain things, I would like to know what wrong did I do here? Since the word Lachit was used twice, I corrected it and wrote he instead. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't mind if someone corrects me, but using terms like dubious edit rather than grammatical errors is not acceptable when I have just replaced a noun with pronoun. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11Anonymous1122: Obviously I can't comment on what Chaipau had in mind when he made the edit you referred to, but there are a few things that I can say which may possibly be helpful to you.
  1. It is indeed what you call "a Wikipedia thing" that an editor can make changes which they regard as corrections or improvements. Evidently you did that, and evidently Chaipau did so too. You changed what another editor had written because you thought your version was better, and Chaipau changed what you had written because he thought the other version was better. You can't have it both ways: either editors are allowed to make changes which they think are improvements or they aren't. There isn't some principle which says that you can change things that you think can be improved, but once you have done so nobody else can do the same thing. If you are not willing to accept that anything you write may be removed or changed by others then editing Wikipedia is not for you.
  2. "Lachit Borphukan was the son of Mosai Sengkaluk who died when he was little" can be read either as "Lachit Borphukan was the son of Mosai Sengkaluk who died when Lachit Borphukan was little" or as "Lachit Borphukan was the son of Mosai Sengkaluk who died when Mosai Sengkaluk was little". If one thinks about it for a couple of seconds it is obvious that the second reading makes no sense, so the first one must apply, but it can be distracting to have to stop and think to work out what a sentence means, even if it takes only half a second to do so. I therefore prefer the original version.
  3. You say that you "corrected" the wording, and that "using terms like dubious edit rather than grammatical errors is not acceptable". Neither edit was a correction of a grammatical error: both versions are perfectly grammatically correct, and preference for one or the other is a matter of style, not grammar. Also, it seems to me reasonable to have doubts as to whether the edit you made was helpful or not, and that is what "dubious" means, so I don't see any reason to object to that word.
  4. When an editor does something you don't like, it is a good idea to avoid using expressions such as "he had to put his nose". Using language such as that is likely at best to be seen as uncivil, and at worst to be seen as indicating that you are taking a combative attitude to other editors, rather than a friendly and cooperative one. If you are perceived in that way by other editors, then they are much less likely to view what you say in a sympathetic way, so you are less likely to get support for your views. Worse still, if you continue to be seen in that way you may sooner or later be blocked from editing, which presumably you don't want. For those reasons it is likely to be in your own interest to express yourself in friendly and courteous ways, even if you don't think another editor deserves it. Of course, all that is additional to the fact that I hope you will prefer to be friendly and courteous to other people because you wish to do so, rather than merely because you may gain by doing so. JBW (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lachit borphukan

[edit]

Male 42.105.178.28 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The historical Lachit

[edit]

It is pretty impossible to sieve the historical Lachit from the many legends that enmesh him. In my understanding of Buranjis, they belong to the same genre of literarure as Meitei Puyas and suffer from the same issues and are yet to be critically studied by professional historians. We cannot use Bhuyan or his contemporaries either; consult Bodhisattva Kar's assessment of Bhuyan's historiography or Manjeet Baruah's commentary. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you only to some extent. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we should not use Buranjis directly because of WP:PRIMARY. And I have opposed its use in Chutia kingdom, Ahom kingdom, etc. But professional historians have used them for historiography with much benefit, such as by Jadunath Sarkar. On comparing them against the evidence from Mughal sources, he found them in agreement, with additional details. It is important to use secondary sources. I also do not see any reason to throw out all the Buranjis and S K Bhuyan just because of Bodhisattva Kar. An alternative reading on S K Bhuyan is by Arupjyoti Saikia, which is a more professional take without the rhetoric of Kar. Chaipau (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HISTRS advises against using dated sources like Bhuyan and recent evaluations of Bhuyan are quite critical. Manjeet Baruah shows how he used Buranjis to construct Assam's primary identity as an Indic frontier by claiming to derive from the buranjis etc. Fwiw, I have used Saikia's article in our article; btw, is he the same guy who was accused by Mishra of plagiarising from an unpublished PhD thesis?
I am not against the use of Buranjis (that would be ridiculous) but we need scholars like Yasmin Saikia who have critically interrogated the sources. Have ordered for her In the Meadows of Gold: Telling Tales of the Swargadeos of Assam. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further, if you notice carefully, both Saikia and Sharma note Bhuyan to have written on the "legend of Lachit". TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from Jayeeta Sharma:

In their accounts of the Ahom-Bangal encounters, some of these chronicles made brief allusions to a victory narrowly won over the Mughal commander Ram Singh in a naval conflict by his Ahom counterpart, Lachit Barphukan [..]

SK Bhuyan’s accounts of Jaymati and Lachit were only the latest in a series of writings on these heroic themes by the Assamese intelligentsia, part of the literature that they were creating along with nation [..] Significantly, all these works were brought into the embrace of History, by emphasizing their association with buranji. Thus, the fictive speeches in Lachit Barphukan [were] valourized as contributions to the ‘authentic’ record that was available for Assam’s past.

I am interested in what is your explanation for Sharma's use of the underlined words. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fictive speech is "My uncle is not bigger than my country", that Lachit uttered while beheading his uncle for dereliction of duty. This is often quoted in nationalistic rhetoric. Historians have debunked this claim and it has no place in Wikipedia. I remember removing this a few times from this(?) and the Battle of Saraighat article. And probably some others too.
The back story to this is: A Barphukan did not have the right to shed blood while executing someone. This incident is not mentioned in the Buranjis either. But it is possible this was part of folk history which Bhuyan used, since he has done other such work. Did he follow modern methods of documenting oral history for this? Probably not and for Wikipedia purposes, we should just go by WP:HISTRS. I have not investigated the source of this fictive speech myself, but I doubt it is purely from Bhuyan. S K Bhuyan is pretty transparent with his methodologies. You should read his note on Deodhai Buranji where he details his different sources and editing decisions. I shall look for it and point you to it when I find it. Nevertheless, Buranjis as a source is no-no (either from Bhuyan or others), but S K Bhuyan's notes are probably OK since they are secondary sources. Though I do not remember using him on Wikipedia.
Yes, I am aware of Mishra's plagiarism charges against Saikia. Please also look at this. https://nenow.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/To-Director_IITG_The-Unquiet-River.pdf I am not sure of the backstory, but I have read the works of both historians. My personal opinion is that they write at much different levels. Chaipau (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mishra did not accuse Saikia of plagiarising from herself; she provides evidence to show how Saikia had plagiarised from the unpublished doctoral thesis of a student from Jawaharlal Nehru University who had left academia to join the Naxalite movement.
I am not impressed much by Saikia (2021). He tries to defend Bhuyan from those who accuse his historical endeavors of being intricately wedded to Assamese nationalism, and notes that "such an estimate of his work [is not] based on a qualified analysis of his diverse historical interests and works." In the next few paragraphs, all that Saikia manages to say is that Bhuyan must be seen in the context of his times when historians tried to excavate figures from their own pasts that attested to the zenith of their culture and engrain them in the colonized psyche towards nationalist aspirations; Marathi historians were occupied with Shivaji for the same reasons etc. Much pioneering thoughts - wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we cannot put up birth/death dates without citing RS. As far as I know, the dates are not known. Chaipau (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the preface by S K Bhuyan here to understand his methodology. I shall gather more information on Lachit Barphukan and his Times. Chaipau (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S K Bhuyan / Lachit Barphukan / Historians

[edit]

@TrangaBellam: I think I understand the problem with S K Bhuyan. He is very difficult to pigeonhole into a category. Is he a historian or a litterateur? Is he an Assamese nationalist or an Indian nationalist? Are his Buranjis primary historical documents or historiographies? Are they addressed to a professional historian or a nationalist? Is he a conventional historian or an oral historian? There are many such questions that could be legitimately asked.

Nevertheless, I do not agree with Kar's characterization of him. He writes:

The influential Tungkhungia Buranji,

published in 1933, was compiled by the editor from numerous contemporary Buranjis in the languages and manner

of the old chronicles...the whole method of mobilising discrete and widely spaced texts into one coherent historical narrative might appear disquieting to the professional historians today. However, the textual politics of editing the Buranjis corresponded to the larger politics of defining selfhood in terms of the unitary and the singular, of the authentic and the immobile

Kar's use of the phrase "textual politics" sounds as if Bhuyan has a hidden agenda. This is misleading since Bhuyan records both his intentions, the details of the editorial steps, and the sources he has used all very precisely in his prefaces. For example, here Bhuyan states clearly that he is providing a "collated" history from different sources precisely because the sources are fragmented.

Tungkhingia Buranji, therefore, consists of the chronicle of Srinath Barbarua, corresponding to paragraphs 1, the first 19 lines of paragraph 2, and paragraphs 83 to 342; the additional matter newly collated by the editor corresponds to the latter 27 lines of paragraph 2, and paragraphs 2 to 82

He lists the sources for the additional material meticulously in page V of the preface to first edition. Thus, Bhuyan himself gives away the key to deconstruct his Buranjis.

As far as this article is concerned the preface to Bhuyan's Lachit Barphukan and his Times is likely more relevant. Bhuyan claims to source most of the Assam version of the Battle of Saraighat from an account by an eye witness to those events. I encourage you to read page XV of the preface where he describes this source. Once again Bhuyan gives the key for his readers to deconstruct his narrative. Still, given the issues, the historicity of Lachit Barphukan can be sourced from historians like Jadunath Sarkar, who has given a fullish account of Ram Singh's expedition (in the Comprehensive History of Assam).

Yasmin Saikia began questioning the Ahom identity formation (which is a legitimate exercise) but she ended up contesting the entire corpus of Buranjis and associated chronicles. Historians from Assam are not too comfortable with this: read Jayeeta Sharma's review] of the book, where she says of the narrative from the Buranjis:

This was the generally accepted outline of the Ahom presence in Assam. It gained support from anthropologists and linguists studying large-scale migrations by Tai populations between the eighth to the eighteenth centuries who carried rice and irrigation technology into Laos, Yunnan, Burma, and Assam.

Saikia's raises some interesting questions, but her challenge to the Buranjis is particularly weak.

Chaipau (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Yasmin Saikia contests the entire corpus of Buranjis. Where do you get that?
I have been reading Bhuyan's histories of Assam and what troubles me the most — notwithstanding his portrayal of the region as a microcosm of the nation and a preoccupancy to recover a unique Ahom glory —, is how seamless and unified the grand-narrative is. There is no internal contradiction; none whatsoever. Whenever there appears to be a scope of one, new buranjis — disparate both in the spatial and the temporal — arrive to secure the flow. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can get that about Yasmin Saikia from her book, Fragmented memories, Chapter 3, which discusses Buranjis.[1]. This is what prompted Jayeeta Sharma to write that statement in her review. I have a hard copy of the book, and I can assure you that it sounds horrifyingly amateurish from someone like Saikia. Buranjis are well known and serious historians have used them extensively. I have mentioned J N Sarkar. Guha has also extensively used them, for example here (1983). Read page 7 onwards, and his note 2 ("These chronicles (buranji), mostly anonymous, covered different periods of the Ahom rule and were periodically brought up to date. These have come down to us in their present form through a process of time-to-time copying. For a note on their historicity and for a specimen in English translation, see Tungkhungia Buranji or the History of Assam 1681-1806 A D. S K Rhuyan (ed and trans), 2nd impr, Gauhati, 1968"). A glance over all his notes will give you an idea which other Buranjis he has used. So it is really strange that Saikia seems completely oblivious that professional historians like Guha and others had been using them for years (1983) a decade before she saw a copy of a Buranji for the first time in 1992. Saikia made this comment "a motley group of migrants were not only able to identify a need to record their activities, but were able to produce a technique and format that guided the transformation of oral accounts and memories into written record", thereby displaying her ignorance that Buranjis fell into a class of chronicling that the Ahoms shared with some others in Southeast Asia, which Jayeeta Sharma pointed out with the comment above. Had Saikia known this, her inferences regarding the growth of the Ahom identity would have been very different.
I can give you at least one example where there are serious conflicts within a published S K Bhuyan Buranji. The Deodhai Asam Buranji published by him consists of a main Deodhai Asam Buranji, sourced from two nearly identical manuscripts by the same name and many other shorter manuscripts, which are given their own space (demarcated). One of the other manuscripts included a legendary account of the Chutia kings. The last Chutia king and his wife, as listed in this minor manuscript is not mentioned in the main Buranji. Historians today consider this manuscript as a fabrication today. I have specifically put this down in Chutia_Kingdom#Spurious_accounts - that was a long struggle in that article to keep out propaganda stuff away from that article and that is why we should not use Buranjis directly. Chaipau (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are mis-interpreting Saikia. When she claims to have seen a buranji for the first time 1992, she excludes buranjis that were copied and mass-published after the introduction of print. Even Arupjyoti Saikia notes that most historians have never seen the actual bark-manuscripts and instead rely on the DHAS editions! Obviously, she has seen buranjis otherwise; she mentions in an interview about engaging with Irfan Habib during her M.A. (mid-80s) on the context of production of buranjis.
I do note of her failure to see the parallels between buranji and similar traditions in S. East Asia. Fwiw, her arguments on when the extensive production of buranjis started (~seventeenth century) appears to align with Paratt who believes that Meitei Puyas started to be produced from c. sixteenth century. If extrapolated, it is not hard to reconcile Saikia's conclusions with the parallels. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any quality work that situates the buranjis, puyas etc. (what else - ?) within the S. East Asian traditions? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are others but this could give you a good starting point: [2] Chaipau (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An important historical event of 15th century about interaction between northeastern polities and Ming dynasty is not recorded in Buranjis. As Narzary has mentioned that there is similarities between Buranjis and Chinese chronicles, I guess Ahom acquired chronicle writing tradition from Chinese. A chinese plaque of Dimasa polity was also recovered from Ahom royal family. Northeast heritage (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Both: I have read Narzary; too shabby. Anything else? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The POV you are looking for is at best WP:FRINGE. You have now Wichasin, Jayeeta Sharma, Arupjyoti Saikia, and Narzary who now agree to the Southeast Asian connection. Chaipau (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh - where did I deny that Buranjis have a S. East Asia connection?
Scholars like J. Sharma and A. Saikia offer nothing on Buranjis' connection to S. East Asia except a cursory line or two, much like J. N. Sarkar and many others; if Narzary's undergrad-ish essay is the best in-depth scholarship that you have to offer on the topic, I can only lament. Fwiw, there might be a lack of quality scholarship in the area given the scarcity of history departments in India (even in the North East, I believe) which are devoted to studying S. East Asia.
Coming back to Y. Saikia, I came across her article in The Seminar (2012), where she wrote, The textual tradition of writing buranjis developed initially in conversation with neighbouring courts in the East, of Tripura and Manipur. The writing tradition in these courts, in turn, drew upon the Burmese chronicle of kings. Sanjib Baruah, even if his domain of expertise is not in this area, approves of Saikia's reading of Buranjis in 2018. I am going through Y. Saikia's 1997 text, which is more focused on buranjis and she did note of S. East Asian connections. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
K. Wyatt, "Chronicle Traditions in Thai Historiography" in Southeast Asia History and Historiography: Essays Presented to D.G.E. Hall is an interesting read. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You give Saikia too much credit. She has to make such claims just to sustain her central thesis in her book but the history of the Ahom kingdom does not support her claims. The Ahom kingdom was very small and barely manage the immediate neighbors (Kachari, Chutia) to have any meaningful connections further afield (Tripura, Manipur). These contacts came much later, in the 18th century. By the 15th-16th centuries Buranjis were being written in the Assamese language itself.
I have read Sanjib Baruah's review. It is just a carefully worded review not to displease a person who is personally known. He makes some perfunctory generic statements without getting into anything specifics. Saikia brings up a very important question, which Baruah acknolwedges, but her ahistorical approach takes her of on a tangent and derails her project. It is very unlikely she can get back her informants for any further work, unlike others such as Tierwel and Morey who have continued working with them even as they continued with their critical and frank approach. Chaipau (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ahom kingdom was very small [] to have any meaningful connections further afield (Tripura, Manipur). Well, Phukan claims the Ahom kingdom to have had diplomatic connections with their fraternity as far as Yunnan and Myanmar!
We have Wichasin dating Sukhapa to 14th century (I tried to machine translate the reasoning from a scan but barely made sense); do you agree? If that is true, it seems very unlikely that Buranjis were written in Assamese by 15th c.! TrangaBellam (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - if the Ahom kingdom had fraternal relationship with the Mong polities of Myanmar and Yunnan, why would they not get the tradition directly from them? Why get them from them via Tripura and Manipur?
Also, some scholars have speculated a later Sukapha (14th/15th century) but at the moment, that is just speculation and not established. It does not solve anything and it creates even more problems. Consider it WP:FRINGE for now. Chaipau (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Buranjis were written in Assamese first during the reign of Suhungmung (1497–1539), that is why probably sometimes they say it began to be written in Assamese by 15th century. I do not think that is possible. Assamese became important after the absorption of the Chutia kingdom in 1523, so most likely the first Assamese Buranji was written between 1523 and 1539. Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I finished reading Saikia and it is increasingly clear that you have some personal animus against Yasmin Saikia to make comical claims like (a) Saikia had never heard of Buranjis till 90s, and (b) she was not acquainted with Buranjis' S. East Asian connections.
In p. 87-88, Saikia notes from her investigation of Burmese chronicles, Sukapha is a shared hero and the founder of many polities. She goes on to cite a chronicle that has a Burmese polity conquering the Chutiyas, and speculates that an exhaustive comparison of S. East Asian chronicles will offer ample dissonance. She goes on to conclude of "historical connection between the region of Upper Assam, the so-called Ahom kingdom, and certain regions and peoples within present-day Southeast Asia."
Before you claim that my personal reading is inaccurate and try to cite Joyeeta Sharma's review for something she does not state: Manjeet Baruah (2012) is effusive in his admiration of Saikia's work and he goes on to cite her heavily, over a dozen times. Nonetheless, I quote a particular paragraph (p. 17):

[S]cholars like Surjya Kumar Bhuyan ([1935] 2007) and Yasmin Saikia (2004) have pointed out that Buranjis were written not only in Assam or the Brahmaputra Valley but also in Burma (or Myanmar), mostly in the Shan language [..] In this shared textual tradition from the Valley to the northern highlands of Burma, the nature of mapping of communities and spaces is noteworthy. As Saikia points out, the Buranjis from the Brahmaputra Valley up to the highlands of northern Burma not only recorded a shared genealogical past, but also, in the Buranjis, the defined distinction of ‘us’ and ‘them’, i.e., the self and other, was largely absent.

But, who knows? Maybe, Baruah is an acquaintance of Saikia and got compelled to cite her!
If you believe that Yasmin Saikia's work shows some fundamental ignorance of N. East Asian historiography that would nullify her entire thesis, please do publish such critique in a peer-reviewed venue and then, we can discuss about how to treat a source making "extraordinary" claims etc. Till then, her highly-cited scholarship passes RS and need to be used heavily. Bye, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can trace my "comical" claims from here book. I am, in all cases, quoting here. Nothing personal. I would ask you to desist from making such comments. I have merely pushed back on your fixation on Saikia.
An earlier ingress of a Shan invasion of Chutia kingdom is commonly mentioned. This information is not new. Historians wonder whether Sukapha knew of this, or assisted or facilitated it. There are no clear answer. But historians are pretty certain he knew about the Brahmaputra valley, though they are uncertain how.
I shall take your "effusive in his admiration" with a grain of salt. I have seen how you completely misread Sanjib Baruah. Nevertheless, it is known that they shared Buranji writing with some of their fraternal groups. It has been recorded in Buranjis themselves that the Ahoms would invite Nara (Mong Kwang) scholars to cross-check the extant records. But the medieval Ahoms had a much more sophisticated sense of their identities, and did not use the "us" and "them" as we tend to use them now. The Ahoms fought against the Naras in the past to establish independence and then married each other to cement fraternal relations. And exchanged scholars. The quote you have made above is common knowledge. I shall read Majeet Baruah in detail and give you my opinion.
The Ahoms were not "fixed", because they practiced Ahomization. The Buranjis are explicit that the Ahoms came to Assam without their women and married locally. That the king would include this or that person into a noble family. Suhungmung made a favorite general into a minister. Instead of going into these details, Saikia went of on a tangent and imagined an imaginary community. Chaipau (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: could you please clearly state what you are trying to show with Manjeet Baruah's quote above? Chaipau (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Completely misread" - meh, whatever satisfies you.
Please do read Baruah; I cited the particular paragraph with emphaes on certain phrases to show that other scholars do not seem to agree with your opinion that Saikia, in her work on the Tai-Ahoms, "display[] her ignorance that Buranjis fell into a class of chronicling that the Ahoms shared with some others in Southeast Asia". TrangaBellam (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like to extend a conclusion about Puyas to the Buranjis. That would be totally inappropriate and WP:OR. There is a parallel and independent study of Buranjis going on and would like to see scholars made those arguments. In any case, this does not concern us. I have maintained throughout that Buranjis (manuscripts or printed) are not WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Chaipau (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither OR nor inappropriate, since both Paratt and Saikia (see the quote above) draw these comparisons. None of them is fringe, by any definition of the word. And, this does concern us because both Bhuyan's and J. N. Sarkar's reconstruction of the Battle of Saraighat and Lachit's life depend, almost exclusively, on Buranjis. (Maybe, adopting this interesting approach to source-criticism would be better. Lol!) TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
J N Sarkar's re-construction of the Battle of Saraighat does not depend solely on the Buranjis. He used Buranjis to supplement his Mughal and other sources. He is very clear on this point in his Comprehensive History of Assam chapters. He has a separate chapter detailing his sources. Chaipau (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you wrote He used Buranjis to supplement his Mughal and other sources, did you mean He used five Mughal firmans to supplement his Buranjis?
There is absolutely no way that Sarkar, with an uncritical acceptance of the narrative in Buranjis, can be used as a source esp. when we consider that his histories of India proper — with an idiosyncratic focus on reconstructing a blow-by-blow account of battles and rationalizing the victory — have largely fallen out of favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with you. Sarkar is critical of the Buranjis and he points out internal variance of dates etc. You may not accept Sarkar's account because of your opinion on Buranjis, but professional historians have accepted various Buranjis as sources and Sarkar's account of the battle is the "official" standard as it stands now. Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Official" because the history of North East is fatally neglected and successive schools of historiography left little imprint. Do you really believe that Singh's mother and son had asked of him to not disturb a country that revered Brahmins and worshipped cows? Or that, Ram Singh's son was oppressed by Aurangzeb while Singh was away? Or that, Singh send his forces under a disguised woman to avoid losing his face in the event of a defeat? Sarkar believes everything.
I note that Satish Chandra (who is not an expert on Assam but a premier historian of medieval India) notes that the parts of Padshah Burranji that describe the imperial court politics of the Mughals is heavily inaccurate and perhaps, a later fabrication. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Official" because of the way that account was compiled with published by H K Barpujari in "Comprehensive History of Assam". It is definitely not perfect, but those imperfections have to be shown professionally. Not by you or I in Wikipedia. These objections have to come from professional historians.
Singh's mother's sentiments and Ram Singh's sons treatment are not the concern here. Sending a woman, Madanavati, into battle in Alaboi, OTOH, is a definite possibility. The Buranjis mention, in the same breath, that Lachit cheated and sent in double the number of soldiers into battle than he admitted and it details how the battle turned into a rout after the cavalry was let loose. Would a self-respecting panegyric account admit to these things? Chaipau (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, these are the concerns because we can see how uncritical Sarkar's acceptance of sources were, missing obvious red-flags.How can someone, who has written volumes of histories on Rajasthan, miss obvious discrepancies about the portrayal of Ram Singh I's life? Even if I accept the trend of seeing Sarkar as a military historian (thus making him suitable for our articles on Assamese battles), comparing his seamless narrative of the Battle of Talikota with Sanjay Subrahmanyam's masterful rendition does not assure me.
I do not claim that the Buranjis were fiction and believe them to be wholly appropriate for sketching a general history of the times or the rough course of a battle; however, until more scholars from outside Assam starts engaging with them, I prefer that the depth of our coverage of the relevant topics remain superficial. Because, we do not have any reliable mean of evaluating which of the intricate details are true and which ain't. Even if they do find a mention in Sarkar's "official" history. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not see him accepting Buranjis uncritically at all. I quoted him where he matched the Buranjis against Persian sources, and that he finds they agree.
Also, I am not second guessing Sarkar. This is solely because his account has been accepted as historical in the "Comprehensive History of Assam". So his account is not his alone but the editors of the CHofA. All history writing is correct till corrected by someone who comes along later. Till Sarkar is corrected, he stands. I am not suggesting everything Sarkar has written should be accepted. I am OK with avoiding glaring discrepancies, or the patently false and avoiding unnecessary fluff (like Ram Singh's mother and son stories, Lachit's bombastic statements etc.). Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sarkar (1992):

The account of Ahom-Mughal contact, viz the campaigns of Sayyid Abu Bakr, Islam Khan, Mirza Nathula and Mir Jumla, Ram Singh and Mansur Khan (in the Buranjis) generally conforms to the contemporary Persian chronicles, the Baharistan, Padshahnamah, Alamgirnamah, and Fathiyyah. For the period (1625-38), it supplies the history of the activities of Raja Satrajit of Bhushna, as well as the details of the war with the Mughals. It gives not only additional details as to Mir Jumla's invasion but throws light on the quick changes in the fortunes of the two sides in the post Mir Jumla period about which the Persian annals are silent.

The take away from this is that the Buranjis are reliable sources. In any case, I do not have to say this here since we in Wikipedia just go by professional historians, and we are not using Buranjis directly. I do not think we in Wikipedia can second guess primary sources used by historians and it is not our business to evaluate their work. Unless they say something extraordinary---which requires extraordinary evidence and scrutiny (e.g. Yasmin Saikia). Chaipau (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; you (or me) do not determine what is extraordinary and cannot engage in SYNTHESIS to rebut her stance. Your claims that Barua cites her favorably or reviewed her favorably due to personal acquaintance holds no water either. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have used Jayeeta Sharma to show where she is wrong---not my own argument. Can you show me where Baruah endorses her major findings? He does not---he keeps that unsaid. He just endorses her raising the question and her framework. Diplomatic writing. Chaipau (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is where Baruah writes "favorably" on Framgmented Memories:

Elements of the Tai-Ahom movement are quite radical; indeed, Saikia writes about an overlap between the Tai-Ahom movement and the United Liberation Front of Assam that seeks the restoration of Assam’s independence through armed struggle....I find the argument fascinating, bold, timely, and on the whole, quite persuasive. The book is a refreshing departure from the conventional division of labor between historians and political scientists that study South Asia, the former stopping at 1947 and the latter limiting themselves to the period after independence.

So what was Baruah so fascinated about? The ULFA is generally associated with the "Assamese" nationalism and as a fall over of the Assam Movement. What Baruah found fascinating here is Saikia connecting ULFA to the Ahom identity struggle. But the very next sentence is also interesting

But unfortunately, Saikia is not always on firm ground on the latter period.

Needless to say, Baruah has made no mention of her results. He lauds her for raising the question

Saikia’s work is no conventional history. It is about the identity movement of a little-known and tiny minority community: the Tai-Ahoms related to the pre-British Ahom kingdom that ruled Assam until 1826. According to Saikia, the term does not refer to a “fixed people”; it is only a “name in circulation” (p. 251) and a “powerful memory” (p. xv). Operating “between history and memory” (p. 13), Saikia reads the Tai-Ahom movement as an effort to “overcome erasure from national history” and to “create a ‘different’ sense of collectivity” (pp. 38–39).

but he is totally silent about her findings. In fact he diverts away from her findings and endorses the opposite of what she is claiming.

Saikia’s account of the Tai-Ahom story contains important insights on why the modern nation-state has been so unkind to minorities. In India, despite official rhetoric about unity in diversity, regions with small populations lose their voice “in the cacophony of the majority of the Indian parliament” (p. 256). But the way society treats minorities, said Mohandas K. Gandhi, is the measure of civilization.

Look at the way Baruah picked that quote from p 256. Here he is very clear that the national history is silencing minority voices. How would you think Baruah would react to Saikia's characterization of the Buranjis as mere memories of something else and not their voices. He further puts Saikia on her head by using her own quote:

one hopes that a new generation of historians will respond to Saikia’s call for “rewriting a new, composite, national history,” one that is “everyone’s history, not an artificial construct given to the people as a directive from above” (p. 265)

Indeed here Baruah is stating that the new history has not been written yet, even after Saikia. Something has to come after Saikia, and he is explicit what that should be like:

Perhaps historians could learn a lesson or two from Tai-Ahom activists: to restore the autonomy of local pasts, one has to be alert to transnational ties of the past that today’s national maps might obscure.

And how do you restore the autonomy of local pasts? By erasing the Buranjis?
I would say this is masterful diplomatic writing from Baruah. Chaipau (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this is needless interrogation of a review and adopting your ways, one can really read anything into any content.
I note that Jayeeta Sharma, who you keep on flaunting as Saikia's chief critic, happily accepts Saikia's arguments in her own monograph on Assam. Across p. 217-218, she summarizes Saikia's take on evolution of Ahom identity and moves on. If Saikia's thesis was really so unfeasible, as you seem to argue, Sharma would have, at the very least, qualified Saikia's arguments or provided alternative "non-extra-ordinary"/"ordinary" views. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may think it is needless, but you need to get the context in which each sentence has been written. I have followed Sanjib Baruah in some detail, so I know. And I have provided them.
Jayeeta Sharma makes just one citation to Yasmin Saikia, on a generic statement. That citation could have easily gone to Guha (1983), who said pretty much the same thing, and had a much better explanation. It was not a local status group without significant input from outside, which is where Saikia trips. Chaipau (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That citation could have easily gone to Guha - We are not on probabilities :) TrangaBellam (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, cannot transfer histographical approaches to legendary Bengal kings directly to kings from Assam. You may begin an academic project elsewhere, but not here in Wikipedia. There is an independent body of work already available that we can apply here. Chaipau (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite obvious that OR forbids such an approach. Meh. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACK

[edit]

Sculpting the Middle Class: History, Masculinity and the Amar Chitra Katha TrangaBellam (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jadunath Sarkar

[edit]
  • Sarkar, J. N. (1992), "Chapter VIII Assam-Mughal Relations", in Barpujari, H. K. (ed.), The Comprehensive History of Assam, vol. 2, Guwahati: Assam Publication Board, pp. 148–256
  • Sarkar, J. N. (1915), "Assam and the Ahoms in 1660 A.D.” in The Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. 1 (2), pp. 179–95

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar 1992 is the preferred source in Battle of Saraighat. Sarkar 1915 is, of course, an absolutely fascinating eye witness account from 1660. Some of these observations about the Ahoms available elsewhere, are taken from here, but I am not sure whether we could use them directly from this source, because this is as WP:PRIMARY as the Buranjis themselves are. Chaipau (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts

[edit]

  • The Rock Inscription at Phatasil 1667, near Guwahati, in Sanskrit briefly records the defeat of the Mughals by Namzani Barphukan (Lachit) in 1589 Saka or A. D. 1667.

Purakayastha (2008)

[edit]

Pre-colonial buranjis often crossed the confines of a chronicle that only narrates past events with factual accuracy. Rather, they were marked by a 'dual meaning of history' because they spoke both of what happened in the past as well as of what did not happen [..]

Bhuyan sought to complement in his own writings 'facts' with the 'imaginative instinct' ingrained in buranji literature. The boundaries between rationalism, facts, and poetic imagination began to get blurred in his historical works: history often became literature and literature history [..] Buranjir Bani is an example of the 'affective history' created by Bhuyan. The book is a collection of sixteen articles in Assamese on different aspects of the history of Assam. Bhuyan argued in its introductory chapter that an author could bring life to a historical work by adding literary flavour while keeping intact the historicity of events. He also announced that he was writing the essays to create admiration for the nation's past and to inspire people to love their country [..]

His moral stance was, in fact, derived from the buranji texts. The authors of the buranjis wrote of the fate of Ahom kings within a moral framework derived from mythology. Bhunya himself writes, "I for myself will not be satisfied by merely giving a picture of the externals of a nation; and I would ask historians to explore how moral superiority led to the peace, prosperity and solidarity of a nation, and how moral degradation has been the cause of its downfall and decay [..] History will show that the well being has been dependent on an all pervasive moral force, on rigid elimination of unjustness and selfishness in the minutest details of administration."

One critic of Bhuyan is of the opinion that despite uncovering valuable material on Assam's past, his writing is devoid of critical analysis and historical insight. This criticism can be valid if one's only interest is writing scientifically conducted history and recording 'objective' historical truth. Bhuyan's endorsement of rationalist history was only a preference for a particular mode of history writing. Going beyond the concept of objective truth, Bhuyan wanted to make 'the unfamiliar past familiar through the use of figurative language' and thereby give meaning to his narratives. He was concerned that its exclusion from Indian historiography had largely obliterated the Assamese past, putting at stake the very identity of the Assamese language and, hence, of the Assamese nation. The separate identity of the Assamese language needed an Assamese political past strong enough to present a parallel power structure alongside the Mughal state.
— Purakayastha, Sudeshna (2008). "Restructuring the Past in Early-Twentieth-Century Assam: Historiography and Surya Kumar Bhuyan". In Aquil, Raziuddin; Chatterjee, Partha (eds.). History in the Vernacular. Permanent Black. ISBN 978-81-7824-225-5.

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, Bhuyan cannot be used as RS anywhere in Wikipedia. And this article will remain in a limbo. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not keep repeating the same thing. I am opposed to using Buranji on Wikipedia. I have removed the use of Buranjis as well as historians such as Gait and K L Baruah. But you cannot stop professional historians from using Buranjis; and you cannot create a litmus test on that. We can go to WP:HISTRS for that if you do not agree. I do not see any problem using Bhuyan directly. Chaipau (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are fixated on HISTRS, how old are Bhuyan's writings? Whether I or you see problems with Bhuyan or not is irrelevant; the opinion of scholars like Purkayastha make it clear that Bhuyan need to be handled with extreme caution to the point of disregarding him. I did note my personal issues with Bhuyan but I did not rely on it to discard him; I keep presenting scholars that support my stance of how problematic (from the perspective of a Wikipedia editor) Bhuyan's histories are. Please take this to WT:INB if you disagree.
Btw, since you believe that the editors of a volume affirm individual contributions, I make it a point to note that Purakayastha (2008) has Partha Chatterjee as the editor. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are driving at. I have made a good faith effort to convince you about the nature of Buranjis and how we should be using them in Wikipedia. The next step for us is for you to show specific examples on where you object and we will go via HISTRS/RS/NPOV etc over them. As far as I am concerned,
  • We should be citing professional historians in Wikipedia
  • Not quote Buranjis directly, since they are WP:PRIMARY
The discussion on Bhuyan is moot because nowhere are we citing him. Chaipau (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I am driving at is that Bhuyan might have been the first professional historian of Assam but as with the earliest generation of professional historians of various other regions of India, he has been the recipient of sufficient considered critique to be unpalatable as Wiki-RS.
I am happy to see you abstain from citing Bhuyan; thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some tentative observations on Bhuyan and his works and how Wikipedia could approach them:
  • Bhuyan is a professional historian under the requirements given in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)#Who is a historian. Whether Bhuyan can be considered as objective is debated.
  • Bhuyan had collected manuscripts that he published under the term Buranji. These published historical documents are WP:PRIMARY and they are subject to regular Wikipedia rules. Though WP:PRIMARY are sometimes allowed in Wikipedia, we should not use Buranjis directly in Wikipedia because there is a large body of Buranjis, either in manuscript or in published forms that contain internal contradictions. Wikipedia cannot sieve through these conflicting without WP:OR and thus we should not use them in Wikipedia.
  • Bhuyan has written nationalistic accounts of historical persons. These should be avoided since these accounts are mixed literature-history writing. They do not in general satisfy WP:HISTRS. But for some specific claims WP:HISTRW and WP:HISTIC apply.
  • Bhuyan has extensively documented archival details of these Buranjis, in the Preface and Introduction sections of these published Buranjis. These archival details are not historiography and so can be cited in pages such as Buranji. We have not discovered any claim in the literature that critiques his archival notes.
Chaipau (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I offer no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great that we have resolution! I shall archive these notes in some kind of essay so we may refer to it later. Chaipau (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Purkayastha seems to be arguing that the there did not exist a power structure alongside the Mughal state. Do you agree with it? Chaipau (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar

[edit]

User:TrangaBellam/Sarkar on Saraighat. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made no sense to me. But thanks. Chaipau (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Lachit

[edit]

Hey @TrangaBellam, @Kautilya3, @Fylindfotberserk, I hope you have this page on your watchlist, because there looks like some effort to push POV material here. Chaipau (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 edits

[edit]

In August @Saurabhsaha made two edits, [3] and [4], which had problems of WP:POV, WP:RS, etc. I reverted these edits, but they were reinstated. We shall discuss the problems here.

  • I have removed this claim: Conversely, as per historians like Arup Kumar Dutta, the Ahoms, adopted the local Hindu religion during the reign of Sudangpha (1397-1407). The author cited to make this claim is Arup Kumar Dutta is not a historian but a writer of fiction, and no page number is cited for the claim. Dutta is not a historian but a fiction writer and the cited work is branded as reimagined history, as the complete title makes clear---The Ahoms: A Reimagined History and is, therefore, not WP:RS. The other reference cited is an article by Antara Baruah is about Ahom Maidams that does not mention Sudangpha. The sentence and the cited material have been removed.
  • Removing S K Bhuyan's Lachit Barphukan and His Times.[5] The current WP:CONSENSUS is that this work is not WP:RS (look above). Though he bases this work on a Buranji manuscript, he has added probably a-historical factoids and historians in general do not endorse his work as purely historical (See Saikia 2008, Purkayastha 2008, etc.) His work should not be cited directly.
  • Removing During their early days, the Ahoms practiced their own distinct religion. However, beginning in the 16th century, they gradually embraced Hinduism, and by the close of the 17th century, a few community had converted to Hinduism. and the citation.[1] The journal cited International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering is listed in Beal's list and is considered predatory. (edited) 12:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Removing the claim But, many historians from Assam have stated that Lachit was a Hindu, and while a few of his commanders were Assamese Muslims. because of failed verification. The relevant sentence from page 81 says:[2] "The historical image refers to seventeen wars fought by the Assamese king Lachit Barphukan [sic] who in 1600s repulsed Mogul invaders." The sentence does not mention Lachit as Hindu; besides it makes two glaring historical blunders—he is called a king (he was only a Barphukan) and all seventeen Ahom-Mughal battles (1616–1681) are attributed to him some of which took place before he was born and some after his death. (edited) 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Chaipau (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) (edited) 12:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Sanchipatiya book written in The Tai-Ahom language mentions the correct information about Lachit Borphukan, without reading those books, some of assamese and indian historians have been creating confusion about Identity the of Lachit Borphukan by merely rubbing the legends and adding various fabricated stories.

In 1987, the Tai-Ahom scholar Indra Mohan Barua wrote an important book titled Mahabeer Lachit Borphukonor Jibon Buronji Aru Banshabali (অসমীয়া: মহাবীৰ লাচিত বৰফুকনৰ জীৱন বুৰঞ্জী আৰু বংশাৱলী) after conducting research on Sanchipatiya books. However, I don't have that book written by Indra Mohan Bora.

Therefore, it's a debatable topic about history, and I don't want to state anything without proper research and debate. I agree with your earlier suggestions. SaurabhSaha 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any debate among historians regarding Lachit's religion. Though I have seen politicians and some journalists report this and creating a "debate" where there was none earlier. Chaipau (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with you that there was no debate about the religion of Lachit. Instead, there was a discussion about the birth lineage of Lachit, specifically regarding who his father actually was.
Saurabh{Talk} 01:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mohan, Dipankar (September 2019). "Changing Status of the Ahom Priestly Class" (PDF). International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE). 8 (2S10). Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  2. ^ Rastogi, P.N. Ethnic Tensions in Indian Society - Explanation, Prediction, Monitoring, and Control. Mittal Publications. p. 81. ISBN 9780836419313.

Mr Prabin SENAPATI is Lachit Borphukan

[edit]

My Self Universe Mr .... SENAPATI u know me 223.238.123.156 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lachit_Borphukan&oldid=1221874248"