Talk:Baro-Bhuyan

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.banglapedia.org/HTtpdocs/HT/B_0287.HTM. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Should there be two articles?

There seem to be two distinct Baro-Bhuyans in Assam and Bengal but the lead section didn't clarify it. I tried to tweak the lead to make it less confusing but I guess the article requires more work as far as sourcing is concerned. Unless there is some relation between the two Baro-Bhuyans, it's better to create two new articles on Baro-Bhuyan (Assam) and Baro-Bhuyan (Bengal) as they seem to be entirely distinct topics. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There were not two confederacies. The Banglapedia article mentions a period of only three decades—that of Isa Khan. But that does not consist all of Bengal's Baro-Bhuyans. Refer to J N Sarkar for a brief introduction. It is a very old tradition centuries long, and they came and went. If you want to address the Isa Khan confederacy separately, do so by all means; but it makes no sense to divide this article into into Bengal and Assam because this tradition/phenomenon straddles the modern boundaries of Assam and Bengal. Chaipau (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

From what I have read in sources (including Banglapedia), the Baro-Bhuyan period in Bengal succeeds the Bengal Sultanate and precedes the Bengal Subah of Mughal Empire. It must have a different chronology in Assam? I don't think there were any other Baro-Bhuyans in Bengal other than the one led by Isa Khan (who was later succeeded by his son Musa Khan as the leader). By Baro-Bhuyan (Bengal) I meant the confederacy led by Isa Khan while Baro-Bhuyan (Assam) could serve as the article for that centuries long tradition as you mentioned. Am I missing anything? --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there were Bhuyans in Assam and North Bengal before that period. A Bhuyan confederacy overthrew the rule of Allauddin Hussein Shan's son (before the Karrani dynasty) in the late 15th or early 16th century in North Bengal. There was a rule of a Bhuyan in the North Bengal in the 14th century. And so on. These Bhuyans thrived when the state rule weakened. In the part of Bengal you mentioned Isa Khan emerged between two strong regimes. In Assam too they emerged after the downfall of the Kamarupa kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

At that Baro-Bhuyan is not an epithet to refer to 12 landlords, but many landlords. Baro in Bengali and Assamese also means popular (remember baro ghaat and baro bhatar in Bengali? Do we have similar usage in Assamese?). There were many landlords over a course of a few centuries identified as Baro Buyan. Even the confederacies were more than one or two. I believe some of those confederacies did not happen along later national boundaries, and Assamese and Bengali bhuyans overlap. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

In this usage though Baro means "many" not twelve—both in Bengal and in Assam. According to the Banglapedia article, there were actually thirteen Bhuyans in Isa Khan's group. And you are right, there was considerable overlap. Chaipau (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, the present version also seems good to me. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop

I can see another Assam-Bengal war here. Again with an identical set of editors seen fighting over many other topics the overlap Bengal and Assam. This time one editor even called out about Bangladeshi propaganda. That's highly unacceptable. People, please stop. Never think that a fight across multiple pages can remain below the radar for ever. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 18:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There are a lot of shared stuff here, and it is important to look at this phenomenon in the larger picture. But I don't see a fight here... Chaipau (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, care to listen to what other editors are saying in edit summaries? Just few weeks back, we had this discussion that there were not one or two but several Baro-Bhuyan confederacies. That "Kamarupa relic" comment refers to the one in Brahmaputra valley, not all the confederacies, and the text should reflect that. The description of Kamarupa's territory also gives an WP:UNDUE weight to Kamarupa, these territories were unstable anyway and the stronghold of Kamarupa was within the Brahmaputra valley. Should we also unduly describe the territories of Bengal Sultanate, Mughal Empire, Bengal Subah? I think there is an urge to glorify Kamarupa here (which does sound a bit nationalistic) but that would not conform to WP:NPOV. I'm also not sure why do we need to include this comment in the lead, what does this "relic of Kamarupa" mean? Does it mean that Kamarupa was the predecessor to the Baro-Bhuyans? That is incorrect because most of this region was ruled by Bengal Sultanate before the Baro Bhuyans came into being. Does it mean the Baro-Bhuyans continued the same administrative or other systems of Kamarupa? There is no evidence for this either. Please don't make this article more confusing than it already is. Also keep all your replies here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Add: The preceding line of the quoted text from the source says, "In the 13th century, the Indo-Aryan culture still dominated the lives of a major section of the population in the central plains of the Brahmaputra Valley". The source surely refers to Brahmaputra Valley. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The preceding sentence talks about Indo-Aryan "culture", but the next sentence talks about the Kamarupa state, which is a political structure. Also, it is not certain now that Indo-Aryan was actually dominant in Brahmaputra valley in the 13th century, because in the space occupied by the Kamarupa kings tribal states emerged (Ahom, Dimasa, Chutia and also the Koch). So take that with a pich of salt. Furthermore, there were not one but many Baro-Bhuyan confederates in the Brahmaputra valley. Chaipau (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The author continues, " During the 13th-16th centuries, while these continued to represent the rule over older peasant settlements in western and central Assam, there emerged alongside them also new kingdoms from several tribal bases, then undergoing a process of politico-economic transformation " The exact boundaries may be debated but one thing is clear that the author is referring to the areas within the Brahmaputra Valley, if we have to take the author's comments with a pinch of salt, then why are we even using the source here? The main focus of the article is on Upper Assam, specifically on the history of Ahom Kingdom. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The boundaries of political Kamarupa is given you should not keep removing them. The rise of ethnic states is particularly prominent, and that is what Guha is referring to. Baro-Bhuyans were challenged in Brahmaputra by ethnic states. This is not so clear in Bengal, though there is evidence of Jaintia kingdom in the Sylhet and Tripura kingdom. What we have to take with a pinch of salt is the author's claim that the predominant culture in the Brahmaputra valley was Indo-Aryan. What we cannot do but accept is the claim that the tradition of Bhuyans is associated with Kamarupa. This has been the claim of Guha, Lahiri and others. Chaipau (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like after Bengali-Assamese languages, Bengali-Assamese script and Sylheti language, Chaipau has continued his POV pushing to this article too. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What ever I have said is referenced. I can see that there is a nationalistic/patriotic narrative associated with the Isa Khan Baro-Bhuyans which is getting undue weight here. Chaipau (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, let me repeat myself, the political boundary of Kamarupa beyond Brahmaputra valley was unstable, it only went beyond during a period of anarchy/interregnum in Bengal (known as Matsyanyayam) between the reigns of Shashanka and the Palas. Secondly, this article is not about Kamarupa but about Baro-Bhuyans, there is no need to give undue weight to Kamarupa by describing the territories just as we are not mentioning the territories of Bengal Sultanate, Mughal Empire or Bengal Subah, especially in the lead. Thirdly, what do you mean by the "tradition"associated with Kamarupa? Whatever it is, again, it doesn't refer to the Baro-Bhuyans in Bengal but only those in Assam, there are major differences. And can you explain what undue weight is there with Isa Khan? Or are you suggesting anything in the lead about the Baro-Bhuyans in Bengal is undue? --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Kmzayeem, since this article is about the Baro-bhuyans, we must represent them as they have appeared in history. Your focus seems to be on just one Baro-Bhuyan formation that was under Isa Khan. Isa Khan and his confederacy appeared in the 16th century, whereas the Baro-bhuyan tradition is older. The first mention of this tradition comes from the 13th century and different confederacies have played important roles at different times in history, right up to 16th century. And there were many confederacies, not just the one in Bengal. This article cannot be the victim of a nationalistic/patriotic narrative. Jadunath Sarkar has this to say: A false provincial patriotism has led modem Bengali writers to glorify the Bara Bhuiyans of Bengal as the champions of national independence against foreign invaders. They were nothing of the sort. Firstly, they were nearly all of them upstarts, who had in their own persons—or one generation earlier—grabbed at some portion of the dissolving Karrani kingdom of Bengal and set up as masterless Rajas in their different comers of the country, especially in the inaccessible regions of the sea-coast in Khulna and Baqarganj or beyond the mighty barrier of the Brahmaputra in Dacca and the still remoter jungles of North Mymensingh and Sylhet. On the other hand I see that they are being characterized as patriots in the Banglapedia article: They were patriots who with courage and valour resisted the Mughal advance for long three decades. After 1612 when Islam Khan Chishti forced them to submit, the term Bara-Bhuiyans survived only in popular tales and ballads. What is needed is a neutral treatment of who the Baro-Bhuyans were and what has been their role in history. A correct appraisal. There are more examples of Baro-bhuyan formations from Assam than there are in Bengal, and I encourage you to dig for other examples besides Isa Khan. Chaipau (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. This Wikipedia article just reflects what you quoted, "The most prominent Bharo-Bhuyan confederacy of Bengal was led by Isa Khan of Sonargaon in the 16th century, which emerged during the disintegration of the Bengal Sultanate in the region, as a resistance to the Mughal expansion." What changes do you propose here? If you have sources for other Baro-Bhuyans in Bengal, feel free to describe them in the article. The Guha article you are using for Kamarupa is surely not about Bengal. The Baro Bhuyans of Assam are also extensively described here, more than those from Bengal. What I'm saying is if you want to include more about Assam feel free to do so but also clarify that it refers to the Bharo-Bhuyans from Assam and not all the Baro-Bhuyans in general. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

We can begin by not looking at the the issue of Baro Bhuyans, which ended in the 17th century from the prism of modern day politics. This is a unique phenomenon in Assam and Bengal and we need to cooperate on this. Chaipau (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Neog explicitly mentions about origin of Baro-Bhuyan in Assam Baro-Bhuyan#cite_note-Neog1980p51-19. There is no evidence that Parcelization in Kamarupa resulted "Bhuyanship". Guha's claim is just a claim without any prove. This Baro-Bhuyan#cite_note-13 is unnecessary. KPAhmed (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guha is particularly explicit that the Bhuyans were a relic of the Kamarupa state: However, nothing was left of the ancient state of Kamarupa at that juncture, except for what fragments remained of it in the form of petty chiefdom. Lahiri points out the parcellization, which Guha agrees with in a subsequent paper. He writes: the fragmented political structures incorporating that tradition still loomed large in the form of petty chiefdoms (bhuyan raj) in the vicinity. "Fragmented political structures incorporating that tradition" is referring to Lahiri's parcellization. Neog has explicitly called all previous stories as fabricated and he too pushes back the start of Bhuyanship to 13th century, as does Jadunath Sarkar, just after the end of Kamarupa. Chaipau (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Chiefdom doesn't mean Bhuyanship. It's WP: SYNTHESIS. They might not called themselves Bhuyan. This is similar to imposing xyz identity on non-xyz and claiming their history. KPAhmed (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@KPAhmed: I am not making that claim, Guha is: petty chiefdoms (bhuyan raj). Are you accusing Guha of WP:SYNTHESIS? Chaipau (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Lahiri clearly mentions about land grants to Brahmins. But Baro-Bhuyans were mostly non-Brahmins. Combining parcelization with Bhuyanship is WP:SYNTHESIS. And Guha's claim is just a claim. There is no such proof. It's just impositon of Kamarupa's administration system on Baro-Bhuyan administration. KPAhmed (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that is WP:OR! Picking and choosing your sources in pushing a POV. If you do not stop the random edits, as you have done here ([1]) I shall report you for vandalism, WP:CIR and POV pushing. Chaipau (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You've not given any reasonable source for your claims but you've threaten to report. Was it vandalism ? I was trying to understand the concept and i found mistake. So, I had removed Kamrup district according to Kamata_Kingdom#cite_note-4. And how is that WP:OR ? KPAhmed (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your points from Lahiri, Nath, Neog, Guha are contradictory. I don't know whose competence is required. KPAhmed (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Two articles

This discussion has been raised before but I would like to mention it again. I propose that this article be split into 2 separate pages called Baro-Bhuyan and Baro-Bhuiyan, representing Assam and Bengal respectively. The content of the current page is mentioning two different periods and confederations, and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Also note that in Bengali it is ভূঁইয়া Bhũiya and in Assamese as Bhuyan ভূঞা. SalamAlayka (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There are not two but at least five different Baro-Bhuyan formations mentioned in this article. One that opposed Ghiyasuddin Iwaj Shah in the 13th century, one that removed Alauddin Hussain Shah in the 15th century and was itself removed by the Koches, one that was ensconced in eastern Assam and was removed by the Ahoms, one that opposed the Mughals in Bengal, and one that was squeezed out by the Kacharis from Nagaon. And there are not two but at least three different spellings: Bhuyan, Bhuiyan, Bhuiya and there are probably more. And there is a clear reference that states this tradition is common to both Assam and Bengal. There is no good rationale to split this page. Chaipau (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)