Talk:Koch dynasty

Rajvamshi

The appellation Rajbanshi does not have anything to do with the dynasty. This was a name adopted by the Koch people (not the dynasty) in the colonial times (late 19th century, early 20th century), to claim Kshatriya varna status. [1]

The Kshatriya Anodolan began to take shape under the leadership of Har Mohan Ray in the late 19th century. The Rajbanshis under the banner “Rongpur Bratya Kshatriya Jatir Unnati Bidhayani Sabha” sent a deputation in February 1891 to the Rongpur district magistrate with the plea to include the Rajbanshis as a separate ethnic entity in the census that was to begin that year. By 1910, under the leadership of Thakur Panchanan Burma, the Kshatriya movement was further consolidated. The claim to Kshatriya varna status through reinvention of some mythic tales provided some credibility to the ideological foundation of the Rajbanshi movement during the post-colonial period in India. This claim also led to cultural and political mobilisation amongst the community members, which resulted in a socio-cultural conflict with the dominant cultural entities both in Bengal and Assam. This movement for the first time made the Rajbanshis aware of themselves as a distinctive social entity

— Hirokjeet Roy, "Politics of Janajatikaran: Koch Rajbanshis of Assam", [2]

It makes no sense for a royal dynasty to call themselves Rajvanshi, when they are already royalty. Therefore, this reference is not relevant in this page about the Koch dynasty, but it is very relevant in the Koch people article. Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Or more appropriately, Rajbongshi people. Chaipau (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Koch vs Kamata ???

This article only talks about the era of Koch dynasty after the fall of Khen dynasty. What about the founders like Sandhya (r.1228–1260) ? They ones before Khen were Koch too. Tizen03 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: look at Kamata kingdom. Also Cooch_Behar_State and Koch Hajo. Chaipau (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Koch ethnic group

I don't know what this IP editor is trying to do in the recent edits, with no relationship with the edit summary and the edit themselves. Here [3]. Here the IP editor replaces the Koch caste of Brahmaputra valley with "empire building Koch" [4], in contrast to the Kondakov citation. I am unsure what the IP editor is claiming here. Chaipau (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

These are the findings:

• A historical Koch group, to which the kings of the Koch dynasty belonged (Kondakov, 2013, p4) Those Koch associated with the Koch kingdom/dynasty are called nation-building Koch. (Kondakov)
• The Koch in North Bengal and Goalpara district of Assam have pretty much given up calling themselves Koch - they prefer to call themselves Rajbanshi. (Kondakov)
• The historical Koch are allied to others, such as Mech, Dimal, Garo etc., in the Bodo-Kachari group. (Nath, 1989)
• The present-day Koch people in Meghalaya have largely retained their Boro-Garo languages and their "tribal" culture (Kondakov). The present-day Koch people in Meghalaya are related to but distinguished from the nation-building Koch. (Kondakov)
• The Koch caste in Assam is yet distinguished from the other two groups -- they are a composite group. (Kondakov, Ramirez etc.)

No author has ever claimed that the historical Koch are a composite people.

Chaipau (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC) (signature inserted)

Your edits were not properly cited then. Your edits are not at all consistent. Your edits don't give clear picture. Your edits are confusing. Koch dynasty etymology should explain about empire building koch but you are pushing meghalayan Koch(You linked to Biswa Singha) , Rajbanshi(You claimed them to be empire building Koch) etc, It doesn't say anything about real Koch dynasty. And when did Koch become Assamese caste ? How is this related to Koch dynasty ? You'r mixing Nath, Kondakov, Ramirez to push Assamese nationalistic claim in Koch article. I do claim that empire building koches were composite people because Koch dynasty began as an alliance between different tribes and it's clearly cited at the beginning of koch dynasty section(Background section). 2409:4065:380:88DA:1916:2E2D:273B:66D9 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources. You are disrupting Wikipedia by making unsubstantiated claims. Where is the source that says the empire-building koches (late 19th century) were "composite" people? The record shows that those who had identified as Koch in census records now identify as Rajbanshi. Nath's description of the chiefs from 16th century is not good enough because there is a nearly 400 year gap between the two events. They were frontier chiefs. The very same frontier chiefs served the Ahom kingdom later. Chaipau (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, who were the Rajbanshi people is relevant in Rajbanshi people page, not here. In the section on "Etymology" here just the source of the name is relevant. It is clear that the name "Koch dynasty" comes from Koch. "The dynasty was Koch and the name of kingdom was Koch Bihar because the king himself and most of the population belonged to the Koch community" (Das 2004, p=559). The discussion on Rajbanshi is not relevant here. I shall delete the rest of extraneous material from the section under WP:CFORK. Chaipau (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Who is a disruptive editor? Empire building Koch is a new term coined for the Koches by one author. It's nonsensical to accuse me of disrupting anything. Now You are complaining to me about your own edits. Just check my edits before you added anything. My edits were properly cited. I do consider Nath to be a better authority than others like kondakov and ramirez. Nath clearly stated that the koches include Mech, Kacharis, Garos, Rajbansis, Bodos etc and you modified it to conversion and removed it later. Now you added something from Das but you haven't added the reference in the bibliography. If you can't grasp it easily please discuss and take a consensus from others. You seems to lack comprehensive skill.2409:4065:D85:C5B1:1481:4C0:BC9E:BB20 (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Das was missing in the Bibliography.

I think I know why you'd like to pluck out an isolated statement from Nath and push a particular point of view. But Kondakov and Ramirez are both more recent, more critical, and their works are based on field studies; unlike Nath who relies on colonial writers such as Risley, Dalton and Gait for anthropological input. Clearly, the recent authors are more reliable. Chaipau (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Raja belonged to mech , Koch bihar was inhabited by mech and koch

@Chaipau: Das that you added doesnot provide any primary source, for something to be a valid secondary source, there has to be a primary source, i dont see why das is added Homogenie (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you please point to where the Wikipedia policies say that a primary source has to be present? And Salam does not point to any primary source either. In any case, the dynasty came to be known as Koch, because the king then identified as Koch. Also, we have seen that others too, such as the Chutia's, drew their lineage and claimed legitimacy from the mother's side. Chaipau (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Das (2004) is a recent published work. Please look at WP:RSAGE. Chaipau (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yes, read the whole paragraph WP:SECONDARY, this:

Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.

and Salam provides primary source, go through the page 11 from where the citation is provided, see the note section. Also Nath (1989), Sarkar (1992) interpreted the Darrang Raja Vamasali, and they both claimed after the interpretation of the primary source that the king belong to Mech tribe, while das (2004) provides no primary source. You cannot write Ahom history without the buranji can you or the chutiya history without the inscriptions as the primary source Homogenie (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not how it works. Please look at WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:RSAGE. Secondary sources are preferred over primary and within secondary sources, more recent works are preferred over older ones, especially those which are more than hundred years old.

Besides the Wikipedia rules above, it makes no sense to impose modern-day notions or divisions of ethnic groups on 16th century people. We know there is a tussle in real life on these issues (Roy 2014) and these have repercussions in politics. Under WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia cannot participate in these political matters and you should also probably be mindful of these policies.

As far as WP:SECONDARY is concerned, note that "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" claims are acceptable from secondary sources. So your argument does not apply here.

Chaipau (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Nath (1989), Sarkar (1992) are not old, also as you claimed ( Roy 2014), read that properly , dont try to put off claims of Das (2004) as facts. Also realise that Maharajah Nripendra Narayan of Koch bihar have accepted that his forefathers belonged to the Mech tribe. Also not all new sources are correct, chatterjee (1951) has claimed Assam king to be of Non-Aryan while many writers of assam till recent claimed the opposite, we see here that not all new sources are accurate. Try to add various opionions too, stop adding claims as facts. Homogenie (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add Nath (1989) and Sarkar (1992) where appropriate (which is the origin section) and they should be done in WP:NPOV fashion. The etymology should restrict itself to addressing the name "Koch" and not discuss origins. Nripendra Narayan's claim is relevant here only in the context of his own lineage (there have been many breaks in the dynasty and sometimes the succession is not very clear).

In the history of the Koch dynasty and the formation of the Koch kingdom, Vishwa Singha's mother is chronicled to have taken some state decisions. But we know nothing about Hariya Mandal. Was the legend of Hariya Mandal a fiction to unite the Mech and Koch peoples against the Bhuyans? Soon after he established his kingdom, the legend was created that he was the son of Siva and his own mother. So why did he disown his own father in creating the legend? Why did he adopt the ethnic identity of his mother to identify himself (or why did the others refer to him as a Koch and not a Mech)? He sent his sons to Benaras for studies. So, are his sons—Naranarayan and Chilarai—Koch, Mech, or Kshatriya (as the Brahmins have called them), or Brahmins?

These identities mean different things in different contexts. We have to be mindful of this. In the Wikipedia context, we just report what has been already said in WP:RS.

Chaipau (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: If you realised these primary source are taken from persian records written by people who visited kamata kingdom much after the formation of the Koch dynasty. In most of these records, the raja to belonged to mech. Also it is suprising that you talk about new source while here Kamarupa, you added old source while discarding new source for 2 years. Surprisingly Koch dynasty here the case is opposite, you are adding new source and discarding old ones. It seems that you on your own like to decide what source needed to be added in wikipedia according to your own POV. Homogenie (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Please raise issues on Kamarupa there, not here. I have [you there] that you are mistaking a postulated cultural boundary with a political boundary.

Irrespective of the primary sources, all secondary sources name the dynasty "Koch". And all secondary sources agree that Bishwa Singha's father was a Mech and his mother was Koch. This is profusely cited in the article. There is also a tradition of rulers drawing their lineage or legitimasation through their mothers. This has happened with the Chutia and with the Koch as well. And that is all there is to it. The need to pigeonhole these past rulers in ethnic groups in a modern-day game played in the context of contemporary politics, which has no relevance in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC) (edited) 09:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC) (edited2) 13:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - Mech father

@Homogenie: why are you giving WP:undue emphasis on Hariya Mandal with your reverts here?[5][6] In all these you have fluffed up the Mech identity of Hariya Mandal (the texts that you have replaced all have mentions of Hariya Mandal). What was the role of Hariya Mandal in the beginning of the Koch dynasty and later? Bisu did not take the name of his father's identity—he took his mother's. His mother also played a role and advised him on some of his decisions. A part of his kingdom came to be known after his maternal grandfather Hajo—we have a place named Hajo today still. In every facet of his rule, he drew on his mother's trandition, as happens with matrilineal groups. In fact the Sanskritisation removed any trace of his father, replacing his father by Siva. So why are you trying to emphasize the role and activities of his father which has no relevance here? Chaipau (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Even Napoleon's father played much less significant role in his life than his mother! so is Napoleon born of some God??!! did Sankritisation made Biswa Singha actually the son of a GOD, please know the meaning of "ORIGINS", and yes Hariya Mandal was important in the state formation just as the mother of Bisu, Bisu just took his maternal identity as the Koch tribe followed matriarchy! So are we going to put that Bisu was the son of Shiva!! Homogenie (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that we are here to improve Wikipedia, not push our favorite points of view. There is not claim in the text that you removed that says Bisu was the son of god. OTOH it says clearly that he was the son of Hariya Mandal, a Mech. And that is all that is required. Your edits gives undue weight to Hariya Mandal. He played no role in Biswa Singha's ascent to power and he has been largely ignored by Biswa Singha and his descendants. So please do not insert your point of view here. Chaipau (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the meaning of origins!!?? please explain in detail Homogenie (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The conditions that created Biswa Singha are the origins of Biswa Singha. Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: require your help in estimating WP:DUE. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I would say this current version is biased towards 'Mech' ancestry. It is an article on Koch, so it should be reworded to emphasize the 'Koch' rather than 'Mech'. This version should be taken as base and expanded with the newer source if applicable. Had it been a biography article on 'Biswa Singha', then possibly some other style could have been employed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks for your comments. Yes, I agree. I shall make the changes in this as well as in the Biswa Singha page. Chaipau (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Biswa Singha switching to his mother's ancestry is well explained below, may that portion need to be bought up! Homogenie (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Biswa Singha's choice of identifying with the Koch and abandoning his father's identity belongs in his own page, not here. Chaipau (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it belongs here because the name of the Kingdom is Koch, it should have been Mech as his father was from the Mech tribe, the only reason why it isnt is because Bisu chose to take his mother's identity. How would a reader know why the Kingdom is called Koch and not Mech! Homogenie (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That is WP:OR because you are presuming that Biswa Singha choose to go with his mothers identity and not his father's. The citation you have provided does not explain, but assumes his father was indeed Hariya Mandal and he abandoned his father's ID. Consider the following:

• The Koch people are a matrilineal people. So it is natural that he belonged to his mother's clan.
• Furthermore, it is from his maternal grandfather, Hajo, that he and his subsequent dynastic leaders drew their political legacy.

Hariya Mandal was not at all relevant to this dynasty. It is only relevant in today's political climate of ethnic push and pulls. Wikipedia is not a place for current political WP:PROMOtions.

Chaipau (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The citation doesnot assume, it is stated as a Fact. and Hariya Mandal is revelant or else who was the father of Bisu!! Shiva?? Infact Hariya Mandal Mech tribe formed half of the fighting force in the beginning Quote:Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives.p.30 Shin 2021 Homogenie (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to hunt down and set up the correct history. Wikipedia just presents encyclopedic information. Please do not impose Hariya Mandal here. Biswa Singha's origins are obscure and do not push Hariya Mandal since it is not certain. There are claims that Hariya Mandal was himself Koch (Sarkar 1992, p70) and that Biswa Singha started from Khuntaghat. It is not Wikipedia's job to figure out which is right and which is wrong. The policies that apply here are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Just because something is published somewhere does not mean it will be placed here. It is also not a place to right great wrongs. Chaipau (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Well there are claims that he was a mech Barman 2014, Nath 1989, Shin 2021. why would anyone leave out the partenal side of the founder of kingdom/dynasty Homogenie (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No paternal side has been left out. Hariya Mandal is clearly mentioned. Chaipau (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is the address left out?? Bishu started his journey from Chikina, from the place of Hariya not from the town of Hajo Homogenie (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Why would Bisu take his maternal identity of Koch if his paternal identity is assumed by Sarkar to be the same i.e Koch?? Homogenie (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That is just one author making the assumption that he took the identity of his mother and not his father. There is no indication that Biswa Singha himself took that identity. It is more likely that he became identified with "Koch" because others considered him to be a "Koch". He more likely favored being seen as somone who is capable to ruling over both tribals and non-tribals. But I am for keeping that reference because it has been published, even though it is very poor scholarship. Chaipau (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Nathp17 is reading through the document, his conclusion is clear, besides new source must be used in place of older source like Sarkar 1992 WP:AGE MATTERS Homogenie (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Nothing is clear at this moment, as Sarkar has said. Most of the modern authors have simply repeated what older authors have said, especially Shin, who uses language that is identical to the original authors (Neog, Nath etc.) Shin is not someone who is unearthing new material, but providing newer interpretations. So, please use Shin appropriately. Chaipau (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: How did Sarkar knew he was Koch, what was his interpretation Homogenie (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Sarkar's work is published in the "Comprehensive History of Assam" edited by H K Barpujari. That gives it added weightage. Sarkar has not claimed he was Koch—he merely says that in the literature scholars have identified him variously as Mech or Koch. And that is what Wikipedia should say. It should not get into the business of slotting him in either Mech or Koch given that this is merely opinions of different authors. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for current political campaigns WP:PROMO to appropriate Biswa Singha as a Mech, as given here. "KOCH BEHAR RAJAS BELONGED TO MECH OR BODO TRIBE ACCORDING TO HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS" Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: What views does most scholars hold?? Also Comprehensive History of Assam is of the year 1990, is it able to hold its own against new research of Shin 2010, 11, 17, 20, 21 . The answer is no. Most of that book is outdated, please update to new source, and it is not WP:PROMO, it is WP:AGE MATTERS Homogenie (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In fact Shin says the same thing Sarkar said in the very the previous sentence:

Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives. The founder of Koch political power was Visva Sinha (1515-40), the son of Haria Mandal who was the head of twelve leading Mech families and inhabited Chiknabari in Mount Chiknanear Bhutan hills

I am updating the quote. There is no point in trying to identify the "tribe" of Biswa Singha, as you seem to be doing. The claim that Biswa Singha was a Mech belongs to the blogs, not here in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Well it is very important, it is similar to identifying Sukapha being of Tai origin or Tibeto-Burman origin, it changes the whole history, also Shin 2021 doesnot doubt the identity of Hariya Mandal instead she is very sure about it, Hariya being a Mech chief near Bhutan hills married Hajo from the town of the same name, their son Bisu chose his maternal identity and the kingdom came to be know as Koch kingdom Homogenie (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Of them was born Bisu who succeeded to the "whole power of his grandfather" Nath 1989 p.17, nowhere it says that Biswa Singha succeeded in the power of his grandfather "HAJO", it just says grandfather, how did you come up with that interpretation??Homogenie (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hajo is mentioned in the previous sentence. I have added that sentence in the citation quote. This is not an interpretation, but given in text. Chaipau (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It doesnot says maternal or paternal!! WP:OR Homogenie (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: please stop repeating the same lines Homogenie (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Why would Bisu discard the ethnic idenity of his father and adopt the Koch identity of his mother, if his father belonged to the same tribe i.e Koch as assumed only by Sarkar 1992 Homogenie (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Why is so much weightage given to the views of Sarkar 1992, most scholars like Nath, Neog, Barman (2014), Shin (2021) agrees Bisu's father to be Mech, The views are held by majority, also the new source confirm the same, Sarkar 1992 views fall under WP:FRINGE. Dont see why it should be given any place in Wikipedia. Homogenie (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference to grandfather

@Homogenie: you removed this sentence citations and quotes here With the following edit summaries: "the sentence doesnot even point to Hajo". Are you claiming that when Nath says:

(T)he rude tribes, especially the Koches "who had a number of chiefs, at first independent, but who gradually united under the authority of one of themselves named Hajo", occupied Rangpur and Kamrup. He had two daughters, Hira and Jira of whom Hira was married to Hariya, a member of an "impure tribe" called Mech. Of them was born Bisu who succeeded to the "whole power of his grandfather"

grandfather here is not referring to Hajo? Here Nath is clearly referring to Hajo, the grandfather of Bisu. There is no reference to Haria Mandal's father either before this section or after. Here grandfather can only refer to Hajo. @Fylindfotberserk: could you please help us?

Chaipau (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:

(T)he rude tribes, especially the Koches "who had a number of chiefs, at first independent, but who gradually united under the authority of one of themselves named Hajo", occupied Rangpur and Kamrup. He had two daughters, Hira and Jira of whom Hira was married to Hariya, a member of an "impure tribe" called Mech. Of them was born Bisu who succeeded to the "whole power of his grandfather"

Nath p17 1989 in this sentence is reading through MS chronicle collected by Buchanan, he has given his conclusion in the same page end section, also it is funny because the twelve important Karjees were chosen from Mech tribes not Koch!Homogenie (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, so it seems you agree that grandfather here refers to Hajo and that this claim originates in a manuscript collected by Bechanan.

Chaipau (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

maternal grandfather Hajo yes, but nowhere does it says that he bisu became the successor of Hajo Homogenie (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: it is very clear from the last sentence: Of them was born Bisu who succeeded to the "whole power of his grandfather". Bisu succeeded his grandfather.

Furthermore, in page 197, Nath gives a brief summary of the Koch in the first paragraph and then goes on to say:

"In the beginning of the 16th century AD, Bisu, the chief of eastern branch of the tribe, established himself over the Khuntaghat..."

Here he calls Bisu the chief of the Koch tribes.

Chaipau (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It is still not clear which grandfather, besides Bisu appointed Mech as twelve important Karjee, Here he calls Bisu the chief of the Koch tribes. why would he not, he choose his mother's identity and the dynasty became Koch dynasty, he was called the leader of the Koches, besides Nath 1989 p.17 has very well clarified Bisu being Mech on his father's side and Koch on his mother's side Homogenie (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Where is the other grandfather being mentioned in the text? Nath does not mention Haria Mandal's father. Bisu succeeded his grandfather Hajo as the chief of Koches. That he appointed Karjees from different tribes in the Kamata kingdom that he established later in another matter not relevant to this claim. Chaipau (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: He appointed 12 most important Karjee from the Mech tribe Shin 2021 p.33, Bisu succeeded his grandfather Hajo as the chief of Koches. Here Koches refer to many things, Mech, Koches , Kacharis , Bhutias were collectively referred to as Koches, nowhere it is written that Bisu succeeded his grandfather Hajo, it is Nath reading through Buchanan text Homogenie (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Please do not keep stonewalling just for the sake of pushing a point of view.

• Nath writes: '...and soon the rude tribes especially the Koches "who had a number of chiefs, at first independent, but who gradually united under the authority of one of themselves named Hajo"' indicates that the unification was happening within the Koches primarily.
• "Bisu who succeeded to the whole power of his grandfather" (p17) is a clear statement that Bisu acquired the power of his grandfather Hajo. Grandfather here is in the singular, and neither Haria Mandal's father nor his power are mentioned. Therefore, there is no ambiguity that here Bisu succeeded to the power of his grandfather means he succeeded to the power of Hajo. This is is further augmented with the claim made in Nath (p197) where he calls Bisu the chief of Koches with his seat at Khuntaghat region.
• The karjees were officers in the kingdom he established with the help of the allegiances with other tribes (Mech, Garo, etc.) and they are not relevant here.

@Fylindfotberserk: would like your help in resolving this issue here. Chaipau (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: he is reading through the text of Buchanan here, read his conclusion in the next paragraph From the two accounts stated above, it becomes clear that Biswa Singha's father was a Mech and mother was a Koch and both the tribes were "rude" and "impure", hence non-Aryan or non-Hinduised." Nath 1989, p.17 So it is clear about the parents of Biswa Singha Homogenie (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Haria Mandal was his father. The point here is whether he succeeded to his grandfather. This is not where we are discussing the ethnicity of his father Haria Mandal either. Chaipau (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau and Homogenie: If the boldfaced part in the sentence → ..Bisu, born to Hariya and Hira, acquired the political legacy of his grandfather, Hajo ← is well sourced, I dolt see a reason why it should be omitted. On the contrary it is fundamental to the history of the dynasty. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie and Fylindfotberserk: Thank you! I think this issue is now resolved, and we have a WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: You have reverted the concensus resolution above. This is clearly WP:DE. I shall make one more attempt to reinstate the concensus statement and then I shall take this to WP:ANI. Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: what has been removed could you elaborate, everything is added according to the concensus Homogenie (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Too much ethnicity

@Homogenie: you are making this article too much about ethnicities.[7] Please tone this down. It is impossible to figure out who belonged to who. Just focus on "Koch power" as Shin (2021) has done. Chaipau (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I am very concerned with the great emphasis on ethnicities that is made in this article. Look at the edit here. We really need to tone this down. Different authors have said that these tribe-based narratives make no sense. For example Shin(2021) "Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives." Chaipau (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sarkar 1992 p70

@Homogenie: you have removed the reference to Sarkar 1992 p70 which states Subject to differences of opinion, the progenitor of the Koch monarch was either a Koch or a Mech, Haria Mandal by name... [8] with the claim that "Sarkar 1992 is WP:FRINGE". How is it fringe?

• Jadunath Sarkar is an eminent historian, not at all a fringe historian.
• His writing appeared in the "Comprehensive History of Assam" edited by another eminent historian H K Barpujari (obituary by J B Bhattacharya, who calls Barpujari the doyen of northeast historians. He writes about the CHofA:

The Comprehensive History of Assam, published by the Publication Board, Assam, in five volumes, under the editorship of H.K. Barpujari will always be remembered as the most monumental contribution of Barpujari to historical research. From planning to printing, he guided the processing of all the volumes. For writing the chapters of these volumes, he associated some of the stalwarts of Indian history from outside the Northeast like, Professor D.C. Sarkar, S.K. Saraswati. H.D. Sankalia, J.N. Sarkar, Sudhakar Chattopadhyay, B.N. Puri, B.N. Mukherjee, A.C. Banerjee and Tarasankar Banerjee, besides a handful of scholars in the Northeast.

• J N Sarkar is not making a particular claim, but commenting on the different opinions historians have of the origin of Haria Mandal. This is what he says: Subject to differences of opinion, the progenitor of the Koch monarch was either a Koch or a Mech, Haria Mandal by name. How could a statement that states the opinions of all historians be a fringe opinion?
• Shin herself agrees with the Sarkar. In fact she quotes Sarkar. She writes: Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives. In fact she used the CH0fA extensively, and has used at least three chapters of Sarkar in her 2021 article.

So how could you claim that (1) Sarkar is fringe and (2) Haria Mandal was definitely Mech? Because, historically, it is not possible to determine if he was. Chaipau (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it is as it diverts from most commonly held views, infact the lastest 2021 Shin too rejects Sarkar it will fall under WP:FRINGE and under WP:AGE MATTERS Homogenie (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Shin, on the contrary, endorses Sarkar. Shin has categorically said it is difficult to determine tribal categories (quoted above). When she started with the narrative with

• Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives. (p30) And she ends it with Since the sources are of a much later date than the events they record, the date of occurrence and the kings credited with each shift of the capital may not be accurate. (p31)
• Her conclusion is the rise of Koch power can only be attributed to (1) move away from the tribal jhum cultivation for surplus production, and (2) move away from tribal identities and roles to functional roles associated with state formation: This repeated transfer of capital was associated with a shift in their subsistence from jhum cultivation to settled agriculture (Ray 2002: 48). Simultaneously, there was a change in their political system from a clan-based chiefdom to a state with multiple agents involved in its functioning (p31)

So Shin is not just discounting tribal affinities of all mentioned, including that of Haria Mandal but she is attributing the very breakdown of tribal affinities as a contributing factor to the rise of the Koch state/kingdom. In this light, Haria Mandal's tribal identity is just not relevant to the growth of the Koch kingdom, it fact it is a contra-indicative.

Chaipau (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Shin is very clear Visva Sinha (1515-40), the son of Haria Mandal who was the head of twelve leading Mech families and inhabited Chiknabari in Mount Chikna near Bhutan hills." Shin2021 p30. Also Biswa Singha took the legacy of Hajo after defeating the Bhuyans, so put that into later section Homogenie (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you cannot pluck a sentence out of its context and make it say what you want to say. This is not what quotations work.

Also, where is it said that he acquired his grandfather's legacy after defeating the Bhuyans?

Chaipau (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Pluck the exact sentence where it says the ethnic identity of Hariya Mandal Homogenie (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: The statement that Koches moved down from the Himalaya cant be correct, it was Meches who were near Bhutan border which is is starting point of the Himalayas and Koches on the other hand were near Hajo, Kamrup and Rangpur, even today original Koch people are found in Meghalaya Homogenie (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: This is from Shin 2021 p31: it is clear that the centre of Koch power was gradually moving towards the southern plains of the region. Chaipau (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Reference is taken from Nath 1989 p.1-4, Here Koch refers to Meches, Koches, Rajvamsi, Garos etc. Quote Although there is a general agreement to the fact that the Koches include the Meches, Kacharis, Bodos, Rajvamsi, Garo etc Nath 1989 p.2. Here Koch is referred to a collection of different tribes, not just Koch tribe of present-day Meghalaya Homogenie (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: This is not the only thing said on the subject. Kondakov, Ramirez, Shin, etc. have also made comments on this. Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: If the Koch people were present in Kamrup and Rangpur at the time Hajo or even before that, it seems he were already present there. Infact Hajo was the town Hajo and he married his daughter Hira to Hariya who was located near Bhutan border Homogenie (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: That is all your interpretation of the events based on the Chiknagram→Hingulabas→Gosanimari movement. This is a question best put to Nath and Shin. Shin has said specifically that these places and kings are all doubtful. Since the sources are of a much later date than the events they record, the date of occurrence and the kings credited with each shift of the capital may not be accurate. By this Shin is saying that it was not Bisu who moved from Chiknagram. Chaipau (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Shin 2021 is very about the capital, she speculates the dates are inaccurate, also it Bisu who moved it is in the same p30-31 Homogenie (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic identities

@Fylindfotberserk and Homogenie: This article is becoming too much about ethnicities. It is impossible to identify these people 500 years ago in terms of present-day ethnic identities. We should not even attempt to do so. Here are issues which Shin (2021) points out.

1. Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives In other words, there is no point in trying to understand the rise of Koch powers in terms of ethnicities.
2. Since the sources are of a much later date than the events they record, the date of occurrence and the kings credited with each shift of the capital may not be accurate. In other words, it was not Bisu who moved the capitals, but others.

These points are very clearly stated. And this article should abide by this attitude. The ethnicities are just not clear so far in the past.

Besides, just as modern writers such as Kondakov distinguish between the nation-building Koch (Rajbanshi) and the present-day tribal Koch people, there is a difference between the current Mech and the nation-building Mech (if we could call them that). The ancestors of the current Mech people did not participate in this nation building and an association with the historical group makes no sense.

@Austronesier and Kautilya3: need your inputs here as well.

Chaipau (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC) (edited) Chaipau (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Shin (2021) is pretty clear about most of these things, please donot pick up a specific sentence to push your POV Homogenie (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

What are "these things"? The quotes are clearly given. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Shin - Koch and Mech intermarriage

@Homogenie: Your edit summary here is misleading. The text you have deleted "though these ethnic identities are difficult to discern since there were frequent intermarriages" is exactly stated by Shin: "Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives." Please do not delete this. Chaipau (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 02:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Shin is clear about the ethnicity of Hariya Mandal, Shin doesnot doubt it. Please stop Homogenie (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What Shin says is exactly what is being claimed in the text. Please read the text. Chaipau (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Koch dynasty and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

It seems to me that the statement though these ethnic identities are difficult to discern since there were frequent intermarriages is supported by a reliable source. While I have not been able to verify that the quouted text indeed appears in the source, or that the source is reliable, neither of those issues appear to be in dispute. I also note that the statement nuances an earlier statement. Therefore, I see no reason that the statement should be removed. Also, I urge that, if the dispute continues, it should be resolved by constructive discussion rather than continously reverting. The page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Discuss with the other party may provide some guidance on how to accomplish this. — LauritzT (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@LauritzT: Thank you for your critical look at the statement, and also noting that it does nuance the earlier statement. I do accept this opinion as well as the suggestion that if the dispute continues, and the other editor reverts, I shall take this to the next level. Chaipau (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@LauritzT: This is to record that Homogenie has not accepted 3O and reverted the edit, with the edit summary: "No one has removed the citation as stated in 3O, also Sarkar is WP:FRINGE, no modern scholar has repeated Sarkar's claim, restoring Shin full reference as discussed in the 3O". I am unable to make sense of this edit summary because (1) the issue was the removal of the text and the citation, not the citation alone. (2) In the citation Sarkar has given a summary of past opinions not his own, and Shin agrees with him. Furthermore, (3) as the edit diff will shows, Shin's quote was not touched - how was restored by the revert? Chaipau (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC) (edited) 13:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have accepted the 3O and restored the Shin quote in full, why are we bringing sarkar quote in here, besides Shin has very clearly stated the ethnicity of Hariya Mandal, Shin has recongnised it well Homogenie (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie:, you are making a wrong representation - you have removed the text though these ethnic identities are difficult to discern since there were frequent intermarriages.[9] as well as the Sarkar citation. The 3O finding was that the text is supported by WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The citation quote that supports this text is from Shin Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives.. No part of Shin's quote was ever removed. This is the other misrepresentation. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Shin has stated Hariya Mandal ethnicity and this is repeated by other authors too, Shin is not confused regarding Hariya Mandal origin :

• The founder of Koch political power was Viva Sinha (1515-40), the son of Haria Mandal who was the head of twelve leading Mech families and inhabited Chiknabari in Mount p.30 Shin 2021 Homogenie (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Could you please show where this citation quote was deleted? Chaipau (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC) (edited) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I urge for the dispute to be resolved through discussion here rather than by continuously reverting each other. This unfortunately seems to be getting close to an edit warring case.

To clarify, my opinion was, that with the arguments and citations provided then, I saw no reason to remove the statement though these ethnic identities are difficult to discern since there were frequent intermarriages in the body text of the article, because it seems to be supported by a reliable source (Shin) and, while an earlier statement about ethnicity is also supported by reliable sources, the disputed statement does not specifically claim that Haria Mandal did not have a certain ethnicity, but notes a general uncertainty regarding determining ethnicity.

It is, however, unclear to me whether the quote from Shin, Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives, appears in the context of Haria Mandal, or applies only more generally. If so, and if Sarkar is considered a fringe source, it is likely reasonable to move the disputed statement elsewhere, so that it is clear that it applies only generally.

Determining answers to those questions likely requires more expertise than I have, so if the dispute cannot be resolved here, it may be relevant to bring it up at one of the WikiProjects that this article is associated with. — LauritzT (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@LauritzT: Thank you for your continued engagement in this issue. I too prefer to resolve this issue here and have not reverted. But I do not think one needs any specific expertise in understanding the situation because the quotes say is all. I provide a fuller version of the quote from Shin below to illustrate this.

• Jadunath Sarkar, though from a past generation, is not fringe. His obituary here gives his standing. The citation quote used in this article is taken from his work, published posthumously, in the "The Comprehensive History of Assam" --- a five-volume "official" history of Assam. I have provided more details here: Talk:Koch_dynasty#Sarkar_1992_p70. In the quote ("Subject to differences of opinion, the progenitor of the Koch monarch was either a Koch or a Mech, Haria Mandal") Sarkar is not taking a position but summarizing different opinions. A summary statement from an eminent historian in a standard publication can hardly be fringe.
• The claim that Shin has no doubt that "Hariya was a Mech", based on the sentence Haria Mandal who was the head of twelve leading Mech families, is quoting out of context. This sentence is part of a particular narrative that Shin has subjected to further interpretation and re-reading. I given the entire relevant portion of the text below where I have highlighted the readout of the narrative in italics. Shin buttresses the readout portion with two observations (given in bold) and then she provides a nuanced re-reading. Here is the full quote taken from here.

A similar set of narratives, with similar tension between kings and brahmins, surrounds early Koch rulers. Having moved from the Himalayan terrain, probably following the courses of the Teesta and Dharla rivers, the Koches settled first in North Bengal and then spread gradually towards the east, south and west, thereby allying with other tribal groups like the Rabhas, Dhimals, Hajongs,Garos, and Meches (Nath 1989: 1-4).6 Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives. The founder of Koch political power was Visva Sinha (1515-40), the son of Haria Mandal who was the head of twelve leading Mech families and inhabited Chiknabari in Mount Chiknanear Bhutan hills. Visva organised the tribal strength of the locality and made them a leading political power of the region. With his military and administrative ability, Visva crushed a number of Bhuyans, local chiefs with a huge estate and military strength, subjugated other hilly areas and set up a new polity about 1515. He shifted the political centre from Chikanbari, his native village close to Bhutan border, to Hingulabas, a village in the plains of western Duars, and then finally to Kàmatàpur, the fortified city occupied by the Khens about a century earlier. Since the sources are of a much later date than the events they record, the date of occurrence and the kings credited with each shift of the capital may not be accurate. But, as Ray points out, it is clear that the centre of Koch power was gradually moving towards the southern plains of the region. This repeated transfer of capital was associated with a shift in their subsistence from jhum cultivation to settled agriculture (Ray 2002: 48). Simultaneously, there was a change in their political system from a clan-based chiefdom to a state with multiple agents involved in its functioning.

A close reading of Shin here will show that she posits, with the support of Ray 2002, an alternative narrative that challenges the narrative as given in italics. Though Shin's re-reading is relevant to other portions of this article, for our purpose here, it is enough to know that Shin does not take this narrative literally. Her statement "Frequent intermarriage between the Koches and the Meches made them come close to each other, thereby making differentiation between the two groups difficult in both the historical and fictional narratives" is a general statement that provides the nuance to Hariya Mandal's ethnicity.

The point to note here is that Shin's re-reading differs considerably from the narrative. She looks at the change of capitals as indicative of a growth of the Koch economic power over generations rather than a military expedition under one king; and in this re-reading she dilutes the import of the specific ethnicities of the historical actors as mentioned in the narratives. This is the same position that Sarkar, as a historian, takes.

Therefore, it is most neutral to mention Hariya Mandal's ethinicity as Mech, but qualify it with the quotes from both Sarkar and Shin.

Chaipau (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC) (edited) 12:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and apologies for the late reply. This seems quite reasonable. I have restored the disputed statement and the citation to Sarkar. — LauritzT (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@LauritzT: Thank you for providing 3O and helping us on a niche subject. This is great service to Wikipeda. Chaipau (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Administration

@Homogenie: Administration does not belong here. If the administration is of the undivided Koch kingdom, then it belongs in Kamata kingdom. If it describes the western portion after the Bihar/Hajo split, then it belongs in Koch Bihar. This article should focus on the dynasty. Chaipau (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Raikat

The Raikat is a collateral branch of the Koch dynasty. It even has its own page. They are not considered the Koch dynasty per se. Why are you trying to give prominence to this? You have inserted two images of the modern Raikat family, after the family had severed allegiance to the Koch dynasty; and you have placed the pictures appear above that of a modern-day Koch king. And when this was corrected, you reverted it.[10], [11], [12]. The Raikats owe their origin to the Koch dynasty, but they were not part of the Koch dynasty proper and were known as the Raikats. Chaipau (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the definition of "dynasty" in the Webster dictionary:

• "a succession of rulers of the same line of descent" (see DESCENT sense 1a)
• Descent 1a: "derivation from an ancestor"

Since Sisu is not Bisu's descendant, the Raikats cannot be considered as belonging to the Koch dynasty. Homogenie I shall be removing the references to Raikat as belonging to the Koch dynasty, though we may mention that the Raikat is a collateral branch. Chaipau (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: How does this even matter, Raikat are collateral branch of Koch dynasty, they are not direct descent of Biswa Singha but still it was founded by Sisya Singha, brother of Biswa Singha, a branch of Koch still little insignificant, infact they can be considered significant if we realise that Sisya Singha headed the Koch army, he was the commander. Dont see why we have to remove this. Also collateral means secondary not necessarily not part of as you have claimed it to be Homogenie (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Projection of caste/tribe into the past

This article has too much of present-day caste/tribe projected into the past. This is something that modern anthropologists have warned us. Ramirez 2014, p18 says: How can a global, coherent vision of the situations described above be put forward without projecting the present caste/tribe dichotomy onto the past? Nowadays in the North-East, “tribe” and “caste” are very commonly used as such, i.e. in English. It is worthwhile, however, underlining that this dichotomy does not exist in the Assamese language itself nor in other Indo-Aryan languages in India, which do not differentiate between different sorts of human “kinds” or “species”, jāti. What is perceived today as tribals converting to Hinduism does not seem to have been perceived as such till very recently. And that this ethnicisation is the a phenomenon specially of in the post-Independence period: "Together with several post-Independence socioeconomic and political developments, this was one of the contributing factors to an enduring process of “ethnicisation”." We should not overplay the ethnic angles in Wikipedia. Would like more inputs. Pinging Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier and others. Please tag people here. Chaipau (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Agreed. Could you demonstrate what kind of changes should be made? I mean with an example. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: such as [13] and [14]. Chaipau (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by present-day caste/tribe projected into the past? Where is it written that the history of present-day caste/tribe can't be written? If you need WP:RS closer to Historical chronciles, Use Nath. To my understanding, Your quoted text is about division of caste and tribe which didn't exist in past, It has nothing to do with history of these caste/tribes. Instead of using "tribal" to designate them, using their names is better per Ramirez. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Dynasty policies

These edits are not related to the Koch Dynasty, but to some policies a particular king had implemented. This does not belong here, but in the rightful sections in the historical sections of either the Bodoland Territorial Region or Rajbanshi people. Chaipau (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Dynasty related material

@Safe haven123, you have reinserted the text that I had removed. Could you please explain why you did so. This article is about the Koch dynasty and not the Koch kingdom. The section does not belong here. It belongs in Kamata kingdom/Koch Hajo. Chaipau (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC) (edited) 00:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

how doesnot it belong here, the the areas were under the rule of Koch dynasty which were taken over by Bhutan government , so this is part of Koch dynasty history Safe haven123 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

All the areas covered under the Koch dynasty does not belong to the Koch duynasty article. This article is about the Koch dynasty, not about everything that has happened in the territories they controlled. There is the Koch people, which is about the people. There is Koch Hajo which is about a territory that the Koch dynasty controlled at some point in time; there is Koch Bihar, which was another territory controlled by another branch of the Koch dynasty. So, please do not keep inserting material that does not belong here. It is disruptive editing. Chaipau (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Safe haven123, come to a resolution here first. As I have said, this article is about the Koch dynasty. Please do not spam it with other information. The paragraphs on the territory of the Koch kingdom has been moved to the Koch Bihar and the paragraph on the Rajbanshi people has been moved there. Please do not edit war on this. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

How is koch dyansty information relevant to Rajbanshi article, Koch became Rajbasnhi by a social movement, that has nothing to do with Koch dynasty Safe haven123 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Why have you added the Vaishnavite movement which happened under the orders of the royal of Koch behar from 16th century to 18th century to Rajbanshi people, Koch became Rajbanshi in late 19th century by a common man Panchanan Barma, please know the difference, all these actions happened under the Koch Dynasty the reason i added those Safe haven123 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the Koch dynasty itself, not about incidents that occurred under the Koch dynasty. If you want to write about the conversion of the dynasty to Vaishnavism, you have to give details about the conversion. Sankardev himself was opposed to initiating kings. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes so why have you added the Vaishnavite movement that happened under the order of Koch dynasty between 16th and 18th cnetury to Rajbanshi page, that part belongs to Koch dynasty not Rajbanshi Safe haven123 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The text specifically talks about the Koch population [15]. So moved to the Rajbanshi people [16].

For the time being I am ignoring some WP:OR that you have inserted, which I will correct eventually. For example, the text mentions Vaishnavite influence whereas the citequote mentions brahminical influence which are very different things.

These edits, unfortunately, have added to the noise. If you are unable to understand the rationale for an action, please ask. Jumping into edit warring within a month of starting on Wikipedia is probably not the way to go. Chaipau (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That action of Vaishnavite movement happened under Koch dynasty between 16 and 18th century , while the Rajbansation of Koches has nothing to do with Koch Dynasty, it is independent of it happened in late 19th century, that portion belongs to Koch dynasty. Safe haven123 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your text is "By the end of the 18th century, with the increasing Vaishnavite influence, the masses of the Koch population south of Gohain Kamal Ali road had absorbed considerable Hindu content." Your text above has no relationship with cited quote from Shin: "From the seventeenth century onward, however, the Koch society absorbed considerable Brahmanical content. Their claim to kshatriya status emerged as a way of reflecting and extending the new economic status of landed magnates that had arisen in the Koch society during Mughal rule. By the end of the eighteenth century this claim was filtering down the ranks of the Koch society and gaining an increasing acceptability (Ray 2002:50)." For example,

1. It does not mention the Koch dynasty, as I pointed out earlier, and so does not deserve to be in the Koch dynasty article.
2. It mentions brahminical influence and not vaishnavite influence.
3. It does not mention Gohain Kamal Ali, which seems to be your own opinion (WP:OR).

All this suggests to me that you are trying to promote a particular point of view.

As I mentioned earlier, I changed the text to bring it into alignment with the cited quote.[17] Chaipau (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

why do you keep putting a action that happened under Koch dynasty into Rajbanshi, Rajbanshi page as it says mostly deals with Koch changing Rajbanshi in 19th century , no relation with Koch dynasty at all , thats my point

Also isnt Hindu influence is equal to Brahminical Hindu influence, because it is promoted by Brahmin priest,

Again isnt Koch society meaning the kingdom of Koch under Koch rulers Safe haven123 (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)