Phonglosa

Bodo-Kachari/Kachari

These pages are about the greater Kachari/Bodo-Kachari group. What are you trying to do? Chaipau (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bodo-Kachari is the term as same as Boro-Kachari tribe which is a sub-tribe of Kachari group. The term Bodo or Bodo-kachari as a generic term is not well accepted. Linguistically if we see there is a linguistic group called Bodo-Garo, under which Bodo is sub-group, under this sub-group comes languages like Boro, Sonowal, Thengal, Dimasa etc. It would be better if we maintain the status quo and don't add to the confusion. The earlier Kachari_people page was redirected to Bodo-Kachari page, which I undid manually. (Phonglosa (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC))

I understand. But Endle uses Bodo and Kachari synonymously. Bodo is used both as a group of languages and as a single language elsewhere too. ([1] p730) I would think Bodo-Kachari, Dimasa-Kachari, Saraniya-Kachari etc. makes more sense; but I don't see that usage in the literature. Chaipau (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a reason to doubt it because I have read Rev. S Endle's book wherein he never mentioned the word "Bodo", but he uses the terms like "Bara,Western Kachari and Kacharies of Darrang to refer to the present day Boro-Kachari. He never cited Bodo-Kachari to be a group of Kachari tribes. He himself is not a Historian.If you read official records of the North Cachar Hills (presently Dima Hasao) district of Assam, you will find Dimasa and Kachari used synonymously (It doesn't make all Kacharies as Dimasa). If you want to quote sources, take E.A.Gates, Kachari Buranji(the oldest known record), SK Bose, NG Rhodes, Upendchandra Guha etc. These new term like Bodo-Kachari to refer to a group of Kacharies can be viewed as politically motivated propaganda of present day pseudo-Historians. History and Linguistics should not be mixed. The Bodo in Linguistics is very much different from Bodo in History. (Phonglosa (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

Endle's book is here, and there are many instances of the use of Bodo. Also, note the use of Bodo by Anderson, in the introduction. But from what you write, it seems you don't want to associate the name Kachari with the present-day Bodos. That may be historically correct, but has anyone specifically pointed this out? Chaipau (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear sir, so you mean to say both Endle and Anderson used Bodo-Kachari to refer to all the Kachari groups? Please cite the sources where you find the name of the race/group as Bodo-Kacharis (specifically). Also If Boro-Kachari is specifically a particular tribe according to Indian constitution, I wonder what's the logic behind coining new term like Bodo-Kachari to refer to a group? (coined by some people in wikipedia). If you read the book you cited,the other Kachari tribes that ruled Dimapur are refered to as Southern Kacharies with a specific community name. That all would agree as one of the communities that comes under the Kachari race ( Not Bodo-Kachari race).

And regarding your question, I am not saying that Bodos are not Kachari, I am saying that Boro-kachari is a specific name of a community and not as a group of communities/tribes and in fact "Kachari" is. And I take strong objection to your action of re-directing earlier "Kachari people" wiki page to "Bodo-Kachari" page without any citation.(Phonglosa (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

I have given you two sources where Bodo is used to denote a group of ethnic types, where historically the name "Kachari" was used. Could you provide me with the references on which you base your claim? Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have many internet web address sources since most books are not available online. However I'll refer you official government websites which specially presents what "Bodo Kachari" means Read this book Tribes Of The Brahmaputra Valley (the): A Contribution Of Their Physical ...By L.A. Waddell Read this book to know the Kachari as an overarching group Other referrence Gihodes, Kacharies:Religion and Customs, 1922

Also it is well know that the Heramba Kingdom (as recorded in British journals) ruled by the Dimasa Kacharies (as inscribed by the constitution of India) was/popularly known as Kachari Kingdom because the Dimasas are part of Kachari race and not Bodo-Kachari race. Till the beginning of 20th century there weren't any Boros south of Brahmaputra. If you need further referrences, please let me know. I will obliged in my free time.(Phonglosa (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

Thanks. Waddell uses these names synonymously: Kachari, Kosari, Boro, Bodo and Bara (p44). So, Bodo and Kachari are synonymous in Waddell (which btw is old too---first published in 1901), and they denote only the Bodo people as we know them today. But nevertheless, there is a confusion in the literature, as writers in recent times have sometimes used Bodo to mean the umbrella group (which Endle calls Kachari). Kachari is the historically correct name, since Bodo is a recent name. But the Kachari kingdom is associated closely with the Dimasa people. Therefore, to avoid confusion, Wikipedia uses "Bodo-Kachari" to denote the umbrella group, and non hyphenated names for individuals groups: Bodo people, Dimasa people, Koch, Hajong, Garo etc. Chaipau (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So you agree that Bodo-Kachari ( to denote an umbrella group) is a term coined in wikipedia ? what about Bodo-Kachari, a particular community, a recognised ST(P) tribe ? Which is more confusing?? You mean to say Kachari Kingdom is more closely related to Dimasa Kachari so it confuses wikipedia( more precisely you) while Bodo-Kachari (an umbrella group) and Bodo-Kachari(a ST(P) tribe) doesn't confuse you. I wonder what's the motive behind. sigh ! (Phonglosa (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

Come off it, there is no motive. When a long standing article gets majorly edited without citations, it might go into a WP:BRD, which is what happened here. We are in the discussion phase. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and depends on collaboration. It is not something that you can use to promote something.

Kachari is used in the same sense as used in Endle --- the umbrella group. Since Bodo is also used for the umbrella group, the article is titled Bodo-Kachari. There is no attack. No particular group is named -kachari here. The plains tribe that is an ST and who are demanding Bodoland are called Bodo people on Wikipedia, and they are (now) clearly indicated on top of the Bodo-Kachari people page.

Chaipau (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I already cited the sources, the term "Bodo-kachari" is constitutionally a recognized ST(P) "tribe" of Assam. Take the caste certificate of any Bodo individual and note what's written on his certificate? No one can just put Bodo people and Bodo Kachari on wikipedia and say that the two are different when it is constitutionally written as Bodo people are registered as "Bodo-Kachari". Tomorrow somebody will come up and write kok-borok is a Bodo language, grao-dima is a Bodo language. Do we lack common sense here? The terms are conspicuously clear wherein people deliberately creating a confusion. http://darrang.nic.in/darrang_files/a%20note%20on%20tribes.htm http://cdpsindia.org/btc_accord.asp

Now how can anyone create a page with the term "Bodo-Kachari" and say that "Bodo-kachari" is as a group of several scheduled tribes?

(Phonglosa (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC))

The Darrang website mention that the Bodo-Kacharis include other groups such as Sarania, Mahalia etc. So clearly, the name does not stand for the "Bodos" alone. Further, Wikipedia does not necessarily follow any particular constitution, though it will clearly state what constitutions state. The Tiwas are called Lalungs in the constitution, which the Tiwas themselves reject, preferring to be called Tiwas instead. The Miri/Mising is a similar problem. On the flip side, if the constitution of India does not recognize a particular tribe, there could yet be an article by that name on Wikipedia.

What we are discussing is whether Bodo-Kachari is synonymous with Bodo. If the peoples like Sarania, Mahalia, Thengal-Kachari, etc. are Bodo-Kacharis (as given in the Darrang website), then are they considered to be Bodos too? Bodo as in the particular tribe, not the umbrella group.

Chaipau (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You might as well notice that "Bodo-Kachari" is mentioned as plain ST while Kacharis in Hill districts of Assam are ST(H). You should have noticed that Rabha, Garo, Hajong, koch etc are mentioned separately as compared to Bodo-Kacharies.

From the literature, it is clear that Bodo-Kachari is no longer used to mean what you suggest. The plains tribe in Assam are called Bodo, not Bodo-Kachari. It seems you are trying to push a dated nomenclature. Look at this. Chaipau (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So you mean to say I can write a book and quote it as a source? I suggest you look at the constitution wherein you will know what Bodo-kachari means. May be Bodo people are known as just "Bodos" in recent literature as cited by you. But Sonowal Kacharies are still known as Sonowal Kacharies, Thengal Kacharies are still known as Thengal kacharies, so is the case with Dimasa kacharies. So you are now suggesting these kacharies are sub-group of Bodo kacharies. This will have a serious repercussion politically and socially as it would lead to serious identity crisis as you can see from the various memorandums of the Bodo people, one being sent to the UN suggesting Dimasa Kacharies in particular being "Bodo people" in your wikipedia language quoting the same sources from recent literature. Anyone causing this confusion advertently or inadvertently will be morally responsible for any eventuality in the future. (Phonglosa (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

You may write a book but you can cite it as a source only in a limited way (WP:SELFCITE). If Sonowal etc are known as Sonowal Kacharis, then they should be named as such. It is very clearly stated in the article that Bodo-kachari are an umbrella group consisting of many individual groups, of which the Bodos is one. It is also stated that in the past the Bodos were known as Bodo-Kacharis, but they are no longer called Bodo-Kacharis now in popular usage, and that the article is not about them alone. The grouping is done mainly on linguistic grounds and not on ethnic grounds. There is no ethnic relationship between, say, the Dimasa and the Bodos, as far as I can tell. Yet they are clubbed together. The linguists use the word Bodo for this group of languages. But it would neither be appropriate nor correct to call these ethnic groups Bodos, as you yourself have suggested above. Endle, taking the lead from linguistics, called these ethnic groups not Bodos, but Kacharis. But historically the Garos were never called Kacharis. As far as I can tell, the Garos are still not called Kacharis, and the term Kachari still has a specific meaning today, despite Endle. That is why Kachari too, alone, is not appropriate nor correct for this grouping of ethnicities. Chaipau (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Phonglosa, I thank you for your contributions! Juthai (Monosh Hojai Dimasa (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)) Thanks Monosh Hojai Dimasa. Of late there's been serious attacks on your community related pages. The names of the personalities were deliberately altered, contents changed, Kachari people page has been made a Bodo-Kachari page etc. I believe if wiki doesn't stop spreading false information, some actions ought to be taken. (Phonglosa (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

BODO/ Kachari is just a name of tribe that belongs to Kachari Lineage.

August 2013

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Dima Halim Daoga a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Hut 8.5 10:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

BODO/ BORO is just a Tribe that is a part of Kachari Lineage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnienunisa14 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Phonglosa, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Phonglosa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)