Talk:Assamese people

Multi ethnic multi linguistic people of Assam
I read a Time article regarding the India-Bangladesh border and it used the term "ethnic Assamese" as distinct from Bodos and Bengalis. Are the Assamese an ethnic group? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Assamese is not an ethnic group. Many ethnic groups comprise the Assamese people. Chaipau (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the claims of the source I added are controversial, but that does not mean they should entirely be removed from the article. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the response you made on my userpage:

"I appreciate your enthusiasm on editing these pages, but what you are trying to insert are simplistic caricatures of a complex situation, that began more than 100 years ago. Instead of clarifying the situation in NPOV fashion, you are inadvertently feeding into these caricatures. There are many mistakes you have made. The government at Delhi has not been able to clearly define the Assamese people (this is related to who the Assamese people are who will benefit from the provisions of the Assam Accord). So that definition is a legal definition, not necessarily a sociological one. The Assamese themselves are made up of many communities. This has been stated clearly in Saikia's book. Yet you choose to ignore it. The BJP is not against the Bengalis---and btw, the BJP is very strong in the Barak Valley. They are against the muslims. If you take the position of the AASU, the organisation that spearheaded the Assam movement, then the Assamese people are against the influx of bangladeshis (actually all foreigners), irrespective of religion or language. I have no choice but to delete most of what you have written because I cannot edit and correct then piecemeal. They are inherently wrong."

- Chaipau

Chaipau, I am not trying to simplify this complex situation, I am simply adding the information that I found in the "Fragmented Memories" source. You are welcome to add more sources that clarify the situation further. I do not choose to ignore that the Assamese people are made up of many communities - add this information and improve the article!

Of course the BJP is not against the Bengalis, my edit clearly says "the expulsion of Bengali Muslims". Perhaps it should be changed to "Bengali Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh".

Do you have a source that says that the government in Delhi is having trouble defining the Assamese people? Fragmented Memories claims that they have defined ethnic Assamese to mean "the Assamese-speaking community of the Brahmaputra valley". I would love to see a source that backs up your claim, then we can add it to the article.

You seem to have some resentment towards my edits, have I offended you in some way? If not, I apologize for suggesting it. I find your tone somewhat aggressive, due to "I have no choice but to delete most of what you have written because I cannot edit and correct then piecemeal. They are inherently wrong." They are not "inherently wrong", even you only have a problem with the specifics of the information and how it is worded. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, I welcome your enthusiasm. But it is frustrating when a single controversial source is cited and the editors are left to clean up afterwards.


 * The problem with defining Assamese people is stated and referenced in the article itself. You just have to read them.  There are two newspaper reports referenced there.


 * Stating simply that the BJP is against "Bengali Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh" is almost a truism. But it is not the BJP that articulates the anti-immigrant position.  It is the AASU, as I mentioned earlier.  There is a difference in the BJP and AASU positions on this.


 * Chaipau (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chaipau, the term "Ethnic Assamese" is really meaningless. If it is defined as "Assamese-speaking ethnic group of Assam", then Tai-Ahom also falls within that group as they speak Assamese as their Mother Tongue. I would love to see some original references published by GOI where it is defined, if is really so. Bikram98 (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though Chaipau is right, there are many misconceptions within the Assamese community too. For instance, the people of Lower Assam think that the entire Upper Assam consists of tribal population which is entirely untrue. One look at the history of Assam can tell that the region has always been a part of Kamrupa or Pragjyotishpura. Even before the arrival of Ahoms, the Hindu community of Sutiyas formed the majority in Upper Assam and built many Hindu temples during that time. Even the accepted form of Assamese language was developed by intermixing Prakrit and Sutiya languages. Qwertywander1 (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

population ?
what is the estimated population of this group or possibly the most recent census numbers im trying to get a idea in my head of how many of these people there are. 76.244.145.122 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Assamese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609213014/http://www.ciil-lisindia.net/Assamese/Assa_demo.html to http://www.ciil-lisindia.net/Assamese/Assa_demo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529093954/http://www.assamtribune.com:80/scripts/details.asp?id=mar2807/at01 to http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=mar2807/at01
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529093319/http://www.assamtribune.com:80/scripts/details.asp?id=mar3107/at04 to http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=mar3107/at04
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=apr0107/at03

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dravidian element in Assamese people
The idea that the Assamese people have Dravidian element has been extensively discussed here: Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam. In the discussion, it was decided that Please adhere to these these two rules. If any other evidence emerges in scholarship, please discuss it here for consensus before inserting in the article.
 * Dravidian is a linguistic category and there is no evidence of any direct Dravidian elements in Assamese language
 * Any use of the Dravidian as a racial category cannot be admitted in Wikipedia.

Thank you!

Chaipau (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Assamese people have Dravidian element has been extensively discussed here: Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam. Yes, issue was discussed there and third opinion ask for evidences by author, which neither of us can provide. Thus, in that way most of the content need to be removed. I followed up by asking wp:rsn what is the criteria for reliable sources in wikipedia, see which says If you have one researcher saying X, and everyone else saying Y - X might not bear mentioning and in any event the scope would be limited even if mentioned. If it is a 50-50 split - both should be mentioned equally, 80-20 - you still have to devote some space to the 20, etc. Thus, it is included. Dravidian is a linguistic category and there is no evidence of any direct Dravidian elements in Assamese The Dravidian is ethno-linguistic group, we do have linguistic evidences, Bhuna (1995) provided Dravidian words in Assamese such as anal (fire), alas (idleness), katu (severe), kanan (bower), kutir (house) etc. Any use of the Dravidian as a racial category cannot be admitted in Wikipedia. As mentioned Dravidian people is ethno-linguistic group. If any other evidence emerges in scholarship, please discuss it here for consensus before inserting in the article. I need to keep references intact to demonstrate that there is academic consensus among Assamese authors about migration chronology which follows Austroasiatic people, Dravidian people, Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan, Tai pattern see, , , . I reckon as you started discussion here, take it to relevant noticeboard for wider audience and quick disposal of matter. भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly take the issue to wp:rsn immediately, i will remove all the citations myself, as required. Dravidian people chronology is originally part of this article, which is removed by you recently. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  06:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are reiterating the same arguments you made in the previous discussion, which were rejected.
 * As far as 50-50 or 80-20 is concerned, the result of the discussion was summarized by the third opinion: "But, on balance, I suggest that we don't here need to report brief, un-evidenced comments based on muddled thinking. I propose simply to take the Dravidian comment out."
 * Dravidian words in Assamese is not a direct evidence of Dravidian element because Indo-Aryans languages, including Vedic Sanskrit, have Dravidian loan words (Substrata in the Vedic language).
 * Chaipau (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Dravidian reference was removed with the discussion referenced in the edit summary . Chaipau (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are reiterating the same arguments you made in the previous discussion, which were rejected. I answered this in my previous post. As far as 50-50 or 80-20 is concerned, the result of the discussion was summarized by the third opinion.The consensus can be changed. But, on balance, I suggest that we don't here need to report brief, un-evidenced comments based on muddled thinking. I propose simply to take the Dravidian comment out. Please refer to my link from rsn on dynamics of citation. Dravidian words in Assamese is not a direct evidence of Dravidian element because Indo-Aryans languages, including Vedic Sanskrit, have Dravidian loan words (Substrata in the Vedic language). This against what Bhuna (2005) wrote, fails wp:or. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  08:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you are challenging the third party opinion, please take it to the forum of your choice. You are disrupting by WP:POINT.  Chaipau (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refer to link of wp:rsn above which is newer to third opinion. As you initiated both the discussion, ball is in your court now. This article is talking of assimilation, you need to broader consensus to remove citations in bulk. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  09:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN comments were general comments not related to this particular issue. Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see wp:3r, kindly restore the citations until you proved that they are unreliable. wp:rsn provides guidelines to build articles, which needs to be follow. You can challenge them if think they are inadequate. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  11:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The link you have provided (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232) pertains to a different issue. Despite your wrong representation of the issue,  pointed you to WP:WEIGHT.
 * In the discussion Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam all references were discussed threadbare, and the 3O recommendation by was: "I suggest that we don't here need to report brief, un-evidenced comments based on muddled thinking. I propose simply to take the Dravidian comment out.".
 * In your edits, you have packed your citation with references that were already determined to be unreliable. So I am calling out WP:POINT on you.  Chaipau (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are running in circles, i am tired of repetitive arguements, take it to next level. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  12:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Indeed, neither edit warring nor repeated arguments are likely to be helpful. The sources you mention are still conceptually confused (Dravidian is a linguistic concept not a genetic one), badly out of date, and they never produced any evidence to support their muddled ideas. You may feel that dispute resolution is appropriate, in which case please continue down that path. Or, on reflection, it may be time to drop the issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge i do agree with you that Dravidian is a ethno-linguistic group not racial, which is agreed by all. The term race used by some authors in context of ("a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc", as provided in oxford English dictionary) a ethnic group. The Austro-Asiatics and Tibeto-Burman group which are part of early population of Assam/Brahmaputra Valley are descendents of South-East Asian and East Asian ancestors respectively, thus genetically and linguistically different from Dravidian and Aryan people of India, so it worth mentioning if there is academic consensus among Assamese authors on subject. The local authors identified Dravidian speaking people in Assam e.g. Bania, Kaibarta and Dravidian words in Assamese language, as mentioned above. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  15:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Local authors deserve no special treatment in this case—and are subject to regular Wikipedia standards. To keep insisting that "Dravidian" be inserted one way or the other is disruptive to Wikipedia activity. Chaipau (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Broken links - **,*,* भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  14:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - is a Gazetteer entry without any references or citations, where it make a dubious claim of Kamakhya originating with Dravidian people. Most scholars, following Banikanta Kakati believe Kamakhya originated with Austroasiatic speakers.
 * The next two use Dravidian as meaning a race. "different races of mankind - Austric, Mongolian,Dravidian and Aryan had migrated into the region", "multiple races of various ethnic stocks. Besides Austric, Dravidian, Aryan and Mongoloid".
 * The last mentions Dravidians as a linguistic group, without any explanation.
 * Chaipau (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  - is a Gazetteer entry without any references or citations, where it make a dubious claim of Kamakhya originating with Dravidian people. Most scholars, following Banikanta Kakati believe Kamakhya originated with Austroasiatic speakers. Not true, K.L Barua and others associated cult of linga and yoni of Kamakhya with Dravidian people and culture.The next two use Dravidian as meaning a race. "different races of mankind - Austric, Mongolian,Dravidian and Aryan had migrated into the region", "multiple races of various ethnic stocks. Besides Austric, Dravidian, Aryan and Mongoloid i answered this in my previous posts.The last mentions Dravidians as a linguistic group, without any explanation. its accordance to what others are saying. The issue is of wp:neutrality. भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  02:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on two counts with your first assertion. (1) K L Baruah had passed (1940) by the time B K Kakati published his Mother Goddess Kamakhya (1948). In any case, K L Baruah published his work in 1933, a little under a hundred years ago.  Thus not reliable.  Kakati's is old too, but authors like High Urban (2009) agree with him on this.
 * Chaipau (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on two counts with your first assertion. (1) K L Baruah had passed (1940) by the time B K Kakati published his Mother Goddess Kamakhya (1948). In any case, K L Baruah published his work in 1933, a little under a hundred years ago.  Thus not reliable.  Kakati's is old too, but authors like High Urban (2009) agree with him on this.The K.L Barua was eminent historian from Assam, his works are regularly republished and quoted by modern historians. Thus the argument he is obsolete is not acceptable. भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to concur with Chiapau. Dravidian is a linguistic classification not an "ethnicity" (i.e., a broader cultural classification), and a few loanwords in the Assamese language isn't evidence that Assamese is a Dravidian language. See also WP:RACIALISM for some issues that seem to be going on at this page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone has forked this discussion into a very long-winded RfC below. One of these discussions should be closed so that further discussion centralizes in one thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish i agree with you, nonetheless i believe article should give some space to majority view ?. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  06:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The following lines from lede of Dravidian people can be helpful:The origins of the Dravidians are a "very complex subject of research and debate." They may have been indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, but origins in, or influence from, West-Asia have also been proposed. Their origins are often regarded to be connected with the Indus Valley Civilisation, from where people and language spread east- and southwards after the demise of the Indus Valley Civilisation early 2nd century BCE, concurrently with Indo-Aryan speakers, with whom they intensively interacted. From these interactions and migrations arose eventually the socalled "Hindus synthesis," after 500 BCE. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this discussion may be closed. For the records, this section was an attempt to implement the WP:3O resolution at Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam in this article.  This discussion continues below at Talk:Assamese_people.  Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
. Both please read Edit warring. It is absolutely not appropriate to edit war in this manner. I have fully protected this article for a week. Use this time to discuss your edits and come to an agreement. Further edit warring after the protection lapses will see you blocked for a lengthy period of time. Fish +Karate 11:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fish and karate indeed discussion will continue, thanks for fully protecting the article. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC - Are Dravidians a component of the Assamese people?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are Dravidians a component of the Assamese people? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC). Chaipau (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue was discussed in Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam
 * The issue was commented on by an independent observer.
 * The issue is still under discussion here, without resolution. Talk:Assamese_people

Survey

 * Leaning no because the sourcing for the position is too weak (the idea is controversial in real-world scholarship). Worse, the word has multiple connotations, and it's clear that some editors here are confusing culture with genetics, as covered in the extended discussion below.  At best, we could have a short section in the article covering whether Dravidians under a particular definition are sometimes included, by whom, and what the nature of the conflict between reliable sources is. However, I strongly suspect there's WP:OR going on here, namely of the form a) figure out where some populations of people called Dravidian in one sense or another are said to have migrated, b) notice that some sources include the Assam region among them, c) declare Dravidians (whatever that means) to be part of Assamese culture, a component of Assamese ethnicity, or both (and whatever those really mean – see WP:ETHNO for pitfalls in this kind of thinking).  That's just WP:SYNTH. Such analytic connections have to come from reliable sources, not our own heads.  Also, and related to the ETHNO issues, the reliance in the thread above on racialist sources from the 1940s amounts to a WP:FRINGE problem.  Our understanding today of human populations is much more sophisticated. This is covered in some detail at the related (and as of this moment still ongoing) RSN discussion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No the Assamese Language is Indo European and Dravidians are speakers of any of the Dravidian languages and Assamese is not a Dravidian language Abote2 (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion of sourcing, etc.
Thank you. I notice that we still have no linguistic evidence of early Dravidian speakers in Assam, nor of early genetic influx from an ancient south Indian population. (I note that the modern Assamese language does include words known to be of (recent) Dravidian origin, and I presume that at least some modern inhabitants of Assam can trace their ancestry to south India. These uncontentious points are not relevant to the ancient population of Assam.) We should not insert comments which muddle the genetic and cultural aspects of the outdated concept of "race", and which do not present evidence of Dravidian or Ancient South Indian influence in ancient Assam. It is useless to reiterate ill-founded remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And, thanks for the references and quotations below, but they do appear to confuse genetics with culture, and they don't present any serious evidence. Rather than reiterate them, it would be much better to find adequate evidence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. Yes, there has been no mention of Dravidian population groups in genetic studies in recent times, even in the case of peninsular India—rather serious talk mentions Ancestral South Indian, which is itself a mixture of many different population groups.  It is, therefore, a matter of great concern that whereas the "Dravidian" people have disappeared from the Indian map, they are now surfacing in Assam! Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge Thank you for your comment. yes his current and earlier comments are helpful. Yes, there has been no mention of Dravidian population groups in genetic studies in recent times, even in the case of peninsular India—rather serious talk mentions Ancestral South Indian, which is itself a mixture of many different population groups. It is, therefore, a matter of great concern that whereas the "Dravidian" people have disappeared from the Indian map, they are now surfacing in Assam! the article is claiming nothing relevant to current discussion, the more appropriate recent article is 'Dravidian languages may offer insights into Eurasian prehistory'. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  02:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The newspaper report user:Bhaskarbhagawati cites pivots away from the use of the "Dravidian" as a race term (in the list of references he has reiterated) and uses it as a linguistic term, which is acceptable. But all it does is make a claim that the Dravidian "language" is 4500 years old and so is bound to have a wide influence.  It does not say anything specific about Assam.  Therefore, I would like to accept the comment of  and close this matter.  Else, we will have to take this to the dispute resolution stage. , , FYI.  Chaipau (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The newspaper report user:Bhaskarbhagawati cites pivots away from the use of the "Dravidian" as a race term (in the list of references he has reiterated) and uses it as a linguistic term, which is acceptable. I have already answered this above. But all it does is make a claim that the Dravidian "language" is 4500 years old and so is bound to have a wide influence. It does not say anything specific about Assam. it is for your last comment about the Dravidian ethno-linguistic group disappeared from India already. Therefore, I would like to accept the comment of Richard Keatinge and close this matter.  Else, we will have to take this to the dispute resolution stage. try to include some sources, then it can be taken to relevant noticeboard. Thanks for pinging other users. भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  17:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The references provided by user:Bhaskarbhagawati are under discussion at Reliable sources noticeboard Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Chaipau as i taken the issue to wp:rsn, majority view is "there is no reason to suspect reliabilty of citations in question". If you disagree, kindly take it elsewhere. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * that is not what I read. The majority of view is that they are unreliable. Chaipau (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They are reliable as evidence of the persistence of outdated and invalid concepts of "race". They are not reliable sources for the idea that South Indian populations contributed significantly to the ancient Assamese gene pool, nor for the idea that speakers of Dravidian languages were found in ancient Assam. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Chaipau and Richard Keatinge for replies, i am reproducing the relevant summary below:
 * Me:The statement is The Dravidian people (Bania, Kaivarta/Kaibarta people) are part of ancient Assam, India and The principal migrants in Assam have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman and Aryans.The relevant sources are Talk:Assamese_people#References and the contradicting source is Talk:Assamese_people#References_by_Chaipau. My question is how Wikipedia deals with this situation.


 * Slatersteven:Does the source just exclude it in the list, or say they never did it?


 * Me:Slatersteven the source Mohd. Taher wrote a chapter named 'Assam: An Introduction' in 'Geography of Assam (2001)' by Abani K. Bhagabati, Bimal Kumar Kar, Ashok K. Bora, where he not covered Dravidian people.


 * Slatersteven:Then I would say it does not dispute the others, not saying something is not the same as disagreeing.


 * Blueboar:I would agree... omitting is not the same as disagreeing. Next source?


 * Me:Does above mentioned citations are reliable to use, how we can use them in current context.


 * Slatersteven:No, they can be used to say the first line, not the second, I see nothing about them being principle migrants. (i.e. they are reliable to use)


 * Chaipau:The dispute is that these sources use "Dravidian" as a racial term, which is not admissible. The independent editor Richard Keatinge was the opinion as well


 * UnequivocalAmbivalence:It seems to me that disregarding a reliable source just because an editor feels like they "use 'Dravidian' as a racial term" is a clear violation of WP:NOR. It is not our place to fact-check reliable sources, just to report what they say. Furthermore, is there even any evidence (cite specific RS please, not just yes or no answer) that the people referred to by these sources as "racially" Dravidian are actually a different group of people than the people referred to by other sources as "ethno-linguistically" Dravidian? Or is is just the fact that they term them a "race" rather than an "ethno-linguistic group"? Because our understanding of race may have changed over the years, but that doesn't mean that they are referring to different groups of people. They may have been mistaken about biological race, but still correct about which groups of people were involved in migrations. Also note that WP:3O does not determine binding resolutions, it simply offers a non-binding third opinion on debates that exist exclusively between two editors, and would be superseded by a consensus decision here or elsewhere. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  17:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I read it the first time. This discussion is already far too long; I will simply repeat. These are not reliable sources for the idea that South Indian populations contributed significantly to the ancient Assamese gene pool, nor for the idea that speakers of Dravidian languages were found in ancient Assam. We should not use casual mentions of outdated and invalid concepts in Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard Keatinge, Chaipau kindly take the next step. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  09:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that these casual mentions are not reliable. The next step is to stop the effort to introduce "Dravidian" into these articles.  Chaipau (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Disregarding binding decision, failing to cite sources, misrepresenting reliable sources, and manufacturing original research is wp:disruptive editing. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  00:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there were no binding decision. There were issues raised, and they were all addressed.  Taher (1993) has explicitly rejected the racial categories as unreliable.  This is further bolstered by the survey from Wagner (2017).  Chaipau (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. User:Bhaskarbhagawati, you are a valued and experienced editor, and nobody wants to offer any disrespect to Assamese Banias and Kaivartas, or to their founding myths. I imagine that like most experienced editors, you have previously found yourself accepting the other side's result of a dispute. Could I ask you, what facts or arguments or authority might persuade you that, in this particular case, you are using the weaker arguments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is whether there was any ancient Dravidian people migration in Assam state (as said by citations), not about Assamese language pointed in above survey, state has other numerous non-Assamese speaking ethnic groups. If WP:RSN says sources are unreliable, issue can definitely dropped till newer sources. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  14:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This article says that only Assamese speakers are Assamese. There are non Assamese speaking people in Assam who considers themselves as Assamese but are excluded in the article. I'm a Bengali who speaks Assamese, am I Assamese too? But Tiwas who speak Tiwa aren't Assamese even though the Assamese speaking Tiwas are Assamese? Huh Msasag (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The Definition section clearly states that Assamese people are not defined in a water tight fashion. It refers to the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. Chaipau (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Fragmented discussions

 * This was out of process, because "The issue is still under discussion here, without resolution[:] Talk:Assamese_people". If the discussion is already open then continue that discussion, don't WP:TALKFORK, or we're liable to either have two discussions coming to conflicting conclusions, or diluted discussions in both places that come to no conclusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This was actually a WP:RfC from which user:Bhaskarbhagawati create a WP:RSN here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259. I am placing the links here to make sure the threads are somewhat connected, to ameliorate the condition.  Chaipau (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Argh. Three threads now?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The one above is closed and soft-redirected to the RfC. The one at RSN is open and actually seem better-quality discussion than either this RfC or the thread above it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC); updated 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for closing the first thread. I agree that the questions that arose in the RSN helped bring focus to the arguments.  Even though it has not been closed there, is it still open?  Chaipau (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Being at a noticeboard, it should either archive away or be closed by an uninvolved party.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish said thread was archived, for the current edit war is wp:drn a option for binding consensus ? भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  23:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think so. If that doesn't work, then it sounds like ANI or ArbCom. (Not a case  would open; while I offered an opinion on the RfC question, I have not looked into anyone's behavior, so I don't really know what's going on other than that there's a long-running, rancorous dispute).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to go that path, thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  05:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * But that's not the case with the introduction template. It says the number of Assamese people is 15 million and they speak Assamese (including dialects: Kamrupi and Goalpariya) Msasag (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Profanity by IP Comment Suggestion
IP address used profanity, against WP:Cooperation ,I hope admins will protect the page.Sairg (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Sairg, hope its not you from this IP 2001:8003:4F0B:4500:298A:4295:F704:ECFB who left uncivil nasty edit summery! this kind of people are shame for family n mankind. just use neutral and non political POV for wiki1!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.209.39 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not profanity . It's a common word used in Anglosphere countries. Just because you disagree with my choice of words does not mean you revert edits with sources. I reverted edits made by an IP user that you also reverted on the 24th of last month so why did you revert my edits? I reinstated the version of this page that you published. Also you put this in the wrong section. Look at what you're doing. (2001:8003:4F0B:4500:298A:4295:F704:ECFB (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC))
 * It may be common, but that doesn't mean it's civil. I've left warnings where recent non-civil edit summaries have warranted them. Now, I encourage all users to refocus the discussion on this talk page on the content of the article, not the behaviour of other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of all viewpoints
Chaipau in our recent discussion at WP:RSN and WP:DRN, references for Dravidian are deemed reliable and WP:DRN reaffirmed the principle that all viewpoints need to be included. Are you agree that said viewpoints             should included ? भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  08:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which WP:DRN discussion was this? Chaipau (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The ongoing DRN, where you are a party too. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  11:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That WP:DRN is about the Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect. Not related to this.  Chaipau (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the principle of "inclusion of all viewpoints" applicable to all articles, as stated there, especially when it is in majority. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  08:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What is being applied here is WP:TSF. Chaipau (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Explain. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the issue was put through an RfC and the consensus is that the Dravidians are not a component of the Assamese people. . The issue is closed. Chaipau (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism
Please discuss here rather than edit warring. I have already moved the "nationalistic" line to the appropriate sub section of the article as there is no need for it in the lead. We do not mention ethnic nationalism in the lead of articles on ethnic groups. Another issue is of the addition of "identity" in the "lead sentence", Assamese is not just an imagined identity it is a widely accepted ethnic group and the article should begin as such. I had already mentioned all of this in my edit summaries before. Gotitbro (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand why you should muzzle what has been written. All identities are imagined (Anderson 1983).  I don't see what your problem is here.  Chaipau (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going into the semantics of things just by how ethnic groups are described on Wikipedia (e.g. English people, German people etc.) the lead is clear with "group" not identity or other vague identifiers/describers. Gotitbro (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is the first sentence from your example page: English people—"The English people are a nation". In case you missed it, the sixth word in the first sentence is "nation".  Clearly, you are imagining rules here.  Please take your POV elsewhere.  Chaipau (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It continues on to "and an ethnic group", last I remember England was a nation. It is clear about them being an "ethnic group" who constitute a nation, which does not fall under ethnic nationalism. I am not the one POVPUSHING here, "nationalistic" and "identity" about a clearly ethnic group was added by you. Rather than being contentious you have not pointed out why they should be in the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note the work nation in the first sentence itself. Please do not try to impose arbitrary rules. You are not helping Wikipedia. Please do not revert the changes again. Chaipau (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be true, I have no intention of engaging in a edit war with you over this. You are clearly personally attached with this topic and are showing a WP:OWN behavior with your edits over this. This is just making the article about this particular ethnic group very poor and biased and bringing the quality of Wikipedia down. You are clearly not willing to discuss anything over. Gotitbro (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have discussed the issue here. I have considered the example you have provided, and have shown you that it refutes what you claimed.  Please move on.  If you are unable to refer to proper rules and provide good faith arguments, you are just wasting everyone's time.  Chaipau (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I note that Chaipau has provided references for his comments, which seem appropriate for an encyclopedia and interesting to casual bypassers. I have accordingly reverted to his last version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me chime in to say that I also find the current text quite acceptable and in line with WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I second Gotitbro, Assamese people is well defined ethnolinguistic group, the nationalism (which has political overtones) rightly moved to definition section. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  18:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That the Assamese identity is not solidly defined is well know—the difficulty in implementing clause 6 of the Assam Accord is a case in point. The references and context are given in the text itself.  That Assamese nationalism is an important factor in politics, and it is widely acknowledged.  It is mentioned here without any endorsement in an NPOV manner.  Chaipau (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "socio-ethnolinguistic" is a better term. Assamese people constitute multiple ethnic groups speaking diverse languages. It is essentially a demonym. The only difference it has with the People of Assam is that the latter includes migrants in recent history. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not one or the other. The nationalism of this social enthnolinguistic group is widely discussed and studied with serious implications in contemporary life.  Here is a random link:https://frontline.thehindu.com/books/assamese-nationalism/article9140406.ece to illustrate this point. Chaipau (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that. I meant "socio-ethnolinguistic" is a better term than "ethnolinguistic" as edited here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is in the reference too, though phrased a little different – "socio-ethnic linguistic group". This is as it stands in the current form. Chaipau (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the term "Assamese people" commonly used by scholars to represent a group of Indo-Aryan people speaking Assamese language natively. When non-Indo-Aryan speaking groups like Bodo people, Mishing people, Ahom people etc. will included under this term, it can create confusion because unlike later former has no other ethnic identity name for themselves (later groups are also covered in People of Assam). Take example of neighbouring Bengali people and Odiya people, they are exclusive ethnolinguistic groups, where other resident non Bengali language and non Odiya language speakers are not included, because later identify with their ethno-linguistic identities, same way as Assam. Fylindfotberserk correct me if i am wrong or missed something. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak
 * The current version lead mentions it as a "socio-ethnolinguistic identity" and also says "group is often associated with the Assamese language". It is obvious that the article is structured to include L1+L2 speakers. If there are sources that mention "Assamese" as a term for L1 speakers only (Brahmins, Kalitas, etc) then IMO we can reflect that in the article. I believe there are three things. 1) Assamese as an ethnonym (L1 speakers only), 2) Assamese as a socio nationalistic group (L1 + L2 speakers) and 3) Assamese as in "People of Assam" (including recent historical migrants). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "People of Assam" have no place to be here. L2 speakers are ok, but the main focus should be on L1 speakers that self-identify as "Assamese". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, "People of Assam" is different. Not all people of Assam are Assamese people. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, that's why we have a different People of Assam article. What I'm saying is Assamese people also include people that identify as 'Assamese speakers' despite being of native Tibeto-Burmese or Tai as per this source which is used in the article. In that sense it is perfect to use the phrase "socio-ethnolinguistic" rather than "ethnolinguistic" in the lead. "People of Assam" on the other hand include groups like Marwari, Bengali, Gorkha, Bihari, etc who do not identify as "ethnic Assamese". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we agree that unless some ethnic name is specifically assigned to native speakers of Assamese language, this article should focus on L1 speaking people, and not mix different subjects (i.e. native Tibeto-Burman speakers and others) ? Reliable sources can definitely added. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  11:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The present number in the article, 15 million+ is that of L1 speakers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is possible that people a particular ethnolinguistic group may identify with the Assamese people. The same group might assert its ethnolinguistic identity in a different context. We should be careful not to go overboard and make our own definitions. "Who is an Assamese" is hotly debated right now. It would be best to identify the term as used in different contexts. Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally. For us it would be who identifies as such. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fylindfotberserk, but there also question arises of identity of L1 group, which are quite different in many aspects from L2 group. L2 group is represented in Wikipedia through individual articles, but i am afraid L1 group only identifies themselves with title of this article, same way as Bengali people, Odia people etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  17:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What can we do in this matter. All we have is L1 who are categorized as Assamese speakers by the Indian census. It is much more confusing for Hindi, since a lot of different ethnicities are clubbed as Hindi speakers, and I'm not talking about Bhojpuri or Haryanvi, which are conspicuous groups. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hindustani people article too identifies as ethno-linguistic group, the speakers of Hindustani and its varieties i.e. dialects, which is case here a well (included speakers of dialects of Assamese language). We can follow example of other Indo-Aryan ethno-linguistic group articles of Wikipedia. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  18:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For Hindustani people, it is quite wrong. I mean a Sadri speaker is quite different than a Mewati. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They belong to one language family, somehow related to Hindustani language. We can see in context of other states. Native non-Bengali speakers of Bengal were never included in "Bengali people". But yes, if other example of such socio-ethno linguistic group in Indo-Aryan and related group exists, that can be a example. I believe "Assamese people" better not be a exception as inclusive group (because one ethno-linguistic group may completely lost its identity). भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Who is an Assamese?
This article says that only Assamese speakers are Assamese. There are non Assamese speaking people in Assam who considers themselves as Assamese but are excluded in the article. I'm a Bengali who speaks Assamese, am I Assamese too? But Tiwas who speak Tiwa aren't Assamese even though the Assamese speaking Tiwas are Assamese? Huh Msasag (talk) 7:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not true. Please look at the Assamese people section, which clearly does not say only Assamese speakers are Assamese.  Chaipau (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's not the case with the introduction template. It says the number of Assamese people is 15 million and they speak Assamese (including dialects: Kamrupi and Goalpariya) Msasag (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Assamese is listed under "Languages", so there is room for adding other languages. The template looks incomplete, at best. I did not design it, though. Chaipau (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hi, it is regarding this removal. While it was added by the Sairg sockfarm, the content seems to be sourced well. The exact lines in page 129, An interesting feature of identity politics in colonial Assam was that the willingness to accept immigrants as part of the Assamese community was leading to the transformation of this very community whose cultural determinants were largely Hindu. Should we reinstate it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are major problems with the paragraph and I agree to the removal---especially the text and citation associated with Sengupta. The quote is itself misleading because the Assamese resisted the Hindu Bengalis who were Hindus but accepted the initial waves of Muslims who came to be named Na-Asomiya (New-Assamese).  The willingness to accept changed in the 1970s. Chaipau (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the author was talking about other Hindu groups from other regions not part of Assam Province in the above lines since she specifies the case of Bengali immigrants who were disliked in the page 123.


 * Secondly, by ... transformation of this very community whose cultural determinants were largely Hindu were they possibly claiming the assimilation of Muslims. Since in a few paras later:

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sengupta focuses too closely at the colonial part, and that too rather partially. As Udayan Misra has stated, the Assamese identity was forged basically in the 17th century, when the Ahom kingdom resisted the Mughal invasions.  Guha's is one of many interpretations of the Assam Movement—in fact there was a lively debate on EPW that involved Guha and a few other scholars in the 1980s.  Furthermore, Vaishnava Hinduism segues into the issue in a very complicated manner, and by itself does not define the nature of Assamese identity.  There are other authors who have defined Assamese identity, and this group includes Guha.  This is a rather scathing review of her book .  Also, I have read the book and it seems she has picked up a long-standing dispute in Wikipedia and passed it up as something that happened in real-life.  I do not consider her work as WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the passage mainly per WP:BANREVERT, but also because it was unintelligible and not in Wikivoice ("true Asamiyas" is also used by Sengupta in a rather quotative manner). But I agree with Chaipau, adding anything based on that short passage is simplistic, since Sengupta's further discussion shows that such an interpretation doesn't work. Either we treat this topic in-depth and from a neutral POV, or not at all. –Austronesier (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "...adding anything based on that short passage is simplistic..further discussion shows that such an interpretation doesn't work'" ← This. A lot of contradictions in the source it seems. Well, my intention was to check with you guys whether this seemingly well-sourced sentence can be re-added. Thanks for your inputs . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this up. It has always been a pleasure working with you. Chaipau (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm humbled. Thanks man. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Assamese Model.jpg

History
I am removing a digressive discussion on Kamrup's territorial history. It is best discussed (already discussed) in Kamrup region. There is also a confusion between ancient Kamarupa and medieval Kamrup region. After 1681 Kamrup has been a part of Assam (Ahom kingdom and later). In any case, these details are not relevant here, which is about the Assamese people. I am removing this part of the section. , comments? Chaipau (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, but I was thinking whether → "The first usage of the English word "Assamese" is noted in colonial times; based on same principle as Sinhalese, Nepalese and Canarese, derived from the Anglicised word "Assam"[43][44] with the suffix -ese, meaning "of Assam."[45]" should be kept since it is about the etymology of the term during British era. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * yes. Maybe we could change the wordings slightly: Assamese is an English word meaning "of Assam" and then cite Grierson?  Everyone has been basically quoting Grierson (1903) from page 393.  The etymological origin of the suffix -ese in English is the Latin -ensis, as given in Wiktionary. So "Assamese people" means "people of Assam". The only problem here is that not all "people of Assam" are Assamese people.  So we should expand the sentence above to Assamese is an English word meaning "of Assam"—though not all people of Assam are Assamese people.  What do you say? Chaipau (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some further nuances here. The Assamese identity is older than colonialism, as pointed out by Udayan Misra here; and even though the word "Assamese" was coined by the English during colonial times.  Furthermore, the name "Assam" itself is of native origin and older.  Chaipau (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with → Assamese is an English word meaning "of Assam"—though not all people of Assam are Assamese people and also an explanation on how the "Assamese identity is older than colonialism" citing Udayan Misra. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have parked the about sentence in the "Definition" section. Shall move it back when appropriate.  Also, the "Demographic changes" section could become a part of the history section in the future.  Chaipau (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I agree that the "Demographic changes" section can be included in the history section in the future. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent additions
Hi, regarding the recent additions. I believe it is not reliable since according to the 2011 census reports that majority are Assamese speakers. Secondly, they categorise a separate group called 'Muslims', which may very well include Assamese Muslims. Also they didn't mention other tribal population and significant pops like Hindi speakers. What do you say? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Such speculative estimates are political rhetoric and meant to trigger voter realignments.  It may be that 2021 census will show that the Assamese do not constitute more than 50% of the people in Assam, but we do not have the numbers yet. This should not be included. We should only rely on census data.  Chaipau (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the removal. It was a politically influenced piece for sure. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Demographics changes
I believe a section like Assamese people is out of scope for an article about an ethno-linguistic group. Things like that should be covered and expanded in the state article itself, which we have under the topic "Social issues". I mean, we do not have sections about migrations of other ethnic groups in articles like Punjabis when in Punjab, people have been migrating from Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. It has changed the demographics quite much, a lot more Hindi speakers as of now than in previous years. Same can be said about the Marathi people article where we can add migrations by way more ethnicities in Maharashtra. Secondly, if we keep it, a section like that should be added to all 'indigenous' ethnic group articles who do not identify as Assamese people, but may have been affected by such migrations, making it a tedious job. What do you say? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you strongly. I feel that relevant parts of this section could go to National Register of Citizens for Assam, Assam Movement and other such articles. Some of it could go to a separate section at the bottom of People of Assam.  Chaipau (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph deals only with Muslims, so belongs to Islam in Assam. Chaipau (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will move it to a new page on Migration to Assam. We decided, while discussing Citizenship Amendment Act that a page on history of migration into India was necessary. But nobody had the energy to work on it. This will give us a chance to do so. Pinging for her information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please point me to the specific discussion where this decision was taken? I ask because Migration to Assam is too general, and it is covered in People of Assam (a little more expansion is in the works).  But the article does not focus with the specific topic here, which is: Colonial and post-colonial migration of people from Bengal to Assam.  So I would suggest naming the new article differently.  Maybe Migration from Bengal to Assam? Pinging—, .  Chaipau (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that these should be expanded in articles like National Register of Citizens for Assam, Assam Movement and People of Assam. THIS specific section can have some of this. I believe a separate article like Migration to Assam would not be much different than the section People of Assam, which can be expanded. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Energy and time, Kautilya3. He, others and I discussed this in different threads in the context of Assam Accord etc. Fylindfotberserk suggestions are good. Yet, a few summary sentences in the main article on Assam and this one, with links to more comprehensive other articles or new dedicated article would make sense. The ethno-linguistic nature of Assamese people (and similarly Kashmiri people) in light of actual or potential migration and exodus has been one of the issues over the last 70 years (see Baruah, Bharadwaj). Post-partition, in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, there have been the systematic push from the Islamic nationalists to erase a historic South Asian script for their own political goals/fears and adopt a non-South Asian script/language (Hindi and Urdu sound similar, share a lot of words, but one uses Indic and other Arabic script). This has had its impact on the regional ethno-linguistic identities, and fears thereof. Assamese people are an admixture of the native Assamese ethno-linguistic group and the (Bangladeshi) Bengali ethnolinguistic group, with the latter becoming a majority in many parts due in part to migration (see Weiner). Overall, all this and more is best summarized in a dedicated article. Care should be taken to include and rely on peer reviewed scholarly articles published in 1980s as well as the more recent dedicated scholarship on this. Avoid newspapers and avoid paid-advocacy-groups/paid-news/envelop-journalists on either side. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is quite chaotic, but see the section on Vote banks in the Archive 3 where this came up. might remember some more.
 * I don't think "peopling" and "immigration" can be equated. We use "peopling" for the migration that happened in the remote past and the "migration" for the influx after the society has more or less formed. I would limit the "immigration" term to colonial and post-colonial times. And the scale of it is quite mind-blowing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the link and I agree with you that the focus should be on colonial and post-colonial migrations particularly. But the focus should not just be on colonial and post-colonial migration, but the migrations specifically from Bengal.  Most of the nuances, details and politics are related to the migrations from Bengal; not from, say, Nepal etc. I agree with  too that Assamese identity is complex, and that some of the Muslims from Bengal have been accepted as Na Asamiya (New Assamese).  Furthermore, the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord will create a legal definition of Assamese people.  These migrations that have an impact on the identity and legal definitions of the Assamese people could be part of this article, with a "main article" link pointing to the (what I propose as) Migrations from Bengal to Assam (note Migrations).
 * The migration is massive. The migrants have overwhelmed the local population in Tripura.  They are about to do so in Assam as well.
 * Chaipau (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reopening talk about the section again. ? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * yes I agree. I am coming around to 's opinion that demeographics should focus on colonial and post-colonial period. Chaipau (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "demographics" applies to a region, state or other kind of geographical entity, but not to a collective of people such as an ethnolinguistic group. An ethnolinguistic group can be strongly affected by demographic developments in the area they live in, but that's not an intrinsic property of the ethnolinguistic group. We can of course mention here that for people self-identifying as ethnic Assamese, demographic changes are perceived as a major issue, but the main exposition of the problem should be in other articles, such as People of Assam (even if that article currently mostly focuses on the "Peopling of Assam"). –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe could we name the new article Demography of Assam?   Here are some issues IMHO.
 * The early immigrations are probably best addressed in an anthropological sense. There has been significant mixing and crossing over in ethnolinguistic groups in the pre-colonial times. (Tibeto-Burman → Indo-Aryan; Austroasiatic → Tibeto-Burman; Austroasiatic → Indo-Aryan; Tibeto-Burman → Ahom etc.) I think People of Assam is a good place to handle this.
 * Demography makes sense only in the colonial and post-colonial times, when we can cite some numbers. And here too, some numbers are at best just estimates. In this period too there has been some crossing/uncrossing over (Bengali-Muslim → Assamese Muslim → Miya; Tibeto-Burman → Assamese → Tibeto-Burman etc.) and identity politics has been a major player.
 * I think what everyone needs is an article on immigration and identity politics in the colonial/post-colonial period.
 * (On a side-note—identity politics and tug-of-war is currently playing out currently in the ethnolinguistic articles—Chutia kingdom, Chutia people, Ahom kingdom, Ahom people, Kachari kingdom, Koch people, Boro people etc. We need some additional editors to put these and similar articles in their watchlist!)
 * Chaipau (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to that. All these things about demography and politics that are not exactly relevant in these articles can be moved there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * done! Now you will have to do your magic on Demography of Assam.  I shall be be able to devote very little time to it at the beginning.  Chaipau (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)