Talk:Buranji

Assamese used in Buranjis was developed in Upper Assam itself, nothing to do with Western Assam.
There is ample amount of evidence to show that a form of Assamese/Prakrit was already being used in Upper Assam before the arrival of Ahoms.

1. Early Ahom Buranjis state that when they arrived, the people of Sutiya kingdom were the only people to be using the Prakrit script. This shows that a version of Prakrit mixed with local Sutiya langauge was already being used in the region. I quote here excerpts from Major M.F. Hanneys' book "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal", "This tradition might derive some corroboration from the fact, that the language of this race (Sutiya), now only known to the families of the priests, contains a great proportion of Sanskrit, which last are porbably derived from Pali, and the whole language may, therefore have been originally one of the Prakrit dialects of the day;according to the Tai races also, the "Chootyah" langauge appears to have been the only written language in existence at the period of their advent in Assam...."

2. Historians have also found Prakrit inscriptions written in the walls of many temples like Tamreswar and Malinithan built by the erstwhile Sutiya kings.

3. Many historians like Yasmin Saikia and Edward Gait have written that Assamese developed independent in two important literary centers. One was the Kamatapur kingdom where the Kamrupi dialects evolved and the other was Sadiya, capital of the Sutiya kingdom. This language was later adopted by Ahoms and written in the Tai script as well as the Prakrit script, due to which Tai words were added to the vocabulary. I quote here excerpts from Yasmin Saikia's book "Assam and India: Fragmented Memories", "The other center of writing was Sadiya, capital of Sutiya kingdom in eastern Assam, and the inscriptions are in Prakrit and Tai scripts. One can assume that the spoken language also had affinity with Tai."

4. The Assamese spoken in Lower Assam was developed distinctly in the Kamatapur kingdom as Kamatapur Prakrit dialects. Although the Assamese used in Buranjis as well as the modern spoken form has the same roots in Prakrit(mother langauge), but apart from that there is has no relation between them. The difference in both langauges can be ascertain from the causes of Dundiya rebellion. "It was during the reign of notorious Badan Chandra Borphukan,that the Dundiya Revolt started. It is said that Badan Chandra Borphukan used to mock the people of Western Kamrup all because of their distinct language..." .

5. According to historians, during the 17th century four styles of Assamese writings developed in Assamese valley which clearly shows the uniqueness of each style. I once again quote Yasmin Saikia, "Between the 17th and the 19th century, four styles of Assamese writing developed in the Brahmaputra valley: Gargaya (particularly practised in eastern Assam for writing burnajis), Bamunia (for religious texts), Lakhari and Kaithali (practised in Western Assam)...."

So, I conclude my claim by stating that although the Assamese used in Buranjis or that spoken in present day Upper Assam may have its root in old Kamrupi Prakrit, it was never developed in western Assam. It was probably an assimilation of Sutiya Prakrit dailect along with a high influence of Tai language.2405:205:1208:5821:54BF:5ECA:CC93:41F4 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What has everyone here scratching their heads is what you are hoping to accomplish by simply removing the associated reference. There is no mention of Western Assam anywhere in the article. Also, speaking of the professionalism that you've noted in your edit summary, I suggest that you self-revert your last edit, discuss, and obtain consensus here first before proceeding with your edit. Failing to do so will very likely result in either a ban or a restriction that will prevent you from editing the article as an IP-editor.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see now that you're concerned about the note (quote?) in the first of the two references that you want removed. The sources cited appear to be reliable and if your Yasmin Saikia source is reliable and states otherwise, then both sides need to be represented. Your Saikia quote also speaks of the 17th century and scripts rather than dialects? At any rate, this should happen in a subsequent paragraph or section rather than after the first line of the article. Pinging and .—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked into it and Google Books attributes the "The other center of writing was Sadiya [... Between the 17th and the 19th century, four styles [...]"] quote to Yasmin Saikia.
 * However I don't see what that's got to do with removing the other references, especially not when leaving the content. -- benzband  ( talk ) 20:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have problems with both the references. Much of the Buranjis that we have today are written in the language of the laity foregoing the literary standard of olden times.  That established the modern literary standard---so the claim that the language is based on the western idiom in the very first sentence is inappropriate.  Goswami himself writes in Cordana's collection called "Indo-Aryan Languages": "The prose of the Buranjis is a standardized literary prose in the true sense of the term.  It is through this prose that Persian and Arabic elements crept into the language in abundance.  This prose comes very near to the literary language of the modern period." If the claim is right, that the first few Buranjis were written in the western idiom, then that belongs in a special section in the article discussing the language of Buranjis.  The reference to Saikia is also problematic, as also pointed out.  There were Indo-Aryan settlements near Sadiya many centuries before the Sutiya kingdom came into being.  Saikia has been sloppy in some of the details in that paragraph.


 * I would recommend that both references be removed from the first sentence and used in a new section on the language of Buranjis. Pinging as requested.


 * Chaipau (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have mentioned not one but two sources which you seem to ignore. The sources are fully authentic and are written by renowned historians well versed with the topics.

1. As to the Sadiya inscriptions, it cannot be denied that the inscriptions were written by Sutiya kings as the Sutiyas were under Aryan influence since 7th century(as stated in the chronicle Asambhina)(Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutiya_Kingdom#Background). There may have been small Aryan settlements during that time, but it was limited to the Brahmins which were brought by the Sutiya kings not any separate kingdom. You should know that there was already a Sutiya kingdom during Kamrupa rule who were subordinates under the Varman and Mleccha kings. So, we can simply conclude that Sutiyas have been following a mixed Aryan culture since Kamrupa rule and in the later phases even adopted the Aryan tongue which was Prakrit. Take note

2. It is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of publishing the truth. As the topic seems to be controversial, so the reference cannot be published as I haven't added my references too. On what basis do you seem to negate my claim, I don't get it. If that is the case, even your reference can be called sloppy as it seems to completely ignore the fact that there was already a Prakrit language used in Upper Assam during that time, thus Ahoms on their arrival already had Prakrit contact much before their exploits in Western Assam.(Read the quote by Major M.F.Hanney)

3. Yasmin Saikia has written about two periods of Assamese development separately. One during Sutiya rule(12th century)with a Prakrit script(Major M.F. Hanneys' source) and another during 17th century(Gargaya form). There is no dialect involved anywhere as it was a language with a script. It simply shows the first as the contact of Ahoms with primitive Assamese language and the second period as the development of this language further adding Tai influence. I don't understand why you seem to ignore these facts. Take note

4. The Persian influence is nothing related to Western Kamrupi dialects. It may have influenced the Buranjis regardless of Western Assam influence. 2405:205:1308:4B34:C19C:8F46:3D5:9AD9 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock i do agree as suggested above, reliable source like Golockchandra Goswami (1982) should be represented. Mr. Sutiya's (current unlogged user, he mentions Sutiya in edit summaries frequently, elsewhere too) ideas, sometimes fails WP:NOR accompanied by references removal including some others pages recently. I have reverted his problematic edits in few occassions. The issue here maybe of WP:MENTOR, although i have experience with some users who although editing for long, indulges in practices of reference removal, thus denies fair representation of the subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am adding a new section regarding this matter as my sources are equally qualified to be trusted here. Your reference cannot be taken as the sole reference as it is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. As for Mr, I have often seen you indulge in manipulating various references used in other articles related to Kamrupa history, deliberately trying to prove something which doesn't exist. For instance, one of your references on Varman dynasty was problematic as well where Bhaskarvarman was mentioned as a Brahmin (which was clearly denied by Edward Gait, according to whom Varman was confused with Brahman and that Bhaskarvarman was infact a local ruler converted to the ranks of a Ksatriya), but you chose to ignore it. Also, I have noticed that many of your references are based on mythology which is different from history. Stating mythology as sources of references are clearly works of an amateur. For instance, one of your recent goals seem to be adding Indo-aryan mythology into ancient Assam history, where you clearly try to claim rulers like Narakasura, Bhagadatta or even Banasura to be Aryans. But, in fact, you simply ignore the subtle hints provided in these very texts that the rulers were non Indo-aryans. ('Asura'=non-aryan, 'Krishna's dominance'=Triumph of Aryan over non-aryan, 'Bhagadatta mentioned as a kirata in Mahabharata', etc.)Simply the mention of a character in a Hindu text doesn't qualify him to be an Aryan. There were people of other ethnicities in India too, which have been mentioned in these texts.2405:205:1080:1E21:75CC:8C28:1393:3D3B (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It will more appropriate if you discuss in respective talk pages. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 04:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Language section
, : If a language section will improve the article, then can we iron one out here on the talk page that represents the theories of all reliable sources on this?


 * 2405:205:1308:4B34:C19C:8F46:3D5:9AD9: Would you like to take the lead on this? You state, As the topic seems to be controversial, so the reference cannot be published as I haven't added my references too. Edit-warring on the article's page will simply get you banned again. So here's your chance to reach consensus here. Please provide a summary below of your reliable references on the language(s) and scripts used in Buranjis below. Please also confine yourself solely to this topic without meandering into the history of the languages of Assam. Your sources should specifically address the Buranjis. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should probably also note that (as a general guideline) colonial-era sources are to be avoided unless there are no alternatives.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sample of Kamrupi (Western Assamese) in Buranji's


 * "ake suni lakshminarayan ghila khedi ahil. bangale khaibak napai garar bhitarate sukhai mare" (Kamrupar Buranji, 17th century)
 * "barphukane maharajat janova rup kari sihatar manuhak maharajar thaik anai..." (Tripura Buranji, 18th century)


 * The full quote of Goswami (1982):


 * The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 12:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the other reference (Goswami 2007)? Which is the one that states that Buranjis were initially written in the Ahom language? Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

's suggested content is as follows:

"The Assamese form used in the Buranjis has been argued by many to be belonging to either the Western form or the Eastern form. Some authors like Yasmin Saikia and Major M.F. Hanney claim that the Assamese used in the Buranjis was the Gargaya form which was developed by adopting the Assamese spoken in Sadiya region along with Tai influences. . While other authors like Golockchandra Goswami believes that the Assamese used in the Buranjis was the Western form of literature."

Please discuss and obtain consensus on this passage before including it in the article. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @IP: I don't have an opinion on which claims should or shouldn't be included, as I don't have knowledge on the subject and cannot verify the sources. However, even if we are to keep all the claims, if we stick to the quotes provided I believe at least some minor modifications are in order (for instance, three isn't "many", and Hanney doesn't mention "Gargaya"). I don't claim this is perfect but I believe it to be a better version:
 * -- benzband  ( talk ) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * -- benzband  ( talk ) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I should note that you are misrepresenting MF Hanney SF Hannay as a 1948 source when in fact, it is from 1848 which is far too dated for such matters. The Hannay reference also does not mention Buranjis at all. The Saikia quote (which appears to be fine) notes that the Gargaya form developed only between the 17th and 18th centuries. And it is unclear to the reader what role the Ahom language plays in this (assuming Goswami (2007) mentions it at all). The article states that Buranjis existed since 1228. So which languages were in use in the interim period? And going by Chaipau's quote above, Goswami had a lot more to say on this.


 * Your passage currently just adds to the confusion for someone like me who is not acquainted with this subject. Given your history of edit-warring, please vet this passage here and gain consensus prior to adding it to the article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry for mentioning the year 1848 as 1948. It was just a typo. I have used SF Hanney to show that Ahoms already had Prakrit contact (in the form of Sutiya Prakrit) when they arrived. Thus, being the rulers of Upper Assam majorly (which used this form of Prakrit), it is pretty clear that they used this language as a means of communication in their kingdom. So, it can be stated that rather than importing a foreign form of literature to write their histories, they could easily use this form (as confirmed by Yasmin Saikia), so that people could relate to it in a better way. It is evident from Saikia's as well as Gait's views(I will quote it shortly) that the buranjis being royal possessions were written in Tai language until 17th century, but as majority of the population started speaking the Assamese Gargayan form (with Tai influence), they shifted to this local variety of Assamese. The Tai influence is even evident in today's modern Assamese vocabulary. As for your modification, I don't have any problem with it.2405:205:1080:1E21:B821:D059:A6D9:E629 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @LatestIP: If we are going to discuss this, you will need to self-revert your additions to the article and gain consensus here before adding it. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour. You are shooting yourself in the foot by being combative and edit-warring and will likely get banned again. Note also that there's no hurry here. I'm pretty sure that we are the most traffic this page has ever seen. Also, those "modifications" are not mine, but Benzband's.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Cpt.a.haddock There are two places, where Buranji is mentioned in Golokchandra Goswami (2007):


 * Middle Asamiya is the period of secular prose that became the main vehicle of expression for all purposes. Different styles of prose developed, such as the colloquial prose of biographies of the religious gurus, the archaic prose of the books on charms, the conventional prose of the utilitarian literature, such as medicine, astrology, arithmetic, dance and music and commentaries on religious scriptures, and above them all, the standardized literary prose of high standing used in the diplomatic writings, administrative records and regular history known as Buranji in Asamiya. The prose of Buranjis is a standardized literary prose in the true sense of the term. It is through this prose that Arabic, Persian elements crept into the language in abundance. This prose comes very near to the literary language of the modern period.


 * Followed sometime later by his 1982 quote given above. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 03:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources are all good, maybe need slight evaluation for reliability to put weight behind:
 * Golokchandra Goswami, noted linguist, authored many books on Assamese language (Assamese, its formation and development: a scientific treatise on the history and philology of the Assamese language 1962 (jointly with Banikanta Kakati), An introduction to Assamese phonology 1966, Structure of Assamese 1982 etc)
 * Major S.F Hannay, 19th century official in British India, regular contributor to Journal of the Asiatic Society.
 * Yasmin Saikia, best known for recent works dealing with social issues of 'Tai-Ahoms' such as History at the Crossroads: An Analysis of the Satsari Buranji of Assam 1992, In the meadows of gold: telling tales of the swargadeos at the crossroads of Assam 1997, Tai-Ahom, A Name Without a People: Searching to be Tai-Ahom in Modern India 1999, Fragmented Memories: Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India 2004, Assam and India: Fragmented Memories, Cultural Identity 2005 also works like Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971 2011 and others) भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 03:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also to make things straight, i found that 'Gadgaya' is inappropriately referred as language, instead of Kamrupi script variation. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 04:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) SF Hannay is far too dated to even be considered as a reliable source here and the quoted excerpt from a footnote has nothing explicitly to do with Buranjis. And the statements being proposed do not need the Hannay cite from what I can tell. I do find the ambiguity between language and script here a little confusing. And none of these sources appear to support the "initially in the Ahom" language bit from the article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, Sutiya-POV-pushing-IP-dude has simply gone ahead and re-added his version. I've revised it to read what I think the cited sources are stating. Please feel free to critique.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note for the Western Assam editors
Kindly, stop referring to your reference as the sole rightful claim. The references that I have provided are written by equally honorable authors [like Yasmin Saikia(Contemporary) and Edward Gait]. As for your reference of Golockchandra Goswami, I have to point out few errors in that too. First of all, Assamese literature during that period was equally developed in central and eastern Assam. While Western Assam had Kamatapur literature, Central and Eastern Assam had Kachari(Madhav Kandali), Vaishnavite(Shankardeva) and Sutiya literature(Tamreswar). Secondly, if the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region, won't they follow the local tongue for the sake of the kings rather that writing in a foreign tongue??2405:205:1080:1E21:B821:D059:A6D9:E629 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not asserting the same, but reliable sources need to be represented, which you are removing, and is not allowed until marked unreliable in WP:RSN. The sole centre of literary development till late medieval times confined to North Bengal, Western Assam (Kamrup) (cite:U.C Goswami 1970) and some extent to central Assam. It went to Eastern Assam after that. Most writers of the period are Aryans, most hailing from modern Kamrup region itself (cite:Goswami 1970), who used Sanskrit, Kamrupi and also hybrids like Brajavali (Sankaradeva), and not well versed with local tribal languages. Also lingua-franca's acts as literary language frequently (cite:K.L Barua 1933). You may also aware that many such tribal groups abandoned their speeches for Indo-Aryan speeches in medieval times, e.g Koch adopted Rajbansi, Sutiya, Tai-Shan, Sonowal Kachari etc adopted East Assamese etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 04:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The claims made by is not supported by evidence. The earliest literary activity in the medieval times occurred in Kamatapur (North Bengal) in the court of Durlabhnarayan and in Central Assam (in the court of a Kachari king called Mahamanikya).  The earliest evidence of the Prakrit comes from the Davaka region, which for many centuries maintained independence from Kamarupa.  There is no basis for the claim that the writers belonged to the Aryan race, because it is already established that the Aryan-Dravidian admixture had already occurred by the time of Rg Veda itself---and vedic Sanskrit itself shows signs of linguistic shift, which means that originally Dravidian speakers had become Indo-Aryan speakers carrying into the language Dravidian elements.  There are inscriptional evidence of very early settlements of Indo-Aryan speakers in the eastern-most regions of Assam.  Chaipau (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The earliest ancient literature written in modern Kamrup region itself (vide:Chouhury 1988). From ancient times upto the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige (vide:Goswami 1970), kings of Kamatapur, Rangpur and Jayantapura etc. patroned some of them. Historical references of Davaka are quite obscure. The ethnic controversy mentioned should be taken to Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples. I agree, there is very early settlement of Aryans, according to Barua (1933) Aryanisation of North-East happened before Eastern India. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 13:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No matter how developed the literature of Western Assam maybe at that time, it doesn't prove anything related to Buranjis. We are talking of Eastern Assam here. The literature developments of Western Assam is highlighted because it was an independent kingdom at the early stages, not under Ahom rule, while there are proofs of literature development in Eastern Assam before Ahom rule (Tamreswari temple inscriptions). One doesn't require literature texts to write new literature. All the writers ever needed was a language of Prakrit form, a script which was well present with the Ahoms and royal patronage.

Reliability of sources is not for us to decide. All sources should be equally represented. The sources like Major SF Hanney that I quoted may not be directly related to Buranjis, still it provides details as to the presence of Prakrit in Upper Assam. Also, the reason I quoted an old source was that there has been no current research on that field as historians today have completely ignored it and instead seem to be more interested in Kamatapur literature which was infact written much later in the 14th century. If the references of Western Assam can be put up without any resistance, Eastern Assam has an equal right too.

As for Mr sir,

1. You maybe ignorant of the fact that groups of Eastern Assam like Sutiyas are not purely Mongoloid, but are a mix of Indo-aryan, Austro-Asiatic(due to Pala dominance in the 10th century) and adopted Prakrit much before their Western Assam counterparts like Koch or Kacharis. It is evident from the fact that the Sutiya kings had already adopted Hinduism before the 7th century(Aryan influence) and the Eastern form of Prakrit was already the court language of Sutiya kingdom in 12th century(continuation of Pala dynasty).

2. Kamrupi Prakrit maybe the source but it was equally developed into different forms at the same time,be it Western Kmatapuri lects or Eastern Assamese, not transfered in any case. Infact, it was the Eastern form which was standardised later.

3. Also, groups like Ahoms and Sutiyas didn't adopt the Eastern form, they created it by mixing local tongues and Prakrit, exactly like the Kamatapur dialects.

4. I quote, "The earliest ancient literature written in modern Kamrup region itself (vide:Chouhury 1988). From ancient times upto the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige (vide:Goswami 1970)...." - There are enough evidences against these claims. a.First of all, inscriptions of Kamrupa era are found scattered all over Assam, not just confined to "modern Kamrup". For instance, the Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription, located in Golaghat district. Check this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kamarupa-inscriptions-findspots.png

b.Assamese literature also flourised in courts of Kachari(later period) and Sutiya kings(early period).

c. Shankardeva and Madhavdeva who were both pioneers of Assamese literature both belonged to Central and Eastern Assam respectively.

Take note of these points before blindly quoting sources to suit the agenda.2405:205:1000:3582:C582:DE9F:A6A3:12DA (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Source

 * Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This sentence is intriguing "Tripura Buranji is treated as a travelogue as well by scholars because of the nature of information it contains on the land, people and customs in addition to writing about the kingdom." Chaipau (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This sentence is intriguing "Tripura Buranji is treated as a travelogue as well by scholars because of the nature of information it contains on the land, people and customs in addition to writing about the kingdom." Chaipau (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Buranjis in another talk page
For the records, there is a discussion on Buranjis going on in Talk:Lachit_Barphukan. That discussion should move here at some point. Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2022 (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) 23:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Buranji.png