Talk:Indo-Aryan migration to Assam

Content removal

Hello user:Chaipau, i found that you once again removed cited content like before, such as revert 1, revert 2. If you have other theories, you are free to include, but reverting like this will lead to undesirable edit war. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The insertion of the Dravidian is highly problematic for various reasons and are removed again. The problems are given here.

• User:Bhaskarbhagawati is using “Dravidian” as a racial definition. The Dravidian racial element in Assam was first propounded when Risley asserted, based on cranial measurements of early 20th-century populations, that the Koches were “Dravidian”. Since the Koches are considered early settlers, the assertion implies that Dravidians were present in early Assam, before the advent of the “Aryan” races. This racial assertion is no longer agreed on and many authors have claimed that the Koches belonged to the “Mongoloid” race, which includes E Gait, S K Chatterjee, B M Das. The consensus is that the Koches are Mongolian, with their origins north of the Himalayas, and that they originally spoke a Tibeto-Burmese language. (D Nath (1989) p2-3, ‘History of the Koch kingdom’)
• The racial definitions of the early 20th century based on cranial measurements has been proven to be unscientific, and such categories are no longer used in scholarship. Some of these definitions are racist, and should not be used in Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia, in fact, does not use racial definition. Dravidian people in Wikipedia defines a linguistic category. To be consistent with Wikipedia, the use of ‘racial’ definition of Dravidian should be avoided.
• Even if Dravidian is understood to be a linguistic group the Koches are considered today to have spoken a Tibeto-Burmese language. Writers like D N Nath very clearly summarizes this (look at the above reference).
• There is no proof of any kind that a group speaking the Dravidians language actually lived in Assam at any time before the advent of Indo-Aryan speakers. The Dravidian phonetic elements in Bengali are glaringly absent in Assamese.
• There are some writers today that still mention Dravidian presence in Assam in passing. These writers have not examined the Dravidian element in any detail. These references should not be used to push a discredited theory.

Therefore, the edits are reverted again.

Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, i am not using 'Dravidian' as racial definition, but it was linked to Dravidian people, an linguistic group. Risley claimed Koch as admixture people, even till date many of them show caucasoid features (see). The Austro-Asiatic groups are considered early settlers, Koch are not among them. No doubt Koch are Asian people with large admixture of Dravidian blood, as seen by their features. Nobody today associate them with Dravidian people.

Modern scholars like Bazeley (2006) has claimed that The earliest inhabitants of the land has been the Austro-Asiatics who were followed by the Dravidian, as confirmed by Assam District Gazetteers (1979).

I am also adding Dubey (1978), who also supported that there are Dravidian speakers present in pre-Aryan Northeast India, like rest of India in ancient times. So, multiple sources asserts that second group to enter Assam was 'Dravidian people', and research of our own is not needed. I am adding back the same as per citations. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

When you say "Actually, i am not using 'Dravidian' as racial definition, but it was linked to Dravidian people, an linguistic group. Risley claimed Koch as admixture people, even till date many of them show caucasoid features" (emphasis mine) you are yourself using racial theory. There are no Caucasoid/Dravidian "features" outside of racial theory. Your approach to this is therefore racial, and not linguistic, and your statement clearly demonstrates this.

• If indeed Bazeley (2006) said what you claimed was said ("The earliest inhabitants of the land has been the Austro-Asiatics who were followed by the Dravidian") then that is a plagiarism from a 2000 book "Defenders of the Dawn" Lancer Publishers, in page 42. "Defenders of the Dawn" is not book on research work, but a work on the Eastern Command of the Indian Army. This is not a reliable source.
• Assam District Gazetteer (1979) is again not a research work, but an Assam Government release. It simply reiterates (wrongly) what was claimed earlier. Not a reliable source.
• Despite your cherry-picked references that have referred to Dravidian peoples in Assam irrespective of chronology, there are standard works in this regard. One of them is Taher, Mohammad (1993) The Peopling of Assam and contemporary social structure in Ahmad, Aijazuddin (ed) Social Structure and Regional Development, Rawat Publications, New Delhi. This work clearly asserts the sequence as Austro-Asiatics, Tibeto-Burman and then Indo-Aryan.

I am reverting this again. There is no consensus that the Dravidians were present in Assam before the first Indo-Aryans arrived around 500BC(?).

Chaipau (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple authors points towards evidences of Dravidian people in Assam, such as Miri (1993), caucasoid features is common term used to refer to facial features, just as you did for mongoloid. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple authors have just repeated what was said earlier. Facial features of modern populations is not the right marker to determine human migrations 2500 years ago. All of these works have either been based on discredited methods or repeats of what was said earlier. There is no unambiguous evidence of Dravidian speaking people in Assam before the coming of the Indo-Aryans. Fishing for references via google search will only get you false positives that you are currently getting. Chaipau (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Various scholars upheld the theory. I am referring to facial features in other context, as your accusation of racial theories, though not apply here.

If you believe all scholars are hopeless, i recommend put them here, to avoid further issues on same. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting. There are may scholars who refute the presence of Dravidians. And those who are doing so are just repeating an already discredited theory. This does not belong here. Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In contrary, i can see pundits like Chatterji (1970) and others affirms the theory. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati Please do not insert Dravidian presence here before we can reach a consensus. I do not see Dravidians mentioned in standard works like Taher, who is the authority on this; nor in edited works like those from authors such as S Chattopadhyaya. All of them mention Indo-Aryans coming into a land that has Austro-asiatic and Tibeto-Burman speakers. Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, as per reliable sources Dravidian presence is from ancient times, like rest of India, need to be fairly represented.Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the basis of this claim? Just quoting an assorted authors does not establish a fact. Chaipau (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)::

Multiple sources such as Chatterji (1970),Dubey (1978), Caudhuri 1985 and others asserted about Dravidian people and kingdom in Assam. Kindly take it to RSN. Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In order to include any comment to the effect that any significant proportion of the population ever spoke Dravidian languages, we would need to reach a consensus that this represents a defensible modern academic position, one supported by relevant linguistic evidence. Vague comments from non-specialist sources about outdated concepts of "race" are particularly unsuitable. The references presently used to support the inclusion of "Dravidian" are not adequate for this purpose. For possible convenience I paste them here:

• Brinda Rymabai Bazeley (2006), Development and Problems of Higher Education in Barak Valley and Karbi Anglong, p.8 Racially, there is in the population of Assam practically all the basic elements that go to make up the Indian people, the Austro- Asiatic, the Dravidian, the Indo Aryan and the Indo-Mongoloid. The earliest inhabitants of the land has been the Austro-Asiatics who were followed by the Dravidian.
• Government of Assam, (1979), Assam District Gazetteers: Goalpera District, p.47 They (Austro-Asiatics) are now said to be represented by the Monkhmer Khasis and Syntengs of Assam, who were driven to the hills by the Dravidian invaders.
• S. M. Dubey (1978), North East India: A Sociological Study, p.27 Assam, the frontier outpost of Indian civilisation, is the meeting ground of peoples of different origin who have entered into the province at different periods of history. These people of various races, namely the Austrics, the Dravidians, the Aryans- and the Tibeto-Burmans, after being confronted with each other, have gradually transformed themselves into a plural society with a composite culture.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your valuable inputs. Chatterji (1970) wrote about 'Austrics' and 'Dravidians' preceding mongoloid bodos, his views were supported by many modern scholars in their works. I also provided other local reliable sources such as Caudhuri (1985), which is also supported by others. Miri (1993) supported Dravidian presence in ancient Assam. If all lot of this scholars are saying so, i believe same to be deserve to be included to present a fair representation. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 01:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is that all of the sources that assert a major "Dravidian" presence in Assam appear to be based ultimately on invalid concepts of "race", or on vague speculation. If you can provide sources based on serious linguistic analysis it would be reasonable to include a "Dravidian" comment. If there is modern and good-quality DNA research showing an ancient South Indian genetic element in Assam, it would be reasonable to say so. Until then, the comment should go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the scholarly usage of 'race' in India is not exactly as the west, it is metaphor for 'linguistic ethnic groups'. I cannot recall any local works which termed Dravidian as distinct race, say 'Australoid' instead of 'Caucasoid'.I cannot give source based on linguistic analysis, because there are no Dravidian speaking people in modern Assam, though scholars says 'Kaibarta' group is remnant.(vide Goswami 1998) If scholars mentions (say speculate ) 'Dravidian people', there must some evidences, they considered, even if it is not to be directly included in article, but at least indicated separately, say "The Indo-Aryan speaking people came into a region that was already inhabited by Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman-speaking, though others opined that Dravidian speakers preceded Tibeto-Burman speakers". भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Thank you for your comments and 3O. Chaipau (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reference that supports a Dravidian linguistic presence before the Indo-Aryan ingress because there is none, as Bhaskarbhagawati admits. If there is no linguistic evidence, how can one claim the Dravidians are used here in the sense of an ethnolinguistic group? In the additional references Bhaskarbhagawati has provided, Chatterjee 1970 inserts "Dravidian" cursorily, without any discussion; and Goswami 1998 harks back to previous authors and calls the Kaibartas "survivors of the great race of people" (emphasis mine). Clearly, Goswami is using the Dravidians as a racial group. Chaipau (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. In answer to User:Bhaskarbhagawati, no, just because someone makes a passing comment does not imply that they had any evidence. I suspect that they were simply using a widespread assumption that "Dravidians" in some sense were the aboriginal inhabitants of all of India. This reflects the muddled concepts of "race", in Europe at least, in much of the twentieth century. I have read a reported conversation between a German and a British person, picking through the wreckage after a British bombing raid on a German city, in which they cheerfully used the phrases "British race" and German race", very much in the sense that you describe. They probably were referring to some confused concept that united genes, language, national self-identification, and other aspects of culture, but it doesn't correspond to any clear and valid idea.

I have considered various forms of words that might be used to summarize the comments that you mention. I suppose that we might write something like "Some authors have suggested that Dravidians were also a significant part of the earlier population, but no evidence has been produced for this idea." 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. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)