Talk:Assam

Comment

The state of Assam as of today is a divided place, as a res000ult of influx of non Mongoloid people in to the region from across the border both from India and Bangladesh.

The shift towards domination by Indians and Muslims started after the British take over in 1826 and climxed in the 1940's with the Congress party bringing in crores of Bangladeshis in to the region to secure their win in future Parliamentary and State elections.

Assam which was originally a Mongoloid land now is being taken over by Bangladeshis and High Cast Hindu Indians and traders from Rajeshthan.

All this has resulted in alieanation of the indegenous tribal population from the developmental process, giving rise to seperatist movement and inter tribal clashes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Santanuburagohain (talk • contribs) 07:04, 29 June 2006

Etymology of Assam

Usage:

Response to third opinion request:

Having read both arguments and having done some online research, I agree that stating that "the current name "Assam" is based on the English word "Assam"" is nonsensical and should be removed. The Alternate text 2 suggested by User:Chaipau makes a lot more sense, is more condense and down to the point. It also uses more detailed references. However, I do believe that in the beginning of the Assam Etymology section, there should be a point for the readers that the etymology of the word still remains disputed and that there is no universal academic consensus on it.H tan H epi tas (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This third opinion and User:H tan H epi tas is fraud and likely created by disputing user himself because:

• Said account of User:H tan H epi tas created just few hours ago, see here and here.
• Similarity of word usage and tone as in the edit summary of here.

It is now going towards fraud alongwith censorship. As regarding third opinion it must be from specialists for whom references are already given.

bbhagawati 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@bbhagawati - Your unsubstantiated reactions and defamation of other users show why this dispute cannot be resolved. I have contributed in Wikipedia through my IP in the past, for many years. Just because I created a new account yesterday (I have lost the details of my previous one and I don't like to show my IP any more for the likes of you) this does not mean I am a fraudster etc. Watch your mouth and accept a third opinion. If you don't, User:Chaipau should file a complaint at the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard because you jump to conclusions and defame other well-wishing editors. I don't take this attitude kindly. I have only provided unbiased third opinion and have never edited or revised the Article in question before. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you H tan H epi tas, for your opinion. I greatly appreciate your close reading of the texts and the references therein. Your suggestion that the lack of academic consensus should be highlighted has been implemented in Alternate Text 2. I shall wait for User:Bhaskarbhagawati's reply and shall then transfer the Alternate Text 2 to the article. Chaipau (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As for tags placed on citation number 15 stating "not in citation",by the above user, it is mentioned there that "Assam is based on the English word Assam". It taken from book namely "Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories" by authors S. C. Bhatt and Gopal Bhargava, published by Gyan Publishing House in 2005. In page no. 147 of said book it is mentioned that "The word Assamese is an English one built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam". Which can be directly referred from said book. If needed, i can upload the same.

For citation number 19 which is marked by above user as irrelevant is from book ASSAMESE, ITS FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT by Banikanta Kakati published by Govt. of Assam in the Dept. of Historical and Antiquarian Studies . Here author mentions that both Assam and Assamese are English words. He says The word Assamese is an English one. built on the same principle as Cingalese. Canarese. etc. It is based on the English word Assam., it is directly quoted in the article. The same view is echoed by Satyendra Nath Sarma which also directly quoted in article for reference, is from his book "Assamese literature: Volume 9, Part 2" published by Harrassowitz. Direct quotes of said scholars are given from their respective books so that contributors remain free from their personal interpretations, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.

This is an incomplete quote. A similar quote from the same author is: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 Chaipau (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Above are the views of specialists making it academic consensus. So said section be reduced by removing unnecessary interpretations and directly putting in views of pioneering experts.

All these arguments are moot because "Assam" itself is a word derived from a native word, and we are trying to state the possible etymology of the name "Assam" in this section. Stating that '"Assam" is based on the English word Assam" is ridiculous. And there is incontrovertible evidence that the name Assam or its variants were not coined by the British. Edward Gait (1906), pp=240-241 (and this book is open [http://books.google.com/books?id=GvcRAAAAYAAJ&dq=history%20of%20assam&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20assam&f=false here) states that the Mughal rulers used the Persian equivalent of "Asham" and that the British initially used the name with one 's', ie. "Asam".

So, "Assam is based on the English word Assam" is ridiculous as well as factually incorrect. The reference says "Assamese" is based on Assam, not Assam is based on Assam. The pioneering experts do not say what you claim. Because this is what Banikanta writes in "Early Aspects of Assamese Literature": 'The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century'. Here he clearly states that "Assam" is an anglicised form of a native word "Asam". So it is very clear now that the British initially used the form closest to the native name (which Gait states was "Asam"), which later changed to anglisized form "Assam".

Chaipau (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And regarding citations number 12,13 etc. there no text found supporting the claims of word pickings. so said section can be curtailed to respect Wikipedia's policies, to ease confusion and to make it accessible.

I have provided references (The Statesman article by Wahid Saleh), as well as links to the maps. Your objections are baseless.

As Assam is known mostly by three major names i.e "Pragjyotisha" in Mahabharata and other Sanskrit scriptures, "Kamarupa" historically upto early second millennium and also by later invaders in some form. And finally "Assam" in modern times.

This is absolutely untrue. There are a lot of uses of the name Assam and its variants in Assam's indigenous manuscripts starting with Sankardev's Bhagavata (where the name "Asam" is used), as well as Abu-Fazl's Ain-I-Akbari (where the name "Asham" is used), both from the 16th century. The first use of the name by Europeans come from the 17th century, from individual travelers and soldiers who accompanied Mughal expeditions into Assam. It would be preposterous to suggest that the representatives of Mughal Empire accepted the name coined by these European adventurists, who were after all their guests. Chaipau (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So etymology section should only mention this three names. Minute details can be discussed in etymology related article, not here. So finally it may look like this :

Alternate Text 1

Assam was known as Pragjyotisha in the Mahabharata, Puranas and historically as Kamarupa (350–1140), an kingdom that ruled Assam for 800 years.

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas ruled by erstwhile Kamarupa. The named Assam applied to most of North East India including Brahmaputra and Barak river valleys, hills of Arunachal Pradesh (NEFA), Mizoram (Lushai Hills), Nagaland (Naga Hills) and Meghalaya (Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills. Assam was known as Asama after 15th century till arrival of British. The medieval native name was "Asama" derived from Sanskrit meaning unequal as referring to its geology which is equal mix of river valleys and hills. The British province after 1838 and the Indian state after 1947 came to be known as Assam.

Different scholars forwarded their view in this regard. Some of them are as below. Banikanta Kakati's view regarding etymology of current official name and official language of state is as follows:-

The word Assamese is an English one. built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.

So even above lines may be shortened to make it more simple. And now last but not least, it can be found by looking at recent history of this article, specially this section, where sourced material are keep on removed. This malpractice should be stopped.

Thanks !

bbhagawati 08:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This blatantly disregards all available evidence (read comments earlier). It ignores the evidence (duely accepted by alll) that there were uses of the name "Asam" (native), "Asham" (Mughal) etc before the British, and that "Assam" is an anglicised form of these names. I shall provide an alternate text some time later. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As expected, twenty four hour vigilant vandals even try to censor talk page content as in Here. So same is now put in Here with wiki formatting.

Thanks !

bbhagawati 17:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs)

Alternate text 2

The above text proposed by User:Bhaskarbhagawati is unwieldy, verbose and inaccurate. An alternative text, for the entire subsection is given here. The text merely touches on the main issues, with the reader invited to look at the main article, Etymology of Assam, for further details (which should be revamped and language improved...but that is a different story):

Currently there exists no academic consensus on the precise etymology of "Assam". In the classical period and up to the 12th century the region east of the Karatoya river, largely congruent to present-day Assam, was called Kamarupa, and alternatively, Pragjyotisha. But the region owes its current name to Shan invaders who established the Ahom kingdom in the 13th century and ruled for nearly 600 years. Though association of the name with the Shan invaders is widely accepted the precise origin of the name is not clear. It was suggested by some that the Sanskrit word Asama ("unequalled", "peerless", etc) was the root, which has been rejected by Gait as well as Kakati. and it is now accepted that it is a later Sanskritization of a native name. Among possible origins are Tai (A-Cham) and Bodo (Ha-Sam).

After the annexation of Assam, the British called it Asam which later took the modern form Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate text 3

Currently there exists no academic consensus on the precise etymology of "Assam". In the classical period and up to the 12th century the region east of the Karatoya river, largely congruent to present-day Assam, was called Kamarupa, and alternatively, Pragjyotisha. In the medieval times the Mughals used Asham, and during British colonialism, the English used Asam and then Assam. Though association of the name with the 13th century Shan invaders is widely accepted the precise origin of the name is not clear. It was suggested by some that the Sanskrit word Asama ("unequalled", "peerless", etc) was the root, which has been rejected by Gait as well as Kakati. and it is now accepted that it is a later Sanskritization of a native name. Among possible origins are Tai (A-Cham) and Bodo (Ha-Sam).

Alternate text 4

The precise etymology of "Assam" in unknown. In the classical period and up to the 12th century the region east of the Karatoya river, largely congruent to present-day Assam, was called Kamarupa, and alternatively, Pragjyotisha. In medieval times the Mughals used Asham, and during British colonialism, the English used Assam. Though many authors have associated the name with the 13th century Shan invaders the precise origin of the name is not clear. It was suggested by some that the Sanskrit word Asama ("unequalled", "peerless", etc) was the root, which has been rejected by Kakati, and more recent authors have concurred that it is a latter-day Sanskritization of a native name. Among possible origins are Tai (A-Cham) and Bodo (Ha-Sam).

Chaipau should file a complaint -is this a threat?

User H tan H epi tas wrote, "Watch your mouth and accept a third opinion. If you don't, User:Chaipau should file a complaint at the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard because you jump to conclusions and defame other well-wishing editors."

User H tan H epi tas wrote, "I don't take this attitude kindly. I have only provided unbiased third opinion and have never edited or revised the Article in question before."

• So you ask another user to file a complaint. Why don't you file a complaint yourself?

Kurmaa (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you had read the whole talk about this, you would have understood. User:Chaipau had asked for a Third opinion. I provided one. But the other editor became aggressive and did not accept its validity. So, what I meant, is that User:Chaipau needed to escalate his actions regarding the resolution of the dispute over the Assam Etymology. I suggested that he needed to file a complaint over this at the appropriate section = a Dispute Resolution, because the other editor would not accept the third opinion. For the story, User:Chaipau did file a dispute resolution ending up in vain, exactly because the other editor kept refusing to compromise.

If you have any other personal questions about something written, you should address them to my talk page and not randomly in here. I visited this talk page by chance, looking through my watchlist. It's ridiculous to even suggest that this is a "threat". You don't even understand the meaning of the word. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Defeat of Wikipedia article policies

   *No original research
   *Neutral point of view
   *Verifiability

No original research

The first and most important policy is constantly ignored by above user by looking for evidences and by not providing established facts referring to direct quotes of eminent scholars, specialists etc. Even when provided by others with references, is overlooked and disregarded. If direct quotes provided, then it maybe not such long discussion avoiding confusion to many users.

Since it is impossible to engage you in a discussion, I take this opportunity to try and clarify the situation, as well as record for others to judge.

The quote you provided, from Banikanta kakati, is partial: "The word Assamese is an English one. built on the same principle as Cingalese. Canarese. etc. It is based on the English word Assam." Yes, the quote claims that Assamese is derived from Assam. Yes, it also mentions that Assam is an English name. But it does not state anything about the Etymology of Assam. And yet you claim that "Assam is based on the English word Assam". This claim is not only ridiculous in itself but it is also incorrect; and I have provided the complete quote (from a different book) by the same author. Here he unabiguously states that Assam, the English name, is based on a native word: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." I have also given a reference where he actually derives the name from A-Cham, where Cham is a Tai word. You have made selective use of the quote from Banikanta Kakati, in a ridiculous fashion. Chaipau (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Second policy is defeated when a particular tribe is tried to glorified overlooking the quotes from scholars who directly linked particular word to particular language. This practice in turn lead to accumulation of large matter and compromising the easy accessibility of said section, where an separate article is already there to for its broad discussion.

As shown above, I have not ignored your quote, but clarified it by giving the entire quote. As far as size, citation clutter and clarity goes, we both have given competing texts here: yours and mine. I invite you and others to compare the sizes. Chaipau (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability

This policy failed when facts cited cannot be verified directly e.g in citation number 12 it is mentioned that Dutch pick up a particular word, for which citation provided is a writings from a person (scholarly status is uncertain) stating that "The map from 1662 shows the name "Assam" at the correct geographical location." There is no mention of picking or first use etc. This makes it directly not verifiable and lead to interpretations by different users in different way, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Same is in the case of citation number 13.

You may question the author, but the reference I have cited is from a newspaper article. And newspaper articles are acceptable sources. And the issue is not one of interpretation, but one of evidence. If you dispute the existence of the map, then you have to cite a reference, which you have not done. In anycase, this is minor point. There is enough evidence that the English themselves used "Acham" (Thomas Bowery), as well as "Asam" (with a single 's') during the early years of colonialism. This you can verify by clicking on this link, and reading the last line page 240. Chaipau (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

As an separate article is already there for said topic, so said section should be highly compact offering direct facts, without going much depth like origins which can be discussed in article dedicated to said topic. Hope my view is not deleted as it is done earlier.

I shall clarify that I replied to your comments (see here), whereas you deleted all my comments (see here). You cannot claim replies and comments are deletions (or censorship, as you did in the subject line). Chaipau (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's diffs function is sometimes stupid. It appears to a casual observer that Chaipau replaced a long passage by BB with new remarks, though if one scrolls down one sees BB's pre-existing text as a "new" insertion. —Tamfang (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks !

The above (i admit of not scrolling down) is extension of censorship cases, earlier cases are here where reference is deleted and here where large text is deleted which makes an environment of mistrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

bbhagawati 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to read WP:NOTAFORUM apart from that do you wish to propose an edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am putting in my dispute along its basis. In regard to edit suggestion, it will be a good idea to keep the section compact and simple and as subject is controversial in nature one or two different views with proper citations of scholars may be mentioned.

Thanks for writing ! bbhagawati 11:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs)

• The above mentioned quote regarding Anglicization from book "Early aspect of Assamese Literature" by "Banikanta Kakati" is not found. Upload of same will be appreciated.
• Regarding above remark of replying to me, how reply equals to deletion of others view and putting own views over it ?
• Regarding deletion of data, we can easily see that is a undid of immediate preceding revision which resultant in adding of my text and removal of other data automatically which means my data was remove manually and own was imposed on same on previous edit, an clear case of censorship.
• Regarding citations number 12 and 13, references had no mention of pickings and first use as claimed, so how can be they called as references,hence should be immediately removed along with claims.
• As in regard to term Kingdom of Assam, only one Kingdom is eligible for the same which is "Kamarupa" who ruled full length and breadth of Assam with greater period than others along with ancientness. The Kingdom mentioned by disputing user is limited to eastern Assam. Assam is much larger than that, then and now.
• As regard to progress of discussion, above user has finally accepted Assam as English word as in here after long period of denial though on its own terms for which no references are provided.
• So as it is accepted that Assam is an English word, it should immediately reflect in main article.

As this discussion is not fruitful and leading to usage of unfair means to cover up weakness of facts, i would rather add facts to main article with direct quotes from eminent scholars which should not be deleted as it was done earlier.

Thanks !

bbhagawati 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded text of Banikanta Kakati

Since you could not find the reference I cited, I am uploading the relevant pages from the book "Aspects of Early Assamese Literature", Gauhati 1953. Look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kakati1953_early_aspects_assamese_pp1%2C2.pdf I shall not upload any other reference. --Chaipau (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Most importantly as British used word "Assam" for the land they ruled i.e most part of the region, it should be reflected same way here.

bbhagawati 13:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's trivially obvious that each ruler uses some name for its territory, and that the spelling now used in English is the one adopted by English-speakers. Why does BB give so much importance to this point? Is it BB's position that no form of the name (Asam, Acom, whatever it was originally) was used for the region before the British imposed it?

I don't understand BB's claim "above user has finally accepted Assam as English word as in here". The link is to one of BB's own edits.

We don't normally say that something becomes an English word simply by acquiring an English spelling. Tagore and Murphy remain Bengali and Irish names, respectively, even though these spellings are not used in the original languages. —Tamfang (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

First query about my position that no form of the name (Asam, Acom, whatever it was originally) was used for the region before the British imposed it, i like to see the para where i said so, rather my position is that word "Assam" is never used before arrival of British locally. Regarding my claim that "above user has finally accepted Assam as English word as in here". There disputing user has himself given reference to quote from Scholar "Banikanta Kakati" which says that Assam is anglicized version of Asam, which is mentioned in the linked page, same provided in a way to counter future changes. Regarding users quote that We don't normally say that something becomes an English word simply by acquiring an English spelling. Tagore and Murphy remain Bengali and Irish names, respectively, even though these spellings are not used in the original languages. To add i like give an example of another word "Aryan" which is now an English word having its sources in "Arya" an Sanskrit word. Arya was used as self designation by Indo-Aryans but when it acquired English spelling by adding an extra 'N' it becomes an English word mentioned in all English dictionaries which means larger picture than traditional word by referring to Indo-Iranians and sometimes entire Indo-European people unlike the Arya. It here mentioned that to anybody's common knowledge that no language is closed but an dynamic which constantly acquiring word from other languages like adoption of Sanskrit, Greek words by English. And regarding the word 'Tagore', it was coined by Europeans to referred to people with Thakur surname but unlike Thakur it has no meaning in Bengali. Its not non inclusion to English dictionary is due to its limited scope of use. Its being carried on by some Bengali people in same way like Banerjee and Chatterjee instead of Bandopadhay and Chottopadhay.

And regarding terming Assam as English word, is a view of Scholars as mentioned in references not my personal echoed at last by disputing user himself by providing the said quote by said scholar. When it mentioned as "Anglicize" it means "to make or become English in form or character" to anybody knowledge, and according to dictionary. Here it also mentioned that when original Asam (i am going with scholars, though i have not found same book till now, relying on above upload and single source) refers to tribe but English Assam refers to a piece of land in North East India ruled by British which makes an difference. So not the current word which is "Assam" is related to an tribe but the an inspiring word instead.

Thanks for contributing !

bbhagawati 09:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs)

When I ask you whether your position is X, it's because I do not know whether your position is X, so no, I cannot point to the (previous) paragraph where you said so. Thank you, then, for saying: "my position is that word 'Assam' is never used before arrival of British locally"; now I can point to that.

I think everyone accepts that that precise form of the word was not used before Europeans came along. It is news to me that it was not previously applied to the land.

Why not say: "Asam was the name of a tribe. Its origin is believed, bla bla bla. It was first applied to a territory, in the anglicized form Assam, in ...."

The opinion of "scholars" that Assam originated in the English word Assam, which presumably was derived from an English word Assam and so on (it's turtles all the way down!), appears to be your misconstruction of one statement of one scholar.

—Tamfang (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Different forms of the name were used before the British. For example, the Persian equivalent of "Asham" was used in Abu-Fazl's 16th century Ain-i-Akbari (D C Sircar "Kamarupa-Pragjyotisha" p59 in "The Comprehensive History of Assam Vol I" ed H K Barpujari, (1991)) Chaipau (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well for misconstruction, i like to say that when i said current name "Assam" is based on "English" word "Assam" it means that current name is based on "English" word "Assam" without referring to its origin (its a different matter to be discussed). I added the word "Assam" with "Name" because to avoid queries like "what name?", as few other names are also mentioned in paragraphs above and state also have current name in local language too. Though giving it in bracket is also an option, which may be considered.

Thanks for time !

bbhagawati 05:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs)

If the word Assam is based on the word Assam, then on what is the word Assam based? —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Very deep question, its base not based !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

?? —Tamfang (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To make it straight there are no two words but one and sentence means that Assam is an English word.

Thanks for enthusiasm !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

An English word based on nothing but itself? A case of spontaneous generation? —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this question raised again here as we had already discussed it in dispute resolution noticeboard. But as you asked here again i like to add that i never termed it as spontaneous generation rather a new English word which maybe inspired by some native word but not pointed to a specific word because its a matter of another discussion. And said that this new word was used by British to refer to a piece of land (Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas i.e most part of North East India) only not to a tribe.

But i like to add here that spontaneous generation is possible in word formation. Words like "tantrum", "slang" etc. are good examples for same.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ahahaha the section is too funny

The post british section is really funny. Some of the indigenous muslims in the region are being called illegal immigrants from bangladesh whereas hindus in bangladesh are called indigenous bangladeshis? hahahaha

The muslim assamese have been living in the region since before the time of the sultanate of bengal, then nawabs of bengal and then throughout the british raj. Trying to call them illegal immigrants to steal their lands is not going to work. The indian government should realize that after 65 years of hindu fanaticism these sort of rubbish tactics don't work anymore. MuslimAssamese (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has seen some serious decay. Edit and help. Chaipau (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

From now onwards Muslims in India want to be left alone so that they can develop the country. The country has been so completely destroyed because the government is incapable of developing the country and neither do they let the Muslims develop the country. Its a fact that Muslims in India are capable of getting outside investments and infrastructure investments from Muslim and Asian countries much more than Hindus could ever get. From now onwards the Muslims want to be left alone and as they develop they will give it to the Hindus and the cities and states will develop and Hindus can get what they want. Its simple. 42.241.148.213 (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

update here goes the hindu rss indian government sending out bogus sms messages for the upteenth time. I wonder if people ever get bored of this stuff happening again and again in different situations because i sure as hell do. And can the government please stop the whole "pak link" nonsense. Let it go, the Pakistani population is 180 million they cannot be bothered anymore. Nothing can be done against them now, its all over. Atleast now concentrate on the country instead of wasting time obsessing over others who don't care about India. What a waste of 66 years its been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.150.172 (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are not an online forum. And anyway, there are sources which incite hate without reason: [1] which claims to be "The Islamic Revival Channel" has a video (now under a temporary ban in India) which uses a TV report of an un-credited source of a single murder to say that "rivers of blood" are running in Assam. Anyway, from now on, refrain from using Talk pages to vent. Nshuks7 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:114.74.150.172, but it was removed citing wikipedia policy 114.74.150.172 (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)