r/Angkachari

Foreseeing the "Dimaraji" Controversy in Cachar.

Until the day before the subreddit dedicated to the Barak Valley was banned, I was actively engaged in discussions and debates regarding issues affecting the region. In those discussions, I often raised concerns about separatist tendencies, certain self-serving political narratives, and what I perceived as negligence toward the history of the Dimasa people and the indigenous communities of the Barak Valley.

In recent years, many members of the Sylheti/Bengali community of the Barak Valley have promoted several narratives across social media and public discourse that I believe deserve critical examination.

1. The incorporation of the Dimasa into separatist narratives

One of the most prominent issues was the emergence of separatist tendencies and attempts to incorporate the Dimasa community into such narratives. Without acknowledging the historical roles of the Dimasa Kingdom and the Tripura Kingdom in the region, demands for a separate Barak entity appear historically incomplete, as these indigenous polities were central to the region's political history.

2. Neglect of Dimasa and other Tibeto-Burman histories

Another issue has been the relative lack of recognition given to the history of the Dimasa Kingdom and other Tibeto-Burman kingdoms and cultures that shaped the historical landscape of the region.

3. Competing narratives regarding early settlement

Attempts have also been made to establish a "Bengali-first" historical narrative that contrasts with the broader anthropological consensus regarding the Northeast–Bangladesh sphere, which generally recognises Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic populations among the earliest inhabitants of the wider region.

A month ago, during a discussion on r/Assam with several Sylheti/Bengali participants, I raised examples that I considered indicative of a broader lack of awareness regarding the Dimasa community and its historical association with the Barak Valley.

First, whenever Dimasa individuals and organisations proposed renaming the railway station at Silchar as a tribute to the last monarch of the historic Dimasa Kingdom, Gobind Chandra Narayan Hasnu, and the freedom fighter Sambhudhan Phonglo, sections of the Bengali community allegedly responded with protests, opposition, and demonstrations.

Second, the roof design of the railway station at Silchar was originally intended to resemble the famous stone architecture of Maibang and other monuments associated with Dimasa heritage in Cachar. According to concerns raised by some Dimasa groups, later modifications covered this design with tin sheets. When restoration of the original architectural concept was proposed, the response, in their view, was not constructive engagement but further resistance and the growth of anti-Dimasa narratives.

Whenever these concerns were raised, many discussions quickly became defensive rather than historical in nature, making meaningful engagement difficult.

The Controversy

A month later, these tensions became publicly visible following the controversy surrounding the use of the term "Dimaraji" in Assam's Lakhipur subdivision.

The controversy emerged after a welcome arch bearing the inscription:

"Greetings, Nabada Johari, Pailapool, Dima Raji"

was erected during the visit of Assam Cabinet Minister Kaushik Rai. The arch also referenced Nabada Johari.

For many observers, the term "Dimaraji" was interpreted as a political statement. However, within traditional Dimasa usage, the term has a broader historical and social meaning.

Etymologically, "Dimaraji" is derived from two words: Dima and Raji, the latter being derived from the Sanskrit-derived word Rajya. Historically, the term referred to a socio-administrative unit, village, township, or territory within Dimasa society. It denoted jurisdiction, community, or settlement rather than necessarily implying a modern political project.

In contemporary Dimasa usage, Raji is often synonymous with Nohlai, meaning "village." Therefore, historically speaking, Dimaraji referred primarily to a Dimasa settlement or socio-administrative community rather than an inherently political concept.

Only in more recent decades did the term become associated with demands for autonomous statehood under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule following movements led by certain Dimasa organisations.

From this perspective, the controversy surrounding the welcome arch was less about the word itself and more about how the term was interpreted by different communities.

Had there been greater understanding of the historical context of the term, greater recognition of Dimasa historical associations with the Barak Valley, and more willingness to engage with indigenous perspectives, the controversy may not have escalated to the extent that it did.

Regardless of contemporary political debates, it remains a historical fact that much of present-day Cachar was once part of the Dimasa Kingdom. Consequently, many Dimasa people believe they possess legitimate historical grounds to advocate for greater autonomy or statehood.

The etymology of the term itself also invites reflection.

If the use of "Dimaraji" is considered controversial because of its linguistic origins, then similar scrutiny could equally be applied to the name "Cachar."

The term "Cachar" itself derives from "Kachari," an exonym historically used by neighbouring peoples and outsiders to refer to groups belonging to the wider Baric family. Over time, the term became closely associated with the Dimasa, and it is through this historical process that the region eventually acquired the name "Cachar."

The Dimasa imprint is therefore embedded within the historical and linguistic identity of Cachar itself. Focusing exclusively on the term "Dimaraji" while ignoring this broader historical context presents only a partial understanding of the region's past.

Following the controversy, another long-standing issue resurfaced — namely the covering of the architectural replica of Dimasa monuments at the Silchar railway station with tin sheets, a matter that many Dimasa individuals continue to regard as symbolic of the wider neglect of Dimasa heritage in the Barak Valley.

Despite a thousand years of separation, we still speak the same words with only minor differences in pronunciation. If we could go back to the time of our common forefathers, we would have heard them speaking the same language.

But history split us apart. Geography, invasions, and external forces broke our old bonds. The gap in communication led to fragmentation, and fragmentation gave rise to separate identities. Divided into smaller numbers, our people lost the strength to withstand settler pressure.

In recent centuries, that imbalance led to rapid assimilation and the erasure of much of our rich linguistic tradition and culture.

We cannot get back everything we lost. But we can still rekindle our ties through our shared ancestry.

We are the children of the first inhabitants of this land. Join us in this mission to rebuild our ancient brotherhood through Khourang.

Duar region always belonged to Bodos, not only history but even biology proved it. Sikhwna Jwhwlao and Tengphakri's sacrifice to defend Duars, the Bodo homeland from Bhutanese and the British occupation in the 1860s will not go in vain.