Indian Spitz Species Puppy For Sale - Kabuganj, Silchar
2.5 Months Old
Black & White Puppy
Pure Breed
Price: 5000Rs (Negotiable)
DM ASAP
u/ThickNetwork5806 — 13 hours ago
r/BarakBashi
The ancient inhabitants
What is the Sylheti Bengali population? Sylhetis are Bengalis of Srihattamandala or Shrihatta. The etymology of the term Sylhet comes from Srihattamandala. (“Bengal, like Samatata, Harikela and others, ‘Srihattamandala’ denoting the regional identity, as we know from the Kalapur inscriptions of the samanta rulers of Samatata belonging to the 7th century A.D. The Harikela coins had several local series, and in one series the word ‘Veraka’ (Barak) used to be inscribed. This explains the position in the 8th–9th century A.D. In the 10th century A.D., the Chandra rulers of East Bengal ruled over Srihattamandala, as we know from the Paschimbhag copper-plate inscription.”) This is the simple meaning of this. Srihattamandala is Srihatta, and Srihatta itself is the ancient name of Sylhet.
Srihatta consisted of regions like Barak Valley, or “"Srihatta or Sylhet in ancient times perhaps denoted the territory now covered by the Sylhet districts of Bangladesh, Karimganj, Hailakandi, and Cachar districts of Assam (India), and the adjoining Kailasahar-Dharmanagar areas of Tripura (India). It is a single valley formed by the river Barak and its branches, viz. Surma and Kushiara, with uniform physical features that make it a distinct geographical division and the homeland of a homogeneous group of people who speak a common dialect of Bengali, called Srihatti or Sylheti.!"
-J. B. Bhattacharjee, Pre-Colonial North East India”
“Srihatta in ancient times must have been the common nomenclature for the entire Barak/Surma Valley."
-J. B. Bhattacharjee, Pre-Colonial North
East India
Geographically, the history and sociology of the Barak Valley have to be interpreted in terms of its geographical structure. Geographically, it is an extension of the Bengal plains.
Naturally, Indo-Aryan settlement extended to the valley from Bengal in “early times” in its spontaneous eastward march to the farthest limits of the ploughable areas. They moved along the familiar terrain and stopped at the foot of the hills, as these hills were not suitable for the settled cultivators. Similarly, the flood-prone plain region was uninviting to the jhumias of the neighbouring hills. The undivided Barak Valley thus developed as the homeland of a distinct dialect group of Bengali from the ancient period.
It is a well-noted fact that Bengalis were part of the most ancient kingdoms of Barak Valley and not an isolated piece of information. Most historians, including R. C. Majumdar and J. B. Bhattacharjee, noted the presence of ancient Bengali kingdoms.
Prior to kingdom rule, this land is referred to as a geographical extension of the Bengal plains, and the village names and river names denote an already existing Bengali/Indo-Aryan language speaking population in Barak Valley or the several regions of Srihattamandala.
Later, in medieval times, Srihattamandala was conquered and ruled by many kingdoms during different periods. On the Barak Valley side, different parts came under Tripuri influence or rule between the 11th-13th centuries, Khaspur came under Koch rule in the 16th century, and in the 18th century, Khaspur passed to the Dimasa Kachari kingdom. The Sylhet-Karimganj side came under Turko-Afghan rule during the medieval period.
Even during the rule of Tibeto-Burmese kingdoms, and several other kingdoms conquest it is a well-noted fact that “Cachar was an extension of the Gangetic Bengal and even before the Koch rule several Bengalee settlements had developed in Cachar as a result of the natural movement of the people towards the east. No wonder, therefore, the official language of the kingdom was Bengali, while the coins and inscriptions of the Heramba rulers were inscribed in Sanskrit in Bengali script.” Bengali script and the Bengali language were officially used.
Sources:
-J. B. Bhattacharjee, Pre-Colonial North East India
-Cachar under British Rule North East India, J B Bhattacharjee
-History of Bengal by RC Majumdar, 1943
-Socio-Political Development of Surma Barak Valley from 5th to
13th Century A.D. Mehbubur Rahman Choudhury
u/ThickNetwork5806 — 13 hours ago
Bengali Presence in Barak Valley
The official census taken from time to time, since the British occupation, show that the Bengalees had a good majority in the Cachar Valley Burns, in 1837, had found that “a large proportion' of the population was Bengalee.
Of the total population of 85,522 in 1851, there were 60,281 Bengalees.
Given the book- “Cachar under British Rule North East India, J B Bhattacharjee”
Another source says that, “With an estimated 50,000 people, the people of Southern Cachar are divided into several communities,
each with its own distinctive traditions. When it came to combining Hindu and native customs, the Cacharies,while not the most numerous, were crucial to the administration of the area.” (Talks about administrative dominance as the capital was in south Cachar) The population of Dimasa were mostly concentrated in north Cachar and South Cachar was Bengali dominated.
Cachar has been ruled by several kingdoms throughout history, including the Koch kingdom and later the Dimasa Kachari kingdom. These kingdoms undoubtedly influenced the region’s population and culture. However, when discussing the earliest known inhabitants, Bengali archaeological and historical evidence is also present.
As J. B. Bhattacharjee wrote:
“Cachar was an extension of the ‘Gangetic Bengal’ and even before the Koch rule several Bengalee settlements had developed in Cachar as a result of the natural movement of the people towards the east. No wonder, therefore, the official language of the kingdom was Bengali, while the coins and inscriptions of the Heramba rulers were inscribed in Sanskrit in Bengali script. The earliest Bengalee inhabitants of the valley belonged to agrarian classes, the Painis, for example.”
Geographically, the Barak Valley formed part of the greater Bengal region in ancient times, and early Bengali settlements had already taken place before any kingdom rule even began. The influence of the Koch and later the Dimasa Kachari kingdoms became prominent during the 17th century, and 18th century marking the shift of the capital to Khaspur marking an important phase in Cachar’s political history.
Demographically, the Barak Valley remained predominantly Bengali, which also helps explain why both the Koch and the Dimasa Kachari administrations adopted Bengali as the court language.
Bengali Sylheti cultural presence did not develop here solely through migration. The Cachar plains and Sylhet were already part of the Surma Valley, making them a shared geographical region. In early times the boundary Srihattamandala or Srihattarajya extended to its natural limits and the donated villages mentioned in some of these inscriptions were scattered over Cachar, Karimganj and Sylhet districts and the Kailasahar-Dharmanagar area of Tripura. The culture of the Bengalis of Cachar, or the Barak Valley, has been shaped since the time of the Harikela, Chandra, and Deva dynasties, evolving into the dialect now known as Sylheti or Srihatta Bangla in this region, which was part of Srihattamandala in the ancient kingdoms.
During the 17th-18th century era Dimasa Kacharis and Bengalis through governance, culture, religion, trade, and everyday life. Their relationship included cooperation, cultural exchange, and coexistence.
u/ThickNetwork5806 — 4 days ago
The Dimasa Architecture
^(Note: more emphasis on architecture in barak valley and dima hasao .)
The Dimasas have historically ruled over several regions and constructed several forts temples and Monolithic structures in North East
Historical records state that Dimasas had their first Capital along the Banks of Dhanashree river in Dimapur. The archeological remains exhibit a gateway of the fortified city with pointed arches, carved battlements, octagonal turrets etc. can be assigned so fifteenth century AD. Among other remains are the monolithic carved pillars lying within the complex. Similar architecture can be found in kasomari pathar in Golaghat distrct of Assam .
In 1526 when Ahoms driven of the Dimasa from Dimapur , they entered the Hills of present day Dima hasao and settled their capital at Maibong . The fortified complex is mostly obliterated now except a monolithic hut hewn out in a big boulder on the Mahur river is survived against the odd vagaries of nature. Inscriptions inscribed in wall stones suggest that the temple was dedicated to the Goddess Ranachandi by the Dimasa king Haris Chandra in 1721 AD.
The notable feature of the monolithic temple is the do-chala roof curvilinear eaves show the influence of Bengal's architecture.
It is believed that in mid 18th century century, the Dimasas had established their capital at Khaspur in the Barak valley.
The valley was referred to 'Chandrapuri Visaya' in the Nidhanpur copper plate grant of Bhaskar Varman of Kamarupa in 7th century AD. It throws light on the cultural activities of the people and narrated about the existence of temples but none of such structures are exist now.
However, in the valley some temples of brick masonry of the Dimasa dynasty of late medieval period can be seen. It is believed that the king Haris Chandra Narayan had built a Siva temple at Khaspur in saka 1683 corresponding to AD 1771 and built also a palace at the locality. The monuments standing at the site are a gateway popularly known as Singha dwar, Baradwari, Snan Mandir and temples of Ranachandi. Made of brick masonry, the structures are alike in external decorations and the influence of chala architecture of Bengal can be clearly noticed.
Most of the temples are smaller structures with chala roofs are having tapered pilasters at the corners. The door openings are arch shaped. The temple walls are provided with depressions. The use of lattice patterns are also visible in some of the structures. "Baradwari' is a work of brick masonry, built in double story and possesses twelve openings. Another notable structure is the Snan Mandir, probably used for sacred bathing of the deity. The small structure is unique in appearance and style has four openings on four directions and topped by a domical finial. Several such temple structures with chala coverings are found in the Bihara-Brahmangaon and Sonai localities in the valley.
The temple architecture of the Dimasa does not appear innovative in style.The architectural features do not reflect any evolutionary trend.
However, an attempt had been made to evolve a new style in later period. This is evident in the Siva Mandir and Nandi Mandir at Sonai, built during the reign of Krishna Chandra (AD 1780–1813). The temples have square plans with elongated devakosthas, rectangular insets, and pyramidal sikharas. Their architecture differs from both the Maibong–Khaspur tradition and the temples of the Brahmaputra Valley, but this later architectural style did not survive for long.
It may be all probable that the Dimasa rulers might had brought the skilled artisans who possessed the mastery over the work on brick masonry with chala shaped huts and most probably the artisans had been brought from Bengal.
The Dimasa Architecture grew heavily under Bengal's influence and ended with the decline of the Dimasa rule. The Kachari Fort built during this time depicts the noteworthy architecture and a mix of Non-Aryan and Hinduism culture
u/Common_Secretary6803 — 5 days ago
▲ 1 r/BarakBashi
Foreseeing the "Dimaraji" Controversy in Cachar
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 valley 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.
u/sibrai-369 — 7 days ago
Sylhet Nagri and The Manufactured Identity Crisis
I’ve been seeing a massive push lately especially from certain corners of the diaspora in places like London trying to aggressively push the narrative that Sylheti is a completely separate, independent language with its own sovereign, ancient writing system called Sylhet Nagri.
But if you actually look at the foundational linguistic surveys and historical texts, this modern narrative completely falls apart. It looks less like a legitimate linguistic movement and more like a manufactured identity crisis.
I was looking through some key historical sources recently, specifically The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language by Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji and George Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India and the reality is starkly different from the internet propaganda:
1. It’s a North Indian import, not a sovereign regional evolution
Chatterji explicitly notes that "Silēṭ Nāgarī" was just a modified form of Deva-nagari. It didn’t evolve independently in the region. He notes that its presence in East Bengal was purely the result of early colonies of proselytizing groups coming down from Upper India who brought their vernaculars (Hindi/Urdu dialects) and wrote them in Deva-nagari. (2nd pic)
2. Highly exclusive and restricted demographic use
The data shows this wasn't some universal regional script used by the general population of Sylhet. Chatterji points out that it had a highly restricted, exclusive use only within a specific religious community. Grierson backs this up by showing it was entirely confined to the lower-class strata of that same faith group. It was never an overarching cultural script for the entire region; it was a segregated, niche writing system used exclusively by one particular community to the exclusion of everyone else.
3. It was a tool for basic literacy, not formal or high culture
The diaspora love to paint this as a grand administrative or court script. But Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India completely dismantles this. According to the records:
- It was a shortcut: The text explicitly states that the only reason people used it was because it was "much easier to learn than Bengali."
- It was for the illiterate: It was primarily used by illiterate men just to sign their names.
- Zero official status: The survey explicitly states it was "hardly used,—never, at least, in formal documents."
- The literature was still Bengali: Even the regional folk literature (Puthis) printed in this character were explicitly Puthis in Bengali. (1st pic)
4. The Diaspora Propaganda Machine
So why the sudden aggressive push? It’s largely being driven by the overseas diaspora who are detached from the ground realities of the mainland. In an effort to carve out a distinct ethnic niche within Western multicultural funding structures (like getting separate council translation budgets or localized school curricula), they are trying to completely sever the region's speech from the Bengali family.
But as Grierson famously concluded in his survey:
>"The language spoken by the inhabitants of Eastern Sylhet is not intelligible to the natives of Central or Northern Bengal. It is, nevertheless, Bengali."
Using a script to claim a completely separate linguistic nationality is just a delusional identity crisis.
u/Ivarrtheboneless11 — 6 days ago
"Dimaraji" insurgency groups in Lakhipur
​
The 19 villages demand to be included under dima hasao is mainly by the insurgency/terrorist groups in dima hasao.
(This demand is part of their larger demand for a separate "Dimaraji" state)
The demand is more of a historical one~ the presence of dimasa kingdom in cachar. But these insurgency groups obviously donot know the bengali side of the history of Cachar. Cachar was historically under srihatta kingdom.
The 19 lakhipur villages donot even have dimasa majority. The villages have a mixed population or hmar, bengali, kuki, Zeliangrong & dimasa only upto 6%.
The demand was first officially submitted by these insurgency groups in 2012. They demanded upto 90 villages in cachar. The demand was rejected by central govt & heavily protested against, by the locales.
Now in 2026, the leader of these insurgency groups have the audacity to "self-declare" the 19 villages under "Dimaraji" & welcome the MLA of lakhipur with "dimaraji" poster in Pailapool.
We should remember this demand is by "surrendered" extremist terror groups and it directly impacts the safety of the local non-dimasa people living in those 19 villages in cachar. These are the same people who want to erase the history of bengalis in cachar.
The pages covering this news in social media seems to have been hijacked by these insurgency group supporters, who hardly make 6% in these villages.
Inclusion under "Dimaraji" will provide no benefit to the local residents, just the added fear of constantly living under a surrendered terrorist group.
u/ThickNetwork5806 — 10 days ago