2.5 Months Old
Black & White Puppy
Pure Breed
Price: 5000Rs (Negotiable)

DM ASAP

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

They are are removing BODO from the logo . Weirdly HINDI is there , and another person a native assamese , atleast he or she claims to be, has problems with **BANGLA & Bengalis. (**2nd pic)

Somehow he/she runs AssamValley sub where the person is a MOD and claims he is neutral, i guess it all leads back to "The Scorpion and the Frog" fable. You can't change someone's nature.

There was someone who made claims that the Tibeto-Burman community is being neglected here in Barak valley, and a very passive-aggressive tone was used. The person also made multiple posts accusing the Bengali community claiming that whenever the Silchar Railway Station name was proposed to be changed to Dimasa Raja Gobinda Chandra Narayana Hasnu, “sections of the Bengali community allegedly responded with protests, opposition, and demonstrations.” A big claim.
Very serious claims and accusations were made against the Bengali community while completely ignoring the Bengali side of history and merely portraying one section of society as the victim.

-Let me tell you this there is a life-size statue of “Gobinda Chandra Narayana Hasnu at the Silchar Circuit House, unveiled in 2021.” Bengalis respect and take pride in the legacy of the Dimasa Kachari Kingdom in Barak Valley.

-A simple tin sheet at a railway station became breaking news to accuse Bengalis of being anti-Dimasa, but not a single person has the guts to point out the daily and obvious “racism” that Bengali people face.
-A few examples are given in the pics.

-Also when it comes to “neglect,” what is a better example than Barak Valley the forgotten child of Assam, facing a stepmotherly attitude from the government.

-Although Barak Valley has one of the major city of Assam and has major districts with a huge population and GDP generation, even getting potholes repaired and roads fixed requires a lot of effort. Road and infrastructure problems remain a daily battle for common people. Employment is another major issue.

-An economist pointed out the fact that, according to the Assam Human Development Report 2014, on the HDI ordinal scale, Cachar is ranked 24th, Hailakandi is 27th, and Karimganj is 26th out of 27 districts. Health-wise too, the performance of Barak Valley is miserable; Cachar is ranked 27th, Hailakandi 24th, and Karimganj 25th. And if we look at education, Cachar is ranked 16th, Karimganj is 19th, and Hailakandi is ranked 24th.

-That person also shared a lot of misinformation and ignorant oral history, but obviously many people with an “anti-Bengali” mentality will end up supporting those claims blindly.

-The Paschimbhag Copperplate Inscription and the Bhatera Copper” Plates are important “physical” evidence for the early ancient history of the Barak region. Many historians have stated this fact, based on inscriptions, literary sources, and archaeological evidence, that Bengali community have been present in the region since time immemorial. But these sources are mostly neglected and only misinformation is being spread.

-Today, many Bengalis themselves are unaware of this ancient historical legacy. This is a clear sign of “cultural suppression”.

-In August 2021, the Education Minister of Assam sent letters to the student unions representing different linguistic and ethnic groups across the state for a conference on the state’s education policy. A total of 34 organisations were invited. Guess what? Not a single representative from Barak Valley or any “Bengali organisation” was invited, even though Barak Valley is home to Assam’s second most populous district and one of its major cities. Despite the region’s “large population”, not a single representative was included.

-For over 60 years, the Assam government did not officially recognize the Bengali language movement victims as Shaheeds (martyrs). Although the Chief Minister referred to them as Shaheeds during his speeches, they have still not received official or academic recognition as martyrs.

-False narratives about the history of Bengalis continue to circulate, misinformation is often accepted without scrutiny, and primary historical evidence is frequently ignored. On social media, Bengalis of the Barak Valley are routinely labelled as “Bangladeshis” by many ignorant people.

-The so called “Politicians” making communal claims and simply making Facebook post should also focus more on the miserable condition of Barak Valley rather than turning every issue into one of tribals vs non-tribals.

I’ve been digging through colonial financial records and historical texts lately, and the economic exploitation behind the creation of the Assam province is absolutely wild. There is a deeply rooted history of how the wealthy, populous Bengali-speaking district of Sylhet was yoked to Assam purely to act as a financial piggybank for British imperial projects specifically the Assam Bengal Railway.

Here :

1. The Annexation: Assam Was Economically Unviable

When the British carved out Assam proper as a separate Chief Commissioner’s province on February 6, 1874, they quickly realized it had a massive problem: a "meagre revenue potential".

To make this new, sparsely populated province "financially viable" and "self-sustaining," the British authorities arbitrarily sliced the populous, wealthy, Bengali-speaking district of Sylhet away from Bengal and annexed it to Assam in September 1874.

Both Hindu and Muslim inhabitants of Sylhet vehemently protested, submitting a formal memorial on August 10, 1874, fighting to protect their cultural identity and desperately trying to avoid being yoked to a "backward" economic region. The British, needing Sylhet's revenue, completely ignored their prayers.

Multiple Sources are uploaded above.

2. The Project: The Assam Bengal Railway (1892)

Why did the British need a self-sustaining Assam so badly? To subsidize infrastructure meant to enrich European industries.

In 1892, the Assam Bengal Railway was formed. Its explicit purpose was to connect the hinterlands of Assam with the port of Chittagong. The documents lay it out bare: this massive project was constructed "obviously in the interests of the Assam tea gardens" (which were overwhelmingly owned by British planters).

3. The Evidence: How Bengalis Paid the Price

The British guaranteed private railway companies a 3% profit return on their investment to build the line. Who paid that guarantee when the railway failed to make a profit? The taxpayers.

Because Sylhet had been forcefully incorporated into Assam to provide it with financial muscle, its massive, dense Bengali population bore the brunt of the domestic taxation required to keep the province afloat and pay off these imperial railway guarantees.

Historical accounts explicitly state that this railway brought virtually no traffic to the public and that "Indian money has been wasted on a scheme from which Indian tax-payers have nothing to gain." While vital public works like irrigation were starved of funds (receiving only £24 million sterling compared to a staggering £226 million sterling spent on railways), the agrarian population of Bengal and Sylhet saw their wealth drained to build tracks that only served European tea lords.

Romesh Chunder Dutt,

"an eminent Bengali civil servant and economist, fiercely criticized the British railway policies in his seminal works (The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule and The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age).What it Explains: Dutt argued that the colonial administration prioritized building expensive commercial railways over vital irrigation systems. He explicitly noted that lines like the Assam Bengal Railway were built through "railway capitalism". The state extracted steep land revenue from local peasants particularly across fertile Bengal—and funneled that money to guarantee 5% profit margins for private London-based investors."

Summary : The British broke Sylhet away from Bengal against its people's will because Assam didn't generate enough tax revenue. They used Sylhet's wealthy tax base to balance Assam's books and fund a multi-million sterling railway system designed entirely to export tea for British companies, leaving local taxpayers with the bill and absolutely nothing to gain.

Now a days a long debate has been circulating online how Silchar Railway Station is not showing Dimasa history because a Tin roof was placed over it. Dimasa has Dima Hasao to themselves, Now question is what did BENGALIS get after paying taxes for railway stations , where is the bengali representations ? Bengalis are native population of Barak Valley , so where is Bengali representation ? Most of the things are build on blood money of BENGALIS but when Bengalis ask for the Station name to be changed to the LANGUAGE MARTYR OF 19TH MAY, BARAK VALLEY, that specific moment bengalis of barakvalley becomes a Bangladeshi, Immigrant, Migrant, Refugee. how long .....

Sources Used :

1. Romesh Chunder Dutt: The Economic History of India vol 1

2. Romesh Chunder Dutt: The Economic History of India vol 2

3. Anindita Dasgupta - Remembering Sylhet: A Forgotten Story of India’s 1947 Partition

4. Amalendu Guha - Planter-Raj to Swaraj Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947

^(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

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.

Dimasa came here in 18th century, long before their arrival these area was ruled by Chandra Dynasty of Bengal , Srihatta rajya , harikela kingdom . Proof like bhatera copper plate , paschimbhag copper plate and harikela coins exists.

Even in census 1851 they were minorities here in cacher plains . Dimasa kings were in love with bengali their kings literally settled bengalis in maibang . Used bengali script and wrote bengali poems .

Still so much hatred towards us Bengalis . And this guy has issues with barman dimasas , possibly because they r hindus .

They couldn’t even make Dimasa official language in Dima Hasao.

Ashok singhal, health minister of 2026 Assam cabinet, cannot even pronounce the word "ENCEPHALITIS". He seems to have no knowledge about the "vaccination" for JE either, blaming the "season" for it.

Dr. Rajdeep Roy, Orthopedic surgeon, MLA from silchar, should have been the health minister of Assam.

​

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.

https://www.indiatodayne.in/assam/story/dima-raji-arch-during-kaushik-rais-barak-visit-rekindles-debate-over-proposed-inclusion-of-19-villages-in-assams-dima-hasao-1412791-2026-06-23

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/barak-valley-against-giving-away-26-villages-to-dimaraji-territorial-council/articleshow/14856351.cms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dima\_Halam\_Daogah

https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/entertainment/musical-drama-love-you-zubeen-da-to-celebrate-late-singers-life-and-legacy/cid/2167499

In the same post you can see someone calling us bengalis “NEECH”.