Talk:Bongal Kheda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconBangladesh Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Translation

Please raise all relevant issues, so that they can be discussed. I am not certain and I might be wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Bongal kheda has been used by the Bengali press indiscriminately. The agitation in the 60s was one called Language Movement. In the later 70s/80s the agitation was called the Assam Movement. Bongal kheda was the agitation immediately after the Independence, and preceding the Language Movement, confined to the Assam valley (not in Barak valley) . The Language Movement was about imposing a language, not ousting people. The Assam Movement was about the ousting illegal settlers and not ousting the middle-class Bengali Hindus. Chakravarti makes the usage of the term Bongal clear. It meant outsiders. In the usage I have seen, it always referred to people who came from the west to rule of the land. The Bengal/Mughal invaders during the Ahom period were called Bongals. The service people who came from Bengal and settled by the Ahoms were not called Bongals—for example priests, architects, artisans etc. The British were called Boga Bongals (White outsiders), and the Bengali Hindus, who came with the British to fill colonial administrative and other offices were also called Bongals. These positions were in the monopoly of the middle-class Bengali. Furthermore, much of the violence in the earlier period occurred between Hindu and Muslim Bengalis between themselves, which the Bengali Press papered over (Prabhakar 1972). This article requires a serious rewrite. Chaipau (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any expertise in either Assam or Bengal, apart from their pre-modern history. As a result, I do not have any idea about whether the above is factually correct or not. But, you seem to be from Assam and ought have a greater knowledge.
As things stand, Subir Bhowmik goes by the translation of "Drive out the Bengalis!" and notes it to be an "ethnic cleansing" (rather than attacks against middle-class Hindu Bengalis). He has been cited by multiple scholars (including these two specific aspects). This is contradicted by Chakrabarti, who is relatively far less-cited. So, you need to explain your reverts using high-quality sources.
I do not see how OUP/Degruyter/T&F can be deemed as Bengali press and I do not know what is the narrative in Bengali press, either. I will request avoiding usage of local sources altogether.
I will also note that Pahi Saikia's PhD thesis (McGill University) translates Bongal Kheda to "Drive out the Bengalis!" — a stage of anti-Bengali riots. Saikia is from Assam and teaches at IIT Guwahati in Assam. The thesis (Partial truths: Rumor and communal violence in South Asia, 1946-1992, UoMichigan, p.94) of Anjan Ghosh (faculty at Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta) takes a similar opinion.
{{Cite book|last=Roy|first=Haimanti|chapter=The Routine of Violence|chapter-url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198081777.001.0001/acprof-9780198081777-chapter-6|title=Partitioned Lives: Migrants, Refugees, Citizens in India and Pakistan, 1947-65|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-808177-7|p=171}} translates Bongal Kheda to "Oust Bengalis", a movement aimed at expelling Bengalis from that province.
{{Cite book|last=Ahmed|first=Rafiul|title=Asia in International Relations: Unlearning Imperial Power Relations|publisher=Routledge|year=2017|isbn=9781315576183|location=London|pages=54-55|chapter=Latitudes of anxieties: The Bengali-speaking Muslims and the postcolonial state in Assam|chapter-url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315576183-5/latitudes-anxieties-rafiul-ahmed}} notes Bongal Kheda as an ethnic cleansing of Bengalis. In a end-note (p. 61), he also notes Chakravarti's different stance.
Also, if I remember things I read decades back, Bongal was used to denote foreigners because all foreigners approached Assam via Bengal. The literal meaning has always been Bengalis. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: the focus of this article is the pre-1960 movement to replace the non-native officers in administrative and private offices by native officers. The definition of Bongal is discussed in the article itself, and there you will see other more recent authors specifically say that bongal means outsiders. Sipra Mukherjee (2011) writes: [1]:

It must be noted however that even though the hated word Bongal is derived from the Asamiya word for Bengali, it denoted the foreigner and not the Bengali.

Subir Bhaumik is a journalist, not a researcher, and I am not sure he was active in the 1940s and 1950s in Assam. He writes:

The worst cases of internal displacement in Northeast India have beenthose caused by ethnic strife since the 1960s. The first cases of such dis-placement were reported from Assam, when thousands of Bengalis fledthe Brahmaputra valley during the "Bongal Kheda" (drive away the Bengalis) agitation in the early 1960s. According to one estimate, nearly half a million Bengalis fled from Assam's Brahmaputra valley into neighbouring West Bengal and Tripura or to Assam's Bengali-dominant Barakvalley (Prafulla Chakrabarty, The Marginal Man, Calcutta). But the anti-Bengali riots of 1960 were somewhat disorganised. Since the 1980s,ethnic cleansing has become much more systematic in the Northeast and that has been the major cause of large scale internal displacement

As far as Bhaumik is concerned, here he is using Bongal kheda not to refer to the 40s/50s movement but the flight of the Bengalis from Assam in the 60s, that accompanied the Assamese Language Movement, following the imposition of Assamese by B P Chaliha government, not to the Bongal Kheda movement of the 50s. One could argue that this too was Bongal Kheda, but in general this impacted not just the middle-class Bengalis in Brahmaputra valley, but also those in the Barak valley and even the tribals in the hills reacted to this (Chakravarti 1960). Bhaumik goes on to connect this Bongal Kheda with the movement in Meghalaya:

That process continues. Bengalis, who were key figures in Meghalaya's administration, politics services and business, are involved in a silent pullout from the state, unable to bear the collective pressure of youth violence and a state policy that seeks to deny jobs or educational opportunities to their children. Open the pages of the "Shillong Times" or the "Meghalaya Guardian" newspapers any morning and you will find Bengalis offering their properties for sale at throwaway rates. Those left behind have to face attacks, particularly during their leading festival, the Durga Puja. In the 1980s, other non-tribal minorities in Meghalaya, like the Nepalis and the Biharis, also faced similar attacks.

Here too, Bhaumik is focused on the plight of the Bengalis alone though he mentions that the target included Napalis and Biharis too. Though he does not say it, the targets included Assamese in Meghalaya too.
Authors have seen through the trend that reporting in these issues generally are from the Bengali (or a particular) point of view, ignoring other important aspects. This is brought out specifically in the article by Prabhakara (1972):

IT is difficult to pretend that the present situation is perfectly normal in Assam, though things are not as crisis-ridden as might appear to one who is away from here. Whatever little unrest was there in some of the urban areas of the state has been largely brought under control. There have been reports of violence in the villages (especially in Nowgong district), where the clashes have been mainly between sections of the immigrant peasantry, living in large stretches of contiguous villages, and Bengali Hindu refugee settlers, concentrated in small towns situated amidst these immigrant villages

Thus the violence was between different sections of the "Bengalis" themselves, the already settled Muslim "Bengali" peasantry and the new Bengali Hindu refugees. Moreover, the Muslim "Bengali" peasantry aligned with the Assamese in imposing Assamese in Assam:

The immigrant tea labour force and the immigrant East Bengali peasantry (pejoratively known in earlier days as 'coolie' and 'mian', but now given the sobriquet of 'Neo-Assamese') have been among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Assamese language"

Therefore, the movement in the 60s, too, was not against all Bengalis. The East Bengal Muslim peasantry supported the Assamese Language Movement. How could this be a "Drive out the Bengali" movement? It wasn't, of course.
Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing is synthesis of sources, which is forbidden by policy. Finding sources which mention Bongal but not the Khedao part. And, extrapolating from there.
Please provide sources that explicitly note Bongal Kheda to be a purge of outsiders and not [including] Bengalis because I have provided ample sources in my support. If this article covers some other incident, the content need to be changed. And the current content, moved elsewhere with a proper subject name.
To use a 1972 source and claim that the narrative of Bengalis dominate mainstream discourse (and hence must be rejected) does not make much sense. Also, you are reading a lot into Prabhakar that he doesn't assert. I will also note that the very recent monograph by Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty (an Assamese journalist of national repute) — Assam: The Accord, The Discord — translates Bongal Kheda Andolan as ‘throw out Bengalis’ agitation. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH is allowed in talk pages. On the other hand references like Abu Sufian, which you have added in the main page, don't mention either Bongal or Bongal kheda. Pisharoty is a journalist and we will have to distinguish her journalistic reporting vs her editorializing. The problem that arises with Bhoumik's use of Bongal kheda is also evident with Pisharoty's. There are very few journalists who have bought rigor to the study of the northeast. One of them is M S Prabhakara (cited above) who brings the rigor from his academic background. While citing Bhoumik and Pisharoty, you must take note of Chakravarti and Mukherjee. They are very specific about rejecting the definition of Bongal as Bengali; and their analysis are critical. Bhoumik and Pisharoty, OTOH, are rhetorical—and they have not explicitly rejected the definition that Bongal is outsider. Chaipau (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: I don't understand why there should be an explicitly note Bongal Kheda to be a purge of outsiders and not Bengalis because that is not the claim here. The claim is that Bongal Kheda was a movement to purge all outsiders, including Bengalis, who held service jobs. And a citation that supports this is Chakravarti (1960): The word Bongal is used in a wide sense in Assam. It does not refer to Bengalis alone. It embraces all outsiders. The movement known as Bongal Kheda sponsored by Assamese job-seekers to drive out non-Assamese competitors.... Chaipau (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gross typo on my part. Should have checked before clicking publish.
I agree with you that synthesis shall be allowed on talk-page. However, that is not allowed on the article page, where you have reverted me.
I agree that Pisharoty is a journalist and after all, her book was published by a non-academic press. What is your opinion on scholars like Haimanti Roy or Saikia?
You are insisting that Bongal Kheda was a movement to purge all outsiders including Bengalis. But, none apart from Chakravarti claims the part in italics. And, you propose to reject all such sources by claiming that they are biased towards Bengali POV or lacking in rigor. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not rejecting all sources. I have inserted Weiner which identifies Hindu Bengalis as targets. Weiner is a very respected author, and his work is kind of a classic. He identifies the economic aspect of the problem, just as Chakravarti does. Chakravarti emphasizes the point that all outsiders were targeted including Bengalis, whereas Weiner argues that among the Bengalis only those in high service positions were attacked. This is true, because in this and the Language movement that followed, the Muslims from East Bengal supported the Assamese. This line of critical analysis is NPOV in line with Wikipedia policies, whereas the rhetorical Drive out the Bengalis is both inaccurate and propaganda material. Chaipau (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[W]hereas the rhetorical Drive out the Bengalis is both inaccurate and propaganda material. That is how you are rejecting all sources, which contradict your proposition. Who decides what is propaganda? It is immensely surprising (and a violation of BLP policy) that you brand reputed scholars (Saikia/Roy/Ghosh/Ahmed/...), published in peer-reviewed media, who contradict your stance, as propagandists. [Without any source in support, terming them so. If your provide such examples, it would be all right and a learning experience.]
[W]hereas Weiner argues that among the Bengalis only those in high service positions were attacked. Where does Meiner speak about Bongal Kheda, in particular? Once again, synthesis of sources. Which is (obviously) allowed in talk-page but of little use in influencing article-content. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please give full quotes from these authors. I am not convinced that serious scholars may sometimes not fall into easy propaganda or be used for propaganda. Look at the original article authorship.

Weiner in this article is used for precisely what he is claiming — for the context and the economic conflict. Please read the attributions carefully.

Chaipau (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that serious scholars may sometimes not fall into easy propaganda They do not need to convince me or you.
Quote from Saikia's thesis (p. 114): The government however, eschewed an immediate compromising solution to solve the issue which compounded the situation and set the stage for anti-Bengali riots, popularly known as the 'Bongal-Kheda‘ (drive away the Bengalis) agitation of 1960s.
Quote from Ghosh's thesis (p. 94): In Assam the Bongal Khedao (ouster of Bengalis) movement was on which meant that the Bengali Muslim peasant who had settled in that province were forcibly uprooted and sent back to East Bengal.
Quote from Ahmed (p.54-55): Assam witnessed extensive violence under the rubric of the Bongal Kheda [note] – an organized campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Bengalis of the north-east and sought to evict Bengali settlers in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The 1980s Assam Movement significantly hastened these processes wherein organizations like the AASU further fueled these issues leading to indiscriminate violence and loss of life. In the end-note he writes, The term literally means to “drive the Bengalis out.” Chakravarti (1960) notes that during the 1960s the campaign term Bongal was used in a wider sense that did not refer merely to Bengalis alone but all outsiders living in Assam. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


For example this is what Roy is saying: The “Bongal Kheda (drive away the Bengalis) agitations” in Assam in the 1960s led “half a million Bengalis” to flee from its Brahmaputra valley to the state’s “Bengali dominant Barak Valley” (Bhaumik 2008, 252). Here Roy is merely quoting Bhaumik (in double quotes) without any critical analysis. Chaipau (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make Roy a propagandist? Scholars, if convinced by the works of others, can (and shall) cite the work of their predecessors. That's Good_Academic_Practices 101. It is Chakrabarti's fault that he failed to influence recent scholarship, as much as Bhowmik. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chakravarti talks about an earlier Bongal Kheda campaign that occurred before 1960 (Chakravarti published his article in 1960). The movement in the 1960s (after 1960) was the Assamese Language Movement. It is possible that bongal kheda was a slogan in the 1960s movement to target the section of the Bengalis who opposed the language movement, but it wasn't the name of the movement. I say possible because I am not certain that it was a slogan and that it wasn't a way to characterize the movement by those opposed to it. There already exists an article for this movement: Assamese Language Movement (called the Bhaxa/Bhasha Andolan locally). If you want to define Bongal Kheda as the 1960s phenomenon, then this article is a WP:CF of that article and it should be merged into that article. But then what would you do to the Bongal Kheda movement prior to the Language movement?
The authors you have been citing have all ignored the movement and focused on a particular characterization of it. You will find authors calling the Assam Movement (yet another agitation that followed the Language Movement) Bongal Kheda too. All these movements are different movements with different aims and political basis. Branding each movement in the 1960s on as Bongal kheda is nothing but rhetorical. Bhoumik has used it rhetorically (he called it disorganized because it wasn't the movement per se). And Roy quoting him in toto uncritically has made him propagate the rhetoric, perhaps inadvertently.
Chaipau (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are effectively claiming that all but one scholar have used the term "Bongal Kheda" (which is the subject of this article) in a wrong fashion and hence, may not be used. I need to think about this. More, later. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that this article was created as a WP:CF of all movements in Assam by an editor, though there is a legitimate use of this term. You are seeing that this is legitimate because searching for the term bongal kheda is yielding you a lot of links. Effectively you will always find what you are looking for in searches today! Chaipau (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if you propose a merge-back into some article, I will support. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think we should flesh out the 50s incidents a bit (if possible) and then merge the 60s/70s/80s material in the relevant portions articles (edited). I believe Bongal kheda is an important phrase, as we have seen. In this article, we should call out that authors have used this phrase to denote incidents involving Bengali Hindus in other periods too. Chaipau (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[A]uthors have used this phrase to denote incidents involving Bengali Hindus in other periods too (my emphasis). In other words, Chakravarti's narrative will form the core and I don't agree to that. We have the example of Ahmed, who did the very opposite. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Response to third opinion request:
This is an incredibly long dispute; Can you both briefly summarize your sides? I am having trouble following the whole dispute right now, and I have very little knowledge of the subject matter. Sennecaster (What now?) 23:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sennecaster (What now?) 23:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: thank you very much for the offer to 3O. As I tried to formulate a response to your request, I realized that this indeed is a difficult one to summarize. But then I wonder whether we can sidestep this altogether since it is my impression from the last few comments that the dispute has been resolved. TrangaBellam offered that the material which I thought was misleading could be moved elsewhere[2] and I agreed[3]. If TrangaBellam does agree with this understanding, then we may close this. Else we will begin. I hope this proposal is workable! Chaipau (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I'll wait on TrangaBellam to respond before formally closing. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sennecaster, I don't consider the dispute as resolved. My summary is :
  • Almost every reliable source (about 8-10 in number), which mentions the subject of this article ("Bongal Kheda"), as found out from an exhaustive search of research databases, deems it to be a purge/ethnic cleansing of Bengalis from Assam happening over the course of a few many decades. See the quotes, above. There are others, already in the article.
  • However, this definition/translation is contradicted by a single source from 1960s - Chakravarti — who asserted that Bongal Kheda was a purge of all employed/employable outsiders (incl. Bengalis). On the basis of it (and another two sources — one (Brenner) who does not mention the term Bongal Kheda but describes the overall events of a few decades and another (Mukherjee), who comments on the meaning of the word Bongal [a very popular term in Assam across varied sociopolitical situations]), Chaipau asserts that all of the (recent) scholars, whom I had cited, were victims of Bengali propaganda and/or rhetoric.[1] Hence, Chaipau proposes that these sources (despite their relative over-abundance) may not gain precedence over Chakravarti, whose description will form the backbone of this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your side; I'll hear from Chaipau before giving my own opinion. Chaipau, what is your side of this? Sennecaster (What now?) 18:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As I have also said in the above section, if Chaipau brings me equally reputed sources which explicitly note "Bongal Kheda" to be a purge of all outsiders (incl. Bengalis), I am willing to buy his narrative. But so far, we have to depend on large amounts of original research and synthesis (which he himself admits as being only entertainable at talk-pages) to back-up Chaipau's claims. I won't respond any more unless Chaipau responds (and you give your opinion). TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. observations
    .
@Sennecaster and TrangaBellam: This article is about the Bongal Kheda movement which happened before 1960, and Chakravarti wrote an article in 1960 where he defines it very clearly. The word Bongal is used in a wide sense in Assam. It does not refer to Bengalis alone. It embraces all outsiders. The movement known as Bongal Kheda sponsored by Assamese job-seekers to drive out non-Assamese competitors This movement was about driving out outsiders who were high-level officers, the offices to which the locals aspired to.
Here are the quotes from other authors that TrangaBella has used above:
The point that I have made earlier is that these authors have used the phrase bongal kheda indiscriminately. There is no consensus among these authors on what it stood for. The solution I had suggested above is:
  • Use Bongal Kheda article to define the 1950s movement to oust high-level officers who were outsider, the original definition, with a note that this phrase is also sometimes used to define the Assamese language Movement and the Assam Movement.
  • If this solution is not acceptable, then we will have to treat this article as a WP:CF and probably delete it.
Chaipau (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I sympathize with Chaipau's deletion-attempt and will likely vote in support. But, if this article exists, we cannot use our editorial discretion to claim that every author (other than Chakravarti) has used the phrase indiscriminately and proceed to base our article on Chakravarti.
I emphatically reject that there is no consensus among these authors on what it stood for. All agree on the minimum denominator that it was an attempt to purge/oust/ethnically cleanse the Bengalis out of Assam. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: No matter how emphatically TrangaBellam asserts that all authors agree on a minimum denominator, we have to admit he is only making a rhetorical point. Chakravarti above is very clear that bongal includes all outsiders and not just Bengalis. Clearly, TrangaBellam's all does not include Chakravarti. There are other authors who have repeated pointed out that bongal means outsiders and not Bengalis. For example Baruah (2012) Though Bengal was the immediate western neighbour, [Bongal] was used as a generic term for all foreigners. and Mukherjee (2011) The Asamiya word Bongal came to denote foreigners, since outsiders who entered Assam, used the approach through Bengal.
I have demonstrated that Ghosh, Saikia and Ahmed have used Bongal kheda to mean different things. On closer look the situation is worse. The target that Ghosh mentions as Bengalis, the Bengali Muslim peasants in fact supported the Assamese in the original Bongal kheda and in the Assamese Language Movement. Prabhakara (1972) The immigrant tea labour force and the immigrant East Bengali peasantry (pejoratively known in earlier days as 'coolie' and 'mian', but now given the sobriquet of 'Neo- Assamese') have been among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Assamese language. So now we have a case where some people who were not Bengalis in 1950s/60s suddenly becoming Bengali in 1980s.
I hope I have shown that authors have abused the term bongal and used it indiscriminately, and to assert that they mean "oust Bengalis" is
WP:SYNTH
. Wikipedia should either abjure this term/phrase entirely, or use it consistently and in alignment with the original coinage as shown by Chakravarti, Baruah and Mukherjee.
Chaipau (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have already mentioned that Chakravarti disagrees. Multiple times.
Once again,
synthesis of sources
. Mukherjee's discussion leapfrogs across the postcolonial as well as precolonial times. It's well known that term Bongal has always meant foreigners — even Britishers. She notes that during precolonial days, the label did not refer to Bengalis at all! This, in itself, supports the very common historical notion of particular words or labels (in any culture) changing meaning according to context. We cannot use Mukherjee's definition of the word to extrapolate definition of Bongal Kheda or we might as well make ridiculous claims like Bongal Kheda didn't affect Bengalis.
The same applies for Baruah. His chapter ("Buranjis and Sankari Culture: Language and Narrative in Pre-colonial Textual Traditions") discusses premodern sources of Assamese history and defines Bongal, in that context. Not a single line exists on anything remotely concerned with these postcolonial agitations. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you are applying

WP:SYNTH
correctly. I have shown three sources (Chakravarti, Mukherjee and Baruah) make the same claim—Bongal means outsider/foreigner in Assamese. This is not WP:SYNTH. These three authors have explicitly stated the meaning and they have a consensus on the meaning of the word.

On the other hand, I have shown that the three sources (Saikia, Ghosh, Ahmed) each use the phrase Bongal kheda differently.

To conclude that all these different sources saying different things mean Oust the Bengalis is WP:SYNTH. Not only is it WP:SYNTH it is WP:SYNTH using a selective set of sources while ignoring others—the source that is left out, Chakravarti, has clearly said it means Oust the outsiders.

There are two conclusions from this:

  1. Scholars have a consensus on the meaning of the word Bongal in Assamese.
  2. Scholars do not have a consensus on what is Bongal Kheda.

Chaipau (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When did I ask you to ignore Chakravarti? There are 8 sources (need a list?) who deem Bongal Kheda to be a purge of Bengalis. One (Chakravarti) against. Our article's narrative shall reflect that distribution.
As long as you use Mukherjee or Baruah to define Bongal, in the particular contexts of the sources, I have absolutely no issues. My issue is that you cannot extrapolate their observations to define Bongal Kheda.
Since you are now misquoting scholars by selectively quoting them, let me reiterate that Saikia writes 'Bongal-Kheda‘ (drive away the Bengalis), Ghosh writes the Bongal Khedao (ouster of Bengalis) movement, and Ahmed writes the Bongal Kheda – an organized campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Bengalis. OED defines "drive away" as synonymous to "oust". I guess ethnic cleansing is a form of ousting, too. All those who quote from Bhowmik (Roy et al) [quoted in above sections] use the same expression. So, we have a consensus on what is the minimum denominator of Bongal Kheda.
This is my last post until Sennecaster responds. Please have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a gentle reminder to
assume good faith
. Also, please read my comments carefully .
  • Yes, I agree, that these authors have used the term (roughly translated to "oust the Bengalis") but the specific translation is not germane to the issue. The issue is that each of them have used the same phrase to describe different events. The problem would not go away had all authors, including Chakravarti, translated the phrase as "oust the Bengalis". There are dedicated articles for these events (
    WP:DEL-REASON
    #6 states that WP:CF articles will be either deleted, or merged or redirected.
  • If we use this article to describe the original Bongal Kheda (according to Chakravarti) then I do not see a reason to delete/merge/redirect it—as far as I know, there is no current article that describes that early agitation. My hope is that this will be the solution. At the bottom of the lead there could be a single-sentence paragraph that would read. "Different authors have used Bongal kheda to describe the Assamese Language Movement[1][2] and Assam Movement.[3][4]"
I hope you read the comments above carefully.
Chaipau (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE. Please take this with a grain of salt. Would it be undue to mention both of the points? If Chakravarti is taken more seriously than the other 8 sources, it would be due, correct? I don't know the full scope, so I think a happy medium would to be specifying this discrepancy and then using whatever is more due, which seems to be to use Bongal as ousting of all Bengals. I really hope this helps, but this may require an RFC to get more knowledgeable editors in this. Sennecaster (What now?) 00:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@Sennecaster: thank you for your help. Yes indeed—if we can't come together on the two options, we should probably expand the discussion with an RFC. Chaipau (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam and Chaipau, I have reached out to another user offwiki who is more knowledgeable on editing in India. JavaHurricane suggested for this to escalate into an RfC, since it would be good to get uninvolved and knowledgeable editors into this since it majorly affects the article. Both of us expressed unfamiliarity with the sources themselves, so I don't know how much use we would be in the process. Sennecaster (What now?) 18:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a happy medium would to be specifying this discrepancy and then using whatever is more due, which seems to be to use Bongal as ousting of all Bengals. This is very agreeable. I have never stated that Chakravarti be done away with but only that the core narrative need to reflect what the majority of sources state. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: I agree that RfC is the most logical next step. I can now articulate what the issue has been in summary and I think this will help us reach out for RfC better.
  • TrangaBellam is suggesting we count how many have translated Bongal Kheda to Oust the Outsiders and Oust the Bengali and give due weight.
  • I am suggesting that authors who have used Oust the Bengalis have used it indiscriminately to describe different movements and and we should go beyond mere counting to find out what they are referring to.
I wish I was able to summarize this at the beginning of the 3O, but this is the picture that crystallized in this section. Thanks!
Chaipau (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To close this officially and give a final 3O; Chaipau, I think your take may delve into SYNTH/OR issues and could be disputed in the future. I think if someone did want to review it and explicitly come to a conclusion in a non-SYNTH/OR way, we could use the second option you mentioned. For now, I think IARing would be foolish since it does not better the verifiability of the article in question. We should probably go with giving due weight for now. I do think an RfC will benefit because I have no idea myself. Pinging TrangaBellam. This will be the last of me. I hope I've been able to help in this dispute. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: Could you please clarify—the second option I have mentioned is my take! Also, it would be great if you could help us create an NPOV statement for the RfC. I shall make an attempt below shortly. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second option is analyzing the usage of Bongal Kheda, but I'm very worried that it can dip into OR/SYNTH issues if we're not careful. And unfortunately, I am not a content creator and I've never participated in an RfC. Maybe you could get another editor like Sitush involved? I believe they are more knowledgeable on India. Sennecaster (What now?) 22:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on WT:INB. Let us wait for a week before taking the RFC route out. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text for RfC

@TrangaBellam and Sennecaster: here is a proposed NPOV RfC statement:

Should the primary content of the article be about:
  1. An agitation that took place in Assam in the 1950s, or
  2. A translation of the Assamese phrase, "Oust the Bengalis".

Let me know what you think. Chaipau (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:RFCBRIEF
, the statement should be brief and neutral. So I do not agree to using the sources. (The sources are available higher up in this page.) But I am OK somewhat with your wordings. I suggest:
  1. Ethnic purge of Bengalis from Assam, happening across 1947-1980
  2. An agitation in 1950's Assam, aimed at evicting all non-native job competitors
Chaipau (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your first ping and took a short but unmarked break from Wikipedia; apologies on my part. I think that the wording you suggest in your second revision (dated today) is best, Chaipau. Hopefully this can be resolved soon! Sennecaster (What now?) 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources will be present after the first signature. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion2 and !votes

  • All sources (see next subsection) excluding Chakravarti assert Bongal Kheda to be an ethnic cleansing/ouster of Bengalis from the region, spanning across decades. It is however a fact that the sources don't agree on the precise time-frame.
    My opponent (Chaipau) has claimed that all these scholars are propagandists and (thus) have abused the term bongal by using it indiscriminately (no agreement on time-frame). I do not believe such assertions regarding reputed scholars can be accepted. Chaipau proposes that we go by Chakravarti's definition. It may be noted that Chakravarti is the oldest of all sources.
    He has also presented two/three sources that note the term Bongal to refer to all outsiders, not just Bengalis. Such sources, however, describe the word Bongal in pre-modern (and colonial) contexts. As is well known, the precise meaning of words not only change with the passage of time but also with the discourse in which they are used and our case is not an exception.
    WP:DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The opening statement by one of the contestant violates
    WP:RFCNEUTRAL. This is further exacerbated by a characterization of the opposing argument. A section was created just to build a consensus on the NPOV statement Talk:Bongal_Kheda#Text_for_RfC and this was violated here. Chaipau (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Sourcing

[Moved to below]

RfC Statement

References

  1. ^ Samrat 2019.
  2. ^ Ghoshal 2020.

Describing the Bongal Kheda

This article shall theme Bongal Kheda as:

  1. Option a — Ethnic purge of Bengalis from Assam, happening around 1960s.

or

  1. Option b — An agitation in 1950's Assam, aimed at evicting all non-native job competitors. 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion and !votes

  • All sources (see next subsection) excluding Chakravarti assert Bongal Kheda to be an ethnic cleansing/ouster of Bengalis from the region, spanning across decades. It is however a fact that all of the sources don't agree on the precise time-frame and it appears that Bongal Kheda was common to multiple waves of ethno-linguistic agitations, that swept postcolonial Assam.
    My opponent (Chaipau) has claimed that these scholars are propagandists (1) and (thus) have abused the term bongal by using it rhetorically and indiscriminately (2, 3). I do not believe such assertions regarding reputed scholars can be accepted. Chaipau proposes (4) that we go by Chakravarti's definition. It may be noted that Chakravarti is the oldest of all sources.
    He has also presented two/three sources that note the term Bongal to refer to all outsiders, not just Bengalis. Such sources, however, describe the word Bongal in pre-modern (and colonial) contexts (5). As is well known, the precise meaning of words not only change with the passage of time but also with the discourse in which they are used and our case is not an exception.
    WP:DUE. The particular choice of 1960s is supported by the appended references[1][3][4][5][6][7] and they contradict Chaipau's claim that all of my sources give different meaning to the subject.TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What Prabhakar is writing is accurate. When he wrote it in 1972 he obvious indicates the Bongal kheda was not on at that time. It was the colonial leftover officers against whom the Bongal Kheda movement started soon after Indian Independence, and if the Hindu Bengali refugees in 1972 were to oppose the ambitions of the newly liberated Assamese, then they too would face the cry of Bongal Kheda Prabhakar warns. Note that in 1972 the Hindu Bengali refugees were present in Assam and they were not facing the ire of the Assamese. They would face the ire only if they opposed the ambitions of the Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourthermore, Prabhakar writes: There have been reports of violence in the villages (especially in Nowgong district), where the clashes have been mainly between sections of the immigrant peasantry, living in large stretches of contiguous villages, and Bengali Hindu refugee settlers, concentrated in small towns situated amidst these immigrant village. Thus the violence was between the Bengali Muslim peasantry and the urban Bengali Hindus. Chaipau (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prabhakar had not mentioned that the Bongal Kheda, he refers to, was against colonial leftover officers. That is original research. There were spans of calm in postcolonial Assam - that, in 1972 the Hindu Bengali refugees were not facing the ire of the Assamese proves (or disproves) nothing about Bongal Kheda. Similarly, Bengali immigrants and refugees fighting among themselves proves (or disproves) nothing about Bongal Kheda.
    The second paragraph, in my quote of Prabhakar, makes it very clear that the Bongal Bogey is intrinsically connected with Bengali-Assamese dynamics.
    I won't respond to further arguments, unless a third party partakes in this discussion.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point Prabhakar made was that the Bongal bogey was predicated on the Bengali Hindu refugees challenging or accepting the Assamese . if Bengali resistance to Assam's search for a national identity continues, the cry of 'bongal kheda', ever finding receptive listeners, might once again be heard. It wasn't the innate Bengaliness that invited the ire of the Assamese, but the challenge to their ambitions. Chaipau (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the above statement, please ignore the position attributed to me. I ask TrangaBellam to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Please state why Option B is not acceptable to you. Do not try to phrase my position for others.
  • In the numerous citations provided above, all of them refer to different agitations in Assam.
    • Ghosh refers to the Assam Movement of the 1980s: "In Assam the Bongal Khedao (ouster of Bengalis) movement was on which meant that the Bengali Muslim peasant who had settled in that province were forcibly uprooted and sent back to East Bengal."
    • Saikia is referring to the Assamese Language Movement of the 1960s: "Saikia The government however, eschewed an immediate compromising solution to solve the issue which compounded the situation and set the stage for anti-Bengali riots, popularly known as the 'Bongal-Kheda‘ (drive away the Bengalis) agitation of 1960s".
    • Ahmed is referring to all movements in the 50s, 60s, 70s as Bongal Kheda, but not to the Assam Movement of the 1980s: "Assam witnessed extensive violence under the rubric of the Bongal Kheda [note] – an organized campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Bengalis of the north-east and sought to evict Bengali settlers in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The 1980s Assam Movement significantly hastened these processes wherein organizations like the AASU further fueled these issues leading to indiscriminate violence and loss of life.".
Since these references do not agree with each other on what Bongal Kheda is option A is a
WP:NEO
.
Chaipau (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop pinging me in every alternate post. I have watch-listed this page.
  • Please quote the portion where Ghosh mentions the time-frame without your original research. He is talking about the 50s and 60s.
  • Seven sources — (Samrat, 2019), (Saikia, 2011), (Roy, 2013), (Goswami, 2016), (Pisharoty, 2019), (Nag, 2017), and (Bhaumiḳ, 2000) agree that Bongal Kheda was an agitation of 1960s.
  • (Ahmed, 2017) notes the span to be 50s to 70s while (Sufian, 2020), 40s to the 80s. As far as I know, 1960s falls between 1940 and 1980 (or 1950 and 1970) but I might be wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources, including Chakravarti, have given different meanings to Bongal kheda. This is a term that has been used loosely to define many different agitations - The anti-outsider officers movement of the 1950s, the Assamese Language Movement of the 1960s and the Assam Movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Since there exists individual pages for the movements in 1960s, option a should ultimately result in a merger with Assamese Language Movement. Furthermore, it is not accurate that all these movements targeted Bengalis in general. In the Assamese language movement, the Bengali Muslims supported the Assamese language (Prabhakar 1972). I am therefore supporting Option B. Chaipau (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, y'all are going very heavy on BOLDing things here, which is not useful. The only thing you should bold is your !vote, and nothing else.
    On the substance: Neither. Its a false dichotomy. Authors disagree, so we simply present what different authors have said. I have gone ahead and boldly added that table of sources and timelines, as I think that does a great job of summarizing the scholarly disagreement. When scholars disagree, we don't take sides, we summarize the dispute. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that this is a way out. Probably, even Chaipau will agree that writing such an article is flatly impossible; we might as well rename this page to "Postcolonial History of Assam" then. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TrangaBellam, How is it impossible? This gives an overview of the various scholarly opinions on the matter. Clearly neither you or Chaipau are going to go to each other's side, so I think this is an excellent compromise solution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To cover every scholar's use, we need to cover a timespan from about 1940 to 2000. The article will be of a mammoth size, being the entire postcolonial history of Assam.
  • If this RfC goes nowhere, I and Chaipau will probably agree on redirecting this article somewhere. Or, maybe not. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TrangaBellam, Well the subject seems notable, so I doubt it would get redirected. What would it even get redirected to? With regards to timespan, yeah, if it needs to discuss things from 1940 to 2000 and a good number of authors agree, then yeah thats what it needs to cover. Now, I suspect the focus will remain the 60's, but clearly various authors think it went beyond then. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam and CaptainEek: I was away and I completely missed this thread. To catch up, here are my thoughts.

  • I think what CaptainEek is suggesting is somewhat similar to Option b - focus on one movement primarily but mention the others. The difference is that Option b suggests focusing on the 1950s movement (because it was the original coinage), Option C (for CaptainEek) suggests focusing on the 1960s.
  • The perils of using Bongal Kheda for any other period is illustrated in the citation inserted here. The Ananda Bazar Patrika article invokes the Bongal Kheda phrase for the National Register of Citizens for Assam - and now has been further extended to include a Supreme Court of India regulated government exercise. (Besides such polemical articles are definitely not WP:RS and should be avoided in any case). We might as well say Bongal kheda is an umbrella term used to denote any situation in which the Bengalis are described as victims in Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sources covering the subject.

[Sources are sorted alphabetically to avoid bias.]

Table of Sources

Period of Bongal Kheda
Source 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s Later
Ahmed 2017 Yes Yes Yes
Bhowmik 2000[8] Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bhowmik 2005 Not in Assam alone[9]
Chakravarti 1960 Yes
Ghosal 2020 Not explicitly stated.[10]
Goswami 2016 Yes[11]
Ghosh 1998 Yes[12]
Nag 2017 >'48 Yes Yes
Pisharoty Yes
Roy 2013 Yes
Saikia 2011[13] Yes
Samrat 2019[14] Yes Yes Yes[15]
Sufian 2020 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Legend: 40s (pre-Independence); 50s (Multiple Contexts); 60s/70s (Assamese Language Movement); 80s (Assam Movement)

The table above shows how different authors have defined the period in which Bongal Kheda was operative. As is clear from the table, the different authors have used this differently. The crucial point here is that Chakravarti 1960 already used the phrase and defined it. Yet none of the later used that phrase in that context. It seems most modern authors have forgotten about the 1950s. The highest vote goes to the 1960s. This was the period when Assamese Language Movement was going on. If we adopt Option A, then we are effectively equating this with the Assamese Language Movement. Chaipau (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC) (addendum) In all these references, there is no single[reply]

This table is appreciated. But, why are you mis-representing the sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit (also check the edit-summary) might be helpful. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More lines added for Samrat's piece. Please discuss the issues rather than edit-war. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misrepresenting Samrat. This is what he says: "From 1960, the smaller riots of Bongal Kheda turned into major riots aimed at evicting supposed outsiders from Assam. The word “Bongal,” which originally meant any outsider, had by then come to mean Bengalis. The Bongal Kheda movement gradually changed its name to “Bidekhi Kheda” — “drive out the foreigners.” In 1979, an agitation began to drive out those considered foreigners, mostly Bengalis and Nepalis. It was called the “anti-foreigner agitation” and is now celebrated as the “Assam Agitation.”. He starts Bongal Kheda in the 1960s and then renames it Bidekhi Kheda in the 1980s. Chaipau (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you quoting back my quotations of sources to me? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing quoted cites? What is your issue here? Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are already in the above section. Anybody half-versed in English knows that changed its name cannot be taken literally. Bongal Kheda was not some kind of organization, to have a change of name.
Bidekhi Kheda was a succesor movement to Bongal Kheda, occupying the same themes but with a broader horizon. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can edit the table in a manner that makes this explicit, I have no issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that when Samrat writes The Bongal Kheda movement gradually changed its name to “Bidekhi Kheda” he meant that it was actually not a name change? You are reading the opposite of what is written. WP:OR like there never was! Chaipau (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read my reply once again. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Chaipau can you explain how your choice of legend about 1950s is not leading? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all these movements were different that occurred in different times. But that is not what Samrat is saying. Samrat is saying very precisely that what happened in the 1980s was what happened in the 1960s but under a different name. ('The Bongal Kheda movement gradually changed its name to “Bidekhi Kheda”') You cannot impose your understanding of the situation and make Samrat say something he is not because it is WP:OR and a misrepresentation. Chaipau (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is not at all disputed over this discussion, I believe? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tried to pass off the opposite of what Samrat said, and when it was pointed out to you, you had no reply. Now you are trying to dispute a source? Chaipau (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are having this RfC to dispute sources, Chaipau. Chakravarti, the foremost of them. Different sources claim different versions of what happened in the 50s.TrangaBellam (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not disputing sources. We are trying to figure out what the sources are saying. If you are trying to dispute these sources, you will have to go beyond merely searching for 'bongal kheda' in the literature. Chaipau (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources clearly disagree,so we should present the range of scholarly opinions. I believe my recent edit was a good step at doing just that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the correction. Finally, you are beginning to seem reasonable. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Samrat 2019.
  2. ^ Ghoshal 2020.
  3. ^ Saikia 2011.
  4. ^ Roy 2013.
  5. ^ Pisharoty 2019.
  6. ^ Nag 2017.
  7. ^ Bhaumik 2000.
  8. ^ "The worst cases of internal displacement in Northeast India have been those caused by ethnic strife since the 1960s. The first cases of such dis-placement were reported from Assam, when thousands of Bengalis fled the Brahmaputra valley during the "Bongal Kheda" (drive away the Bengalis) agitation in the early 1960s. According to one estimate, nearly half a million Bengalis fled from Assam's Brahmaputra valley into neighboring West Bengal and Tripura or to Assam's Bengali-dominant Barak valley (Prafulla Chakrabarty, The Marginal Man, Calcutta). But the anti-Bengali riots of 1960 were somewhat disorganized. Since the 1980s, ethnic cleansing has become much more systematic in the Northeast and that has been the major cause of large scale internal displacement."
  9. ^ "Bongal Kheda (Drive Away Bengalis) is an organized campaign of ethnic cleansing originated in Assam but was not restricted to the state."
  10. ^ "From the early 1950s, the refugees started acquiring wastelands, grazing forests and capturing all white-collar jobs in Assam. The refugees were then termed as bongals or bongali. Bongal Kheda = A strategy for driving out foreigners (Bengalis) from Assam.
  11. ^ "(I)n 1972 Gauhati University introduced Assamese as the medium of instruction in undergraduate courses across the state. There were exceptions this time and the university excluded colleges in the Barak Valley from this prescription. But this did not quell the violence. It was only later when the government decided to allow English as another option for instruction that the violence subsided. Within the Assamese community, these attacks came to ominously known as Bongal Kheda (evict the Bengalis)."
  12. ^ The author refers to uprooting of Bengali Muslim peasants and their deportation to Bangladesh in the in 1950.
  13. ^ According to Saikia the anti-Bengali riots of 1960s are "Bongal Kheda".
  14. ^ According to Samrat, the Bongal Kheda was a movement.
  15. ^ "According to Samrat, the Bongal Kheda movement changed its name to Bidekhi Kheda at this stage.

False and harmful propaganda

This article is a conjuring of isolated ideas with misrepresenting incidents put together as an inappropriate article that amounts to original research.

The term "Bongal kheda" itself is an expression of a derogatory idea as considered in modern Assamese social and political discourse. This is a term today used by a class of Indian politicians that want to polarise Assamese and Bengali people to create social instability and play vote bank politics.

I request experienced Wikipedians to look into the matter and take action to remove this article.

''Prabhakar Sarma Neog'' (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

@

WP:RM. Chaipau (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

AGree. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bongal_Kheda&oldid=1217255737"