Talk:Koch people

The Koch People

Koch tribe have glorious history and identity along with own language and culture . So, Koch identity shouldn't be destroyed by Rajbongshi people PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

PerfectingNEI (talk)Haha ,who said that rajbongshis will destroy koch history? The KoCh is an umbrella to include many people. Rajbangshi is just a major part of Koch .Hodgson and Hamilton both have clearly mentioned that Koch and Rajbanshis are of same community.

PerfectingNEI (talk) What do u mean by history ? In history koch kings never used koch language , rather used Kamrupi language an Indo-Aryan Language which is still spoken by the Rajbongshi People.

Koch Langauage

Koch Language given in this article is a Sino-tibetan language. Click on the Koch language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogenie (talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Koch Language is closely related to Bodo, Garo, Dimasa, Kachari, Tripuris and Bru Indigenous Koch Tribe (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Koch in meghalaya and lower assam are Tibeto-Burman

The Koch People who are in Lower Assam identify themselves as Kocha and they are the Aboriginal Koch Tribe. They have preserved their language culture and language. They have been kept under the Umbrella of Rabha so they identify themselves as Kocha/Koch Rabha. Do not confuse them with the Assamese Koch Caste and the Rajbongshis. They have 300+ clans in their tribe and they follow matriarchal law strictly than the Koch group of Meghalaya Indigenous Koch Tribe (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Koch people

Stop making POV edits on Koch people. If you persist, you will be reported. Chaipau (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Asking you to stop again. There was a language called pani Koch that was reported but which no longer exists. So currently, they are not a Tibeto-Burman speaking ethno-linguistic group. Furthermore linguists have reported that their society seems more Austroasiatic, just like Garo people. So their ethnolinguistic identity is not purely Tibeto-Burman. Chaipau (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Koch in lower assam are a Tibeto Burman. These are not my words but the authors. The Koch language in meghalaya has six variants : 1.Tintekiya 2.Banai 3.Harigaya 3.Satpariya 4.Wanang 5.Chapra Out of these Banai, Wanang are called Pani Koch. Here is source variants of Koch language 1. http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/4359 Here is the source that Pani Koch is Banai and Wanang. 2. http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/5679

The journal "Outline of Harigaya Koch Grammer" is about the HARIGAYA dialect of the KOCH LANGUAGE which i have given in reference in the Koch people Page: 1. https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/32/61/30/32613089348164783135897741672857876054/sillcdd_46.pdf

Pani koch is not extinct, it is endangered.

The Koch in Meghalaya are this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLC3SXMwUA

They are not OBCs But Schedule tribe

Here is the source of them being schedule Tribe: 1. https://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/dh_st_meghalaya.pdf

And Garo is not a Austroasiatic group , even if the Koch are Austroasiatic (which they are not as i provided the evidence), they still arent INDO-ARYAN AND They are still not OBCS as the source provided above.

This page is not about Rajbanshi who are a amalgamation of different tribes who now speaks Assamese and Rajbanshi. This is about a group that is still present and speaks a Tibeto burman tongue in Meghalaya! This group is not extinct.

And donot remove CITED source. Please stop pushing your POV. Wikipedia runs on WP:SOURCE.

Kocha/Koch Rabha

They are the Genuine Koch Tribe of the History Indigenous Koch Tribe (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes the kocha or Koch Rabhas are the genuine aboriginal Koch Tribe. Indigenous Koch Tribe (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Religious texts as history

@Fylindfotberserk: need your opinion on the history section here: Koch_people#History. Does the second paragraph pass off as history? What does referencing all the religious texts that considered the Koch to be "barbaric" tell us about the Koch? I get no information from these references on the history? Also, if the implication is that the Hindu texts considered the Koch as "barbaric" we should say that explicitly without implying anything. Also, this paragraph has WP:CLOP issues. What do you say? Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Nope. It should be included in a separate section. Something like Mention in Puranic texts. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: OK. Also, these references seem more appropriate for the "nation building" Koch (Rajbanshi people), who might have come into contact with the Hindus then. The Koch people here seem an isolated/insulated group, though some of them have become Hindus in modern times. I am uncomfortable making the assumptions that the Koch people and the Rajbanshi people were the same, even though some connections were there. We end up making too many assumptions about the social processes if we simply go by the name "Koch". Chaipau (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Seems like it since Rajbanshi's speak Indo-Aryan. What's more is that half of the Rajbanshi paternal lineage is similar to that of Indo-Aryan speakers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Exactly. Names and identities in the Northeast have been extremely fluid. We cannot assume anything by the names they have used. In Yogini Tantra it is almost certain that by "Koch" they mean the people who came to be called Rajbanshi. But the Koch people described here are themselves endogamous groups. They don't intermarry. Which means that it is possible that the Koch was just a grouping of different individual groups. This is all the more apparent in the Koch (caste) people. We must resist the temptation to identify them as "one" people just because a particular name has been used, especially in the historical context. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I mention this with some urgency because too much is been made of the names "Koch" and "Mech" in many different articles—Koch dynasty, Biswa Singha, etc. Chaipau (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I understand. I see you've included that para under References to "Koch" in Puranic texts. That's great. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Advisor of Koch Development Council, writer and social worker Indra Mohan Koch said that the government of Meghalaya accorded ST status to Koch people while the Assam Government had not recognized them as Koch but ST status had been given in the name of Rabha.https://www.sentinelassam.com/north-east-india-news/assam-news/rajbongshis-misinterpreting-koch-history-all-assam-koch-students-union-509079

https://www.sentinelassam.com/north-east-india-news/assam-news/rajbongshis-misinterpreting-koch-history-all-assam-koch-students-union-509079

Kocha Tribe (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Koch in Puranic Text

The Koch people are defined as those who are related to but not identical to the nation-building Koch. The section Koch_people#References to "Koch" in Puranic texts refers to the author of the religious text refers to the Koch as Kuvacakas and their country as Komcana. Since the Kuvacakas had a country of their own they are the nation-building Koch, and are not the Koch people as defined in this article. I am removing this section from here and placing this section in the Rajbanshi people. Chaipau (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)