Talk:Mahamanikya

Recent edits 2020

@Chaipau and DinaBasumatary: If Barua is unreliable and Sen's source is quoting him, then it makes a case of Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Actually, Mahamanikya was either Boro or Borok. But He was surely Kachari. Tiprasa or Borok and Ramsa or Boro have common origin. Tiprasa is just new name according to Tripura kingdom. Tripura tribe call themselves Borok or Tiprasa. Boro and Borok have same meaning. K.L. Barua opined that Boro was sanskritized into Varaha. It is highly possible because Boro name itself may be originated from Varaha after sanskritization of Borok term. Boro and Borok are same people two different kingdom. Tripura rajmala have everything. According to B.C. Allen, Ahom were shan militant group, So, Ahom buranjis don't have proper name. Chaipau have some personal enemity with Boro people. He is targeting Boro history everywhere. Assam history is full of mistakes. Most of the names of community originate from Sanskrit term. Ramsa = Heramba tribe , Tiprasa = Tripura tribe , Dimasa = Hidimba tribe , Borosa or Boro = Varaha tribe . Sen quoted him because he found it suitable. Every conclusion of single scholar isn't perfect. But some conclusion may be suitable. This is how we learn. I don't see any mistake in repeatation by Sen. Thank you sir DinaBasumatary (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As we can see from the discussion above, this is purely speculative! We can claim anything with this type of derivations! Chaipau (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is speculative. It's the truth. You have been targetting Boro history. According to you , Timisa can be dimasa. bodosa can't Boro. Rangtsa isn't claimed by modern scholar . Bodo is recent term. Your act against boro community is communal hatred. DinaBasumatary (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau is nothing more than editor. Don't behave like Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Your act against Bodo community isn't as per standard of wikipedia rules DinaBasumatary (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Dina, kindly maintain WP:CIVIL. Your objections should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead of motives of other editors. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau is abusing me everywhere. Chaipau is distorting and removing Boro History. You can check Kachari kingdom page origin part. How he distorted original sentence. You can check Bodo people page. How he removed cited content. He is targetting Bodo pages. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sir, Everybody's references should be included. Chaipau is acting like minister of Wikipedia. He don't allow anything in favour of Boro. Chaipau is willing to remove anything favour of Boro and Chaipau is willing to include anything against Boro. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: I invite you to discuss the objections raised against your insertions. Accusing other editors of various wrongs does not help. Chaipau (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau have inserted Ahom History without reference. First delete your images. K.L. Barua claimed it. It's repeated by Sen. If any scholar denied it then you can remove it otherwise don't. I don't think you are a scholar. You don't know meaning of Timisa and you claim it to be Dimasa. You changed the statement of Kakoty in Kachari kingdom also. Your act against Boro community is not as per standard of Wikipedia. Why did you change statement of Kakoty ? DinaBasumatary (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk sir accepted my insertion. Chaipau your act of targeting Boro History is visible to this world. It's basic fact that Ahom were militants so their Buranjis don't have complete information. According to Yasmin Saikia,Ahom Historians claim 17th century Buranjis to 13th century. So, Ahom Buranjis are unreliable but now Chaipau like editor is forcefully trying to establish Ahom Buranjis to be absolute. Chaipau please respect Debasish Sen and Proceedings of Indian historical congress. DinaBasumatary (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: your pattern of edits has been highly WP:DISRUPTIVE.

• K L Barua made many speculative claims nearly a hundred years ago, and thus is not WP:RELIABLE. Sen's use of him is WP:FOTPT as Fylindfotberserk has already pointed out.
• These rules have been created in Wikipedia for a reason. Putting up every WP:FRINGE would make Wikipedia meaningless.

Chaipau (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau have made Wikipedia meaningless. Goal of Chaipau is to remove all the evidence related to History of Boro. It's clear from act of Chaipau in Kachari kingdom. Chaipau don't understand basic thing that evidence don't need to be blindly claimed by all the scholars. A fact is fact. It's forever. One fact is Chaipau spread lies because his goal is to establish unreliable Ahom Buranjis as reliable. Yasmin Saikia clearly mention that Ahom Historians lies. Ref- Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau don't understand basic thing. Just like scholars speculated Timisa = Dimasa. Similarly , K.L. Barua speculated Varaha = Boro. I will write my research and behaviour of Chaipau will is good example of Ahom Buranji lover. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Minister Chaipau , Which scholar called K.L. Barua unreliable ? Stop lying everywhere. K.L. Barua's books isn't cited here. Here, journal from proceedings of indian historical congress is cited. Forceful removal of Boro history by Chaipau is hatred against boro community. Here scholar is Sen , not Barua. He repeated that idea and accepted by proceedings of indian historical congress. Stop your activities against Boro DinaBasumatary (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, maintain WP:CIVIL. Only make policy-based statements. This kind of harassment can backfire. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you fylindfotberserk sir. Chaipau is very old editor. He has more privilege than me. I feel harassed by Chaipau because my edits not going to harm anyone. It's Boro history only. Still we are not allowed to write own History. Ahom Buranji lover have converted Assam in historical controversial political state. DinaBasumatary (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to add single line and single word. Chaipau created huge controversy. I'm harrassed by Chaipau. I'm leaving Wikipedia with all the feelings given by Chaipau. DinaBasumatary (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: Do you have any other source that supports what you want to add, that doesn't quote KL Barua? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary:, there is absolutely no historical reference of who Mahamanikya was other than the reference to the Varaha king who was the patron of Madhav Kandali, who wrote and recited his Saptakanda Ramayana in his court. There was a group that the Ahoms encountered, called Barahi, that were completely subsumed by them and they were to be found in the south bank of Brahmaputra, whereas the Boros are found in the northwest of Assam. It is easy to identify Mahamanikya with Mahamanipha of the Dimasa kingdom, but I have seen no definitive evidence for this, even though I do find this mentioned tangentially once in a while in scholarship. So, here too, I see the same pattern of editing that you are using in Kachari kingdom and elsewhere where you are trying to replace Dimasa with Boro. This type of ambush is not permitted in Wikipedia.

K L Barua probably referred to the greater Bodo group after Hogdson, of which Boro is a part. There is a confusion in Wikipedia currently because the Boro people are called Bodo, even though Hogdson used Bodo to refer to all people that used to be called Kachari in Assam (see Bodo-Kachari_peoples#Etymologies). Even Endle's book uses these two spellings confusingly. But in recent times, scholars are seen dropping the use of Bodo and using Boro specifically wherever possible, and to understand Bodo to mean Boro given the context, e.g. Bodoland.

Chaipau (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

S.K. Chatterjee claim is already included in Mythical part of Boro people page. D.C. Sircar also claimed that Varāha title represent Varāha origin. It's reference can be found in Kamarupa History.

Sharma, Chandan Kumar (2006), "Oral discourse and Bodo identity construction", in Muthukumaraswamy, M.D. (ed.), Folklore as Discourse, National folklore support centre, pp. 73–94 directly claim Mahamanikya to be Boro. DinaBasumatary (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau buranji are unreliable. Ahom were militants. Ahom sources are unreliable. Ahom Buranji never ever have words like Dimasa , Ramsa or any king name. Ahom militants were Dacoits. Ahom don't have any reference of Ramsa , all these prove Buranjis written by Ahom militants are unreliable. Paid Wikipedia editor Chaipau is forcefully trying to establish their useless Buranjis. Ahom Historians are liar according to Yasmin Saikia. When educated people of Ahom community lies then ofcourse Sukafa and his dacoit band are liars. Ahom were Thieves and Dacoits,Since Chaipau posses same DNA thus Chaipau is trying to cover up dacoit Sukafa and his band. Barāhi live in upper Assam. Boro live in Nagaon. DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Dacoit ahom did't know anything so they arbitrarily given names like Timisa Tunisa Tiura khalang etc. Now Dacoit ahom trying to write fake History since they themselves are fake and thieves. Dimasa are from Sylhet. Dimasa claim Hidimba lineage. Hidimba kingdom is in Sylhet. Cachar kingdom is Heramba. Dacoit Ahom should stay away from distorting Boro History. Otherwise Dacoit Ahom won't be show their face. Ahom were barbarians , rapist and thieves . Ahom are mostly descendents of prostitutes. Their kingdom name is mao-bang = land of prostitutes. DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Scholars have written for Boro means Boro people. If somebody isn't Boro then we've nothing to do with it. But Boro History for Boro people. According to dacoit ahom Chaipau, Boro shouldn't write History because there is many related communities. DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahom Buranjis are unreliable for Boro History. Dacoit Ahom should stay away from it. DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sharma (2006) says "Borahi-Kachari king Manikpha (sanskritised as Mahamanikya)". Sorry he did not say Boro.

The Buranjis are not relevant to Wikipedia since they are primary sources and not used in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, your disdain for the Ahom Buranjis are not shared by the general scholarship and they are used widely by academics and historians.

Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything written by Chaipau is just ahom buranji based claim. It has nothing to do with Discovery. Recent claim isn't discovery. Kachari kingdom have nothing to do with Dimasa. Dimasa is just another clan like Ramsa. Stop timisa logic everywhere, if ahom already know name of dimasa why would they write timisa, if ahom don't know name then timisa is ofcourse not dimasa, it's basic logic. Truth is ahom militant had nothing to do with civilization written in gazetters of Assam by B.C. Allen. When ahom become civilized after the influence of hinduism, ahom copied story from burma and started to write history of sukafa ref- yasmin saikia , stuggling to be tai ahom in India. Ahom have star organisation and paid wikipedia editor to forcefully establish ahom buranjis. Chaipau is also trying to forcefully remove boro history. Even Hachengsa royalty didn't called themselves Dimasa. How can Bodosa be Dimasa ? It's just Dimasa appropriation and recent claim. Dimasa recent claims are forcefully written against boro by chaipau like ahom buranji lover. I'm realing going to write research paper based on your activity also. Ahom ancestors were dacoits everybody knows it. Chaipau is working hard to cover up this things. Ahom historian lies REF- Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India. DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Jealous chaipau have problem with Boro people. It's okay. I'll not related Boro term of K.L Barua with Boro people. Be Happy Jealous Minister Chaipau descendent of Bang-Mao DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am leaving wikipedia with a hatred for Ahom dogs. I request administrators to block me. Good bye Dog Chaipau DinaBasumatary (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Varaha

The citation of Sen does not work out for the following reason:

• Sen writes: "K. L. Barua opines that Varaha was a Sanrkritised form of Boro (name of a tribe, and language of the Tibeto-Burman group)." The reference is "K. L. Barma- Early History of Kamarupa. Lawyers Book Stall Gauhati 1966, pp. 1-2."
• K L Barua write: "It seems that the Varaha (Boro?) mountain, referred to in the Ramayana, was the Assam range..." The "Boro?" with the question mark is from the original text, where K L Barua is making a wild guess.
• This cannot be the basis of identifying Mahamikya as a Boro. WP:OR, in particular WP:SYN of speculative research.

Chaipau (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC) ? = Guess = Opine . Docoit Ahom will not understand. 2409:4065:407:7137:CDF7:8F23:A632:78E (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: and @2409:4065:407:7137:CDF7:8F23:A632:78E: (I am guessing both of you are the same person), you are doing a number of things wrong here, besides being un-WP:CIVIL. I am not calling you out on these, though they could land you in a spot of trouble in Wikipedia. But I am calling you out on not following the most important aspect of Wikipedia, which is WP:CONSENSUS. Instead of WP:LISTENing to what others are saying, you have kept repeating the same things over and over again. I invite you once again to engage in the discussion here and reply to the objections of that have been raised, with a assumption of WP:GOODFAITH.

Chaipau (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I left Wikipedia because of harassment by Chaipau of Mao-bang = land of prostitutes. 2409:4065:191:A18B:2517:6358:BDF4:9A3D (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: Asking you to defend your position is not harassment. There are serious issues of WP:OR in the way you are using your references. Chaipau (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)