Talk:Chutia people

Surnames

I removed the section on surnames because, as is very common for caste/tribe articles of the Indian subcontinent, they were unsourced. These lists are almost always original research and even if not they would generally be trivial and an absolute honeypot for vandals etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

42.106.31.36 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
• You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

223.179.216.73 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2018 (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. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2018

Change "alleged Shan origin" to Bodo-Kachari origin". Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo-Kachari_people for Bodo-Kachari. Kindly remove the mention of "alleged Shan origin" from the Origins section. This is a non-referenced statement. Chutias have their own language and culture which undoubtably falls under the Bodo-kachari group of Tibeto-Burman tribes. Refer to Sydney Endle's book "The Kacharis" where he mentions Chutias as a part of Kacharis (Tibeto-Burmans) Links: 1. https://archive.org/stream/kacharis009491mbp#page/n30/search/Dihing 2.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=H9datHlD9qUC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=chutia+tribe&source=bl&ots=spMo_RgdQ6&sig=bSk2Gt8I3cSqAPAcvkiFk4DS8QE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDj7bjyYvdAhUZTn0KHQYWAJ04HhDoATAFegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=chutia%20tribe&f=false 220.227.149.70 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chutia women attire.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Additions at Traditional attire

IP 2409:4065:40c:3f3c:dd6b:9a71:8d0f:cdfe (talk · contribs), thanks for your addition to the section #Traditional attire. Unfortunately, I undid this for now, because the only sourcing was a book in an Indic language (Bengali?). Per WP:NONENG, foreign sources may be used when there is no English source of comparable quality, but since this book extensively references Edward Gait's well-respected History of Assam and covers much of the same ground, I feel we should prefer the latter, because it is written in English. I've removed the material for now, but it's not gone; it's still available to you (or anyone) in the article history. If you would like to restore the content to this section, please use English sources whenever possible. If there are portions that are sourceable only in Bengali or some other language, those portions can be cited separately. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Talkback added at user page; awaiting reply. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sutia vs Chutia

Please note that Wikipedia is not a platform to vent someone's frustration. The actual spelling is Chutia not Sutia. Please see the following references --

https://theprint.in/neye/chutia-not-slang-but-assamese-surname-says-woman-whose-online-job-application-was-rejected/465866/

https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/chutia-not-slang-im-frustrated-assam-woman-whose-job-application-was-rejected-due-to-surname-2728087.html

https://www.telegraphindia.com/topic/all-assam-chutia-students-union

Many people with that surname -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyanti_Chutia https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=aKe4oosAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=myvOGDgAAAAJ&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.162.228 (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Moved page back to Chutia

I have moved the page back to Chutia people. Please look at the discussion Talk:Chutia_Kingdom#Requested_move_12_October_2017. Chaipau (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Language

Modern linguists do not consider the Deori language (spoken by just one clan among the Deoris) to be the original Chutia language. This is from Jacquesson 2008:

Modern Chutiyas, who would be very pleased to be registered as a schedule tribe, have now and then used Brown’s book (or at least its title) as a political weapon. The Deoris, on the contrary, are not happy with this unfortunate misunderstanding, because they hope their smaller tribe will not be merged into the much larger Chutiya group. In my book about the Deori language, I showed that the Deoris are right, since the features that have given their language its specific shift24 show that it was shaped in the north-easternmost recess of Assam, close to the Dibang valley, where indeed according to traditional lore the Deoris came from, whereas the numerous Chutiyas have never been isolated in this small place, but were widespread throughout Upper Assam.

I have, therefore, removed the section on "Language". We shall need independent scholarship to identify the language (since there is a political movement to "tribalize" the Chutia people.

Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement above is also noted in Acharyya and Mahanta (2019), which further makes it very clear how and why the notion could have arisen:

The extant literature on Deori (Brown 1895; Brandreth 1878; Grierson 1909; Goswami 1994) associates the language of the Deori community with the Chutiyas, “the original language of Upper Assam” (Brown 1895:5). At present, there is no evidence of closeness of the Deori language to the language spoken by the Chutiya community. Earlier the researchers (Brown 1850; Brandreth 1878; Endle 1883; Brown 1895; Grierson 1909) have classified Deori-Chutiya under the Bodo-Garo group and considered Deori-Chutiya as the original language of the Chutiya community. They have also presented the cognate sets of Chutiya language referring to it as the lexicon of the Deori-Chutiya language. We suppose that the speculation of relatedness is perhaps because the Deoris belong to the priestly section and performed all religious rituals in the Chutiya Kingdom. However, at present, the Deori community has no connection with the Chutiya community.

Thus, Acharyya and Mahanta terms this Chutia-Deori relationship as "speculation".

Chaipau (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau In the 1840s, the British recorded what the people of Bordeuri village and Borgoya clan said, “An isolated colony on the river Dikrung in Luckimpur, calling themselves 'Deori Chutia' were found, who had a peculiar language which they called Chutia, and they were styled Deoris, because they had been attached as priests to a certain temple, formerly of great celebrity, above Sadiya, called Tamasuri Mai, where human sacrifices were yearly offered. Another colony of the same tribe was found by Colonel Hannay occupying a very remote position in Upper Assam, and still performing the priestly duties of a certain shrine dedicated to Kali.” (Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, ET Dalton, page 78). Who said this to the British about two hundred years ago? The Deuri people of the Dibangia and Bargaon clan said this to the British. Is there anything called speculation here? All these things were told to the British by the ancestors of the Deuri people themselves and they were recorded by the British. There can be no doubt that the language spoken the Deoris is the Chutia language historically. Infinity73892 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Colonial era British ethnologies are not considered reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F. Chaipau (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chaipau There are some mistakes in the early days of the British Because they were not familiar with this country But they are not basic, It's secondary. History does not depend on the ideas created among the people today History is the events of the past . The British can never made such a fundamental mistake as calling the Deuris as Deuri Chutia or their language as Chutia language. When the British entered Assam, the Deuri people were expelled from Sadia and settled in the then Shivsagar and Lakhimpur districts. Why would the British conspire against these 3/4 villages? The British recorded what the Deuri ancestors said. The British can conspire against the Ahom dynasty or against the Ahoms, why should they conspire against the Deuris? Were the Deuris a force to be reckoned with? It wasn't at all. Infinity73892 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two problems with what you are claiming. First is what I have already mentioned above. The colonial ethnographers are unreliable and cannot be quoted directly. In addition to this modern linguists, such as Jaquesson, have rejected their claims.

Chaipau (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chaipau The rejection by modern linguists, including Jaquesson, is based on what? Although the British made mistakes, those errors were not fundamental but rather peripheral. Beyond the Deuri context, did the British wrongly name any community or language? If we seek records from the British era, even if there are mistakes, they are considered minor, not foundational. Regarding what you mentioned about modern linguists, within that context, Acharyya and Mahanta (2019) themselves took a quote of a Deuri author. This author's name is Saranan Deuri, and from his work "Religious practices of Deoris" (2002). The ideologue of the Deuri Chutia conflict, Saranan Deuri, was the first Deuri writer to argue that the Deuris did not originate from the Chutia . None other Deori before have rejected it . The origin source that he had advanced was an unscientific source, and it is this unscientific source that, in a way devoid of personal opinion, Saranan Deuri has astutely elevated as the origin source of the Deuri community, advancing it very cleverly. According to his view, for centuries, the Deuris have ruled with valor. The last king of the Deuris, Raja Bhadiya, courageously died fighting the Maans. He wrote "Today's generation does not accept that the Deuris are from the Chutias" . Now this sources are reliable isn't it? Infinity73892 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

On the Identification with the Deori people

Many scholars, especially from a Chutia perspective, claim the Deori people to be a part of the Chutia people. This is rejected by the Deori people themselves and which is noted in recent scholarship. Acharyya and Mahanta (2019) notes: "However, at present, the Deori community has no connection with the Chutiya community. It has been noted that:" and quotes from Deori (2002):

Deoris are completely different from the Chutiya community, linguistically and ethnically. There is no commonality in the language of the two communities. There is not a single word in Deori vocabulary which matches with the Chutiya language and vice-versa. No semblance of the traditional societal bond has also been traced between these two communities. (Deori 2002:11)

Thus, we should not claim the Deoris to be "Deori-Chutia".

Chaipau (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is about the historical link of Deoris, when they were known as Deori-Chutias(till the British period). As per British Census reports, the Deoris preferred to call themselves Deori-Chutia back then. Even their origin foklore talks of four Chutias being forefathers of the four Deori subdivisions. The granting of ST status to Deori-Chutias separated the group. All these claims made recently are politically driven, without any historical basis. Wikipedia should not fuel political narratives.Ananya Taye (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Chutias are found all over Upper Assam because Chutias were dispersed by the Ahoms all around Assam during early 16th century Homogenie (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Homogenie: I don't know how what you are saying is relevant. But recent scholarship has rejected the Deori-Chutia identification. To refute this, you will have to give some definite, positive and specific refutation of the above from a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "recent scholarship"? Except Jacquesson's partial viewpoint, no other writer has rejected the common origins. Jacquesson's viewpoint has nothing to do with historical divisions among Chutias. Historically Deoris were the priestly section of Chutias. The claims of the Deori Autonomous Council which are narrated by Jacquesson is politically driven, not intellectually. The study done by Jacquesson is based on whatever the Deori people have narrated to him. He is not a history scholar to know about the shared past of the Chutia and Deori people. Nor has he visited any Chutia village to give remarks on the Chutia language. It is obvious that a community enjoying the benefits of scheduled tribe will try to distance themselves from one with an OBC status. Current political agendas should not be considered here, unless thorough research has been done from both ends.

As for Mahanta, he is right in a way. It is you who is interpreting it in a wrong way. He writes,"the features that have given the Deori language its specific shift show that it was shaped in the north-easternmost recess of Assam, close to the Dibang valley, where indeed according to traditional lore the Deoris came from, whereas the numerous Chutiyas have never been isolated in this small place, but were widespread throughout Upper Assam." By this he means that the Deoris who were confined to Sadiya alone(while other Chutias were displaced) for 500 years after the fall of Chutia kingdom seem to have developed variations in the original Chutia language. The Chutias been scattered and intermixed with the Ahoms abandoned their original tongue in favour of the lingua Franca Assamese. Why do you think there are so many words in the Assamese language derived from the Deori language? Do you really think a small priestly community like Deori confined to Sadiya will have such great impact on a language spoken in the entire Upper Assam region, unless it was spoken by a larger population at an ancient time?? Think again.

Kindly read about the Deori-Chutia separation which occured in 1930s. The entire Chutia community including Deoris were granted ST by the Simon Commission. But, as the rest of the Chutias rejected the ST status under the influence of high-caste people, Bhimbor Deori who was a member of the Chutia sanmilon left the Sanmilon and separated the Deoris by retaining the ST status. If you want to know about Deori viewpoint before granting ST status, kiread this book :Jimochaya-Chu. This book written by Digeram Deori in 1935 clearly mentions Deori to be a part of Chutia community at that period. He writes, "They(Chutias) had their own culture, literature and civilization. They(Chutias) even had a custom of offering worship to God, by a particular class of people, who were chosen for the purpose only. They were called as priests or Deuri.".

Ananya Taye (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As specified in the quotes from Jaquesson and Mahanta, Deoris and Chutias are different peoples. These are not my interpretations. The arguments you are making is that the Deoris and the Chutias spoke the same language and then the Deoris shifted away. This is mere speculation. Which language is this common language? Also, the Deoris were the priests not just of the Chutia, but also of the Morans, Sadiyal Kacharis, possibly the Dimasa and other Bodo-Kachari groups. So why should the Deoris speak the Chutia language and not an entirely different language? And there is no evidence that the Chutias themselves spoke a single language. At the time of breakup of the Chutia kingdom, there were many different Chutia peoples---some were tribal whereas the others were Hindus, as Sritidhar Dutta has specifically mentioned. These Hindu Chutias were converted in the Chutia kingdom period, whereas the tribal Chutias were converted under Ekasarana dharma later. There is no evidence that all the Chutias spoke a single language in 1523 when the Chutia kingdom came to an end. Chaipau (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau:

1. Also, the Deoris were the priests not just of the Chutia, but also of the Morans, Sadiyal Kacharis, possibly the Dimasa and other Bodo-Kachari groups.

No you wrong here. What evidence do you have that Deoris were priests of Morans, Kacharis or other Bodo-Kachari groups?? Do you have any citations to back your claim?

Each Bodo-kachari group be it Sonowals, Morans, Dimasa, Boro, Tiwa, etc have their own Deori priestly clans. Deori clans of tribes like Tiwa and Boro write "Deori" as their surnames. Sonowal Kacharis also have their own priestly clan, among the several clans formed as per their duties. Morans were located to the south (Dihing region) and had their own priestly clans within their community.

The tribe which we know as "Deori" today are the former royal priestly clans of the Chutias of Sadiya, specifically the four shrines(worshipped by the four clans), not any other Bodoo group. It's just that the four shrines (Sari Xaal) became so popular and reverred by all due to the prominance of the Chutia kingdom, that neighbouring tribes like Sonowals and Morans also started visiting the temples to seek blessings. Out of all the tribes, it was only the Chutias who rose to prominence and formed their own state. Hence, the Chutia Deori clans, which were similar to the other Deori clans of other Bodo-kachari tribes at the beginning, later became powerful royal priests with land grants, and official status. No other Deori clan of any other tribe rose to that level of power, prestige and prominence.

2. There is no evidence that all the Chutias spoke a single language in 1523 when the Chutia kingdom came to an end.

A single community will have a single language to start with. Later, there can be different dialects which can originate within the community from this single language, due to various factors. Go through history of any region around the world. It is always the priestly section of a community which retains the original tongue through their prayers and rituals. One doesn't need to go afar. Look at the Deodhais of Ahom kingdom and how they retained the Ahom language. Now, can anyone say that the language spoken by some of these Deodhais isn't the original Ahom language? Why is it termed as Tai Ahom language then? Using the same logic as Deori-Chutias, shouldn't it be termed as Deodhai language instead? Afterall, as Deodhais were royal priests of Ahom kings, Deoris were royal priests of Chutia kings. It's only that the Chutias were displaced and dispersed that this historical link faded to certain extent.

Ananya Taye (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. There should be no doubt about that the language spoken by the Deoris is the original Chutia language bcoz this things are said by the Deori's Ancestors themselves.I have quoted everything that Dalton had wrote in his book "Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal" in 1872 “It was long before anything of their language was discovered ; but an isolated colony on the river Dikrung in Luckimpur, calling themselves 'Deori Chutia' were found, who had a peculiar language which they called Chutia, and they were styled Deoris, because they had been attached as priests to a certain temple, formerly of great celebrity, above Sadiya, called Tamasuri Mai, where human sacrifices were offered yearly. Another colony of the same tribe was found by Colonel Hannay occupying a very remote position in Upper Assam, and still performing the priestly duties of a certain shrine dedicated to Kali".

If this words are not said by the Deoris than who told this things to the Britishers? 2409:40E6:3F:895C:840B:52FF:FEED:FE1B (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Clans

What is being passed off for clans are khels. A khel in the Ahom administration was a professional guild, a group of specialist paiks under the Paik system, that was commanded by either a Phukan or a Barua. Kahnikar denoted engineers, dolakaxaria denoted royal guards, etc. Since the Ahom kingdom exercised strict control over the paiks, they were "bound" to their khels and had to render their service to these khels. And this was true for all ethnic paiks, be they Chutia, Ahom, Kachari or even Muslims. These guilds are not clans.

One of the references used is Srishtidhar Dutta. I have verified that the source does not mention Chutia clans. The Chutia Jatir Buranji is not WP:RS. I have discussed why elsewhere.

Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Bangshas/clans and khels/classese are mentioned separately. Buruk, Lofai, Sissagharia, etc are clans present within the Chutia society. There are Bangshavalis organised by different Chutia clans in Tinsukia, Dhemaji, Lakhimpur, Golaghat, etc. On the other hand, khels are professional classes which the society was divided into. Some of them existed from before and some created during the Ahom period. Read the article properly and patiently, use your brains and understand the difference between Khels and Bangshas before making hurried disruptive edits.Ananya Taye (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

None of these Banshavalis can be traced to earlier periods. As mentioned by D Nath the list of the kings itself was a fabrication[1]. He has clearly stated that the fabrication of the royal lineage was to legitimize the ascension of the non-Ahom rulers in the Moamoria rebellion: [T]his so called ancient chronicle might have been a later work of some members of the Chutiya aristocracy, as is possibly an attempt to legitimize the claims of the Chutiyas over a part of Assam during the establishment of the Matak kingdom in the beginning of the 19th century (1805) or after the Ahom power was abolished.. In fact there exists more than one of these royal lineages, and historians have said these do not have any historical value. Shin has said that there has been a "construction (and reconstruction) of the past".[2] These lineages, scholars agree, are fabrications from the 18th and 19th century and part of a retelling of the past (revisionism).

Furthermore, the mere existence of lineages do not mean they are clans. Non-clannish societies too maintain family trees.

Chaipau (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, use of phrases like use your brains could land you into trouble under WP:CIVIL. Chaipau (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lede - July 2021

The lede has been restored and NPOV-ized. Please discuss here before making changes. The following points need to be taken into account.

• The Chutia people were identified as such in the Buranjis, and when the Chutia kingdom was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom, the people of the Chutia kingdom were already Sanskritised. Dutta writes: A section of the Chutiyas who came to be identified as Hindu-Chutiyas was Aryanised at a very early period. They were no longer "tribal" at the time the Ahoms conquered them in the 16th century, 500 years ago; and they were "civilisationally very advanced". Different Chutiya groups were proficient and specialised in different technical skills, and these groups went on to form different khels in the Ahom kingdom (p30). Many of the Chutia peoples went on to hold high official positions in the Ahom kingdom. To claim that the Chutiyas today are a Bodo ethnic group today is grossly inaccurate, to say the least.
• The identification of the Chutias language as a Bodo language identical with the Deori language (as Brown had done in the past) has been disputed by modern-day linguists. Any such claim (and any claim that crucially depended on Brown's identification) will have to be abandoned. I have seen no author claim the existence of a Chutia language after the fall of the Chutia kingdom, let alone in recent times.
  • Acharya and Mahanta (2019): The extant literature on Deori (Brown 1895; Brandreth 1878; Grierson 1909; Goswami 1994) associates the language of the Deori community with the Chutiyas, "the original language of Upper Assam" (Brown 1895:5). At present, there is no evidence of closeness of the Deori language to the language spoken by the Chutiya community.

Chaipau (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC) (edited) 22:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reading some part of Dutta books and disregarding other is the best way to push your POV. Specialising in different technical skills doesnot make one a non-tribal. Ahom till 16th century were non-hindu but they wrote buranji, the only accurate historical books in whole of india, so were the Ahoms non-tribal during 14th,15th century just because they wrote buranji which no one in civilised india could write, also tribal Ahom in 13th century brought wet rice cultivation, does having wet rice cultivation skills made Ahom a non-tribal in 13th century, Bodo are skilled weavers doesnot make them non-tribal, does it, also, Dimasa build most of the Dimapur ruins before they became hindu during the 18th century as found un buranji, does that make them non-tribal in 15th century, they built wonderful architecture, does making those make them non-tribal, Dimasa today even after being Hindus are tribals, being Hindu doesnot make you non-tribal. tribals too have skills , Having skills doesnot have anything to do with tribal and non-tribal, holding higher position in Medieval kingdom like ahom kingdom or dimasa kingdom does make you non-tribal either.

Chutias were non fully hindu even till the early 20th century thats what Gait(1906) wrote in his book,

This is what Dutta wrote exactly

Indeed it appears that of all the tribes of the Brahmaputra valley, the Chutiyas were the most well advanced and had a well-developed civilisation. p-28

did you read the line , Dutta say tribe wheras you carefully omitted the word and said non-tribe, this is what dutta wrote.

also this what Dutta wrote

Most of the tribal member Mataks like the Morans, Barahis, Kacharis and Chutiyas, being member of the Bodo Family had allied religious beliefs and customs. All of them worshipped a primodial male diety and a Primodial female diety and all of them were animist. p-48

also it is during Aniruddheva who initiated the conversion during latter part of 18th century. Also claiming that there is no track of Chutia language after the fall of Chutia kingdom is grossely mistaken, it is written by deouri themselves Jimochaya-Chu. also groups like bodo and tiwas have priest who are called guess Deoris Boro_people#Important clans, Tiwa_(Lalung)#Tiwa clan system, all these groups have priest who are called Deuris

claiming Chutias became non-tribal in 1523 is grossly inaccurate Homogenie (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

When Dutta (1985) writes: "Indeed it appears that of all the tribes of the Brahmaputra valley, the Chutiyas were the most well advanced and had a well-developed civilisation." he means that the Chutiyas were no longer tribal after they established the kingdom since they have a well-developed civilization. He goes on to list what the advances in civilization was:

• A section of the Chutiyas who came to be known as Hindu Chutiyas was Aryanised at a very early period (p29). So the Hindu-Chutiyas were definitely not tribal at that point. The inscriptional evidence too shows that the Chutia kings were fairly Indo-Aryan. The bricks in the Tamreshwari temple were inscribed in Indo-Aryan scripts and the names were Hindu names --- even though the temple itself was non-brahminical (the priests were the Deoris outside Brahminical influence).
• It is clear that the Chutias are currently not tribal. They are not considered to be scheduled tribes today, though that there is a movement to include them in the ST list. To push the idea that they are tribal today is pushing this political agenda, which is goes against Wikipedia policies (WP:NOTADVOCACY).
• The Chutia people are not homogeneous. There are Ahom-Chutia, and Miri-Chutia, besides the Hindu-Chutias. To claim that all of them are Bodo-Kachari is grossly inaccurate.

Chaipau (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well you are misundertanding Dutta and also you are not representing whole of Dutta views, 1. Writing a Indo-aryan surname does not say anything about being tribal or non-tribal, Dimasa kings wrote Indo-aryan name and inscriptions were indo-aryan insription but Dimasas are today consider Schedule tribes, moreover the kings having a indo-aryan name does not say anything about the commoners values or beliefs, so basing the assumption that just because the kings have indo-aryan name makes the commoners to indo-aryanised is flawed. This disproves that all chutias were aryanised in 1523, also it is clearly written by Dutta "A section of Chutiyas were aryanised .." It is clearly states "A SECTION OF CHUTIAS" not ALL CHUTIAS"

2. Dutta writes further, you ignored it, Quote

Those Chutiyas who were not Hinduised and lived in the neighbourhood of the Mayamara Satra, accepted initiation from its Mahanta, and came to be known as Matak-Chutiya, At present the Matak-Chutiyas are mostly disciples of the Tiphuk Mayamara Mahantas. There is a clan among the Chutiyas, known as Buruk-Chutiya, who are disciples of also disciples of Mayamara Satra. The Buruk Chutiyas according to P saikia, are direct descendent of the Chutiya royal family.

.p= 30-31 This is what Dutta writes in 1985, it writes about a clan of Buruk Chutias, this clearly disapproves that chutias were Aryans by 1523, this statemnt brings us to year 1985 chutias having clans.

3. Being OBC have nothing with tribal or non-tribal, Tea tribes of Assam are OBCs in Assam, while the same groups enjoy ST status in jHarkhand, Tribal groups like Moran who had their own language had till early 1900s are considered OBCs, Moran have all tribal characteristies but are still OBCs, these groups having Non-tribal status has nothing to do with their being non-tribal .

4. Chutias are not Homogeneous groups, hence not Bodo-Kachari, read that part well i Quote

After the fall of the Chutia kingdom, the Chutia people were divided into different groups due to circumstances based on either religious inclinations or associations with other communities. Over time, Chutias divided into five important groups

• about Ahom Chutias

  Even during Sukapha's reign, many Chutia or Moran families like Som-chiring[43] and Changsai[44] were absorbed into the Ahom fold. Majority of Ahoms of the Chetia clan as well as the Lahon clan originated from the Chutia community

• about Borahi Chutias

  being originally Chutias and included in the Borahi fold. Moreover, the Tai word used for the Borahis was Kha-lang with kha used by the Ahoms to refer to the people who were not associated with wet rice cultivation. Although most of them were absorbed into the Ahom group, some of the Chutias living in Dhemaji, Golaghat and Sibsagar districts still identify themselves as Borahi-Chutias

• about Mishing Chutias

  Miri Chutias were the Chutias who lived in the bordering villages of the northern bank of Brahmaputra and fled to the Miri hills during the Ahom invasions. They intermarried with the Mishing and were subsequently absorbed by the later.

MOST OF THESE GROUPS HAVE BEEN ABSORED INTO AHOM so no longer CHutias. The title like Ahom-Chutias, Borahi-CHutias, Mishing-CHutias are not clans or sections of Chutias, but these title speaks about Chutias having relantionship with different groups in which chutias were absorbed by the latter groups. So Chutias is a Homogeneous group, as it just contains two parts today, i.e Kesaponthi (following Vaishnaivism) and Pokaponthi (following tribal rites), Among Pokaponthi, the Rituals are similar to Bodokachari rituals, hence section of Chutias still are similar to Bodo-Kachari. Moreover groups like Sonowal KAcharis to adhere to VAishvaism so why are they given ST .Homogenie (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If the Ahom-Chutia, Borahi-Chutia and the Mising-Chutia are not Chutia then only the Hindu-Chutias are the Chutia today? You obviously can have a homogeneous group only if you excluded these groups. If you included them, then obviously the Chutia people are not homogeneous. Furthermore, many among the Hindu-Chutias were Hinduised before 1523, as Dutta says explicitly. Do we agree on these points? Chaipau (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bodo people

There are a couple of problems with this citation from Shin: [3].

• The Chutia people are not Tibeto-Burman speaking today. We know this for a fact. We have the authority of Jacquesson on that. Jacquesson is a linguist and he has worked on the Deori language and he is probably an authority on this.
• Even if the Chutia people were Tibeto-Burman speaking, there is no certainty that they were not Austroasiatic speakers earlier. This is because it is known that many Tibeto-Burman speakers today were probably Austroasiatic speakers earlier---Garos, and probably Rabhas and even the Koch. It is possible that the Chutias too were originally Austroasiatic speakers, especially given that they have matrilineal and mother-goddess cultural artifacts.

So we should not take these comments of Shin as sacrosanct.

Chaipau (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Shin cites Buragohain (from Barpujari's Comprehensive History of Assam) to make the above claim. Unfortunately, Buragohain's is based on racial types. Buragohain writes: "Scholars are unanimous that the Chutiyas belonged to the great Bodo-Kachari race and that they had different cognate groups within them. They had Mongoloid traits and possibility of infusion of Shan blood cannot be ruled out."

A few things to note here, leaving aside the use of racial types:

• Buragohain writes about a historic community—he uses "belonged", "they had" and so on. Buragohain was not referring to the current group that is known as Chutia.
• He was referring to the historical Chutia's as not one community, but different cognate groups—that is his claim means that the people of the historical Chutia kingdom were descendants of not one but many ancestral groups.
• Buragohain raises the possibility that some of these cognate groups were not Bodo-Kachhari but Shan.

Thus, Shin too was describing the historical population of the Chutia kingdom, not the current community that constitute the Chutia people today. Furthermore, there are too many other issues that complicate the issue further. We should not use this particular claim of Shin.

Chaipau (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

All this claims have one thing in common, it is falling under WP:OR

Quote

Buragohain writes about a historic community—he uses "belonged", "they had" and so on. Buragohain was not referring to the current group that is known as Chutia. He was referring to the historical Chutia's as not one community, but different cognate groups—that is his claim means that the people of the historical Chutia kingdom were descendants of not one but many ancestral groups.

Read the lines properly, it seems you are trying to interpret the source in your own way and falling into WP:OR. Leaving aside Buragohain, we have multiple source regarding this topic, not just one

 ::Regarding Shan blood, Dutta (1985) writes :

Gait opinies "They have in their frames a considerable infusion of Shan blood.." This may be possible because the Chutiyas were next neighbours of the Shans of the south east Asia. p.28

,

So, here Dutta clears out that Chutia intermarried with the Shans because their location was next to the place where the Shan resided not that Chutias are Shan

Now going through the cultural factors here is what he has written

Most of the members of the Mataks like the Morans, Barahis, Kacharis and Chutiyas, being members of the great Bodo family, had allied religious beliefs and customs. All of them worshipped a Primodial male deity and a Primodial female deity, and all of them were animist. The male deity was called by the Kacharis as Bathou, Bathou Brai, and by the Chutiyas as Kundimama, Balia-Baba or Pisha-dema. The Primordial female deity was called by Kacharis as Ai-Deo, Kamakhi Kamlakhi, etc., and by the Chutiyas as Pisha-si, Kechaikhati etc. ....Another scared place of the Chutiyas, Morans and Barahis was Charaideo where the Barahis, in particular, worshipped a God bearing the same name. p.48-49

If Thengal kacharis and Sonowal kacharis and Hajong are put into Bodo-Kachari who have similar culture , than why is it that we are removing citation and doing WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, when Chutias have much more evidence of Kachari origin, Shin(2020) is not writing about the kingdom, you falling under WP:OR

Moreover, will the present Ahom people will identity as Tai or Bodo kachari, as 20-30% Ahom will turn out to be Kachari origin, the present Ahom asserts itself as Tai origin. Same with Chutias, it asserts itself as Kachari origin Homogenie (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this is not an issue of who the Chutia people are. Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss it (WP:FORUM). Please confine your arguments to Wikipedia policies. The Shin as well as Buragohain are talking about a historic population, not the current community—and they are not the same thing. The Bodo-Kachari grouping has happened due to Hodgson, a colonial officer, and it is a neologism. Historically the Chutia have been called neither as Mech, Bodo/Boro nor Kachari. So please use a recent reference that explicitly and critically cites the current population. Please do not pluck some random quote to make a point. Chaipau (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Chutias have cultural similarites with group called Bodo-kacharis, just like tiwa and bodo, they too employ Deoris as priest and KEchai khaiti as goddess, on this basis these 18 groups are put under one bracket, they have similar culture, not just shin, read dutta, sl baruah about the cultural similarites, have any author denied this affiliations Homogenie (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just cite a critical reference that references the current population. Does the current population worship Kechai Khaiti? Chaipau (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Does the current Sonowal Kacharis or Thengal Kacharis do?? Who are these new Chutias that you are refering to?? There were Borahis, Morans,Ahoms, Kaibartas, Brittial Bania (Haris, Tantis etc), and Chutias, All these group appear in list of OBC or SC or ST list except for Borahis, so who are those people you are claiming that have become Chutias in these 100 years, there seem no group existing other than these.Homogenie (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Let us discuss the Chutia people here. The Sonowal people too have been Hinduized and we could probably see the same phenomenon here. Wikipedia cannot take a position on whether Chutia's belong in the SC/ST list or not, though it can state that the Chutia people wants to be in the ST list. Taking a position, which you seem to be arguing for, is against the WP:ADVOCACY policy of Wikipedia.

The references you are citing now, Dutta 1985, references the historic communities, not the current community. I have added a recent genetic study that places the current Chutia community appropriately, and alignment with what we know has happened with the Chutia community.

Chaipau (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed a citation ultimately attributed to Gait. Here is the consensus on Gait. [4] Chaipau (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• An old Chutia women in her traditional attire.jpg
• Apeswari Sabah.jpg
• Chutia girls wearing Riha, Mekhela and Gathigi.jpg
• Dangoria Sabah.jpg
• Deo-kuber Puja.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Borahi-Chutia

The definition of Borahi-Chutia in S Dutta (1985) describes the Borahi people, not Chutia people. Dutta speculates that they might have some Chutia connection. I am not sure this belongs here, especially because this category is so sparsely defined in the literature. We need more WP:RS for this. Chaipau (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC) (edited) 17:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hindu Chutia

Do not "correct" reliable sources by replacing them to push a particular point of view, as done here. The two issues are different. Chaipau (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Chutia language

We have modern linguists, such as Jaquesson, Mahanta and others agreeing that the Deuri language could not have been Chutia language. It is not some, but all modern linguists. Chaipau (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Deuri language is the Chutia language that’s historically proven. There can be no doubt about this historically. This are recorded as told by the ancestors of the Deuris themselves.And rest is all cheap politics. 2409:40E6:3F:895C:4CD9:45FF:FE2C:AA36 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Religion of Chutia people

Its seems some are denying the fact that in over the majority are following Hinduism... why do you need to add according to into alphabetical way @Homogenie and @Ananya Taye??? When we have statistics about the religion of the people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 11:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, learn how to tag a user. Otherwise nobody will know whether you have mentioned someone. This is not social media with only the @ sign. @Jonardondishant: This is how you do it.

Now coming to the topic, go read the "religion" and "culture" section of the "Chutia people" article and learn some facts about the community if you don't have any prior knowledge. Being Hinduised/semi-hinduised doesn't mean that one has abandoned their animistic or folk religious believes. One can still follow age old animistic religious rituals and simultaneously visit Hindu temples. One can still believe in ancestors and earthly spirits on one hand and worship Hindu gods on the other hand. Even other tribes like Boros, Kacharis, Deoris, etc follow the similar pattern of mixed worship. Chinese people mostly follow Folk religion with Buddhist and Taoist influences. They worship their folk deities as well as Buddha and other Taoist deities together. That is no big deal. There is a section of Chutias who are Vaishnavites and have abandoned the animistic beliefs, yet there is another section which are non-Vaishnavites(donot follow any Satra) and perform tribal folk rituals in their community or household. These are the followers of animism or folk religion. Almost all the rituals followed by this group is also followed by the Deori people who were once the royal priests of the kingdom.

The Religion heading must including all sections of Chutia, including both Vaishnavites(Eksharana Dharma) as well as Animism/Folk religion. Ananya Taye (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ananya Taye Ironical... That I already mentioned it in minority section, but you removed it

First to say...Are people following the folk religion/animism as a religion or as a culture??

There is no question that Chutia, in majority are followers of Hinduism even if they have their animism belief.

That's why did you remove the Majority and minority section???

What are you trying to prove with the citation... The author herself used the word (were) following animism not are. Jonardondishant (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonardondishant:

1. Ironical... That I already mentioned it in minority section, but you removed it

What majority/minority status are you talking about? The Religion heading has to contain all the different sects of religion followed by Chutias. Find me a source which states that 100% of Chutias follow Eksharan Dharma. If you can't find any, you have no right to remove other religious sects that non-Vaishanavite Chutias follow.

2. First to say...Are people following the folk religion/animism as a religion or as a culture??

Learn the definition of folk religion. Folk religion itself means the amalgamation of folk religious and cultural beliefs. Anything outside the periphery of any organised religion like Eksharan Dharma is termed as a "folk religion". What is a religion? It is the set of principles to worship a set of deities. Chutias who practise folk religion worship their ancestoral deities, natural spirits and organise rituals to ask for their blessings. That is exactly what religion is. Even the Deoris follow the exact same rituals (along with visiting Hindu temples and worshipping Hindu deities as well), So, if their religion can be termed as folk religion or animism, why can't the practices of Chutias be classified the same way?

3. That's why did you remove the Majority and minority section???

What did I remove? Nobody has removed anything here. It is you, who is trying to deny the truth and removing folk religion, dispite knowing the fact that there is a sizeable population of Chutias following folk religion instead.

3. What are you trying to prove with the citation... The author herself used the word (were) following animism not are.

Go read the "religion" and "culture" section. Those contain sources with reference to books by authors like SL Barua who have written about the present state of Chutias, not the past. I quote,

The rituals of the Chutia community have a tribal-tantric folk religion base with an influence of Hinduism and Vaishnavism which have brought some reforms among a section of Chutias who are now known as Kesa-ponthi. They are named as such because they have been imposed certain restrictions like use of animal meat and alcohol in their rites. Others who have retained the age-old customs in its original form are termed as Poka-ponthis. Some of the rituals include Sabahs like Holita loguwa, Aai, Panitula Borsabah, Dangoria, Borsarakia, Khuti, Jal Devota, Jal kuwari, Apeswari, Kalika; Hewa/Pujas like Deo-kuber, Suvasani, Moh jokh Raati Hewa, Haun puja, and other rituals like Bhekulir Biya, Na-khuwa, Nangol dhua, Bhoral pitha dia, Nangol pitha dia

Ananya Taye (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ananya Taye we have got a warning better to reslove the matter by tomorrow Jonardondishant (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonardondishant: Also, stop reverting the edit about "majority of Chutias following Eksharan Dharma" repeatedly. If you have any citation or reference to add that backs the claim, you can add it freely. Nobody will stop you. But, don't try to make false claims without any sources.Ananya Taye (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

When did I say that 100% of them are hindus....really? Maximum that I said that majority of chutia are hindus...It doesn't even need source...chutia's were the first one to follow hinduism... chutia as animist were never dominant after ahom rule... by 17th and 18th century 95-99 of the would be hindu...chutia played a dominant role in moamoriya rebellion becuase they were a major tribe and followers of shudra sattra, even the king of the rebles was matak chutia Jonardondishant (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonardondishant:

1. When did I say that 100% of them are hindus....really? Maximum that I said that majority of chutia are hindus...It doesn't even need source.

Kindly learn some basic definitions. There is a difference between being Hindu and following Ekasarana Dharma. Since, there is no provision of "Folk religion" in Indian government reports, tribes of Assam like Boro, Deori, Dimasa, Mishing, etc declare Hinduism(if not Christianity) as their religion in official census reports. Yet, these tribes are not the typical orthodox Hindus and don't follow Brahmanical or Vaishnavite traditions. Chutias may be majority Hindus(if the definition of Hinduism includes tribal customs). Nobody is denying that. The thing here is that you are confusing between Hinduism and a sect of Hinduism, Vaishnavism. There is no data or survey done as far as I know to prove that majority of Chutias follow Ekasarana Dharma. If you have any sources/citations add it to the article, or else kindly refrain from making blanket claims to push your POV.

2. Chutia as animist were never dominant after ahom rule... by 17th and 18th century 95-99 of the would be hindu...chutia played a dominant role in moamoriya rebellion becuase they were a major tribe and followers of shudra sattra, even the king of the rebles was matak chutia

How do you know that Chutias who followed folk religion lost their majority status during Ahom rule? Do you have any evidence/sources to back your claim? Yes, a section of Chutias were adherents of Mayamoria sect, but that's just a section of Chutias, who are today mostly considered as Mataks. There is a sizeable section of Chutias in rural areas who are adherents of folk religion. Unless a survey is done, nobody can say for sure which group forms the majority.Ananya Taye (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hence you dont know, Hinduism is present here even before chutia's started a kingdom. The royal family was already hindu during the chutia rule. Why do think that why all those persecution of Vaisnavs couldnt succed, because chutias already choosed their religion as ekarsana dharma and please stop differentiating between Hindu and Vaishnavism. Leaving that, why was the ahom government not able to impose saktism as the people religion hence because people were already vaisnavs... also you counter to the question is no ironnical

.members of the Mataks like the Morans,Barahis, Kacharis and Chutiyas, being members of the great Bodo family, had allied religious beliefs and customs. All of them worshipped a Primodial male deity and a Primodial female deity, and all of them were animist

And stop saying chutia's is a tribe...they are widespread in upper assam and central assam. People have totally misused the word.

Also ohhh those 18 lakhs people who died during whole of moamoriya rebellion were just a small section. Hahaha now you are saying that mataks are not chutia...

The ekarsana dharma reached to all places of assam. When Ahoms can ignored their own preist why can't chutia.

In Rajeswar Singha there is no way that the traditional preist were even cared.

If you want to say that chutia still have a sizeable population of animist...give a newer source to proof... not a colonialist source. Jonardondishant (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the fact that Hinduism exists or that a section of Chutias are Vaishnavites. Those facts are mentioned in the article itself and is common knowledge. The statement "Majority of Chutias following Eksharan Dharma" is not sourced. If you have any citation or reference to add that backs the claim, you can add it freely. Nobody will stop you. But, don't try to make false claims without any sources Ananya Taye (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekarsana/Hinduism it's just the different sects... chutia's may be divided in different sects but overall they follow the same religion... And I really wonder that why you still think that chutia's in majority are still not followers of hinduismJonardondishant (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Ananya Taye and Jonardondishant you seem to be involved in an edit war and have possibly violated WP:3RR. @Fylindfotberserk and Kautilya3: alerting you.

Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok they might have seen your message so now you should delete it :) Orang srang17 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROMO activities in this page

@Fylindfotberserk, Kautilya3, and Austronesier: this page has been the target of some persistent political WP:PROMO activity. For example, we have this from Jaquesson (2008):

Modern Chutiyas, who would be very pleased to be registered as a schedule tribe, have now and then used Brown’s book (or at least its title) as a political weapon. The Deoris, on the contrary, are not happy with this unfortunate misunderstanding, because they hope their smaller tribe will not be merged into the much larger Chutiya group. In my book about the Deori language, I showed that the Deoris are right, since the features that have given their language its specific shifts show that it was shaped in the north-easternmost recess of Assam, close to the Dibang valley, where indeed according to traditional lore the Deoris came from, whereas the numerous Chutiyas have never been isolated in this small place, but were widespread throughout Upper Assam.

In other words, a political group is interested in making the Chutia people a tribal group to be included in the list of scheduled tribes. To prove this apparently the group thinks it is important to establish that the Chutia people spoke and speak a Boro-Garo language, the religion is Folk religion/Animism, etc. It is not just the Chutia people that are trying to get included in the list, but others too. An outcome of this is fierce edit warring on Wikipedia. Here is an example:

• Here is the tussle that the Chutia people follow an Animistic religion.[5][6][7][8] (This looks like a WP:3RR BTW.)

This line of editing has been a persistent problem in Wikipedia for the last couple of years. Pages related to Assam have become targets in the ethnic cross-fire. I would like to escalate this issue to a wider group to oversee the editing of this and others pages that have been attacked.

Some specific issues regarding this page

Keeping this in mind, here are some pointed issues we can do with some outside comments

Language

Jaquesson says that the language of the Chutia has disappeared."Today, there are tens of thousands of people who claim to be Chutiya, but they all speak Assamese because the Chutiya language has disappeared." Jaquesson (2017) p100 This claim is accepted by Acharya & Mahanta (2019) p17. Given this view among linguists, could we use this comment from a historian to claim that the language of the Chutia people is Boro-Garo? "The Chutias belong to the Bodos, a linguistic group of the Brahmaputra valley, speaking a Tibeto-Burman language and having different cognate groups within them.(Shin 2020, p. 51)" Currently there is no record of the language the Chutia's spoke before they began using Assamese.

Chaipau (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananya Taye (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: First of all, mind you, this Wikipedia article is about Chutias, not Deoris. Jacquesson and Mahanta are not authorities on Chutia people. They wrote about Deoris and simply speculates that Deori language was not the original Chutia language, from what they have heard from Deoris. Neither have they visited any Chutia village nor have they done any research on the linguistics of the Chutia community to prove their point. Although, they have mentioned that the old Chutia language is now extinct, they have never denied that Chutia or their original language was a part of the Boro-Garo group. Almost all scholarly articles written about Chutias(many of which are used as citations here like SL Barua, Jahnabi Gogoi, Shin, etc) consider Chutias to belong to the Bodo-Garo group. There are plenty of other markers besides the language which helps classify an ethnicity as a part of a greater ethnic family like rituals, traditions, cultures, etc. Chutias who have retained their tribal customs still follow customs similar to other Bodo-Garo tribes. Sevral scholars have reiterates the same point in their articles/journals. One such example is from Dutta(1985)

"(M)embers of the Mataks like the Morans, Barahis, Kacharis and Chutiyas, being members of the great Bodo family, had allied religious beliefs and customs. All of them worshipped a Primodial male deity and a Primodial female deity, all of them were animists."

Besides, except for the Khasi-Jaintias of Meghalaya(far from Chutia habitat), all the other indigenous tribes belong to the Tibeto-Burmese linguistic family. TO establish Chutia as a sole community going against this common linguistic root, one has to provide very concrete and convincing evidences. If you have any evidence, please provide. Otherwise, do not remove this well established fact and do not try to claim ambiguity in cases where there is scholarly agreement.Ananya Taye (talk)

@Chaipau: Moreover, one needs to get a neutral point of view and act impartially before trying to push that the Chutia group has some sort of sinister motive in establishing evidence. I don't think you personally have some hidden agenda yourself against the Chutia community, do you?

What Jacquesson has written about the political motives of Chutias is simply what he has heard from the Deoris. It's a partial biased viewpoint from the Deori side, not the complete picture. That's not how Wikipedia works. It requires a balance point of view with hard facts, not some opiniated narrative from someone who doesn't belong to the region and doesn't know much about it. Jacquesson is no historian to know about the historical link between Deoris and Chutias. He has not done any research on his own to find facts about the shared history, linguistics, culture or traditions between both communities. As for Deoris, it is obvious for a small community (which was separated from the Chutias in the 19th century) to have insecurities against their larger counterpart and Jacquesson is simply being fed with these fears. That is what he has blurted out in his paper.

I suggest the editors to first read the history of the formation of the Deori identity and even the later era Autonomous Council. The census of British era included Deoris among Chutias (as Deori-Chutias, not as a separate ethnic group) because at that time the Deoris considered themselves to be a part of Chutias, as Deori-Chutia. Even their original folklores consist of the story of how four Chutias were granted royal priestly status by the king and from these four people, the four clans of Deoris emerged. This folklore is recorded in British accounts too and is even recalled today by elders, as recorded in the modern day scholarly articles. During the early 20th century, Deori leaders like Bhimbor Deori were initially even part of the Chutia Sanmilan (parent organization). But, when the Simon Commission in the 1930s started granting Scheduled Tribe status to different communities, rift started forming between Deori Chutias and other Chutias. At that period, there was rampant casteism in the Assamese community. Therefore, although the Chutias were classified as a Hills and Forest tribe by the British government, the core Chutia body rejected the tribal status. The Deori Chutias, on the other hand, wanted to preserve the age old Chutia language and culture and hence they separated themselves from the larger Chutia society and formed a separate Deori identity. Bhimbor Deori was the leading figure in this movement after he left the Chutia Sanmilan.

The anti Chutia sentiment among Deoris which started at that period was later leveraged in the early 2000s when the government decided to grant an Autonomous Council to the Deori community. At that time, some educated Deoris of the Deori Autonomous Council, who knew the history of the community were involved in opening up schools to teach the upcoming Chutia students their original tongue. But, some corrupt politicians instigated the common Deori people that these council members were working against the interests of the Deori community and established a new pseudo Deori Council on their own. What followed was an intense fight between these two Councils which ultimately led to the murder of the one of the leader of the original Council, Lilakanta Deori. After that the old Council was dissolved and the new one came into power which has dictated this anti Chutia viewpoint since then, and forwarded this same view (as the view of the entire Deori society) to any scholar who visits the community for research purpose.

The views given by Jacquesson or Mahanta are not their own, but mere repeat of what they have heard from the Deori soceity (or even the leaders of Deori Organizations). Mahanta even goes on to quote directly from an article written by some Deori(2002) activist. One should also consider the fact that both Jacquesson and Mahanta have never done in linguistic or ethnic research on Chutia people. Without any clear research on Chutia people, their use of colloquial terms, their traditions, their lifestyles or their culture, no writer can conclude whether there is a link between Deori and Chutias, or whether Chutias spoke the Deori language at an earlier period or not.Ananya Taye (talk)

@Chaipau: As for the folk religion/animist part, one can just visit any Chutia village to see the religious customs practised by the community. Not every Chutia is a follower of Ekasarana Dharma. There is a sizeable section of non-Vaishnavites who practise tribal folk customs. Also, being Hinduised/semi-hinduised doesn't mean that one has abandoned their animistic or folk religious believes. One can still follow age old animistic religious rituals and simultaneously visit Hindu temples. One can still believe in ancestors and earthly spirits on one hand and worship Hindu gods on the other hand. Even other tribes like Boros, Kacharis, Deoris, etc follow the similar pattern of mixed worship. Chinese people mostly follow Folk religion with Buddhist and Taoist influences. They worship their folk deities as well as Buddha and other Taoist deities together. That is no big deal. There is a section of Chutias who are Vaishnavites and have abandoned the animistic beliefs, yet there is another section which are non-Vaishnavites (donot follow any Satra) and perform tribal folk rituals in their community or household. These are the followers of animism or folk religion. Almost all the rituals followed by this group is also followed by the Deori people who were once the royal priests of the kingdom.

The "Culture" section of this very article has mention of several folk-religious customs of the community. There were several images also added to further provide clarity, but some of them have been removed due to copyright violations.Ananya Taye (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ananya Taye Please understand the difference between religion and culture. In the older edits nowhere on earth was written that all chutia's were followers of hinduism, but was written as the majority religion, Infact it is. Chutia's has been hinduised way longer than ahoms, they are not recents converts. Even if they still practice some of their animist beliefs that would be considered in minority or as a culture. During the Moamoriya rebellion, the rebellion could succeed because of chutias as they were majority in followers of the moamoriya sattra. The religion of the chutia's is hinduism for centuries. There might be some who may say animism as their religion, but it would be much more smaller minority. A census of the religion is not there but there is minimum doubt that majority of them are hindus. Out of 2.5 million chutias some thousand religion doesn't count for all. Dont push your ideology here, take a neutral point and try to accept the truth. Jonardondishant (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Please understand the difference between religion and culture. In the older edits nowhere on earth was written that all chutia's were followers of hinduism, but was written as the majority religion, Infact it is

Kindly, learn the definition of folk religion. Folk religion itself means the amalgamation of folk religious and cultural beliefs. Anything outside the periphery of any organised religion like Eksharan Dharma is termed as a "folk religion". What is a religion? It is the set of principles to worship a set of deities. Chutias who practise folk religion worship their ancestoral deities, natural spirits and organise rituals to ask for their blessings. That is exactly what religion is. Even the Deoris follow the exact same rituals (along with visiting Hindu temples and worshipping Hindu deities as well), So, if their religion can be termed as folk religion or animism, why can't the practices of Chutias be classified the same way?

Moreover, there is a difference between being Hindu and following Ekasarana Dharma. Since, there is no provision of "Folk religion" in Indian government reports, all indigenous tribes of Assam like Boro, Deori, Dimasa, Mishing, etc declare Hinduism(if not Christianity) as their religion in official census reports. Yet, these tribes are not the typical orthodox Hindus and don't follow Brahmanical or Vaishnavite traditions. Chutias may be majority Hindus(if the definition of Hinduism includes tribal customs). Nobody is denying that. The thing here is that you are confusing between Hinduism and a sect of Hinduism, Vaishnavism. There is no data or survey done as far as I know to prove that majority of Chutias follow Ekasarana Dharma. If you have any sources/citations add it to the article, or else kindly refrain from making blanket claims to push your POV.

Ananya Taye (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

2. Even if they still practice some of their animist beliefs that would be considered in minority or as a culture... The religion of the chutia's is hinduism for centuries. There might be some who may say animism as their religion, but it would be much more smaller minority.

You are wrong and simply stating claims without any sources of proof. First, understand that Hinduism is a broad concept in India and even folk tribal religions(with Hindu influences) are considered a part of Hinduism as per government records. I have never denied that majority of Chutias aren't Hindus. Its just that the majority as aren't "Vaishnavite Hindus" like you claim (and includes a sizeable population of non-Vaishnavites following folk religious customs). The religion of Hinduised animist groups like Sonowals, Deoris, Thengals, Boros, Tiwas, etc are considered a part of Hinduism. You are getting confused between Ekasarana Vaishnavism, which is just a sect of Hinduism with the entire religion of Hinduism. Do you have any citation citing that non-Vaishnavite Chutias are a minority, while ones following the Ekasarana Dharma are the majority? How can you say that "The religion of the chutia's is hinduism for centuries"??

Yes, a section of Chutias did get influenced by orthodox Hinduism. It was not the entire Chutia population who were converted to Eksharana Dharma or orthodox Hinduism in the past. Only the Hindu Chutia section of population converted to Vaishnavism. You cannot simply deny the fact that a sizeable portion of Chutias still follow the animistic folk religion and are still classified as Hindus, much like all other indigenous tribes(Boros, Mishings, Sonowals, Thengals, etc) following similar folk religions. Ananya Taye (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

3. A census of the religion is not there but there is minimum doubt that majority of them are hindus. Out of 2.5 million chutias some thousand religion doesn't count for all.

Yes, it is obvious that majority of Chutias will show as Hindus, just not Vaishnav Hindus. The majority of Boros, Deoris, Sonowals, Thengals, etc populations will also show up as Hindus. The folk tribal religions of these groups are influenced by orthodox Hinduism and are thus included within the Hindu framework as per official records.

If one goes one step further and divide this "Hindu" population between Vaishnavite and non-Vaishnavite groups, you will know that the non-Vaishnavites aren't just a few thousands and infact includes a sizeable percentage of the populationAnanya Taye (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ananya Taye So the whole matter could be resolved by saying Hinduism instead of Ekasarana Dharma... Please tag my name or I will not get to know about it... You could've just tell me to put Hinduism. Jonardondishant (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

What language did the Chutia people spoke in the past?

Deori Chutia isn't the language of all Chutia people, it is the language of only Deori-Chutia people (according to Google) so what's the language of all Chutia tribe people. Did all different Chutia jatis had their own language like Borahi-Chutia etc? Sengsi off (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sengsi off

If that so then the language should be called as dibongiya language as it is only spoken by the dibongiya clan people . Isn't it? Sage454 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Add mythology of Chutias

Please add this as it's important Orang srang17 (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Historical division removed!

Why the historical divisions like Ahom Chutia and Deori Chutia removed without any reason? Sage454 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)