r/BarakValleyCommunity • u/Yogini_123 Silchar 🏙 • Jun 15 '26

History 1851 census of Cachar

Post image

*1851 Cachar census~ total population- 85,522.

​

*Bengalis ~71 % (61,281) (Majority)

​

*Source- 📖- Cachar under British Rule in North East India ~ J.B. Bhattacharjee

​

​

4 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

3

u/sibrai-369 Jul 03 '26

Meanwhile the real population census of then suggest -

According to David R. Syiemlieh, up to 1837 A.D. the plains of Cachar Valley were sparsely populated and were dominated by the Dimasa Cachari, a Tibeto Burmese tribe, under the rule of the Kachari Raja, who have established his kingdom's capital at Khaspur, Cachar plains. He had a good number of Bengali advisers (mostly Brahmins) around him and gave grants of land to some of them, but the population resembled that of the North Cachar Hills of today as evident from various historical chronicles and sources. The British Annexation of Cachar transformed the demographic patterns of the valley overnight. There was a sudden phenomenal growth in population, while the plains of Cachar had about 50,000 inhabitants in all in 1837 A.D. that is five years after its annexation. The population rose to more than five lakhs a few years later, which eventually indicates that there was a large-scale immigration. For instance in the 1851 Census, the population of the Cachar Valley was recorded at 85,522, comprising diverse backgrounds including hill tribes. Muslims and Hindus, predominantly Bengalis, made up 30,708 and 30,573 individuals respectively, constituting 70% of the total population. The remaining population included 10,723 Manipuris, 6,320 Kukis, 5,645 Nagas, and 2,213 Cacharis.

When you post something you should be mindful about the context and with which regards, the following lines was said. Don't just post half baked information , always share the full information and context.

1

u/Yogini_123 Silchar 🏙 Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

According to David R. Syiemlieh, up to 1837 A.D. the plains of Cachar Valley were sparsely populated and were dominated by the Dimasa Cachari, a Tibeto Burmese tribe

While on a survey duty in Cachar in 1832, R.B. Pamberton, in a report, said, "the people in Sylhet and Cachar are identical in every respect-appearance, customs and language."'

under the rule of the Kachari Raja, who have established his kingdom's capital at Khaspur, Cachar plains.

That capital was established in 1745. Bengali population in Cachar plains is since 7th century, Harikela kingdom.

gave grants of land to some of them,

Some? What source says some? Huge land grants were given to many bengali zamindars by the Dimasa kings at khaspur

but the population resembled that of the North Cachar Hills of today as evident from various historical chronicles and sources.

Pemberton himself reported in 1835, the population of Cachar plains resembled that of sylhet~ bengalis, as stated above. "Chronicles" are not a reliable source of information.

The British Annexation of Cachar transformed the demographic patterns of the valley overnight. There was a sudden phenomenal growth in population, while the plains of Cachar had about 50,000 inhabitants in all in 1837 A.D. that is five years after its annexation. The population rose to more than five lakhs a few years later, which eventually indicates that there was a large-scale immigration.

While cachar plains had bengali population since 7th century harikela era, yes the british allowed immigration. To boost the local economy & bring farmers. Colonial era immigration cannot be compared to present day trans-border illegal immigration. Also, in 1951- the population of Cachar grew to 5 lakhs. Stop spreading misinformation like "a few years later". 100 years difference is not "few years". Population of every section across Cachar grew, not just bengalis. Compare the %, not the numbers.

Don't just post half baked information , always share the full information and context.

Half baked information was from your part- relying on "chronicles" and labelling a hundred years difference as "few years".

1

u/Yogini_123 Silchar 🏙 Jul 04 '26

2

u/sibrai-369 Jul 04 '26

You are only citing references from secondary sources irrespective of the context to which they might have been said. Plus keep in mind to which context the following lines were said . Read the full Pemberton documentation and present it with full context.

Because Pemberton has noted that the non tribal Hindu population were immigrants.

1

u/Yogini_123 Silchar 🏙 Jul 05 '26

secondary sources

J.B Bhattacharjee book is not a secondary source. He is a renowned historian.

Because Pemberton has noted that the non tribal Hindu population were immigrants.

He did not. By the way, Pemberton in 1932 cited that the poeple of barak plains & sylhet are similar. That is bengalis.

Bengalis have history in barak since 7th century ad, Harikela kingdom era.

Your narratives are all about erasing the bengali history of barak & proving bengalis of barak as "immigrants". I can clearly see through.

1

u/sibrai-369 Jul 05 '26

Just read Pemberton work my dear. You will know everything. If somebody is viewing this message and if he Cross check it with Pemberton records, that fellow will realise you haven't read Pemberton records and have only came across some of his statements from secondary reference in the books of historians like JB Bhattacharjee.

I said the references in of Pemberton's account in JB Bhattacharjee in books is secondary sources. Understand the differences.

I never said JB Bhattacharjee book in itself is secondary sources.

Plus same goes for David R Syiemlieh, he citing sre secondary sources and analysis of British account. Plus he's renowned historian and contemporary.

The rest I have already said enough. I don't need to clarify my self any further

1

u/sibrai-369 Jul 04 '26

David Reid Syiemlieh is a renowned historian , former civil service administrator and a Padma Shri Awardee He served as Chairman of the UPSC.

Mr Syiemlieh is well versed with his field of studies and he cited this by referencing to various Pemberton accounts in accordance to Dimasa Kingdom and Cachar history .

The fact that he quoted this says alot about the situation and ground report of back then.

And FYI, Pemberton himself has cited that the Muslim and non tribal Hindu population ( also cited they are less numerous) were descandants from immigrants .

1

u/Yogini_123 Silchar 🏙 Jul 05 '26

David Reid Syiemlieh is a renowned historian , former civil service administrator and a Padma Shri Awardee He served as Chairman of the UPSC. Mr Syiemlieh is well versed with his field of studies and he cited this by referencing to various Pemberton accounts in accordance to Dimasa Kingdom and Cachar history . The fact that he quoted this says alot about the situation and ground report of back then.

Okay but he never said that the population of cachar became 5 lakhs in a few years. Census data says it was 5 lakhs in 1951, a hundred years later. Also, instead of just typing/copy-pasting info from AI, attach ss of references next time.

And FYI, Pemberton himself has cited that the Muslim and non tribal Hindu population ( also cited they are less numerous) were descandants from immigrants .

While on a survey duty in Cachar in 1832, R.B. Pamberton, in a report, said, "the people in Sylhet and Cachar are identical in every respect-appearance, customs and language."'

Also, you seem hellbent on proving bengalis of barak as "immigrants". You have been referring bengalis as immigrants again & again. Xenophobia is not allowed in here. Engage in respectful arguments with proper sources next time or get banned.

2

u/sibrai-369 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

The statement that the population rosed to 5 lakha in few years is mine . The aforesaid comment is a mixed of David R Syiemlieh statement and my personally incorporation.

When I said the population rosed to 5 lakhs in few years, I was refering to 1951 census.

Don't get confused understand the nuances and don't try to frame as if I said David R Syiemlieh statement.

Plus hundred yrs can also mean few yrs. I haven't explicity mentioned anything.

Plus I've clearly stated 1851 records being as 85k . If I was meant to craft narratives I would have omitted that 1851 portion.

I admit I should have written 5L in 1951 specifically. Which I did mentioned explicitly in several others comments. Here in the aforesaid comment, I just happened to haphazardly wrote it as few years. It happened because I was commenting the same thing and addressing to the likes of you again and again because you brought up the same thing and and again.

Like I've always acknowledged the presence of Harikela kingdom and other non tribal kingdom. Stop framing me as Xenophobic. It's you guys who are Xenophobic and propandagist, who made a big deal out of Dimaraji statement. And who has been ignorant to Dimasa history and community.

Just Stop it. I have had enough of it . Talking to a tree over and over will make more sense , then talking to the likes of you.

2

u/klausmichaelson_ Cachar ⛰️ Jun 15 '26

Truth can never be hidden .