Talk:Sylhetis

Request to change page name

I welcome, whoever created the page. Please fix following.

Sylhetis is wrong spelling of Sylhetese.

In English it is used as - ese, like Multese, Sudanese, Japanese. Anyone can write in Wikipedia but still educated admins should come forward to fix it.

In Native Syloti Language (Sylheti), people call them Sylotin (ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤꠘ).

Sylhetese or Sylotin are correct terms. With due respect native word is also preferred from this two word for this page. Itrans issues (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:COMMONNAME again. The term Sylheti is much more common than Sylotin. See the use of Germans instead of the word Deutsche. Secondly, check articles like Gujaratis, Punjabis, and Bengalis, where a suffix -s is used with ethnic names. No Sylheti people = Sylhetis is absolutely fine. The suffix -ese is used for country demonyms used not ethnic groups. See Berbers for example. It is not Barbarese. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

'Sylheti' (with the letters 'y' and 'h') like 'Bengali' (with the letter 'e') are both the British English spellings that have always existed in English since first colonial encounters. Most south Asian Indo-Aryan languages follow the [-i] ending. It is said as 'Hindi' language in Englsih, not 'Hind(i)ese' language. Please provide a references to where 'Sylhet(i)ese' is used in modern English.

It is current practice to borrow a word into a language like English without 'foreign' morphology, so to make the plural in English, the English plural [-s] is used, not the Siloti plural [-n]. It is 'octopus' - 'octopuses' in English.

However, translating the English term(s) into Sylheti (Siloti) language in parentheses after the English on the English language page, in various scripts with transriptions, as well as translations in Bangla to demonstrate the differences between Sylheti and Bangla, would be enriching additions.

Please add. Don't subtract or rewrite history.

P.S. The spelling 'Syloti', still with the non-south Asian 'y', which was written in the Unicode proposal, is foreign origin. The Unicode proposal was written by foreign British and Australian Bible translators. It is a type of hybrid reworking of the English 'Sylheti' and the Sylheti (Siloti) pronunciation that keeps with the already recognized ISO language code for Sylheti language, which is 'syl'. Like how the Bengali language 'Bangla' has taken on its transcription spelling, the transcription spelling of the Sylheti language would be 'Siloti', no 'y' letter.

195.195.176.198 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Flyinforberserk Yes bro you are right. Perspective is when we are talking about a minority languages. Their words are always less heard then how others call them. Right? So we need to also consider that.

For Sylheti before the usage of Syloti Nagri script we commonly used Bengali terms. Now we use Syloti Language.

@195 Bengali =সিলেটি/sylheti Sylheti =ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ,ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤꠘ (Siloti/Silotin) or (Syloti/Sylotin) English=Sylheti become Bengali সিলেটি, but doesn't match with Sylheti (Siloti or Syloti) Itrans issues (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Flyinforberserk, you have added good examples, I haven't thought about them. I was thinking most closest language "Assam-ese".

@195 We can use [-s] according to the English plural in our language Syloti[s] or Siloti[s] instead of matching common name in Bengali language. But as Wikipedia policy of common name. We might not able to fix it. As our language is replacing by Bengali words day by day. Itrans issues (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Marriage retuals

Both islamic and hindu culture has contributed to the formation of Sylhetti culture and marriage rituals,but hindu marriage rituals was doesnot mentioned earlier why,,and what is bengali and muslim weeding style,bengali is a culture but where as hindu and mluslim are religion and both contributed to the formation of Sylhetti culture.There is also a reference given from bdnews24.com Which mentioned different kind of marriage rituals according to religion but why it was made hojboj here..please kindly note it. Sukauka (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sylheti nagri script

In this article Sylheti Nagri script is claimed to be the script of Sylheti. This is incorrect for numerous reasons.

1. Sylheti Nagri script is not used by any Sylhetis, neither in Bangladesh nor India. The primary, and only, script used is the standard Bangla script. You can ask Sylhetis anywhere whether diaspora or India, nobody knows or uses the Sylheti Nagri script. Given this fact, claiming it is the Sylheti script is equivalent to the claim that Norse Runes are the script for Swedish or Norwegian and not the Latin alphabet even though all Swedes and Norwegians use the Latin alphabet to write. Sylheti Nagri is an ectinct script only used by academics who study linguistics. For this reason the script for Sylheti in this article should be changed to the standard Bangla script.

2. Sylheti Nagri script was not popular and was reserved to religious poetry (puthis). Most Sylhetis used the standard Bangla scriot which was used for most writing. Sylheti Nagri was not used in education nor has any formal documented use. If simply that it was used is enough to declare it the Sylheti script, it should also be declared the script for Bangla and Chatgaiya since it was used as far away as Kolkata and Chittagong. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau and UserNumber: Kinda confused regarding the usage of script in the lead and infobox. Wouldn't it be better if we remove the script from these locations as was in this version? We already have the IPA. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk:, I don't know who was responsible for adding the script to the lead/infobox again, as that previous version was agreed upon for a while. UserNumber (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk and UserNumber: I agree. We should remove the fonts and replace by IPA whenever needed. It does not make sense to keep this font in other places either. Where absolutely necessary (writing system, for example), we could have an image with the alphabets. Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau and UserNumber: I've removed the script form the lead and infobox. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sylheti is not an ethno-cultural group

The article states that Sylheti is an ethnocultural group. This is false as Sylheti is not an ethnicity. It is a cultural group yes, but all Sylhetis identify as Bengali.

This can be seen from the fact that in both India and Bangladesh the Sylhetis identify as ethnically Bengali, as well as any diaspora Sylhetis that you ask. Unfortunately, the claim that it is an ethno- group does not reflect the ground reality of the Sylheti people whether anecdotally nor in what is clear in terms of ethnic identification in government documentations in any country on the planet. Nowhere on the planet, in any country, do Sylhetia identify as an ethnic groul nor as distinct from the Bengali ethnic group. They all identify as Bengalis.

For this reason, the article should be amended to state that Sylhetis are a cultural group found within the Bengali ethnic group or a sub-group of the Bengali ethnicity with ties to the Sylhet region of Bengal. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the sourced term 'ethnocultural' needs to be changed. The subsequent lines explain more about it. Obviously there is a sense of distinctness as an ethno-XYZ group exists especially when assocaitions like Sylheti Sammelan Mumbai are present. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: The problem with the term 'ethnocultural' is that it does not really have an exact meaning. When someone searches Ethnocultural, they are redirected to ethnoreligious group instead. There are also many aspects of the culture that do match up with the culture of the rest of Bengal, and so making culture the entire differentiating factor would not be as accurate as describing Sylhetis as an ethnographic group. This latter term matches with what the lead states and the whole idea of a 'distinct but connected' identity. UserNumber (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks UserNumber, Chaipau your inputs regarding this? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Bro londoni Fund 😂, They are rich, that's why they think they should have a separate identity. Fardin Fateh Ali (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Sylheti is a cultural/regional identity, closely associated with the Sylheti language. Look at . From 1874, this was what the Sylhetis said when attached to Assam: "[t]he cultural identity and historical association that Sylhet had with Bengal and the disadvantages of Sylhet’s being yoked with a ‘backward’ region." This is another opinion, from Anuradha Chanda: "Sylheti culture, in spite of being part of the larger Bengali one, created space for emergence of a swatantra sanskritik swatta (independent cultural soul/identity) in it". Again: "I shall shortly discuss, only asserts its Sylheti character in a cultural sense and that too contextually;"

It seems to be a cultural-linguistic identity that is historically related to the Sylhet region. It is contextual in the sense that it is defined vis-a-vis the Assamese and non-Sylheti Bengali.

Chaipau (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, I made some changes in this article. It is tragic what the displaced Sylheti people have passed through, but I do not think we gain anything by false presentations, especially from the colonial and post-colonial periods. Chaipau (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but should we not mention Karimganj district, I mean it was part of their Sylhet region, isn't it? I mean something like ..group[3] that are associated with the Sylhet Division of Bangladesh, and the Karimganj district of Assam, India. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk  Done Chaipau (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the lede

@Fylindfotberserk Hi, I didn't find any consensus in this talk page regarding the lede of this article. When someone searches the term ethnocultural, they are redirected to the Ethnographic group article. Bengalis itself an Indo-Aryan group. So, there is no need to mention Indo-Aryan seperately after adding the term 'Bengali'. The source which I added, is very much reliable per WP:RS. It clearly states that Sylhetis are one of the groups of Bengalis. Shahela Hamid mentions Sylhetis are an 'ethnocultural' group. I didn't remove the term 'ethnocultural' at all. I just added wikilink in that word. There are many ethnographic group related articles on Wikipedia such as Bavarians. In the Bavarians article, it is clearly mentioned that they are an ethnographic group of Germans. Similarly, Adjarians and Khevsurians are the ethnographic groups of Georgians. These are clearly mentioned in the ledes of those articles. In this article, it also should be clearly mentioned that it is a 'Bengali ethnocultural group' in the lede. Snusho (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are discussions and consensus spread over multiple related articles done over a period of 6-7 years. There is also a discussion section above this one. Current is the version that has been longstanding, edited by various users and been accepted as such. Note that most South Asian groups are 'ethnolinguistic' and not ethnic, with the emphasis is on the language. Since, Sylheti language considered both a distinct language (more so recently) or a dialect of Bengali, the lead sentence is kept simpler with mention of its broader ehtnolinguistic background and associated geographical area, with a explanatory second paragraph on its relation to the Bengalis with respect to language, culture and geography (I beleive it is the same source you mentioned). I find a parallel (Sylhetis) with Saraiki people, who speak the Saraiki language, which similarly is considered to be a Punjabi dialect apart from being a distinct language, and the article has been developed over the years in a similar fashion. I believe parallels with other south Asians groups are more logical considering the more 'ethnolinguistic' nature of these groups. Pinging @Chaipau and UserNumber: who may explain further. I'm going to log out now. Would continue the discussion. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

In the above discussion, I saw that there was talk about changing the ethnocultural term in the lede and about some cultural aspects. However, I did not find any consensus. Also, I am not making any argument right now about changing that term. Regarding the cultural aspects of Sylhetis, the culture section of this article was written quite well a few months ago. “Indo-Aryan” is a very much distant term in the context of this article. According to the source, Sylhetis are a Bengali group, and I am suggesting that this should be clearly stated in the lede, just like in other ethnographic or ethnocultural group related articles on Wikipedia. “Bengali” is also an ethnic group you will find this mentioned in numerous sources. Even if some consider the Sylheti language to be a separate language, based on the relevant sources, I do not see any problem with writing “Bengali” ethnocultural group. It will be much simpler and clear lede than the present lede.

Saraikis seems to be a multi-ethnic group, as the term is used to refer to many different ethnic groups and tribes collectively. On the other hand, Sylhetis are just a Bengali subgroup. They are not a collection of multiple ethnic groups and tribes. From the talk page and the edit history of this page, I saw that the term “ethnocultural group” was not added based on any discussion or consensus; it was simply added with a single reference. Later on, the term “Indo-Aryan” was added before it. Therefore, I do not see any reason to remove an edit that was made with reliable source. Thanks Snusho (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Maintaining a certain longstanding version after multiple edits and discussions in multiple related articles over the years by multiple users is also de facto consensus, just that it is without an RfC. Not sure how Indo-Aryan is a distant term especially when the crux is on whether Sylheti language is a dialect of Bengali or a distinct language. A 'tongue' very much determines the ethnolinguistics of a group in South Asia as written in Wikipedia. If the position of the language of the group in question is uncertain, then I find no reason to declare it as 'Bengali' in the lead sentence, but the mention of 'Indo-Aryan' isn't contested, hence we can write it. IF necessary 'Eastern Indo-Aryan' can be used since it isn't contested per linguistics. What's contested is whether the language spoken by this group is a Bengali dialect. And this contentious part is explained in the second paragraph of the lead. When a certain XYZ group (Bengali, Punjabi, Tamil, Gujarati etc) is mentioned as 'ethnic group' in reliable sources, Wikipedia has always used the term 'ethnolinguistic' instead, since most major regional groups in South Asia are diverse collection of castes and tribes speaking a common language varying significantly in genetics. Not going too forumy, an XYZ caste would have a similar origin like their counterpart in another region / language sphere as compared to other castes in their own region. Actual ethnic groups are castes and tribes, which is why "ethnolinguistic" is used. I'd also like to wait for others whom I've pinged to throw some light here since they were more instrumental as far as these pages are concerned. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I believe there was a time when the term "ethnographic" was used within the lead to describe Sylhetis. This is generally a non-contentious matter (not to be confused with the article on Sylheti language/dialect). Shahela Hamid, in her survey of the Sylheti community in Leeds, uses the terms fairly interchangeably in the context of British Bangladeshis and doesn't allude to Sylhetis being non-Bengali. Google Books and News searches on "Sylhet Bengalis" and "Bengalis of Sylhet" lead to hundreds of results, many of which are recent and quote Sylhetis themselves referring to themselves as (Barak) Bengalis. From a cultural/identity perspective, it's pretty much unanimous that the Indo-Aryan-speaking peoples inhabiting Sylhet are Bengalis, academic sources do affirm this. This is also evident from various aspects covered within the content of this article. I am not aware of any reliable sources which claim the contrary i.e. asserting a non-Bengali identity to Sylhetis. This is a good suggestion made by @Snusho:. I had been unaware of the style of the Bavarians article until this moment in time, and would support a similar structure for the lead sentence for Sylhetis. "Sylhetis are an ethnographic group of Bengalis associated with the Sylhet region (Sylhet Division, Bangladesh and Karimganj district, India)". UserNumber (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I support this sentence for the lead. Snusho (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I support the statements of user:Snusho and user:UserNumber. Sylhetis are an ethnographic group of Bengalis, so there is no issue in stating this in the lead sentence. Shahela Hamid herself mentioned that she conducted an ethnographic survey of Sylhetis in the UK; she did not describe Sylhetis as a separate community from Bengalis. Similar to Sylhetis, there is also an article on Wikipedia about a community of Sindhis, namely the Lasi people. Some sources, such as Ethnologue, consider the Sindhi dialect spoken by this group as a separate language. However, this does not change their ethnic identity. In the lead sentence of the Lasi people article, they are described as a “Sindhi ethnic group.” The Bavarians article is written in a similar way. Therefore, there should be no objection to writing in the lead sentence of this article that “Sylhetis are a Bengali ethnographic group associated with the Sylhet region.” Rizwan (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, let the consensus form. I'd wait for @Chaipau:'s input and ping @Austronesier:. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Sylheti is a regional cultural identity, not an ethnicity. The people of Sylhet are ethnically Bengali. I agree with UserNumber, Snusho, and Rizwan regarding the lead sentence above.The writers, the history of Sylhet tells that why they are an ethnographic group of Bangali not a separate ethnicity . The “Paschimvag copper plate”, the “Halatunnobi” and also many historical evidence mentioned sylhetis as Bangali. Also the language they speak in maximum linguistics ,native writers categorised it as the dialect of Bengali. Though some uk based organisations tells it as a language , from which the conflict came from. Some people with less knowledge of linguistics and Ethnicity creating separatism The people of Sylhet don’t like this separatism, they are comfortable as the identity of Bangali, and Sylheti Bangali as there ethnographic identity . - Fardin Fateh Ali (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The people who identify Sylheti as a distinct language are linguists. Also please do not include personal analysis on how "The people of Sylhet don’t like this separatism, they are comfortable as the identity of Bangali" without reliable scholarly sources to back it up. Also, Bengali is an ethnolinguistic like most South Asians groups and not an ethnicity. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

so according to you how a ethnicity form-? The people of Bengal except some people mentioned as Bengali in history ! Yes it’s not a race but an ethnicity- which identity existed in this land for thousands of years . In pashchimvag, in buddhist script, in copper plate, in the people- Bengali was their identity. Bengali not new like ashamese or behari community. Fardin Fateh Ali (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Ethnicity would mean people of same origin. In South Asia, including Bengalis, we have ethnolinguistic groups. That is, people of diverse origins but sharing a common language, geography and culture. Origins here refer to various castes and clans having diverse streams. 'Bengali' (in quotes) is also a rather recent term and haven't existed for thousands of years nor was the identity of the people in the ancient past. And why did you mention Assamese and Biharis? Please refrain from using personal analysis. Terms like Bengalis, Biharis, Assamese, Punjabis, etc are words created in the recent history (many by the British) from older different sounding words having different meanings. Besides we are not discussing ethnic vs ethnolinguistic but whether 'Sylheti' are a subgroup of Bengali or not. Lets keep the forumy stuff at that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The question, whether Sylheti is Bengali, is moot and is not a concern for this article. As far as the Sylheti language is concerned, the experts have spoken, and the discussion has happened on Wikipedia (Sylheti language, talk pages) and we have reached WP:CONSENSUS. There is no point in relitigating it.

This page is about the Sylheti people. If this page defines the people(s) of Sylhet, then we have to take into consideration the other languages spoken in Sylhet. The 9 April 2026 Daily Star newspaper reports this: that the people of Sylhet speaks besides Sylheti these minority languages - Telugu language, Madrasi, Odia language, Khasia, Saura, Laleng, Bishnupriya, Meitei, Garo, and different varieties of Sadri. This article should represent these people as well, and they cannot be subsumed into "Bengali" identity.

If this defines a people in a cultural context, then this article should cite references and specify and define that cultural context and also define how these other peoples speaking other languages in Sylhet are not part of that culture.

FYI, @Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to thank Chaipau for mentioning this. I am also in agreement. The page is titled "Sylhetis" and the people of Sylhet are ethnically diverse. Based on the current content of the page and wider reading, it is apparent that contributors and commentators are referring specifically to the Sylheti Bengalis, who form the majority population of Sylhet region, and speak what is commonly referred to as "Sylheti". The Khasia, Garo, Meitei, Bishnupriya, Telugu-speaking communities, etc., also belong to Sylhet but they are not Bengali. The title "Sylhetis" or Sylheti people is broad and ambiguous. The cleanest and most accurate solution is to ensure that the difference between Sylheti Bengalis and Sylheti non-Bengalis is mentioned in the lead paragraph, leaving the rest of the article as it is (pertaining to Sylheti Bengalis). UserNumber (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

An alternative solution would be repurposing this article to cover all Sylhetis (and therefore include Meitei Manipuris, Khasia, Telugus etc.). UserNumber (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't support the alternative solution. This article is about the 'Sylhetis', an ethno-cultural-linguistic people bound by a particular language and also considered to be a distinct identity within broader Bengali identity. Not the 'People of Sylhet' who speak other languages belonging to other ethnolinguistic groups not considered to be part of the Bengali sphere. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, I tend to agree. Here are some issues we need to be aware of.

• If this article is about the people of Sylhet, then we will have to include the minorities, and exclude the Sylheti diaspora (in India, UK, and USA).
• If we include the diaspora as well, then we will still have to include minorities, because we are indeed talking about a diaspora from a region. This is because we cannot assume before we define the term to include only the "Bengali" Sylhetis, because it is possible that not all people that originated in Sylhet identifies as Bengali as well.
  • There seems to be a section in the Sylheti speaking community that is assertive of the Sylheti identity, whereas
  • There are other "Sylhetis" that are assertive of the Bengali identity instead and have started to not speak the Sylheti language. This is mentioned in the Sylheti language article itself..

One option could be to frame the article as Sylhetis to mean all those who live in and originate in Sylhet, and then mention these nuances in language, culture, and identity in the current and diasporic communities.

Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO we can have a separate article titled 'People of Sylhet' similar to 'People of Assam' including the other natives and migrants of the region. This one however should include the ones who speak Sylheti as the first language. Logically, most regions of South Asia should have similar fork articles. For example Kashmiris and 'People of Kashmir' are not same. The latter includes various Dardic speakers, Tibeto-Burmans and other migrants - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Since this article is about Sylheti Bengalis, I do not see the need to discuss other non-Bengali communities of Sylhet here. Every region of Bengal has some non-Bengali tribal communities. Therefore, a separate article such as “People of Bengal” or “People of Sylhet” could be created, where both Bengali and non-Bengali communities will be mentioned. However, in this article’s lead sentence, the wording proposed by UserNumber on which consensus has been reached should be included. Thanks. Snusho (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem I have pointed out is that following.

• Some Syheti do not emphasizr the Bengali identity - they instead emphasize the Sylheti identity. Are they then Bengali-Sylheti?
• Others emphasize the Bengali identity and deemphasize the Sylheti identity. Are they Sylheti at all?

Chaipau (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, those who place greater emphasis on the Sylheti identity are, in a broader sense, Sylheti Bengalis. Likewise, those Sylhetis who place greater emphasis on their Bengali identity are still Sylheti. Only the tribal groups of Sylhet are considered non Bengali. There is no doubt that the majority of people in Sylhet who speak the Sylheti language or dialect are Bengali. Since Sylhetis are a subgroup of Bengalis, they have certain regional cultural distinctions. This is why such variations in self-identification are seen in some cases. However, this does not negate their identity as Sylheti Bengalis. Therefore, if the lead sentence states, “Sylhetis are an ethnographic group of Bengalis associated with the Sylhet region,” it will reflect their ethnographic identity within the umbrella of larger Bengali identity. Thank you. Snusho (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say that the Sylhetis are an ethnographic people? Do they belong to the same ethnicity? Which ethnicity is it?

Also you have not answered the issue of those who do not consider Sylheti speakers who may not even understand Bengali. Simrad et al. (2020) writes "It is not unusual to come across people who, after more than fifty years in the UK, have little or no fluency in English and rely on their children or grandchildren to communicate with non-Sylheti people in their neighbourhood, or with local or national institutions. Standard Bengali translations have limited usage and standard Bengali interpretation cause lack of understanding and mis-understandings (Comanaru & d’Ardenne 2018). Some UK institutions, like the National Health Service (NHS) and the Office of National Statistics (ONS), provide Sylheti interpretation and translation in order to functionally engage with Sylheti-speaking citizens who do not understand Bengali and have limited understanding of English." (p10). My question is, could we consider these Sylhetis, who do not understand the Bengali language, as Bengali?

Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This passage is specifically in relation to the UK diaspora and does not describe the overwhelming majority who live in Sylhet. We are also circling back to the discussion on the language/dialect as opposed to the people. No reliable scholarly source has claimed that Sylhetis form a separate ethnicity outside the Bengali ethnolinguistic umbrella. Literature already cited in this conversation and the article has consistently and interchangeably described Sylhetis as Bengali whilst simultaneously mentioning distinct regional traits — exactly parallel to how Bavarians et al have been described. The current Wikipedia article itself already states in the body: “alongside a broader cultural and ethnic Bengali identity.” The proposed lead sentence simply makes this explicit in the first paragraph, which is standard Wikipedia practice for such articles. It should also be noted that this lead did use 'ethnographic group' for quite some time based on our discussions back in 2022. UserNumber (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable scholarly articles have looked at Sylheti identity outside of Bengali identity. Willem van Schandel (2023) writes that "Without a unifying state, a national army, schools, or other institutions to impose a standard language, and only a minute proportion of literate inhabitants, many speakers of what linguists later categorized as Bengali dialects did not identify with any standard language. Instead, they referred to their speech forms by local names (such as Jaintiapuri, Noakhailla, Siripuria, and Chatgaia buli). Therefore, it is a moot point to what extent they considered themselves to be speakers of Bengali." Here Jaintiapuri stands for Sylheti. Sylhet/Sylheti are terms coined by the British, as Grierson rightly points out. Jaintia as a name has too close an association with Jaintia kingdom, with which this region was earlier associated with.

As far as Bengali goes, this is what Schandel writes - "Subsuming this welter of vernaculars under the rubric of the Bengali language was a long process. It gathered pace after the British East India Company occupied the region in the eighteenth century. Two groups were especially influential. Colonial linguists were keen to impose order on the dazzling complexities of South Asian speech forms. And educated cultural activists who thought of their own dialect as standard Bengali used it in their efforts to construct a Bengali identity, a Bengali community, a Bengali nation, and Bengaliness."

Schandel quotes Boddhisattva Kar (2008) and others when he says: "Bengali identity, or Bengaliness, took on a proud new meaning for them as they assumed the mantle of spokespeople for the region’s inhabitants. Their version of Bengali – a “new Sanskritized and sanitized language under preparation in Calcutta” 8 – formed the basis of this new Bengali paradigm, but they also considered numerous cultural practices, including food, music, speech genre, literary writing, and dress style, to be quintessentially Bengali."

In other words, the new Bengali language and culture was under preparation in colonial times, as reported by Jenkins as late as 1854, which Kar (2008) quotes from. What is important for this article is that we should not associate the Bengali identity with the Sylheti identity too closely because there existed a Sylheti (Jaintiapuri) in WP:WIKIVOICE because there existed one before the Bengali identity was itself formed. Therefore, this is my proposal:

we should not use Bengali in the lede paragraph, but we should mention how it came to be associated with the newly emerging Bengali identity in the middle of the 19th century in the second paragraph of the lede.

FYI, @Fylindfotberserk.

Chaipau (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC) (edited) 14:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this opinion. Nowhere in the quotes you provided does it say that Sylhetis exist outside a Bengali identity. In the writing by Willem van Schendel that you cited, I can see that he claims many people from different regions used to identify their speech by local names and expressed doubt about how strongly they considered themselves Bengali speakers. He mentions the “speech” names Jaintiapuri, Noakhailla, Siripuria, and Chatgaiya buli together. He does not mention about the identity of these languages or dialects speakers. Speech and identity are not the same thing.

As an example, I must point out that the name “Noakhali” did not even exist before 1868. The British government coined this district name in 1868 by combining the words “Noa” and “Khal,” meaning “new canal.” This clearly shows that the dialect name based on the district name emerged long after 1868. So how could anyone have used this name to identify their speech before the term “Noakhali” existed?

Jaintiapur was the capital city of the Jaintia Kingdom. It is not appropriate to equate a single city like Jaintiapur with the whole of Sylhet region. We find the names such as Shilhat, Shrihatta for the modern Sylhet region. Moreover, as far as I know, there is no mention of any "Jaintiapuri speech" in historical documents. The author made these claims in 2023 without providing evidence.

Sylheti Nagri poets from Sylhet clearly identified their language as Bengali in their own writings. For instance, the Sylheti Nagri poet Sadeq Ali wrote in 1855 in his Ketab Haltunnabi: Asha rakhi e sob Bangala kori dite nobijir hurmote allar kudrote” which means, “I hope to present all this in Bengali by the grace of the Prophet and the power of Allah.” Another Sylheti Nagri script writer, Munshi Zafar Ali Khan, wrote: Arbi jobane jodi keu waaz kore Bangala koriya mane bujhai shottore which means “If someone preaches in Arabic, I explain it quickly in Bangla so that people understand.”

Even earlier, in the 17th century, the poet Abdul Hakim from Sandwip in Bhulua (present-day Noakhali) referred to his language as Bengali in his poem. Therefore, the writings of poets from Sylhet and Noakhali clearly refute Schendel’s doubts. I think that author was unaware of these wrttings. They considered their language to be Bengali.

The passage you mentioned below is actually referring to the Sanskritised standard form of modern Bengali. Standard Bengali and Bengali are not the same thing. Standard Bengali itself is just one dialect among many within the Bengali language.

Furthermore, the Bengali language and Bengali identity were not formed during the British period. It is true that during British rule, the modern standardized forms of languages like Bengali, Assamese, Punjabi, and Marathi were developed. However, the Bengali language and Bengali identity already existed before that.

Lastly, Sylhet did not merge into a Bengali identity during British rule. This seems to be merely a personal point of view rather than a historically supported claim. Snusho (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Your examples (Sadeq Ali, Abdul Hakim, Zafar Ali, etc.) does not contradict the second quote I have provided above: "Subsuming this welter of vernaculars under the rubric of the Bengali language was a long process. It gathered pace after the British East India Company occupied the region in the eighteenth century...And educated cultural activists who thought of their own dialect as standard Bengali used it...".

The name Bengali itself needs a little clarification. There were two major historical regions which S K Chatterji clarifies - one was Gauda, which included Nadiya the vernacular of which became the standard later, and Vanga, which was to the east and could be said to include Sylhet. The first native grammar, written by Ram Mohan Roy, called it "Gaudiya". (p149) This is more evidence that the Bengali identity was, as Kar mentions above, a new language and culture under preparation. S K Chatterji also explicitly states that the Bengali dialects were independent did not emanate from the same linguistic source. He writes: "Dialects are independent of literary speech: as such, East Bengali dialects, North Bengali dialects (with which Assamese is to be associated) and West Bengali dialects are not only independent of one another, but also they are not, as it is popularly believed in Bengal, derived from literary Bengali, the sadhu-bhaşā, which is a composite speech on an early West Bengali basis...The Bengali dialects of the extreme east and south-east (Sylhet, Chittagong) are certainly more removed from Standard Bengali than is Assamese." (p108) This is rather damning for your cause.

There is no dispute today that the Sylheti people, a majority of them, do consider themselves to be Bengali today, but it is also clearly evident today that there was no marked "Bengali" culture and language before the 19th century from which the Sylheti culture and language (and the people) became regional variant. Rather what happened was what Schandel states (very clearly and supported by evidence found all around us), that Sylheti and other cultures were subsumed into a culture and language was new and under preparation even as late as 1854.

So no, Sylheti language and culture did not originate from Bengali culture and origin, though many among the Sylhetis today identify as Bengali some don't. As far as this article is concerned, WP:WIKIVOICE cannot ignore this fact and say something to the contrary.

Chaipau (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the author whose writing you cited is not entirely correct. Because before the British arrived that is, during the Middle Bengali era we do not really know what the various dialects of the Bengali language were like. There was a certain standard form of Middle Bengali, and literature of that time was composed in that form. From a linguistic perspective, the forms of dialects several hundred years ago were certainly not the same as they are today.

Also, Standard Bengali is not the primary factor in determining the Bengali identity. If it were, then people across the whole of Bengal would be considered “non-Bengali,” since every district has its own distinct dialect. Bengali identity has been shaped by a combination of regional cultures, history, traditions, food habits, castes, clothing, and more.

During the British period, standardized forms of almost all major languages of the subcontinent were developed based on particular regional dialects. For example, Standard Marathi developed from the Pune dialect, Standard Assamese from the Sivasagar dialect, Standard Punjabi from the Majhi dialect, Standard Odia from the Cuttack dialect etc. These standardized dialects are not the sole basis of identity in those regions either.

Suniti Kumar Chatterji rightly said that a spoken dialect never originates from a literary form of a language. At that time, many people had the mistaken belief that all modern dialects came from Sadhu Bhasha. The historian Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1971) wrote: The Pala kings are referred to as Vangapati (Lord of Vanga) and Gaudesvara (Lord of Gauda), and the Sena kings whose original seat of authority was in Radha also styled themselves as Gaudesvara. Henceforth Gauda and Vanga seem to be interchangeable names for Bengal as a whole such as we find even today. Thus, from the Pala and Sena periods, “Gauda” and “Banga” became interchangeable terms for the entire Bengal region.

Sukumar Sen noted that the term “GaudBangala” was used to refer to the whole of Bengal, as mentioned in the text Manasollasa. We also see that in the case of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the terms “Bangla” and “Gaudiya” were used interchangeably for the Bengali language. In 1833, he wrote a grammar in Bengali titled Gaudiya Byakaran, and seven years earlier, in 1826, he wrote Grammar of the Bengali Language in English.

Similarly, the poet Bharatchandra Ray from Howrah in West Bengal referred to his land as “Bangala” in his writings. He wrote: “Ailo bistor soinyo bikrito akriti / luti Bangalar lokere korilo kangal,” referring to the Maratha invasions of western Bengal at that time. This indicates that their forces looted Bengal and left its people destitute. The Maratha armies mainly attacked from the western side during that period.

During the British era, the Bengal Renaissance took place, leading to major advancements in Bengali literature, science, and technology, and the emergence of many prominent figures. Literature can be considered part of culture, but most elements of Bengali culture are much older and not tied to the British period. Bengali cultural practices such as Pohela Boishakh, Charak Puja, Jamai Sasthi, Baul traditions, Durga Puja, Sindoor Khela etc are very ancient. These are also important cultural elements among Sylheti Bengalis.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that Sylheti culture is not part of Bengali culture or did not originate from it. Scholars from Nabanita Bhattacharjee to Anuradha Chanda have described Sylheti culture as part of the broader Bengali culture. In fact, you yourself cited a quote from Anuradha Chanda in a 2022 discussion: “Sylheti culture, in spite of being part of the larger Bengali one, created space for the emergence of a swatantra sanskritik swatta (distinct cultural identity).” Even in the “Culture” section of that article, Sylheti Bengalis are described as having a subculture. So there is no question of denying this.

If you search “Bengalis of Sylhet” or “Sylhet Bengali” on Google Books, you will find numerous sources referring to the people of Sylhet as Bengalis. That is why I suggested mentioning them as a Bengali group in the lead sentence. I had also provided a source that described Sylhetis as a Bengali group. Thank you. Snusho (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

"There was a certain standard form of Middle Bengali, and literature of that time was composed in that form."

Please provide us with WP:RS where this standard form is defined, and how this is related to Sylheti.

"Bengali identity has been shaped by a combination of regional cultures, history, traditions, food habits, castes, clothing, and more."

Schandel (2023) directly addresses this. He writes: "The British East India Company’s annexation of Bengal in the year 1757 prompted leading elite Bengalis, largely concentrated in the colonial city of Calcutta (Kolkata), to develop a new understanding of regional identity. This was based on the idea of a shared language and a sense of unity among Bengali speakers, and it celebrated their cultural production. Bengali identity, or Bengaliness, took on a proud new meaning for them as they assumed the mantle of spokespeople for the region’s inhabitants. Their version of Bengali – a “new Sanskritized and sanitized language under preparation in Calcutta” 8 – formed the basis of this new Bengali paradigm, but they also considered numerous cultural practices, including food, music, speech genre, literary writing, and dress style, to be quintessentially Bengali.9 For them, to be a Bengali was to be sophisticated, cultured, aware of the wider world, and in possession of delicate sensibilities." In other words, this idea of a "Bengali culture" was adopted after the elite in the Nadiya region decided to take on the leadership and sought to represent the culture of a vast region, including Sylhet.

"Bengali cultural practices such as Pohela Boishakh, Charak Puja, Jamai Shashthi, Baul traditions, Durga Puja, and Sindoor Khela are very ancient. These are also important cultural elements among Sylheti Bengalis."

Many of these cultural practices are not specific to Bengal. In fact Pohela Boishakh is a much bigger festival in Assam in the form of Bihu. Icons of Mahishamardini are found in Tamil Nadu from the 11th century, much before the it became an important festival in Bengal. Charak Puja is a particular form of festival when bodies are pierced, and can be found in different communities, including Tamil communities in Malaysia. As these traditions were taken included, whereas some others were not - such as Sati. As Schandel rightly points out, there is something "programmatic" about this, which happened during colonial times.

"If you search “Bengalis of Sylhet” or “Sylhet Bengali” on Google Books, you will find numerous sources referring to the people of Sylhet as Bengalis."

Yes, there are many Sylhetis today who accept being "Bengali". And that is why I have suggested that: we should not use Bengali in the lede paragraph, but we should mention how it came to be associated with the newly emerging Bengali identity in the middle of the 19th century in the second paragraph of the lede.

Chaipau (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC) (edited)

Chaipau Alright, in response to your first point, I am providing quotations from WP:RS supported references below.

Thibaut d'Hubert and Alexandre Papas (2018) states Unlike Dobhāṣī, we do not find any historiographical uneasiness in the case of Sylheti Nagari it was virtually ignored, or mentioned as a mere oddity in the literary landscape of Bengal. Nevertheless, one can observe that the study of Sylheti Nagari is relegated to regional studies, and that the tradition as a whole is ultra-local, with some confusion regarding the fact that the language transcribed with this script is not the Sylheti dialect per-se (which is not intelligible to Bengali speakers) but "standard" late Middle Bengali with some dialectal influences.

Suniti Kumar Chatterjee (1926) states By the beginning of the 15th century (but the tendency or movement had started considerably earlier) a standard literary Bengali grew up and rapidly came to be used all over Bengal. This was the more or less conventional language of verse: of prose literature there was little or nothing before 1800; and it is prose which properly represents, under ordinary circumstances, the normal habits of a language.

Rongali Bihu and Pohela Boishakh are the New Year celebrations of the Assamese and Bengalis respectively. However, the two are completely different in terms of culture, rituals, and modes of celebration. You can ask any Sylheti Bengali from the Barak Valley about this. They will all say that Pohela Boishakh is an integral part of their Bengali culture. Charak Puja and the hook-swinging processions performed during the Tamil festival Kavadi Attam are not the same; they differ in rituals, timing of the festival and historical background. Many Mahishasuramardini idols from the Pala period have been found in different parts of Bengal. You can also find various reliable online sources about the more than thousand year old Durga Puja of the Malla kings of Bankura. It would be completely incorrect to claim that all Bengali cultural practices were created by the people of Nadia. In your sentence, “Yes, there are many Sylhetis today who accept being Bengali,” what exactly do you mean by the word “today”? Are you suggesting that Sylhetis in earlier times did not consider themselves Bengali? Where did you find such information? There are ancient historical documents available where the people of Sylhet are clearly referred to as Bengalis. In reliable sources, Sylhetis have identified themselves as Bengalis, and in other writers reliable sources as well, Sylhetis are described as Bengalis. Therefore, I do not see any problem in writing the lead of this article in the same way as for other subgroups article on Wikipedia. Snusho (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Snusho, we have discussed enough. Schendel (2022) is clear that the idea of Bengali identity or Bengaliness did not occur before the colonial ear. "Instead, they referred to their speech forms by local names (such as Jaintiapuri, Noakhailla, Siripuria, and Chatgaia buli). Therefore, it is a moot point to what extent they considered themselves to be speakers of Bengali.".

The earliest historical evidence of people settled in Sylhet who were speakers of an Indo-Aryan language were named in the Nidhanpur copperplate inscription of Bhaskarvarman (7th century) of Kamarupa. They were settled there earlier by a forefather of Bhaskarvarman called Bhutivarman (6th century). It is obvious that the Sylheti language today owed the origin to the language of these settler Brahmins. So you will have to explain this transition in this article.

Chaipau (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed enough. However, even in the above quotation, Willem van Schendel himself does not state anywhere that Bengali identity did not exist before the colonial era. Rather, he says that Bengali identity acquired “a proud new meaning” among the people of Calcutta.

Regarding the identity of the people of Sylhet, it is clearly mentioned in historical documents. For example, in the Paschimbhag copperplate inscription of Sylhet (dated 935 CE) issued by king Srichandra, the local inhabitants of Sylhet are explicitly referred to as Bangāla people, while foreign immigrants are described as deshāntiryas (desh + antariya), meaning those who came from foreign land. Snusho (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a news article not a scholarly source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I have added a scholarly source. Snusho (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chaipau If we are going to say Siletis can't be associated with Bengali origin, then we would need to make a ethnicity page for every region of East Bengal, because according to your argument, the Bengali identity is originally from Nadia, West Bengal. Adnon313 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to refrain from creating additional accounts within this talk page discussion. Such actions are unhelpful and may be construed as sockpuppetry. The current exchange of views has been constructive and productive; it would be regrettable to undermine that progress. That being said, I think we are overthinking this at the moment. Schendel's views are quite interesting to learn about, but it doesn't really represent the majority scholarly view so it may not be a good idea to include that ±view in the lead. UserNumber (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@UserNumber, I wasn't aware that Adnon313 was the same person. Thank you for pointing it out.

Schendel's basic premise is not entirely his own. That the Bengali identity was spread by a class of bhadraloks have been examined and discussed before - for example by Joya Chatterji of Trinity College. There are many others whose ideas Schandel has incorporated into his central thesis - Partha Chatterjee, Sudipta Kaviraj, Rafiuddin Ahmed, etc. The facts on which Schendel bases his claims have been widely reported in the research literature. His list of references is some 7 pages long, and he has inserted citations and comments extensively. It rests on solid research by many others.

Chaipau (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@UserNumber, Schendel is solid. That is why I am suggesting that Bengali be inserted only in the second paragraph of the lede. FYI, @Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chaipau: That's why I'm not comfortable with changes made to the longstanding version, atleast as of now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, I agree with your objection. I looked at the lede and agree this is they way it should stand now. I think there is an opportunity to include some of the latest findings, and I am looking at what has been said so far.

• The Kamarupa king Bhutivarman established a group of Brahmins from Mithila in the 6th century in Chadrapuri visaya. A later Kamarupa king Bhaskarvarman reissued the charter in the 7th century because it was destroyed, via the Nidhanpur copperplate inscription. We may speculate and assume that the origin of the Sylheti speech was this group of Brahmins, and it would explain the claim by Chatterji that Sylheti (and other peripheral "Bengali dialects" developed independently from the standard Bengali.
• Ludden (2003) says "Sylhet town (Srihatta) became a major centre of lowland territorialism after the 10th century CE". This could be taken as the point when Sylheti identity emerged as an offshoot of the new territorialism. It could be that the language too diverged at this point.
• It looks like Ludden bases the time of this new territorialism on the 10th-century charter issued by Srichandra, who donated land in Chandrapura visaya to a group of Brahmins with the same titles and gotras as those mentioned in the Nidhanpur copperplates. The same names and gotras indicate a continuity of the inhabitants from the Kamarupa times.
• In the 18th/19th century, the Sylhetis identified their language as Jaintiapuri. The term Sylheti was given by the Europeans. This was the time when the colonial interests and Bengali elites reshaped the identities of the people in the region (in a very complicated fashion that we may not go in here).

Chaipau (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@UserNumber I'm a different person. Adnon313 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Please note that this was a general comment, not intending to directly accuse anyone of creating additional accounts. It was simply a word of caution in case that this was happening. UserNumber (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@User Number I agree with you. We should give the highest importance to the views of the majority of scholars. Willem van Schendel, in 2023, has made several offhand claims that were not present before. For example, he expressed doubt and wrote that people in earlier times supposedly identified their language by the name of their local area. As examples, he mentioned a few “speech” names (Jaintapuri, Noakhailla, Chatgaiya buli). I have already provided sources above showing that the district name Noakhali was given during the British period in 1868, and it did not exist before that. So how could anyone have used that name to identify their speech? Therefore, his claims conflict with historical reality to a large extent. I have also said that Jaintapuri was the name of capital city of Jaintia Kingdom, not a language. I have not found any historical document mentioning a language by that name. After writing that sentence, he cited George Abraham Grierson, but Grierson did not write these things anywhere. In the past, Sylhet had regions like Taraf, Laur, Pratapgarh, etc. The whole of Sylhet was not “Jaintapur.” I have also cited writings of Sylheti Nagri poets where they refer to their language as Bengali. In addition, I provided quotations from Hubert and Suniti Kumar Chatterji regarding medieval Standard Bengali, along with evidence of its use among Bengalis of Sylhet. I have also included information about the inscription of Sri Chandra with proper references. Moreover, I have not found any statement by Joya Chatterji where she claims that Bengali identity was spread by the Bengali upper-caste Bhadralok. Rather, throughout her work she criticizes this Bengali upper-caste Bhadralok, labeling them as communal. She also criticizes the implication that if they are “Bhadralok”, then the rest of the lower-caste Bengalis would be considered “Chhotolok.” She writes: "The crux of the difference between the two 'communities', he argues, is 'culture'. Here culture is loosely defined, as a quality of mind and heart that all Hindus naturally possess, but that Muslims lack, and have little hope ever of attaining." Below, Rizwan has presented comments from many scholars regarding the Sylheti community. Therefore, there is no doubt that Sylhetis are a subgroup of Bengalis. So there is no obstacle to writing the sentence you proposed, which I, you, Rizwan, and Fardin Fateh Ali all agreed upon. Snusho (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Snusho,

• here is the full quote from Grierson stating explicitly that the native name was not Sylheti. "As already stated, the dialect spoken in Sylhet town and in the north and northeast of the district is that which Europeans call Sylhettia. Natives do not use this title. They call it Jaintiapuri, Srihattia, or Ujania. The latter means the language of the upper country. It is estimated that of the 2,033,000 speakers of Bengali in Sylhet, 678,000 use this dialect." (p224)

It is interesting that less than 50% of the "Bengali" speakers of Sylhet district spoke the Sylheti dialect during Grierson's time. He associates the language to the Sylhet town, not the district. Are the others in the district considered not Sylhetis for the purpose of this article?

• Also, you cannot discount an author, especially a well known one such as Schendel, or Ludden, just because you do not like what they say. And the purpose of a discussion in Wikipedia is to come to a WP:CONSENSUS, not win points.
• There are many other authors who have written about these issues, and shown how "Bengali" has not been the primary identity of the of Sylhet, but religion, caste, etc. had become more important at crucial times in the past, and the Bengali identity had receded to the background:
  • Ashfaque Hossain (2013) has shown that the Bhadralok Sylhetis, resisted inclusion of Sylhet in Assam, but during the referendum voted Sylhet to not be a part of Bengal. Those who voted for the inclusion of Sylhet into East Bengal/West Pakistan were the Muslims and lower caste Hindus, not the bhadralok.
  • Anindita Dasgupta (2001) has shown that the bhadralok abandoned Sylhet on their own volition. The bhadralok narrative admits that they were not driven away and that they were not refugees. She quotes a specific narrative of a family enjoying the festivities of independence in Sylhet and then driving to Shillong the next day with their pet dog.

The Sylheti identity is complex. That is why it cannot be branded "Bengali". It would be WP:PROMO if Wikipedia did it. Nevertheless, the proposal stands - the Sylheti people should not be called Bengali in the first paragraph of the lede, but the second paragraph of the lede should mention that the Sylhetis have been identifying as Bengali, at least since the colonial times.

Chaipau (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Here in the article, “Sylheti” is mentioned as the only spoken language of the Sylhetis. There are linguistic variations in different parts of the Sylhet Division. The local Bengalis who speak the Sylheti dialect/language are Bengalis, and those who do not speak it are also Bengalis. So if the lead sentence describes them as a group of Bengalis, where is the problem? There should be no contradiction with a Bengali identity here.

I had pointed out that the comment by Schendel conflicts with other sources and facts. And Schendel himself does not claim that Sylhetis are not Bengali. Besides, we clearly have a scholarly consensus that Sylhetis are a group included within Bengalis.

In Sylhet, Bengali was certainly a primary identity alongside religious identity. In the then Assam Province, there were definitely conflicts between the Assamese and Sylheti Bengalis. On this matter, Ashfaque Hossain (2013) wrote: It may be pointed out here that identity politics was crucial in Assam from the 1870s to the 1940s. On one side, this was a matter of Bengali versus Assamese, and on the other, Hindu versus Muslim". He further writes: The Assamese also dreamed of their own homeland, and saw Bengali-speaking Sylhet as a major obstacle to that goal. So the Jorahat Sarbajanik Saha (an Assamese social organization) passed a resolution to exclude Sylhet from Assam, which received support from the Assamese newspaper. Even the then Prime minister of Assam, Gopinath Bordoloi, himself said that the Bengali-majority district of Sylhet should be given to East Bengal.

The opposition to the British government’s attachment of Sylhet to Assam in 1874 was not made only by the Hindu upper-caste bhadralok class; Muslims of Sylhet also opposed it. On this matter, Nabanipa Bhattacharya (2011) writes: It is to be noted that the general muslim opinion was always in favor of reunion with Bengal from 1874.

Sylheti identity is not a complicated matter at all. That Sylhetis broadly fall within a Bengali identity is supported by scholars. Sylhetis are still trying to resist threats to their Bengali identity. On this matter, the Sylheti scholar Joyati Bhattacharya (2023) says: The Hindus and Muslims of Barak Valley, in spite of the politics of polarisation, have resisted the forces that aimed to breach their Bengali identity successfully so far. Even today, both Hindus and Muslims continue to have a strong sense of loyalty to their Bengali roots, and they endured the pain of the Sylhet Partition together, albeit in a different way. Though divided by religion, they are not particularly separated in terms of their quest for Bengali identity. Of various linguistic minority groups in Assam, it is Bengali Sylhetis of Barak Valley who resisted and continues to resist the threat to their Bengali identity, although often unheard.

As Ashfaque Hossain said, although there were some pro-Pakistani Dalits and pro-Indian moulovis in Sylhet, the result of the Sylhet referendum shows that the vote was broadly based mainly on religion. As a result, except for the Hindu-majority subdivision of Sylhet South (Moulavibazar), the remaining four Muslim-majority subdivisions voted in favor of Pakistan.

And the claim that Sylhetis have identified themselves as Bengali only since the British colonial period is merely your personal point of view; that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There is historical evidence that Sylhetis identified themselves as Bengali even much earlier than the colonial era. The poet Syed Sultan of Sylhet wrote in 1584: "Na bujhe Bangali sabe Arabi bochon" “Apna dwiner bol ek na bujhila.” “Je sobe (maulavira) apna bol na pare bujhite Panchali rochilum koriachi dushite Here he criticized the maulavis of Sylhet for their attachment to the Arabic language and stated that the local Bengalis did not understand Arabic language. Therefore, the Bengali identity of Sylhetis is very much ancient. Even earlier than this, I had already provided evidence from the 953 CE Paschimbhag Copperplate inscription that the local people of Sylhet were Bangāla people. Thanks. Snusho (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have presented statements from prominent scholars showing that Sylhetis are part of the broader Bengali community. Most of the statements provided here are by Sylheti scholars themselves.

Anuradha Chanda (2011) states Sylheti culture, in spite of being part of the larger Bengali one, created space for emergence of a swatantra sanskritik swatta Niharranjan Ray (1980) states Starting from the culture of South Assam / North-East Bengal or the Barak Valley, Bengal extends geographically in every perspective from the larger Surma/Meghna Valley region. Nicholas Hewitt, Dick Geary (2007) states Over the course of time these people in the UK have formed a diaspora based on Sylheti subculture, within Bengali culture and under the umbrella of Islamic culture. Achyutcharan Chowdhury (1910) states Among the inhabitants of Srihatta there are people of various religions including Hindu, Muslim, Brahmo, Christian, etc. Except for a few hill tribes, all of them belong to the Bengali nation. Sukalpa Bhattacharjee (2011) says When the Sylhetis of Barak Valley imagine themselves as exiles and yet part of the diasporic Bengali identity, it produces a self-effacement that is conflated with the current situation of not being-at-home with itself, by being located in the contested trajectory of Assam’s history. Rasinger (2007) states Looking at the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets does not only mean to look at ethnically Bengali people and/or people whose first language is Bengali (or Sylheti), but it is of crucial importance to include the aspects of being and interacting Bengali. Nabanipa Bhattacharya (2011) states Bengali speaking district of Sylhet which historically as well as ethnically was an integral of Bengal. Indeed in 1874, the situation being changed for the Assamese and Bengalis of Sylhet and Cachhar, the latter being an adjoining district of Sylhet with a large Bangla-speaking population claiming to be racially, linguistically above culturally different from the Assamese. Bengalis of Sylhet (and Cachhar) resented the prospect of being in Assam. Joyati Bhattacharya (2023) The Hindus and Muslims of Barak Valley, in spite of the politics of polarisation, have resisted the forces that aimed to breach their Bengali identity successfully so far. Even today, both Hindus and Muslims continue to have a strong sense of loyalty to their Bengali roots, and they endured the pain of the Sylhet Partition together, albeit in a different way. Though divided by religion, they are not particularly separated in terms of their quest for Bengali identity. Of various linguistic minority groups in Assam, it is Bengali Sylhetis of Barak Valley who resisted and continues to resist the threat to their Bengali identity, although often unheard.

Therefore, there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that Sylhetis are a subgroup of Bengalis. Hence, based on the above discussion, it should be written as: “Sylhetis are an ethnographic group of Bengalis associated with the Sylhet region.” Rizwan (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

References

References