All material on this site is (c) copyright to the respective authors.  ISSN - 1481-3440 

Last edited: 23 September 2005



                A BENGALI-INDIAN

-Arnab Das , lecturer in anthropology, Bangabasi college, under the Calcutta university and
Subrata sankar Bagchi, lecturer In Bangabasi (evening ) college, under the Calcutta university
The following writing is a sort of self-reflexive analytical sketch in terms of the author's own linguistic
(Bengali) identity. Whether the fact that the foremost sign used to identify individuals belonging to any
aspect of culture, like their own(?) language, has any absolute value is exemplified by the author's study of
his own subject position. The author has tried to maintain a first person's discourse. The writing is
obviouly motivated by the felt experience of many other sensitive Bengalee (Baangaalee) respondents, met
in intensive fieldworks. The field experiences are not directly reproduced in the present text. The written
texts of some scholars regarding the Bengalees--which are highly recognized by the said people--are
chosen with the purpose of introducing and reinterpreting the incompleteness/indecisiveness of those
foundational search for own identity.
The author as the locus and the wholeness in question:
I am said to be an urban Bengalee and I have studied the identity questions of the urban Bengalees. The
empirical anthropological tradition of research might derive from such a topic a possibility of prolonged
participatory fieldwork among all the different groups and subcultures of the urban Bengalees. The
subsequent questions might be regarding relevant statistical operation in selection and collection of the
data from the urban centres of Bengal and abroad. No, there is no such attempt of representing any
whole of a culture or a culture as any whole. I am living in the city of Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal,
the so-called centre of the Bengalees. For the last long ten years my conscious effort of knowing my
people has always been indecisive and I remain indecisive about the limit of my Bengali identity, the
periphery of the wholeness of my culture. I have listened to the voice of those who always speak of the
diversity in unity(?), sorry, the opposite, the unity in diversity. The diversity is indicated by all such
identities of different linguistic communities, geographical communities, religious communities, caste
communities and so on. They are said to be united to form a culturally unified India, a nation state of
postcolonial(?) period of twentieth century. Its citizen is supposed to be mirroring a model of the unity. I
do not feel myself conscious of such a higher united essence of totality/wholeness from which the sub-
essence of identity may be felt or represented, other than the fact that I have to use such an essential
term in different discourses of my present citizen life, especially when I have to differentiate my
community-entity from any labelled otherness, many times not even enquiring the labelling. For instance,
I am not decisive all the time, even in any one situation, whether I am a Bengalee and an Indian or first
an Indian and then a Bengalee or first a Bengalee and then an Indian. I have also tried to think myself in
all the above sets at different levels of interaction. In terms of the two identities, Indian and Bengali, I
may try to explain my cultural, social or any sort of experience, but always uncertain about where the
boundaries of identities might collapse or any wholeness of experiences representing just ideal/typical for
the Bengalees or for the Indians is disrupted. In fact, it leads to the indecisiveness about the existence of
any such type/ideality and wholeness (essence) of cultural experience. This indecisiveness often raises
difficulty for me to think and act in demand of the situation. Overcoming that difficulty is certainly a
matter of comfort, if it may not entail some other more serious difficulties.

Page 2
The question of the population and its language:
The term identity in Bengali is equvalent to Aved, non-difference; Ekatwa, samenss; ananyata, the state of
being the same. The issues of sameness and difference of the Bengalees with respect to ohers evoke
those attribues, with which Bengalees are identical in their own sense of the term. At first let us begin
with the very term Bengali.
Baangla signifies the language or the land; Baangaali indicates the linguistic group and is used for the
adjectivial purposes; Bengali is the English term for the language and an adjectivial word for anything
associated with the language or the land of Bengal/Baangla, while Bengalee means the member of the
linguistic community. The words accommodate some confusing overlapping of meanings, however, with
much indifference to any clean differentiation of the signifiers.
Bengali being the mother tongue of certain people might serve the purpose of defining their identity, but
there are Bengali families whose offsprings learn and speak other language/s better from their childhood,
not necessarily migrated outside from the Bengali-preponderant areas. There are people also with so-
called non-Bengali surnames whose offsprings are majorly Bengali-speaking. In order to resolve the
problem, two options clearly emerge. One is supposed to consider all those people who speak and write
majorly in Bengali--including some presently Bengali-speaking people with non-Bengali surnames and
social-cultural backdrops and excluding all the offsprings of Bengali families who majorly speak and write
in other language and are known to have so-called Bengali cultural backdrops. The second option is
considering only those people who for several generations are known to be Bengalees--thus, excluding
those principally Bengali-speaking people who for the previous generations are known to be non-
Bengalis, and those principally other language-speaking people whose previous generations are known to
be Bengalis. The implicit criterion of time/generation for becoming Bengalees, though, whisperingly urge
us to explore among all the commonly agreed Bengali lineages the actual number of generations for
which they have become the Bengalees. Among these strictly defined lineages of the 'pure' Bengalees
there is variation of dialect and again in each segment of the dialect there are people who can not
maintain that segmental purity of that linguistic variation.
Therefore, at least for the Bengalees, the language and the language-using population can never match
exactly, because the Bengalees are exposed to many languages and linguistic groups before and after the
British colonial period. There is no perfect/complete whole of that linguistic population. How the people
have lost its boundary is a matter exploration and construction. The exceptions, extensions, marginalities
etc. of language-identity of the Bengali-speaking population will enable us to rethink even the generality
of that population, whether there remains any possibility of 'pure' Bengalees (Baangaalis) in terms of
The existence of language as independent of the population:
Now, think of a language which is in use no more, still its text remains. So language has an independent
existence in so far as it may be discerned as a language, as a sign system, having its capacity to mean.
Sometimes the system may not even be deciphered, as the case of the Harappan language still persists to
be so. Thus, we can not identify any present population as Happan-speaking people--excluding the
impossibility of knowing the actual name used by those 'Harappan' people to address that so-called
'Harappan' language. In fact, any language is better identified in its use, not in the identification of the
In resistence to the failure in defining a whole of Bengali population in terms of primary ascriptive
attribute of language, one might argue that any linguistic community is distinct not only in their language,
it is also for other aspects of culture in relation to their linguistic identity. Language is taken as one aspect
constituting the whole. So, the linguistic identity signifies something different from language as the
sufficient ground for the identification of the people. Bengali culture might be that transcendental entity,
not the language ( as one aspect of it ) is signified by the term Bengali. Any individual--learning Bengali
language and even the literature in equivalent intensity--might lack the socialization of the Bengalees, the

Page 3
age-old traditional essences acquired through the process in an age of flux of contacts of other cultures.
That very unique essence of any culture as an ensemble of different comparable elements like language or
if its essence is comparable to others, that very grounding essence will be subject to the similar condition
of the language. The food-habit, for example, of the Bengalees might be seen to differ within the
population, not in a manner of selection and combination within its own range of food items, but some
Bengalis are seen to have principally changed and some other previously known non-Bengalees are seen
taking up Bengali food habit or major food items ( like, rice and some vegetables ) as their principal one.
In every component/signifier of culture at any point of time there might be no perfect matching between
the population and the component. Everywhwre it may be seen that those signifiers are not wholly
congruent with the signified population. This variation is not a dynamism within a culture, but it always
questions the cultural boundaries of the population, finally problematizing any enclosed/grounded
essence of the Bengali culture in terms of finding out any empirically measurable population. It would be
all about a space of signification regarding tradition of essence and change, where the population is not
an ideal measure of the cultural space.
The texts as the centres of signification and as the resources of data:
Like the useful anthropological publication about Bengali culture in other language any Bengali speech,
text or any sort of signification about the Bengalis, of the Bengalis may sufficiently be the authentic
resource of data for identifying, explaining, analysisng, interpreting the aspects of culture and even how
do they relate to its difference. The resourses reasonably include those ancient records and texts which
explain the emergence of the language or otherwise as the earliest appearance of the Bengali identity
amidst and out of 'other' identites. As my awareness may represent that ancient period, the relation of
Bengali to its immediate other linguistic identities is non-identical to its present situation; the contexts
and the symbols have always been changing. At every point, becoming Bengali in relation to its otherness
has differed in meaning; thus the meaning/essence of identity of Bengali has always been differing. All
the symbols and their relationships to form the essence of Bengali identity are exposed to the process of
flux as that is also at present. For tracing the earlist point/origin ( if anything like that is at all ) and its
course through time we might use the relevant non-Bengali signification--in texts or other records. In
order to understand the formation of Bengali identity, we have to try in terms of differential relation to
the genealogically linked other non-Bengali significations.
On interpreting the process of becoming 'Bengalee', in other words the formation of Bengali identity,
such reflexive search for the essence in itself or in terms of other linguistic population would prevail. The
second dimension of identity as stated by the term 'urban' has also the similar consequence for the
population. In differentiating those Bengali-speaking people living in urban settlements from the non-
urban settlers put both the spatial limit of urbanity in question and the domain of urban culture in
question. For example, there are many urban settlers, marginally connected to the dominant discourses of
urbanity and there are non-urban settlers who are engaged in major urban practices. Now, the term
urban Bengali might suitably signify not only the language-using aspect in urban space, but other aspects
of culture in-relation-to language and urbanity. It seems to represent a search for the essential
absoluteness in their culture by which the term urban Bengali finds a stable centre of address, though it
leaves a debate unresolved. The debate is regarding the identity of those who speak and write intensively
and authentically about Bengal and Bengalees in other language, after getting intensive learning about
them, like an anthropologist is said to be. An anthropologist by definition becomes a site for multiple
cultural subjective positions problematizing or dissolving the problem of relationship of cultures,
languages etc. It makes me indecisive again about every individual's subjectivity, whether after some
considerable exposure to anthropological experience of different cultures any individual becomes a space
of multiple cultural identites. It might be the case of anthropologist-subject's text in any language to
signify a space of multiple cultural identities, but where the boundary of one dissolves in another. Any
attempt to combat such indecisiveness seems to go through those historical texts, which are principally

Page 4
and seriously concerned about the truth-value of informantion, not the quarries on truth-value. They
have attempted to recover the history of the Bengali identity majorly from othe texts. I am attempting
only another updating of those traces of the past.
The identification of the Bengal(i):
There are some established scholarly works about the Bengalees. I am choosing some of them with a
view to demonstrating how certain recognised studies forget to recognize the indecisiveness, inherent in
their texts. What Haricharan Bandyopadyaya (1966) in his "Bangio Sabdakosh" has collected as the
possible meanings of the term 'Banga' are the references of the term meant for a region and / or in
association with some other signifieds, none of them inclusive of the others. (a) It meant cotton, a high
yielding characteristic vegetation of the locality. (b) A local high yielding variety of brinjal plant might
have given rise to the name of the land. (c) Mahabharat, the great Indian epic offers a mythological-
historical account of a region. The region was supposed to be owned by Banga, one of the five sons of
Bali, the great king. (d) An equivalent alternative is also refered in another legendary account of Tibet:
'Bans' in tibetan language means watery, damp etc. It might not be difficult to assume that Banga was a
riverine and water-abundant area in some ancient period. In the first episode of "Angattornikaye" pg. 213
mentions Banga in the midst of Anga and other states and in the fourth episode the page no. 250, 252
and 360 the term was substituted by a term "Bans". Bandyopadhyaya explains (1966) that the term could
have been derived from the Tibetan word Bans or Ban. This region, accoding to him, indicates the eastern
riverine part of Bengal, commonly called Eastern Bengal (Purbabanga). He likes to corroborate the
assumption of identification of the region with reference to the great poet Kalidasa's Raghubangsa where
Rama, the great king of the epic Ramayana ventures to evict the kings of Banga aided by the "neval
force". In addition, the finding from Chaitanya bhagabat done by Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyaya in his
Bangalar Itihas alludes to the incidence that Chaitanyadeb, the great 18
century saint reached on the bank
of the river Padma willing to see Banga. Two other etimological origins of the term is seriously considered
by the Dr. Chatterjee. (e) The possibility of the Sanskritic origin indicates to a derivation like Banga+Aal
> Bangaal >Baangaal, Banga meaning embarkment given by the kings on the plain land below the high
hilly range. The connotation of Banga remaining the same the Dravidian derivation Banga+Aalam>
Bangaal gives a substitute meaning of the term, where Aalam means 'to possess'. (f) The Portugese
merchant Bengala settled on the bank of rivulet Buriganga for the purpose trading. After the name of
that European merchant the region began to be popular as Bengal. The last interpretation, however,
gaining certain academic attention can not marginalise all the earlier evidences of the use of the term. In
Sagartaal inscription (Silalekh) of king Bhoj of Pratihara dynasty, the king Dharmapala was mentioned as
the ownwer of Banga (Bangapati) and his Militia as Bangaalis (Bangaan). On the inscription of Tirumalay
mountain, done during the kingdom of first Rajendrachola, Bangaaldesh is described as a place, "where
the rain-wind never stopped". On the 11
century Tanjour inscription Banganam term reappears.
Baangaala is one of the twelfth provinces of the Mughal empire of Akbar.
After the emergence of the language proper of the region, around the first century of the 1
the term Banga/Bangaal got associated with many stray contexts and sources in spite of the fact that the
perpetuation of the term did not relate to any definite elitist determination/backdrop. The antiquity and
stability of the term Banga/Baangal, really provokes much wonder, as it has been narrated by Sukumar
Sen in his "Banga Bhumika" ( published in 1999 ). The colonial attention to Bengal led to some more
exposure to westernities or global currents, which somewhere helps accepting an identity of deviance. It
proposes that the 'pre-colonial' Banga was never a part of the orthodox, homogeneous, close-to-centre of
and positively recognised by the power on top, pure, dominant, consistent, conformist culture of the
surrounding, more Aryanised 'others' of its present nationhood. The indicators of the fact, a
marginalisation/differentiation of a region with respect to the 'others' (if, at all) are accepted in different
attitudes by the Bengali scholars, all willingly or unknowingly motivated by the self-orientation regarding
the facts. Sen (1999) mentions the continuity of a single term addressed to a region for such a long

Page 5
period, unlike any other region of India. Parallel to the fact of such stable traditional signifier of the
region, relatively low recognition (by the historically dominant others of the pre-colonial indian
subcontinent) of social position of Bengal as a whole might also help situating a view that some
traditions might also grow out of indifference / forgetfulness / weak reason /indeterminacy / neglect
/arbitrariness / so-called unreason. By and large most of the Bengalee scholars on Bengal have
attempted to be emphatic about determining the traditional character of the land and its people, even
sometimes compulsive to do so. Many definite foundational discourses of tradition were discovered and
articulated in order to establish the identity of Banga/ Bangaal/Gour-Banga, as if 'roots', 'foundations',
'reasons', 'originality', 'specialisation/differentiation' etc. may only matter for any scholarly revealetion of
facts. Still, there are slips all over the writings, some of such elements are supposed to be useful for the
present author. It is, therefore, a time to exemplify the texts that propose the identities of Bengalees
and/ or the Bengali thinkers.
Back in the 40s in "Betar jagat" Acharya Sunitikumar Chattopadhyaya gives a simple version of the
consecutive inmigrations of the African black people to Bengal, who were supposed to be non-existent
afterwards. The "Nisada" are called by the Europeans as Austric/Austro-asiatic and whose inheritors
became the Mundari, Santahali, Kurknu, Gadaba, Sabar linguistic groups of people, most of whom
became seccluded in the forested regions, others got mixed in the present non-tribal population. These
cultivators and weavers were the actual founders of Indian civilisation. The Dravid-speaking people, who
are said to "intorduce" urban civilization, the "Kirats", the inhabitants of southern Himalayan region, in
the north and east of Bengal contributed to the formation of the Bengali people. Finally, the Aryan-
speaking people, especially settled in the northern states of India, using the hypogamous and
hypergamous marital practices with the previous settlers secured a hegemony and spread all over India.
Their language in the forms of Sanskrit and Prakrit got transformed into early Bengali. Chattopadhyaya
after expressing its caring concern for the Nisads, accepting in a few words their endurance and
recognizing great contributions of the Drabid-speaking people, readily jumps to the hegemonical role of
the Aryan-speaking people in the formation of the Bengali ethnos. Those hegemony of the colonizing
Indo-Aryans is, thus, made to prevail.
In his article "Gourbanga" (1967), published in the journal Gourdesh, Sunitikumar Chattopadhyaya
discusses the history of naming of the region and justifies the name Gourbanga. He begins with the
criticism of colonial principle of mislesding the cultural reality during the idependence of India and
improper division of the nationhood, in case of Bengal as well. On doing so he reaches the pre-colonial
past of the land. To him the inhabited land of Bengali-speaking people were separately or sometimes
simultaneously referred principally by the two terms, Gour and Banga/Bangaal. Gourdesh included Upper
Bengal / Uttar Banga (constituted by Barinda/Barindrabhumi- Rajsashi, Maldah, Bagura, Pabna), Radh and
Sumha ( constituted by Paschim Banga-Birbhum, Mrshidabad, Bardhaman, Hoogly, Howrah, Bankura, Medinipur);
whereas the land on both the banks, on its southern plain of the larger river Padma and on the far east
the places--known to be Mayamansingha, Srihatta, Kachar, Koomilla (Pattikera), and Chattal--comprised
Bangadesh. He also likes to mention that the divisions of the region might be mentioned as the following
popularly known ones--Radh, Sumbha, Jharkhanda (Manbhum, Purulia, Singhbhum), Karnasubarna/ Kanasona,
Baarendra, Samatat, Bagri (Sundarban region), Banga, Kochbihar, Kamtabihar, Mayamansingha, Chattal, Tripura etc.
Only Kochbihar, PurbaMayamansingha, Chattal, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling and Tripura are told to be principally the
residence of the Bhot-Chin (Sino-Tibetan) people. According to Chattopadhyaya, both the names date
back to B.C. period. Gourapur, the urban centre is mentioned in Astadhyaee written by Panini; We see the
existence of both Gour and Banga in Mahabharata; in the same epic we find the mention of Anga-Banga-
Kalinga in a series, which appeared to Chattopadhyaya as three non-aryan tribes. The probabale derivation
of the term Gour is said to be either from the name of the highly populated Gond people or from Pnur,
sugar cane ( like, Pnur>Gur>Gour). Again, of the two major divisions of the people of Brahmin Varna
into 'Gour' and 'Pancha', the former one comprises of five sub-divisions-- Radhi, Barendra, Paschatya Baidik,
Dakhhyantya Baidik and Madhyasreni. All such links lead him to emphasise the association of Gour with

Page 6
some broader northern region of India, representing a constellation of the Aryan-influenced languages.
Before the Muslim-Turk invation of somewhere around 13
century A.D. Gour represented the western,
northern and central regions. Banga was used for the eastern part of a previous larger territory. He
exemplifies that even at the time of Sree Chaitanya at 18
century the individuals from Nabadwip and
other parts of present West Bengal was called as Gouria. The transformation of the whole into Bangala/
Baangala/Bengal etc. is shown to be the effect of Muslim, French, British influences. According to him the
tradition suggests the couple of terms Gour and Banga to be assembled as Gourbanga, which seems to
be the ideal name of the region. The problem of inclusion and exclusion of terms is not historically
consistent, never clearly emergent in any historical phase. It is brought to a logical discourse of
equivalence and a right to survival. It expresses an anxiety of getting annihilated, a hope for recovery of
oblivious past in identifying the present, a search for more inclusive identity. One of the interesting
aspects of the writing is the exposure of the reasons of the rise of the term Bengal. They are mostly
because of the recognition of the powerful colonial settlers and an effort of upholding the significance of
the term Gour in the traditional (in pre-colonial sense) historical perspective of the region, but it does
not significantly attentive in explaining the decline of the use of Gour/Gouria. The disappearance
/silencing of a previously prevalent sign is mourned and its legitimacy is solicited. It is again the concern
of the power of academy/intelligentia, to make discourse public, not the other way.
Almost seventy years back his long account of Jati, Sanskriti o Sahitya ( Nationality, culture and literature,
published in 1963) of the Bengalees Acharya Sunitikumar Chattopadhyaya depicts the identity of the
Bengali Jati (sect) primarily as that group of people who uses Bengali language as their mother tongue
and a domestic (gharoa) language. Secondly, in the region of Bengal, the way of life as suitable to the
natural environment of Bengal has been developed among the Bengali-speaking people. It has also been
nurtured principally during the ancient and the mideaval period of history. As a result, material (bastab),
mental/intellectual (manasik), and spiritual (addhatmik) aspects of culture have been built up and they
constitute the "whole" of Bengali culture (baangali sanskriti). And this resultant culture in its intimate
association of the emerging Bengali language finds its literary expression, which is Bengali literature
(bangali sahitya). The author finds much intimacy of the popualtion with the territory, natural environment
and local-regional history, language use that is said to result in an "implicit" and "inward" attitude to the
self-portrayal of the Bengali culture and literature. The use of the term Jati has its multidimensioal
connotations throughout the writing, sometimes as a subnational (linguistic or cultural) force, sometimes
as a mosaic of cultural-religious traditions, sometimes as a surviving historical community, sometimes as
a linguistic-regional community, sometimes common-still-different Indian community--generally Indian
and specifically Bengali. In the very next sentence he mentions that on the year of 1963 more than seven
and a half crores of people speak Bengali. He explains why in terms of number Bengali sect (jati) is not
negligible and subsequently how the 'we-feeling', especially abroad (bidesh) among other language-
speaking peoples, works. He takes pride in his community identity to adopt an anti-Western attitude,
which is also reflected in the very assertive title of the essay, "Jati, sankriti 0 sahitya (1963)". The generic
cultural space of India is heterogenous and is built up by many such homogenous cultural specificities of
linguistic communities.
Now, we may start seeing the contradictions and defences of his above discourse in the latter part of
writing. After rationalising the central importance of language for community identity in terms of
national recognition Chattopadyaya (1963) suggests his concept of United states of India (Bharatbarser
Sanjukta Rastra). In such a federation political recognition of every linguistic state might be integrated in
the name of ancient indian sovereign entity-cum-civilization (Bharater Sarbabhouma Bharatio Satta-
Sabbhyata). This foundation for the establishment of modern unified India(Bharatbarsa) should
legitimatize the compulsary acceptence of Hindi as its national languge. The grounding and unifying
essence of the ancient sovereign Indian civilizational entity is possibly explained immediately in the next
paragraph. He searches a generic commonness found in every common Indian. His first example is said
to be simple and external (Sahaj and Bahjya); it is in the morphological-external-physical appearance in a

Page 7
unique (ananyadesh-labhya) Indianness. Whatever be the skin color, in the facial appearance (mukh-chokher
samabese), in the optical expression (chahani), locomotion, phonetic similarities of language there is some
visibly significant expression which is the unique indicator of the Indianness. He assumes a consolidation
of this empirical dispersion by an essential suggestion--"if the common Indians from different regions
are stripped of their regional-cultural costumes and decorations and claded similarly it would be difficult
to identify the respective regional identity of them". He continues his observation and inference in
another example of an Indian in english wear seen abroad; he becomes indecisive in identifying the his
region of origin in India--Bengal or somewhere else. Suddenly, the author proposes an approximate
measure of multiple identities in a modern Bengali individual: one fourth of the total identity is European
(depending on the individual's socio-economic condition), one half as Indian and the remaining one
fourth is Bengali. Of this last quarter, one fourth is pure Bengali/rural-Bengali and the remaining three-
fourth is a Bengali distortion of Indianness. Before concluding such speculative determinism about
Bengali identity he tries to relegate the impact of Islam among the Bengalees to the least and the last. In
the beginning of the next discussion he depicts a voice of protest against the pressure of Indian Muslims
on the author's own group ("amader athaba bangali hinduder") engineered by the conspiratorial British
colonialism. He does not forget to highlight the then-prevalent ressistant-aggressive unity of the Hindu-
Muslim Bengalis against all sorts of foreign exploitations. He feels no contradiction in his immediate
advice for resisting the growths of other provincial populations within the territory of the Bengalees. He
suggests that from the economical perspective the Bengalees must be very much regionalist in
protectinng themselves; they should prevent those economic exploitation in the name of nationality,
within the region of Bengal. This resistence is suggested to be coupled with the approval of cultural
connection with the rest of India. His own cherished ideal of Bengali-type culture in the face of the
concurrent growths of other Indians desparately urges the sluggish Bengalees to protect a free (of the
economic domination of the others), legitimately own economic developmental space for Bengal. The
hope is to assimilate desirably his past/parental identity and exchange with other such present morally
active regional cultures in the name of the common ancestry. Such a revealation of parentality, the way of
overcoming the guilt for aggresiveness in exchange of cultural tribute to the ancestry is aimed at
envisaging just, mature and idependent Bengali identity. At the very discussion he launches his defence
for the ideal Bengali gender images of Sita and Sabitri. He engages in contention against the attempt of
relegating the above images to the images of Malua, Madina and Kamala. In the twists of analysis the
Malua-Madina-Kamala seem to be defeated against Sita and Sabitri, in spite of the fact that Sita and
Sabitri were alleged--by the contender of Chattopadhyaya-- Ray Bahadur Dr. Srijukta Dinesh chandra
Sen as the lady foreigners wearing non-traditional ('others') Ghagra.
After such externalisation/exclusion of other identities from the Bengali one Chattopadhyaya (1963)
starts depicting the emergence of Bengali language proper whose consciouness, he thinks, to be essential
for the awareness of nationality. He uses a metaphor of a natural process for comparing the emergence
of the language, which occurred one thousand years ago. The land of Bengal is the contribution of river
Ganga, who is mythologically the daughter of the mountain Himalaya. The Bengali language, likewise,
was reproduced from the Aryan, Prakrit--the languages from the northern India. Like the river Ganga the
downward spread of Aryan language washed away the ancient non-Aryan languages. The Aryan language
Prakrit was gradually transformed to the Bengali; Sanskrit, its mother language came along with the
Prakrit. Before the Mauryan capture of Bengal, the Aryan language and its associated northern Indian
Gangetic civilization were not spread over Bengal. From Maurya era upto Gupta rule (300B.C. to
500A.D.), during these eight hundred years it was Aryanisation of languages. The previous Austric and
Dravidian peoples abandoning their (non-Aryan) language gradually adopted the Aryan language Prakrit
of Magadh area. The Brahminical religion and civilization of northern India--the mythology/folklore and
the history ( of both Aryans and non-Aryans ) written in Sanskrit language by the North Indians--were
accepted by the inhabitants of Bengal. After that the Budhhist and Jainist doctrines appeared. They were
also accepted in Bengal. The mixing of these three cultural strains, Austric, Dravid and northern Indian

Page 8
mixed Aryan, produced the Bengalees. According to Chattopadhyaya the genetic-identity and the
language of the Bengalees were principally non-Aryan; the ratio of Aryan 'blood' which contributed to
the formation of the Bengalees, was also mixed non-Aryan of northern India. However, this newly
becoming Bengalees along with the Aryan language found out a pattern/discipline. There was an impact
of Aryan psyche on Austric and Dravidian nature. According to Acharya Chattopadhyaya it was good.
The Aryan psyche or Brahminism imparted on the undernourished (aparisphuta) primitive Bengalees
certain coherence in the cultural characteristics. It was the middle of 10
century A.D., when the
Budhhist scholars started writing in a special language, the earliest Bengali literature and songs had their
birth. Quite alike those Bengalees, less aware of their own non-Aryanness, they adopted the mould of an
other Indian or northern Indian victorious Brahminical-Budhhist-Jainist pattern in order to recast his
psyche, his society, his tradition. That is the initial pattern of the Bengali civilization, which still persists.
At present, Chattopadhyaya says, we are undergoing some williing and unwilling changes to arrange our
society [ identity under westernizing cultural milieu] in a new mould/pattern. After that, it is a long, but
precise historical construction of the Bengalees for almost twenty pages, concluding in an appeal to the
Bengalees. With due regards to his own traditions and history, a substitution of prioity is advised for self-
protection, the knowledge and work (Gyan 0 Karma) as against imaginative attitude (Kalpana),
thoughtfulness (Bhaabukata) and addiction to entertainment (Rasanaanda). The grounding essence is said
to preexixt from a thousand years' past inguistic identity and culture, with its added and privileged
supremacy over the non-Aryan primitiveness. So to say the domination of the Aryan (Brahminical-
Budhhist-Jainist ensemble)--over a previous weak-but-own otherness(?)--gave birth to the present
conscious pattern of the Bengalees, a cultural-cum-linguistic people, which he termed as language-culture
"Banga Bhumika" of Sukumar Sen (published in1999) might add to the constructions of identity of the
Bengalees. In the very beginning it addresses the problem of region-language relationship. "Language
forms nation/people (Jati) and the peoples form country. At the emergence of Bengali language the
history of the Bengalees begins". Is it so that the first-ever text in the language, a new system of sign,
bears no trace of its past? It almost views the history of language as equal to the history of the language-
using people; better to call it a history of people only identified by the respective text. A question still
creeps up--by how many individuals the concerned language was used during its first appearance in
recorded text and that past took the future course. Sen (1999) in his "Kaler Sopane" readily follows to
explain. "But Bengali language has its past history. This language is produced from somewhat different
previous language, and that language also comes from more ancient language. In this manner, tracing the
inheritance back from the Bengali language we reach Sanskrit language. If we go far back to follow the
past of Sanskrit we cross the boundary of Bharatbarsha (India)." The next sentence seems insignificant as
the context is concerned, but is worthy of a different focus-"it is mentionable that it (the land of origin
of sanskrit) has no relationship with the history of the land /region of Bangabhumi". In other words, the
distant land, outside India, where the Sanskrit emerged has no relation with the history of the land of
Bengal. Does he indicate the physical contaguity as the sufficient reason for historical association? The
next sentences might give the clue-"Sanskrit is not the aboriginal language of Bengal. There would one or
more aboriginal languages, but we do not know anything about it. The people who with their mother
tongue Sanskrit colonized this land are the direct ancestors of the Bengalees. Before that if some people
lived in this land they merged with the colonizers. Those people are also our ancestors, but anonymous
to us." Sometimes the anonymity of a certain part of ancestry perturbs little, especially if we get the
dominant/masculine paternal part of identity. We could marginalize the importance of the
weaker/passive, receiving, almost silenced, effiminate aboriginality. It might be a stretching analogy of
maternity. "It was well before three millenium B.C. the Sanskrit-speaking people were settled in this
country". He maintains that the region (bisay) inhabited by certain people was usually named after the
name of the people. Among the people's regions (jati-desh) of eastern India the earliest mention was about
Banga in a hymn of Rik Ved (8.101.12). The descendants (or living beings) were missing ( "praja ha tisraah

Page 9
atyayamiyuh"). The interprtation of this sentence was given in the old scripture of Aitareya Aranyak in
explaining those three missing ones as birds named "bangabagadhascherapada:". Sen thinks the bird
("bayangshi") as metaphor of nomadic nature and the three names are Banga, Bagadh and Cherapad all in
plural. The last two might have been transformed, but banga, the first is yet the same one. In a Vedic
literature the eastern land of Bangabhumi was mentioned as Pragjyotish. Pragjyotish initially meant eastern
horizon. Kamrup stood for certain people. In Kalidas's Raghubangsa Kamrup and Pragjyotish were
identical. In a Vedic mythology there occurred a battle between the gods and demons. The demons were
strong in mind and the gods were strong as a result of the fire-worship. The fire at the front of the god's
frontier drove the demons to the eastern border. Finally the demons crossed the Sadanira river, from
where the Pragjyotish starts. The sacred fire could not cross the river , as a result of which the land upto
Sadanira seemed to be sacred by the fire. At the literature of Kalidas the border of Sadanira was
Brahmaputra. The spatial orientation of this Aryan purity-pollution concept, an Indian mode of 'self-
other' differentiation, is also mentioned at the reading of Rakhaldas Bandopadhyaya's (1923) historical
discussion about Bengal.
The plural form of the term Banga, Sumhhah, Pundra would generally signify the people and their land
(Sukumar Sen, 1999.pg6). The very evidence indicates other implication of the signification-"Anganang
bisayo Hangah" meaning the land of the Angas is Angah. If it was taken for granted, the question is why it
was exclusively mentioned, communicated to the reader. One possibility might be to make the signifying
practice approved. However, Banga, Sumbha and Pundra respectively signified the downstream Gangetic
bangabhumi, the land on the western side of Ganga and upper Gangetic land. Patanjali the interpreter of
Panini on 2
century B.C. mention the above along with Anga and Magadh. Anga was on the leftern
riverside of Ganga and the Magadh was the southern riverside of Ganga . For the reson that Banga was
very special upto the period of Panini-Patanjali the whole northern area was known as Banga. The
importance of Banga was so famous because of its terminological association with cotton (kapas) and
cotton industry. One meaning of Banga is Kapas cotton. In Sanskrit and other associated languages the
meaning is said to be approved. In Bhojpuri, it is Bag, In Maithili it is Bnago , Bnaga, in Hindi it is Bnaga
and so on. Now, Sen (1999) goes to illustrate the analogical process of emergence of the name of Pundra
(one type of sugarcane, still prevalent in its present name of Pnuri aankh) as a land famous for its
sugarcane cultivation. His comments that it might be the reason of false derivation of the name of Gour
from gnur, the sugar product of the sugarcane negates the derivation as linguistically least tenable. The
word Gour, according to him, might be derived from the habitation of the numerically large Gond
people. He also accepts that this Gour might be the the Gourpur mentioned by Panini, as the substitute
of the archaeologically scriptured Pundranagar (the Pundrabardhan of later period). Patanjali mentioned
Anga, Banga, Sumba, Magadh and Kalinga. Among them The last two were clearly mentioned by Panini,
But Patanjali mentioned all the five. In addition, he exemplified two 'Puras', Gourpur and Aristapur in his
"Prachya" (eastern) division in the threefold Aryabarta into Prachya, Udichya and Madhyama " traya:
Prachya: traya: Udichya: traya: Madhyama:". In order to resolve the confusing use of Gour he explians that as
a city or a land the term was not found in any old scriptural evidence before seventh century A.D. In any
ruling statement of the Pala dynasty the mention of any ruler / owner of Gour (Goueswar/Gouradhipati)
was not found. Muslim historian first used the name and it was also told to be the capital of
Laksmansen. The term was mainly used in literature and perhaps came from outside Bengal. Upto the
beginning of nineteenth century A.D. the term was used to indicate a city. At the period of Chaitanya
Gouria was synonymous with the Bengalis. However, on and before the time of Patanjali Banga Bisay (land
of Banga) was signified as Gangyabhumi (gangetic area). According to Greek traveller-historian
Megasthinis on the eastern frontiers of the Indian land there were two important groups of peoples,
"Prasioi" and "Gangaridoi"/"Gangridoi", which in sanskritic transcription could perfectly be addressed
as Prachya: and Gangeya: respectively. Old Latin poet Ovid on the 1
century A.D. indicated the
purabtyas as Gangekutis< Gangetia Talemi on 2
century A.D. termed the lower gangetic land as Gange
and identified the port of that land in the same name. Somewhat hypothetical description of Kalidas in

Page 10
Raghubijay and the description of the Greek traveller might help the inference that the region of the
Banga people was spread over both the banks of Ganga. The Pundra people settled on the eastern bank
in large number. They realised that the physical contact with the Anga land was one the main reasons of
the cultural spread coming from the northern frontier. For this reason Pundrabardhan-Pundranagar
becme important and so frequently mentioned. Banga on the other hand was loosing its nomenclatural
mention as a region from the Gupta period because of the division of the land into two "Bhukti"s for the
sake of proper rulership. The leftern bank of Bhagirathi became Pundrabardhan Bhukti and the southern
half was called as Bardhaman Bhukti. One thing is accepted by Sen that the loss of occupation-oriented
identity of the people reduced the nomenclatural use of the land, which was the priority in the rules of
identifying the people and the land. The withdrawal from the previous aquatic lifestyle due to the loss of
the depth of the rivers in Bardhaman bhukti made the people move from the gangetic proper to the
more riverine eastern and eastsouthern regions. However, there were certain areas which were the
important centres the cotton (banga) production. This production again made the term Banga to retun
from senventh to eighth century A.D. There were no mention of Banga in Samudragupta's Alahabad
Prasasti; there were only Samatat, Dabaak and Kamrup. Samatat could be identified as the gangetic
plains, Kamrup was on the edge of Samatat, but Dabak is still unidentified. It was again in the seventh
century Chinese description of Hu-en-sang the divisions of the region of Bengal reappeared. The
divisions were presented by the following regions: Kajangal ( the forested area associated with the
mountainous land of Rajmahal), Pundrabardhan,Samatat,Tamralipta, Karnasubarna and Udda (Udra).
Pundrabardhan, Tamralipti and Karnasubarna are the names of three localities, not the peoples' regions,
indicating northeastern Bangabhumi, Sumbha, southern gangetic land. Bangal was said to be contaguous
to Samatat and producing huge quantity of cotton. From this term the future Baangala and Baangali
came up. In the royal statement (sasanpatta) of the king Debapal the destruction of Sompur Bihar--the
educational Buddhist monastery--by the Bangal troop is mentioned. More he says about the historical
references of Bangabhumi, more he finds the region expanding and shrinking in different contexts. The
only thing Sen (1999) wants to maintain that in spite of all the fluidities of the peoples, their regions, their
cultures over the years, the older terminological behavior of naming the regions corresponding to the
name of the people ( people's territory ) has only been retained in the term of Banga. In other words, all
the other names of such land-people correspondance are lost, except the Banga, and it was from before
the term of Arjabarta --the land of the Aryans.
None of the scholars succeeds to give a complete closure to his 'true' discourse of establishing Bengali
identity, even does not venture to conclude that any such attempt and possibility may remain suspended.
They assume the closure in the name of so-far-available interpretation of texts (e.g. historical documents,
archaeological remains, scriptures, folklore, Bengali literature of huge magnitude, scholarly works on the
above ones etc.). All of them are cautious about not committing any gross deviation from the
methodologies adopted by the westerners for 'valid' research and 'complete' results. On differentiating
and representing the identity, they presuppose an obvious concurrence of certain concepts--geographical
area, language, population and other systems of signification. Actually they remain data-intensive about
the above ones separately that is supposed to fulfill the purpose, but they do not put up the relationships
of the concepts for empirical examinations. Worse is the result to make a more tight, 'holistic'
anthropological account of the Bnegalees (Sur, 1994). Even, their cultural constructions of the Bengalees
in different periods intrude into the primordial premises of defining the identity. Imbued with the spirit
of protest against colonial modernity they follow a modern discourse of establishing a 'true' search for
origin and history the Begalees/Baangaalis from the pre-Aryanic and / or Aryanic past. The hierarchic
ordering/adjustment of culture(s) under the (pre-)Aryanic hegemony seems to provide them a resolution
of the debates and discontinuities regarding the identities of the diverse communities in India. They
derive a relief in rendering a remote, almost mythically, pre-colonial unity of the origins of both the
conformist (like, 'other' Indian more aryanized community-type) and non-conformist (like, marginally
aryanized 'own' Bengali) Indian(?) identities.

Page 11
For another in(con)clusion:
According to Sunitikumar Chattopadhyaya (1940, 1963, 1967, 1994), Sukumar Sen (1991, 1999),
Niharranjan Roy ( 1980) and Rakhal Das Bandopadhyaya (1923, finally published in 1974)--the masters
on Bengalees--in the period around 10
century A.D., during the Pala reign the inception of the language
of present Bengali occurred at least at texual practices. Except Chattopadhyaya the rest are not ready to
ensure the detailed process of how the linguistic practices came to a very popular level and how the
local, mixed version of Indo-aryan dialect started dominating the previous Austric language, whereas
other neighbouring language group (like, the sino-tibetan) took less entry into this language. Besides, one
thing is very evident according to the old records that the concerned eastern India appeared less as own
to the colonizer(?)/contending Aryan culture. Their attitude towards the eastern Brahmins also was not
respectful and the land was as such tabooed by the surrounding Aryan hegemony. It was the margin of
the Aryans. Although the Austrics are assumed to be as flexible as the cane, Bengal was recognised a
border of resistance. Unlike the colonising Aryan it was non-vegetarian, less literate in Vedic knowledge,
less evident in the scriptures (e.g., the scriptures of Askoke).
Once again, such whirlpool of the chronicled information, which are necessary to (re)construct the
emergence of Bengali (Banga), leads me to the enquiry about the resultant behaviour of subjugation to
the outsiders of the previous inhabitants of Bengal. It might closely resemble to the search of any
stratigraphical record about the reaction of some earliest subjects (for example,certain really absent pre-
Austrics) to the colonizers/in-migrants, as if it might be something unique in case of India or Bengal at
large, so that some new empirical groudwork may provide us with some new bent of post-colonial
present. In the realm of signification I am not very decisive about any universal proposition of the
outcome of the historical phenomenon, for instance, coloniality. The word coloniality is such a modern
usage that it finds substitute in another modern "value-neutral, scientific" term, migration. To the all-
embracing modernity the pre-industrial phase is almost the socio-natural affair for the communities to
migrate or the cultures to diffuse. The exploration of the new area is not equal to the conquest of the
explored. It produces a lot of intersubjective space of signification to wedge war and secure victory over
others. Power went on adopting renewable signification. Bengal passed through the so-called flexibility(?)
of the Austrics in the encounter with the Dravidians, the resistance and the forms of adjustment--of the
admixture of the Dravidians and the Austrics--offered to the third flow of Indoaryans and the relatively
less impressive Sino-tibetans. In addition the subsequent influx of the Shaks, Huns and Islamic force
merging into the reckonable Aryan hegemony of the Buddhhist-Jainist-Vedic culture(s) might have
something to do with the present postcolonial phase. It is not the search for any singularity in
postcolonial dimension of signification, the Bengali identity is chosen as the entry point which opens a
course of undergoing a journey of Indian context of signification, to posit Bengali/Bengalee in space of
Indianness, a position in the hierarchy of the present globe. One of the most technologically advanced
attempts of placing each Indian community in pan-Indian spatio-temporal contexts may be exemplified
with a view to assessing how the Indians are said to be linked and differentiated.
I quote a recent exposition and the associated narration of "The Peopling of India" done majorly on the
pre-, proto-, early historic linguistic-genetic population by Madhav, Gadgil and N. V. Joshi, U. V.
Shambu Prasad, S.Manoharan and Suresh Patil (1997) .
"There are then many still unanswered questions
pertaining to how our subcontinent was peopled. But the most plausible scenario is the one [that]
depicted…………. the earliest migrants into India, [who] perhaps 50 kybp may have been the Austric
speaking Homo sapiens, with the advantage conferred by the mastery over a symbolic language. Their
genetic footprints may be discerned in the trends evident in the 2nd P.C of the synthetic genetic map of
Asia. The next major waves of migratio ns around 6 kybp may have been those of wheat cultivators from
the Middle East and the rice cultivators from China and Southeast Asia. The former is likely to have been
Dravidian speakers and contributed to the trend evident in the 1st P.C. of the synthetic genetic map of
Asia. The latter may have been Sino-Tibetan speakers who would have contributed further to the trend
revealed by 2nd P.C. The latest major migration around 4 kybp may have included several waves of Indo-
European speakers equipped with horses and iron technology. These might have been the most massive

Page 12
migrations peopling India. Others have followed, largely from the west, through the Khyber Pass on the
northwestern frontiers of the subcontinent. These seem to have been propelled by superior weaponry,
increasingly better control over horses and finally seagoing ships. Such significant innovations may include
some of the following. An important early development in weaponry was the composite angular bow which
appeared in west Asia around 5 kybp. Bending through the length of the limb, releasing this bow string
produced no kick leading to a smooth and accurate shot. The extremely long draw length of over 1 m led
to a greatly enhanced cast. A crucial piece of equipment associated with control over horse is stirrup, which
helps in balancing the rider and permits him to stand up to threw the lance. The earliest form of the stirrup
was a string with two loops on either side for the rider's foot. The first known instance of iron stirrups
comes from China in sixth century A.D. reaching Iran by 7th century, and arriving in India with Turkish
warriors in 11th century. Another significant invention was the iron horse shoe first known from Siberia in
9th Century A.D., reaching India with Turkish warriors in 13th Century A.D. The gunpowder was invented
in China around 100 A.D. and slowly reached Iran, Arabia and finally Europe with Mongols around 1400
A.D. It reached India with the arrival of the first Mughal emperor Babur who used it in the first battle of
Panipat in 1526 A.D.(Fig. 24)." …………...
"A segmented society
What the Indian population is remarkable for is the segmentation of this large population into thousands of
endogamous groups. The People of India data recognizes 4635 such ethnic communities. Many of these are
however clusters of endogamous groups with similar traditional occupations and social status. The actual
number of endogamous groups is decidedly much larger, of the order of 50 to 60 thousand (Joshi, Gadgil
and Patil 1993; Gadgil and Malhotra 1983). This persistence of tribe like endogamous groups, characteristic
of hunter-gatherer-shifting cultivation stage all over the world, in a complex agrarian, and now industrial
society of India is a unique phenomenon. It seems to be a result of a peculiarly Indian tradition of
subjugation and isolation, rather than the worldwide practice of elimination or assimilation of subordinated
communities by the dominant groups. Our mitochondrial DNA studies provide some notable insights into
the structure of this social mosaic. population stationarity or bottlenecks."
The above inclusion intends to offer harder supportive evidence to its previous search for the pan-Indian
scenario through the ages. The advanced technological/cultural capabilities (re)explore the footprints of
the past in order to represent more authentic, somewhat positivist details of the genealogy of the peoples
of India. Now, the Indians may reconstruct their genetic/linguistic/cultural relationships to the other
populations of the World. They can also support their traditions of ever-expanding segmentation /
differentiation and diversifying dynamics in its limited space like own language. They have a hierarchical
society; they maintain some sort of democracy for holding balance of so many units in process of
subjugation and proliferation. The five scholars have come to design such a nice-looking macro-narrative
of cultural dynamics so that any one may be allured to use it for fashioning a down-stream model of
explaining any Indian population. For attaining equilibrium such prolonged and popular homogenizing
hegemony, however, can not deny, and rather suggest some other implicit possibilities as well. Both
cultural differentiation and merging had to undergo repression and its abolition. The individual and
collective Indian identities--one in relation to others--might not escape strategic process of
(un)conditional exchange of elements in the symbolic format of hierarchy. As a result Indian cultural
format is said to have assimilated and accommodated all the [pre-colonial] in-migrant communities. The
coexistence of orthodoxy (like, Vedic culture), heterodoxy (like, Buddhism, Jainism, Lokayats etc) and
even fluidity of an amazing measure, especially on the marginal front at Bengal, (Sanyal, 1999) might
always keep on (dis)stabilizing the identity boundaries (and why not), even under the present globalizing
I started an examination of the urban Bengalis, a prevailing signifier of a linguistic community
(?)/individuals (?) or anything which it might mean. I restore my indecisiveness regarding identity in
being recognized as an urban Bengalee in the 'rational' sense that I can not find out the boundary of my
subjective or felt experience of any pure identity construct in relation to others. I started to question the
very basis of the language itself--how the language Bengali is an adequate ground to contribute to a
system of completeness; how Bengali is something permanent in its relation to the others. Even as a
system of signifiers it always remains in the form of becoming/changing. Like any other language it has
its capacity to signify, a singular among the plural or the same among the similars, one among the

Page 13
comparable many, one in the genealogy of some ones. Presently, a globe format drawing so many
different systems so close to each other every system is supposed to shift, always on becoming somewhat
different in relation to the others. Bengalee, the signifier in relation to contextualized Bengal, Baangla,
Bengali, Baangaali, urban, India, Indian(s), modernity etc. would render several meanings, whose
consecutive accumulation and play--not only serial negations--frequently signify a rational (what else!)
indecisiveness of my Bengali/Bengalee identity. On memorizing the culturally discontinuous past I have
to remain sketchy about whether my indecisiveness has a direct ancestry from the pre-colonial contexts.
Believing myself as a subject of discontinuous tradition(s) I may only conclude that the present globe is a
text. The signifiers go on relating one to the other in the play of becoming severally meaningful. There
are different such texts, produced by different subjects, sometimes about the same globe and on certain
occasions about different globes. What would be the relations among the globes? The globes may
multiply, or become the newer one(s).
Bandyopadhyaya, Haricharan. 1966. Bangio Sabdokosh. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy.
Bandyopadhyaya, Rakhaldash. 1974. Baangaalar Itihas. Vol, 1. Calcutta: Nababharat.
Chattopadhyaya, Sunutikumar. 1940. Baangaalir Itibritya: Jati Gathane. Calcutta: Year 22,
Vol,16, Betar Jagat.
-------------------. 1963. Jati, Sanskriti o Sahitya., Pp. 244-265.Reprinted In : Bangadarpan: A look at
Bengal and Bengalis Across a Millennium. 2001 Vol,1. Ed. Pabitra Sarkar. Kolkata. Third
Millennium Committee for Social Transition.
-------------------. 1967. Gourbanga, pp. 8-13. Gourdesh. Year 1, Vol,2. Calcutta.
-------------------. 1994. Baangaalir Sanskriti, Kolkata: Paschimbanga Baangla Academy.
Gadgil,M., Joshi, N.V., Shambu Prasad,U.V., Manoharan,S. and Suresh Patil 1997. The Peopling of India
pp.100-129. In: The Indian Human Heritage, Eds. D. Balasubramanian and N. Appaji
Rao. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India
Roy, Niharranjan. 1980. Baangalir Itihas, Adi Parba, Vol, 2. Kolkata: Sakhyarata Prakasan
Sanyal, abantikumar. 1999. Baanglar Adi-Madyajug: Bhasa, Sahitya, Samaj o Sanskriti. Kolkata: Center for
Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India.
Sen, Sukumar. 1991. Baangla Sahityer Itihas, Kolkata: Ananda Publishers Pvt. Limited.
-------------------.1999. Banga Bhumika. Kolkata : Paschimbanga Baangla Academy.
Sur, Atul. 1994. Baangla o Baangalir Bibartan, Kolkata: Sahityalok.