BJSM accuses Koch Rajbongshi leaders of twisting history
REGIONAL: The Bodoland Janajati Suraksha Manch (BJSM) Friday launched a strong rebuttal against what it described as a deliberate and malicious distortion of Bodo history, accusing certain self-styled Koch Rajbongshi leaders and “so-called intellectuals” of spreading historically false narratives to undermine the indigenous identity of the Bodo people.
In a sharply worded statement, BJSM Working President Daorao Dekhreb Narzary condemned recent claims circulating on social media and public platforms that allege that the Bodos are not indigenous to Assam and were supposedly brought from Tibet or Bhutan by the British following the Indo-Bhutan Sinchula Agreement of 1865.
“These claims are completely false, academically untenable and deeply humiliating to the Bodo society,” Narzary said, calling them a direct attack on the dignity and civilisational history of one of Assam’s oldest indigenous communities.
BJSM asserted that the indigenous roots of the Bodos are well established in historical, archaeological, and ethnographic scholarship. According to the organisation, both Indian and international scholars have consistently identified the Bodos as among the earliest settlers of Assam, with migration into the Brahmaputra Valley dating back to prehistoric times—long before colonial rule or recorded history.
The statement traced Bodo ancestry to Central and Northern Asia, particularly Siberia, regarded in Bodo belief as the land of Sibrai (Sibwrai), the Supreme Creator. BJSM noted that scholars have even linked the name “Siberia” to Sibrai, later assimilated into Aryan tradition as Lord Shiva.
“Such deep antiquity is precisely why historians have not been able to determine an exact timeline for Bodo settlement,” the statement said, adding that claims linking Bodo presence in Assam to British-era agreements are “absurd and intellectually dishonest”.
BJSM also cited ancient epics and historical records to underline the Bodos’ deep roots in Assam. It referred to rulers such as Mahiraṇga Danava, who ruled Pragjyotishpur nearly 5,000 years before the Mahabharata era, and Bhagadatta, the Bodo king of Pragjyotishpur whose daughter Banumati married Duryodhana.
The organisation pointed to epic narratives involving Rukmini, Usha, Aniruddha, Banasura, and even Hidimba, wife of Bhima and mother of Ghatotkacha, describing her as a Bodo woman later mischaracterised in Sanskrit texts.
BJSM further highlighted that Bodo rulers governed regions such as Pragjyotishpur, Kamarupa, Kamatapur and Cooch Behar under different dynasties, including the Varman dynasty under Bhaskar Varman, the Mlechchha (Mech) dynasty, the Khen dynasty, and the Koch kingdom founded by Viswa Singha, son of Haoria Mech—facts documented in historical texts like the Darrang Rajvansabali.
Even today, the organisation noted, rivers, hills and place names across Assam carry original Bodo names, reinforcing the community’s indigenous presence.
BJSM questioned the historical basis on which Koch Rajbongshi leaders, as it alleged, continue to project anti-Bodo narratives. “These statements reveal not only ignorance of history but a deep crisis of identity,” the statement said.
It asserted that Koch is historically and linguistically a branch of the Bodo race, sharing Tibeto-Burman linguistic roots and cultural traditions. In contrast, BJSM argued, Rajbongshi is a distinct caste group, predominantly Indo-Aryan and Bengali-speaking, with no ethnic or linguistic linkage to Koch or Bodo.
The organisation cited colonial census records and historical resolutions, noting that Rajbongshi leaders historically rejected identification as Koch and instead sought recognition as Kshatriya—a demand that continues to be symbolically observed through Kshatriyanisation Day.
“Historical records—from the 1891 and 1901 Censuses to the 1911 Census Report—clearly establish that Koch and Rajbongshi are separate communities,” BJSM said, adding that the term “Koch Rajbongshi” is a later, artificial construction without historical basis.
BJSM categorically stated that Scheduled Tribe status cannot be achieved through fabricated identities or distortion of history, and said the failure to meet criteria set by the Office of the Registrar General of India (ORGI) cannot be blamed on the Bodo community.
The organisation also rejected claims by some Rajbongshi leaders of lineage from the Cooch Behar royal family, calling them unsupported by evidence and contradicted by historical texts that establish the Mech-Bodo origin of the Koch dynasty.
In a concluding appeal, BJSM urged Koch Rajbongshi leaders to refrain from spreading falsehoods, stop maligning Bodo history and engage in honest introspection.
“Truth stands on history, not on social media propaganda,” Narzary said, warning that suppressing facts will neither bring dignity nor constitutional recognition.
The statement underscores the growing sensitivity around identity, history and political recognition in Assam—issues that continue to shape discourse far beyond academic debate.
https://indigenousherald.com/
In a sharply worded statement, BJSM Working President Daorao Dekhreb Narzary condemned recent claims circulating on social media and public platforms that allege that the Bodos are not indigenous to Assam and were supposedly brought from Tibet or Bhutan by the British following the Indo-Bhutan Sinchula Agreement of 1865.
“These claims are completely false, academically untenable and deeply humiliating to the Bodo society,” Narzary said, calling them a direct attack on the dignity and civilisational history of one of Assam’s oldest indigenous communities.
BJSM asserted that the indigenous roots of the Bodos are well established in historical, archaeological, and ethnographic scholarship. According to the organisation, both Indian and international scholars have consistently identified the Bodos as among the earliest settlers of Assam, with migration into the Brahmaputra Valley dating back to prehistoric times—long before colonial rule or recorded history.
The statement traced Bodo ancestry to Central and Northern Asia, particularly Siberia, regarded in Bodo belief as the land of Sibrai (Sibwrai), the Supreme Creator. BJSM noted that scholars have even linked the name “Siberia” to Sibrai, later assimilated into Aryan tradition as Lord Shiva.
“Such deep antiquity is precisely why historians have not been able to determine an exact timeline for Bodo settlement,” the statement said, adding that claims linking Bodo presence in Assam to British-era agreements are “absurd and intellectually dishonest”.
BJSM also cited ancient epics and historical records to underline the Bodos’ deep roots in Assam. It referred to rulers such as Mahiraṇga Danava, who ruled Pragjyotishpur nearly 5,000 years before the Mahabharata era, and Bhagadatta, the Bodo king of Pragjyotishpur whose daughter Banumati married Duryodhana.
The organisation pointed to epic narratives involving Rukmini, Usha, Aniruddha, Banasura, and even Hidimba, wife of Bhima and mother of Ghatotkacha, describing her as a Bodo woman later mischaracterised in Sanskrit texts.
BJSM further highlighted that Bodo rulers governed regions such as Pragjyotishpur, Kamarupa, Kamatapur and Cooch Behar under different dynasties, including the Varman dynasty under Bhaskar Varman, the Mlechchha (Mech) dynasty, the Khen dynasty, and the Koch kingdom founded by Viswa Singha, son of Haoria Mech—facts documented in historical texts like the Darrang Rajvansabali.
Even today, the organisation noted, rivers, hills and place names across Assam carry original Bodo names, reinforcing the community’s indigenous presence.
BJSM questioned the historical basis on which Koch Rajbongshi leaders, as it alleged, continue to project anti-Bodo narratives. “These statements reveal not only ignorance of history but a deep crisis of identity,” the statement said.
It asserted that Koch is historically and linguistically a branch of the Bodo race, sharing Tibeto-Burman linguistic roots and cultural traditions. In contrast, BJSM argued, Rajbongshi is a distinct caste group, predominantly Indo-Aryan and Bengali-speaking, with no ethnic or linguistic linkage to Koch or Bodo.
The organisation cited colonial census records and historical resolutions, noting that Rajbongshi leaders historically rejected identification as Koch and instead sought recognition as Kshatriya—a demand that continues to be symbolically observed through Kshatriyanisation Day.
“Historical records—from the 1891 and 1901 Censuses to the 1911 Census Report—clearly establish that Koch and Rajbongshi are separate communities,” BJSM said, adding that the term “Koch Rajbongshi” is a later, artificial construction without historical basis.
BJSM categorically stated that Scheduled Tribe status cannot be achieved through fabricated identities or distortion of history, and said the failure to meet criteria set by the Office of the Registrar General of India (ORGI) cannot be blamed on the Bodo community.
The organisation also rejected claims by some Rajbongshi leaders of lineage from the Cooch Behar royal family, calling them unsupported by evidence and contradicted by historical texts that establish the Mech-Bodo origin of the Koch dynasty.
In a concluding appeal, BJSM urged Koch Rajbongshi leaders to refrain from spreading falsehoods, stop maligning Bodo history and engage in honest introspection.
“Truth stands on history, not on social media propaganda,” Narzary said, warning that suppressing facts will neither bring dignity nor constitutional recognition.
The statement underscores the growing sensitivity around identity, history and political recognition in Assam—issues that continue to shape discourse far beyond academic debate.
https://indigenousherald.com/