Evolution of Assamese Script
An introduction to the Assamese script- As of January 2024, the number of inscriptions available in Assam is 232. The oldest amongst those dates back to the 9th century BCE and the newest one is of 1822 CE. It is very interesting to note that when the alphabets used in those inscriptions are arranged in a chronological order, the evolution of the Assamese script becomes clearer. Again, if this evolution of the script is put to a comparative analysis with the letters used in various inscriptions in India, it becomes crystal clear that no other script in the country has influenced the Assamese script. During the course of its evolution from 9th century BCE to 1822 CE, the Assamese script attained its modern form in the 14th century CE. However, it is very discouraging to discover that the studies about the Assamese script up to 2020 lacked a comprehensive, empirical approach as they overlooked the much needed full-fledged comparative analysis of the associated data of evolution of the script with that of the other scripts of India. Ergo, the narrative that has created by the existing studies about the Assamese script is wrong in its entirety. To have a clear understanding about the Assamese script, clarity about the concepts of ancient Assam, the Northeast and Assam itself is a prerequisite. Geographically, the Assam under the British rule, the Ancient Assam and the Northeast were the same territory. In between 1963 and 1987 the Ancient Assam has fragmented into seven smaller states. Earlier, a large part of Bengal including the Sylhet region was a part of the erstwhile Assam. The ‘History of Burma’ narrates “Vesali in Missimataik”, which is the middle country, Buddha’s homeland. ……Assam was called Visalia.” (Harvey;2000:316). The present day Assam is a very small geo-political region, but in Buddha’s time when Assam was called Visalia, it was the homeland of the Buddha; it was the mid-country and the center of discourse of knowledge to the surrounding countries. Ergo, it is very evident that the script and language of Buddha’s time was Assamese. The script of pre-Buddha era developed from ‘Dhupguri Rock Inscription’ of Assam and the Post-Buddha scripts are found in the Asokan Edicts. Five letters of the ‘Dhupguri inscription’ -i, ka, ṭa, ba, ra are same as that of the Asokan edict; and seven letters – u, e, ja, dha, ma, ya, va finds no resemblance with Asokan edict but are alike to the scripts of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). The identified letters of ‘Dhupguri Inscription’ reveals that the development of the Assamese script is related to the IVC script. It can be illustrated with the letter ‘ka’- IVC Symbol->Dhupguri Inscription-> Piprahwa Vase Inscription->Dhammlipi->Nagajari Khanikargaon Inscription->Nidhanpur Copperplate Inscription->‘ka’ of Modern Indian script. This simply establishes that the scripts of the country are interwoven by the Assamese script.
Growth of ‘ka’ in Assam and the
timeline of its shape in other scripts are clear in Figure-1-
Figure-1.
The
fact is evident from the above figure. If someone terms it as a mere
coincidence, the fact can again be proven with the help of another letter- ga. Figure
2. Similar to the letter- ka, it was developed in the Assamese script first and then
subsequently in other scripts of the country. The timeline shows the use of the
letter- ga of the Assamese script in various Modern Indian Scripts (MIS) as
follows-
The Assamese Script has its root in
the script of the Indus Valley Civilization; and the Assamese Script is the
root of the Modern Indian Scripts. The epigraphic foundation of MISs is the script
of ‘Dhupguri Inscription’ of ancient Assam. Asoka’s ‘Dhammlipi’ came after it. The
existing studies have analyzed Indian script from the Dhammlipi; being ignorant
that ‘Assam was called Veseli’. This ignorance is the root of ignorance about
the Assamese script. Ancient Assam and Veseli of Buddha’s era were the same; the post-Buddha Vesali was the Magadha. Ergo, the script and language of Veseli or
Magadha is inseparable from the Assamese script and language.
After Asoka, it was the Varman
Rulers who spread the Assamese script and language. According to epigraphic
data, the progenitor of the Varman dynasty was the Bhagadutta lineage of kings
of ancient Assam. The south Asia was ruled by the Varman dynasty; ergo south
Asia was the homeland of the Language Family of ancient Assam. The migration of
the members of this Language Family carried script and language of ancient
Assam to other regions. The lingua franca of the other places got assimilated
to the ancient Assamese language; the scholars of that region started using
the ancient Assamese script for writing. Ergo, wherever the members of ancient
Assamese Language Family migrated, one comes across the Assamese language,
Assamese script and inscriptional records about the Varman rulers of ancient
Assam. The Assamese script thus became the foundation of the modern scripts that
grew in various regions of India and south Asia subsequently. This is what the
Assamese script is; this is its introduction. Figure 1 and 2 vividly illustrate
this. The letter forms of the comparative charts of the scripts are taken from
the Evolution charts of the respective scripts. For the convenience of examination
or verification, the Evolution Charts are enclosed with this proposal as Appendices.
The epigraphs support the proof of Assamese script with its truest essence and entirety, while the existing studies have been denying it till date. This implies that the prevailing studies on scripts are not based on epigraphic evidence. As Assam is an integral part of India, to complete the existing studies of the Indian Script, the epigraphic evidences of Assam can never be overlooked. It is very natural to expect that studies lacking any research on Assamese inscriptions will definitely deny the very existence of the Assamese script. In the case of scripts, only the fact finding complete studies that are supported by strong epigraphic evidence is acceptable. The study of scripts having no epigraphic evidence, no fact finding motive, no study of complete data holds no value at all. The Assamese script is based on the 232 inscriptions of Assam and also verified with the comparative analysis of the various script studies of the country. All these lead to draw another conclusion that the studies of Indian scripts are divided into two types; (1) Traditional study, and (2) Epigraphic study. Both are analyzed below.
Traditional studies- This type of script study included the study done up to the publication of ‘Asamīyā Lipir Kramavikāś’ (2020) i.e. Evolution of the Assamese script or based on these studies. Traditional studies have been done with only on 20 (i.e. 8.62%) inscriptions of Assam. An in-depth study of the epigraphic evidence of Assam reveals that the existing studies of scripts are incomplete. Considering those incomplete traditional studies as accurate and consequently denying the Assamese script is the mere reflection of partisan character. The studies based on the shallow study of only 8.62% of the total epigraphic evidence of Assam can never be accepted as complete; advocating on these studies thus can be termed as ill-logical. Incomplete, partisan, intentional and ill-logical, any single one of these four characteristics are enough to render a study void; ergo, the entire traditional studies and its conclusions are void and thus unacceptable. The conclusions on the Assamese scripts are based on all of these four characteristics. The study of Assamese Script contains epigraphic evidence and comparative analysis of the studies of script from 1919 to 1991. The analysis unveils that the study of 1919 covers 0.86%, 1.29% in the 1963, 7.33% in 1976 study and the
FIGURE3
study of 1991 covers only 5.17% epigraphic evidence of Assam. The summation of all these study goes up to 8.62% only or 20 out of 232 epigraphic evidence of Assam. The analysis also reveals that the said 20 numbers of epigraphic evidences had also not been studied in an in-depth manner. Ergo, the conclusions of the existing studies regarding the Assamese script are baseless. As the claim itself is baseless, UNICODE should declare null and void the prevailing verdict which refutes the very existence of the rich Assamese script. The first thing to be nullified in this regard is the recognition of the Bengali script; it was formulated by R.D. Banerji in 1919 who studied only 0.86% epigraphic evidence of Assam. The arguments in support of such a demand are enumerated below and all of those are based on epigraphic data.
Study of the Bengali Script- “Asamer to kathai nei, duti haraf bād dilei Asamiya ebong Bangla abhinna’’ (Bandupadhay;2017-18:92); which means Assam doesn’t even matter, keep two letters aside, Assamese and Bengali scripts become indistinguishable. Now the question is –why? The Bengali scholars skip this question unanswered. The search unveils self-contradictions. It is seen, "The modern cursive Oriya script was developed out of the Bengali after the 14th century AD like the Modern Assamese.”(Banerji R.D.1919:4). When we go to the page of the book we find, “In the North-East, the Bengali alphabet was adopted in Assam, where not only in the Kumauligrant of Vaidyadeva, but also in other inscriptions, Bengali characters have been exclusively used.”(Banaerji,RD;1919:5). ‘The Origin of the Bengali Script’is contradicting its two pages. Simple argument- the Assamese script developed from the Bengali script in the 14th century, it means that the Assamese script was there; and if the Assamese script was there, why the Bengali script was used in Assam? Ergo, we can clearly conclude that the study of the Bengali script is baseless and self-contradictory. This is interpreted below from three different angles.
1st angle-
“Dasam satake Mahipāler Bāngarh
lipite sarvapratham Bānglā lipir ābhās pāoyā geche.’’ (Banerji,Ashitkumar; 2017-18:98). It means, the first glimpse of the Bengali script was found in
the 10th century Bangarh script of Mahipal. While searched for more
data in this regard it is found, “The progress of the changes has been very
rapid, and we find the complete Proto-Bengali alphabet in 11th
century AD.” (Banerji R.D.;1919:3). Ergo, according to the first statement, in the 10th century
CE, only a glimpse of the Bengali script was seen; it should not be mistaken
for the full-fledged Bengali script. The second statement makes it clear; the
alphabets used in the Bangarh inscription themselves are the Proto-Bengali
alphabets. Further research on the Bangarh script and Proto-Bengali led us to
this, “The characters of the inscription show well-developed Bengali forms in
the initials of a and u among vowels and among consonants ka,kha,ga,cha,dha,va and ha. The rest of the alphabet shows forms
gradually advancing to the Bengali alphabet of the 12th century AD.
In one case at least the complete Bengali form ja is used,i.e. in jitva(1.3).This is really the Proto-Bengali
alphabet, while the 12th century alphabet of Deopara inscription of
Vijaya-sena, which Buhler termed Proto-Bengali, is in reality the fully
developed Bengali alphabet. Final form of ma
and na are used,e.g. in
bhubhirtan(1.7) and gunam(1.13).” (Banerji R.D.;1917-18:325).
It
is clear that the Bangarh inscription of Mahipala is the starting point of the
Bengali alphabet and it is called Proto-Bengali. As per record, the Bangarh inscription
contains 12 Proto-Bengali alphabets, and the Bengali script got its developed form
in 12th century. We felt the need of examining this fact. While examined
the Bangarh inscription, four findings have been unveiled. The findings, -(1) a,
u, kha,
cha,
dha,
va and ha are not developed as claimed;(2) There is no letter ‘va’ in Bengali alphabet;(3) ba and la are developed, but are not clubbed with the developed twelve. (4)ka,ga,
ja,
ma and na are developed.
This implies, the statements based
on the Bangarh script regarding Bengali script is 58.34% wrong; because out of
the 12 letters only 5 are developed. The major error of the Bengali script is
that, before claiming it as Bengali script, the validity of the nomenclature
should have been verified with relevant epigraphic evidence. Simply, without
prior use in some region or place, the letters could not evolve to its form of Bangarh
script. The script of the Bangarh inscription belong to that region or place where
it had grown and evolved first. Ergo, its nomenclature as Proto-Bengali holds
no logical ground.
2nd angle-
While data relating to the place of
origin of the Proto-Bengali was being searched for, it was found, “It has
become possible to show, that the Proto-Bengali forms were evolved in the
North-East, long before the invasion of North India, by the Nagari alphabet of
the South-West’ and that Nagari has had very little influence upon the
development of the Bengali script.”(Banerji RD;1919:2). Another study also concludes that, “The
eastern alphabets like Maithili, Bengali, Oriya, Kayethi owes its origin to the
alphabets of the North-East.”(Bandupadhayai,Ashitkumar;2017-18:97).Without
ambiguity, it is clear that the script of the ‘Bangarh inscription’ belong to
the North-East; and in 1919, North-East was none other than ancient Assam. This
unequivocally proves that the alphabets which R.D. Banerji refers to as
Proto-Bengali belong to the Assamese Script. Just to term it as Proto-Bengali
he resorted to saying that these alphabets belong to the North-East instead of
Assam. On the other hand he overlooked the ‘Nidhanpur Plate’, ‘Tezpur Script’,
and ‘Nagaon Script’ in his study. The ulterior motive behind that is very
clear- terming it as Proto-Bengali is possible only when its origin can be
established as the North-East which
subsequently helps him in bringing forth an analysis of the same as the Bengali Script. The analysis of
R.D.Banerji is nothing but a conspiracy to intentionally term the ‘Assamese
Script’ as ‘Bengali Script; it is not founded on any epigraphic evidence. In
the 3rd angle to be followed this is illustrated with the analysis
of epigraphic evidences.
The 3rd angle:
While we analyze the epigraphic
evidence of Assam prior to the Script of the ‘Bangarh Copper Plate’ and
discovered, deciphered and published earlier to 1919, we observe that the
‘Bengali Script’ formulated by R.D. Banerji is baseless. Up to 1919, a total of
10 decipherments of inscriptions of ancient Assam were published; 3 of those
were older than the script of the ‘Bangarh C.P.’. Those were-
(1)Bhaskarvarman’s(CE593-640) Nidhanpur Copper Plate; discovered in
1912,decipherment was published in 1913-14 , the Assamese letters –ka,
tha, da, dha, na, ba, ma, la, sha and sa are found in their developed forms in this plate;
(2)Harjjaravarman’s(CE829-830) Tezpur Plate, discovered in 1893, decipherment
published in 1897,it contained the Assamese
letters kha and
gha in
their developed forms; (3)Valavarman-III’s (CE 875-890) Nagaon Plate,
discovered in 1893,deciphered in the year 1897, contained the Assamese letter
ja in its developed form. Although R.D. Banerji had had the fortune of sufficiency
with regard to time to analyze the letters of these inscriptions, he did not do
so. These inscriptions bear 13 developed letters of the Assamese Script of the
period from 7th CE to 9th CE. 5 letters from those 13 are
in the 10th century Bangarh script (where RD Banerji had claimed to
see Proto-Bengali letters) in their original form. This means that RD Bnaerji
with complete partiality had lidded up the letters of the Assamese script of
these 3 inscriptions or plates and termed the letters of the Bangarh Script as
Proto-Bengali and with that manipulated fact he had formulated the origin and
growth history of the Bengali Script. Hence, the Bengali Script is baseless and
the analysis of R.D. Banerji is an epitome of partiality. The Bengali Script
which is based on this foundation is merely fictitious. Therefore the UNICODE
recognition that the Bengali Script was given on the basis of the existing
studies should be taken away outright.
The analysis put forward by R.D.
Banerji is very shallow. He says, “In the 12th century we find
further changes, which make the formation of the modern Bengali alphabet almost
complete.”(Banerji;1919:3).This verdict is a pure act of imagination. The first
glimpse of the Bengali script was seen in the 10th CE and to term it
as Proto-Bengali of the 11th CE and subsequently terming it as the
modern Bengali Script of the 12th CE is the biggest lie. The state
in which the Bengali Script was in the 12th CE is shown below with
the help of the Evolution Chart available in the ‘Banglapedia’. If Banerji’s claim
is not a lie, then the letters in the chart must belong to modern Bengali
Script and the letters of the script that today is popularly known as Bengali
script will no more be of the Bengali script. If the letters which are now
termed as modern belong to the Bengali Script, then, it will establish that the
Bengali Script didn’t attain its full development till 12th CE. This
is the inevitable outcome of a failed effort to conceal a lie under another.
The letter shown in the figure-5 is from the 12th CE Bengali script. The list of lies used in the said analysis of the Bengali script doesn’t just end here. There were no activities on script in Bengal up to 13, 14 and 15th CE. From the 2nd decade of the 16th CE, Chaitanya and his followers started working immensely in the field of Vaishnavite literature. R D Banerji’s writings tend to give the reader a misconception that there was a pause in the discourse on script in Bengal for only 200 years (i.e.13th CE and 14th CE) but when properly analyzed it comes out as 300 years. “The dearth of the records of the 13th and 14th centuries AD, both manuscript and epigraphic, makes it impossible to follow the development of these letters in this period. The shock of Mahammadan conquest paralyzed Eastern India, from which it never recovered early. The blow of stunned literature prevented its growth during first two centuries after the conquest and a partial revival was made only in the 15th century. The revival received a fresh impetus from the Neo-Vaishnavism of Chaitanya and his followers. With the paralysis of literature, the development of the alphabet also stopped.” (Banerji,1919:3). This lie of Banerji is quite analyzable.
There
is no evidence of activity on script in Bengal for the birth or growth of a
script. It was the activity on script in Assam which controlled that of the
same in Bengal. It seems that the new Mahammadan conqueror was the main reason
for the stagnation in the activities on script in Bengal but the real reason
was that as the Assamese masses cut their travel ties with the Bengal under the
Islamic rule due to religious factors, and that activity become directionless
and clueless. When religious activities were allowed in Bengal, Chaitanya
started preaching the Neo-Vaishnavite religion in the 16th century
AD; just like Sankardeva who started the
same in Assam in the 15th century AD; a century earlier. This
resulted in the revival of travel ties between Assam and Bengal and Script
related activities (Assamese script) were resumed again in Bengal from the 16th
century AD. Unlike Banerji says, the activities related to script in
Chaitanya’s time took place not in the 15th century AD but in the 16th
century AD, the resource script was not Bengali but the Assamese script
of the Sankari Period. Reasons are clear- Chaitanya was born in 1486 CE,
performed his father’s death rituals in1508-09 CE and became an ascetic one
year after that. After that i.e. in the 16th century CE his religion
and then his followers emerged. It is a clear cut thing those three hundred
years of inactivity is long enough a period for a script to die. Banerji’s
revival theory of the Bengali script is not founded on any epigraphic evidence.
While
a comparative analysis was done on the epigraphic scripts it has come to light
that ‘Bengali script’ is a fictitious concept. The Proto-Bengali letters,
according to Banerji are of North-East whereas the same belong to Assam
according to epigraphic data available. It is impossible that in only 200 years
(from Bangarh script to Bengal coming under the Islamic rule) the Bengali
script had taken birth and attained full growth as well. Epigraphic evidence
say that the letters used in the Bangarh script were already present in Assam
in the same form in the 7th--9th CE. Regardless of the
claim that it has come from Northern India, those letters are essentially from
the Assamese script. Because, up to 1142 CE the North India was under ancient
Assam(Kamrup). A script which remained inactive for a prolonged period of three
hundred years could not survive. From 16th century AD onwards,
Chaitanya and his followers, started working on Sankari era script of Assam in
Bengal.
R.D.
Banerji had observed that there had been no research done on the Assamese
script on the basis of epigraphs and he was almost sure that there existed no
specialist for the same and he anticipated that there would be none in the
future as well. This assumption of him emboldened himself to analyze the
Assamese script as the Bengali script. Therefore, his study was a conspiracy
against the Assamese script. The supporters of his study are equal
co-conspirators. He has bagged UNICODE recognition for the Bengali script just
by renaming the Assamese script as the Bengali script, without doing any
empirical study on epigraphic evidence.Therefore, the UNICODE recognition that
the Bengali script has bagged by just renaming the Assamese script as Bengali
script should be taken away; the Assamese script should be given recognition as
Assamese script. As script is a matter which must be backed by epigraphic
evidence; there is no rationale behind naming the Assamese script as Bengali,
that too,overlooking all epigraphic evidence. If the Bengali script originated
in the 10th century CE, attained full development in the 12th
century CE and all these are backed by epigraphic evidence, then, instead of
manipulating the Assamese script as Bengali they should work in the direction
of attaining UNICODE recognition for the Bengali script in the form that
existed in the 12th century CE. But, to term the Assamese script as
Bengali, presentation of epigraphic evidence is a must; data must be presented
which alphabet originated in which inscription in Bengal and when; it must be
proved that each and every letter in question originated in Bengal prior to
Assam; most importantly it must be proved that a study(The Origin of the
Bengali Script) that covered the shallow study of only 0.86% inscriptions of
Assam is complete in itself. Every letter that Banerji has claimed to be from
Bengali script is irrefutably from the Assamese script; the epigraphic data of
every single letter has been provided here. It is useless to look for the
difference between Assamese-Bengali in ra, ra or wo . The data relating to the
Assamese ra is from 1339 CE; In a plate of Rudra Singha that dates back to
1701CE, the wo was written as ra. That RD Banerji has termed the Assamese
script as Bengali Script without studying any epigraphical data, is hereby
proven. The humble request through this proposal is that –The name of the
script of Assam is Assamese script, not Bengali script: ‘Assamese script’
should be awarded UNICODE recognition as ‘Assamese script’. This is a rightful
entitlement of the Assamese script.
Assamese script in other script
studies in the country-
In other script studies in the country as well, there is no reason supported by an in-depth study for not recognizing the Assamese script as an independent script. The statement is analyzable. Firstly, take the study of 1963. The study says, “Assam had no separate script of its own. The late inscriptions found there followed the style of Bengal.”(Dani 1963:110). This study has denied the existence of the Assamese script on the basis of study of the Bengali script. He had studied the data of 1.29% inscriptions of Assam besides the Nidhanpur Copper Plate; yet he is ignorant of the fact that there exist 10 and 15 developed letters of the Assamese script and Devanagari script respectively. This study which claims that there is no script as Assamese, is based on the shallow study of the letters of the Devanagari script. The Nidhanpur plate on which Dani’s remark that there is no such script as Assamese is based on bears 10 developed letters of the Assamese script, and it makes Dani’s study a hollow one. With his baseless, hollow remarks Dani has pushed the Assamese script-language-culture to a precarious situation. He is mainly misleading the script study of the country, because the Nidhanpur plate contains developed letters more from the Devangari script than the Assamese script. It is a proven fact that just to give his study a complete appearance, Dani had studied a few inscriptions of Assam; but that amount of study is not adequate to earn the credibility to comment on the Assamese script. Moreover, his method of studying the letters of the inscriptions is also not in tandem with the required method. If his conclusion is intentional then that is a very dangerous thing and if not, then, it proves that his study is an incomplete one. Whatever, it may be, it is certain that Dani’s study is totally unacceptable for drawing out any conclusion on the Assamese script.
Let us take the 1976 study now.
According to this, “epigraphs show that the Assamese script can seek their
parentage to the Brahmi script which later on developed in North India in
proto-regional script, popularly called by the paleographers as kutila or acute
angle or siddhamatrika script. This in due course of time developed in to
proto-nagari and nagari. The Assamese happens to belong to this family of
scripts.”(Verma 1976:31). This conclusion of T.P. Verma is worthless. First-
The Assamese script is way more older than first book of 668AD which contained
the name of Fan(Brahmi) script. “ The Fa-wan-shu-lin, a Chinese Encyclopedia of
Extracts from the Tripitaka, compiled in 668 AD by Tao-shi, reports a
traditional legend attributing the invention of writing to three individuals:
1)Fan(or Brahma) who write from left to right..”(Lacouperie,1886-1887:59). Second- according to Verma, firstly, the local kutila script took birth
in North India from the Brahmi script; from that Proto-Nagari and Nagari script
took birth later on: the Assamese script belongs to this family. Before
acknowledging this, we should know two things very well- ‘Assam was called
Vaisali’; “All characteristics of the Nagari appear first about the end of the
10th century and approaches mature Nagari form by the 13th
century AD.” Third- Verma had studied 7.33% data of inscriptions in Assam. He
had read the 593-640 AD Nidhanpur plate and 875-890 Nagaon plate: which contain
11 developed letters of the Assamese script. Verma’s study which is the base of
his remark is based on his study of inscriptions that contain only 11 developed
letters of the Assamese script. This implies- Verma’s conclusion on the
Assamese script is baseless. This can never be accepted as the basis of a
conclusion on the Assamese script. The available 1991 study on the Nagari
script says, “Nidhanpur grant of Bhaskaravarma marks the expansion of the
Kutila script in Assam region.”(Singh;1991:54). This analysis done by A.K.Singh
is also baseless. His overall study
of 5.7%
epigraphical data of Assam covers the Nidhanpur grant of 593-640 CE, the
Tezpur plate of 829-830 CE and the
Nagaon plate of 875-890 CE, which bear 13 developed letters of the Assamese
script. Just like the other studies, this study is also incomplete and biased.
This can never be treated as a basis for any conclusion on the Assamese script.
Overlooking the developed letters of the Assamese script is pure partiality.
A.K.Singh’s study on the Nagari script has become worthless as it completely
overlooked the 15 developed letters of the Devanagari script of the Nidhanpur
Copper plate. It has come out in studies that study on script is not possible
with alienation from history. In every place, the prevalent script-language is
that of those who rule therein. Historically, Assam was never under Bengal or
North India. Rather, Bengal and North India was under Assam. Comparative
analysis of letters establishes that Assamese script was widely prevalent in
Bengal and North India.
FIGURE 6
The shape of alphabet from the Nidhanpur plate is used in its original form in Bengal after 300 years and the same was used in North India after 400 years. According to the same plate, the capital of Bhaskarvarmana was Karnasuvarna in modern day Murshidabad district of West Bengal. According to the Kumauli Grant, North India was under ancient Assam up to 1142 CE. None of the existing studies on script in the country has earned the credibility to comment on the Assamese script as they are devoid of epigraphical evidence, are incomplete and biased. Therefore, while drawing any conclusion on the Assamese script, these studies can never be taken as the basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment