Talk:Bengali calendars

Discussion

annaprasana day

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bengali calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705031023/http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/bangla_year.html to http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/bangla_year.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Caution with newspaper sources

@Vinegarymass911:: Newspaper sources are okay in some cases, but not in other cases in wikipedia. An admin @Nyttend recently explained it well, as follows:

Quote: Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources. - Nyttend, 24 February 2017

I would welcome a summary by you from better peer reviewed scholarly sources on Bengali calendar's history, rather than newspaper articles/tabloids, in light of above comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keeping the context

@Akib.H: Why two standards? If in the Muslim influence section the context of taxes is important to mention, then why isn't the context of Vedic rituals / ancient festivals important in the Buddhist/Hindu influence section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: It is always a good idea to check and respond to the talk page. As you know, Akib.H did WP:CANVASS you (per this and this) as noted by admin NeilN. Your discretion in edit reverts in this article or Pahela Baishakh article is therefore requested. I await a constructive reply to the context question above, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:The first one was canvasing the second one was not. Point out the policy that requires me to be discrete in this scenario. This page was in my watchlist and it would have shown up anyways. Why are you so stuck on making this a Muslim/Hindu issue, FYI, I am neither. In the "Muslim section", there is no content about origins of the Islamic calendar because it would be Undue. Engage in discussion, do an RFC, before inserting controversial material. Come to a consensus first on the material.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. The context about the origins of the Bengali Hindu calendar, as explained in the reliable sources, is relevant. Just like the tax collection-related context about the origins of Tarikh-e-Elahi in this article. Both explain the context behind what led to the development of respective calendars. I suggest we keep both, as they make the article more informative and a better reference source. Are you suggesting we delete both? why? or why not? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Systematic disruption and bias in this article

@Vinegarymass911: Just checked the edit history. You never edited this article before today, April 17 2017! I wonder how long you have had it in your watch list. It is the old pre-April 4 2017 version that made this article into a Muslim thing/invention, suppressed Buddhist/Hindu history behind the Bengali calendar. This old version misrepresented the sources it cited. The Chakrabarti source, for example, states

On page 114 second para under the Calendar, "King Shashanka is credited with introducing the Bengali calendar."

Similarly, p. 114, the first para states, "The Bengali calendar is a solar calendar, which is based on Surya Siddhanta, a Sanskrit text on astronomy, and is used in Bangladesh and in the states of West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura in India".

The old version did not even mention Shashanka, nor the pre-Islamic roots of the calendar mentioned in the above source. The pre-Muslim roots are discussed in numerous scholarly sources I have so far reviewed. I welcome you to join me in ending such misrepresentation and systematic bias against any side, as it weakens the wikipedia project. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(ps) This disruption seems old per the edit history. The POV-pushing has been systematic in this article, as the past edits to fix the problem by a respected veteran editor Redtigerxyz shows. The past sock-y POV-y editors have been blocked, FWIW, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A review

Ms Sarah Welch invited me to review her edits, which I did. On the whole, I am afraid to say that the History section doesn't explain anything. On the surface, the Bengali calendar is the standard Hindu calendar. The only difference is that, in the modern version, the months are not related to lunar cycles. But it appears that this is a very modern invention, dating to 1980s, and is only limited to Bangladesh. You can correct me if I am wrong.

But the article doesn't say what existed prior to this invention. It doesn't state what Akbar is supposed to have introduced. So, it seems to me merely that there is a whole lot of POV-fighting without any substance. I hope I am wrong about this and the debate is about something that is of interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for the WP:3O. The Bangladeshi version is indeed a modern invention created in 1966 and adopted in 1987. The Indian version, in modern times, is still the old lunisolar Hindu calendar, per WP:RS. That is the one they have historically used to schedule Durga Puja, other festivals etc and that is why their holiday dates fall on different Gregorian dates every year. Both the Bangladeshi and the Indian Bengali calendar need to be summarized / explained. How about we copy this from Pahela Baishakh? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point. I have never heard of any Hindus celebrating their festivals at different days from the others. That means that all of them use the same calendar. By the same token, if the Bangladeshis are following a solar calendar, their Pahela Baishakh should fall on a different day from the Hindu one, for at least 11 years out of 12. Is that so?

In any case, if the Hindu Bengali calendar is the same as the Hindu calendar, then I think this page is a non-topic. I think it can be safely renamed to Bangladeshi calendar or Bangla calendar or some such thing, and they can happily bring in Emperor Akbar to justify their supposed heresies. That is about all that is going on in this page, isn't it? How to justify one's culture against religous orthodoxy?

Leaving aside religions, the lunisolar calendar was an eminently practical one. My grandparents could tell the date by just looking at the moon. In fact, they didn't need to look at the moon most of the time, because a fortnight was an easy enough timespan to keep track of. Theirs was a much more ecologically sounder world than the smartphone world that we live in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: They have many Hindu calendars! It is a fascinating system, because as the 'lunisolar' term implies, it combines both solar and lunar cycles within the same calendar. I bet they had to, because the lunar cycle shifts the dates continuously, while the seasons, particularly their monsoon and crop cycles follow the sunshine. The Bengali and other Hindu calendars are historically, in other words, both solar and lunar. It has some differences from the Tamil, the Bikrami (Nepal), and other Hindu calendars (all this should ideally be explained in this article!).

Bangladeshi Bengali calendar is an adaption, with one historic and a few modern innovations. The historic part was adjusting the zero year to AH in the Mughal era (now that adjustment too is out of sync by about six years given the lunar calendar that AH is). The modern innovations in the Bangladeshi version are making various months either 31 or 30 days long to match 365 solar days (366 in leap). The Bengali Hindus, in contrast, have kept their traditional calendar albeit with one significant difference.

A few Hindu festivals in Bengal and elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent are set by the solar cycle of their calendar (such as the new year). Most festivals are set by the lunar cycle. Their old Sanskrit texts explain why. Amazing grandparents you have had! Years ago, it took me a long while to figure out all their versions of the calendars and month names. The Malayali and Tamil one's challenged me most, if I remember right. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, as explained in Hindu calendar#Corrections between lunar and solar months, the difference between the lunar and solar years is about 11 days. So the festivals must be "off" by at least 11 days with respect to the solar calendar (and off by 22 years in some years). But this page says the Hindu Bengali New Year is off by at most one day. So, I need to understand how they achieve that.

If they use a different correction from the standard Hindu calendar then their festivals wouldn't synchronise with the rest of Hindus. But we don't observe that. This is a mystery. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Their and Hindu calendars elsewhere have two sets of months, one Vikrami solar and another Vikrami lunar months. It is the lunar months/calendar that needs adjustments. Solar year follows ~365 cycle, and is the basis of Surya-linked festivals. Scroll this Nepalese Hindu calendar for a few years, and watch how the new year appears on or around April 14 and same Hindu calendar solar cycle, while the lunar cycle/month/day varies (lunar stage is at the bottom of each box). Quite a clever way to keep both Surya and Soma cycles in sync!, I wonder if all this should be explained in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the months and dates in this calendar are solar. They cannot be inferred by looking at the moon. The lunisolar dates are also marked at the bottom, pratipada etc., which are presumably used to decide the Hindu festivals. The New Year's day here is called mesh sankranti, which is obviously a solar position. The oscillation between 13-14 April is occurring because they use different leap years from the Gregorian calendar. I suppose this system has been in use before Akbar's time. But then what did Akbar do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Akbar asked Shirazi to devise a new calendar that was syncretic of pre-existing Islamic/Persian and Hindu calendars, for timing the annual tax collection. This created a calendar called the Tarikh-ilahi. Its zero year was 1556 CE (Akbar's ascension). The Tarikh-ilahi was launched in 1584 CE. But the calendar was hardly used outside of Akbar's court, and abandoned after his death. One source states that there are traces of Akbar's Tarikh-ilahi in contemporary Bengali calendar, but does not state what those "traces", limiting how much we can explain this in the article. FWIW, the Bengali calendar does not use Akbar era's 1556 CE as the zero year. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let us distinguish between the basic principle of the calendar: solar, lunar or lunisolar, and the incidental stuff like which month is the beginning of the year, and which year is the beginning of the era, or the month names and the day names.

It then appears to me that the Bengali calendar has always been solar. Perhaps the Muslims used a Hijri calendar in addition to the solar calendar to determine when to celebrate the Islamic festivals. We do know that the Hindus use the lunisoalr calendar to determine the Hindu festivals.

Akbar's calendar only made changes to the incidental stuff but not the principle of the solar calendar. Whether Akbar's month/day names were ever used, we do not know, but after Akbar, the Bengali Muslims went back to using the traditional names. So, all said and done, Akbar's contribution to the Bengali calendar is pretty marginal, only to reset the beginning of the era.

Akbar was a great man, and this greatness is exhibited by the fact that he let the solar calendar stay, since it was practical and helpful to the people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be more accurate to say that Bengali calendar has always been (luni)solar!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Solar calendar

Please don't write "(luni)solar", which suggests that you are identifying lunisolar with solar. The lunisolar caledar is often referred to as "lunar", because the dates go by moon phases. (A pure lunar calendar was most likely never used in India, because it would go out of whack with the seasons.)

In the states of Tripura, Assam, Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the solar calendar is followed for dates and civil purposes, while the lunar calendar is used for festivals and religious purposes.

But in Orissa and Punjab though the solar calendar is generally followed, the lunar calendar used is purnimanta.

These appear to be the only states where a solar calendar is used. This source doesn't delve into history. But it does appear that these solar calendars might have been used well before Akbar's time. Akbar definitely did not invent the solar calendar. He only tried to harmonise it with the Hijri calendar. But sources don't say how. I find Amartya Sen's treatment pretty wishy-washy. He makes no reference to solar calendars other than Tarikh and Bengali. His purpose seems to be more to talk about Akbar than anything else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: The (luni)solar may be confusing, and I wouldn't support its use in the article because RS don't write it that way. I was trying to explain that the single calendar has both solar and lunar cycles embedded in. All Hindu calendars, historically, have been lunisolar. Their differences are, in part, what gets emphasized more and how the lunar cycle is counted (purnimanta e.g.). Some emphasize solar more, some lunar more, but no ancient Indian calendar that I am aware of is purely solar or purely lunar (for reasons you state: keeping seasons in sync). That is why Durga Puja or Holi or Diwali do not fall on or almost about the same Gregorian date year after year, but Pohela Boishakh in Bengal, Puthandu in Tamil Nadu, Vishu and Vaisakhi elsewhere have on or about April 14 year after year. Makar Sankranti is another Hindu festival that follows the solar cycle embedded inside the lunisolar calendar, and it falls on or about January 14 every year. I am not sure whether all this needs to be summarized in this article. Yes, Amartya Sen's discussion of this over two pages in his book is wishy-washy indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that is quite wrong. You need to read the source that I just gave, which has a thorough discussion of how the various calendars work. The first day of the year in a lunar or lunisolar calednar falls on the day after the new moon. In contrast, the first day of the year in a solar calendar is the day of the mesha sankramana of the sun. There is really no way to combine them, "emphasize" them or whatever. They are totally different systems.

This source is telling us that, in some regions of the subcontinent (which include Bengal), both the calendars are used, one for "civil" purposes, i.e., for stating dates, and the other for Hindu festivals. In the other regions of the country, only the lunisolar calendar is used. There are no regions of the country where only a solar calendar is used (because they still follow Hindu festivals that go by the lunisolar calendar.)

The only difference between a pure lunar calendar and a lunisolar calendar is that the lunisolar calendar adds/subtracts months in order to (partially) synchronize with the sun in the long run. So, the difference between the calendar and the sun phases never exceeds 30 days. I think you understand this point fine. But I think you are confusing between lunisolar and solar, which are entirely different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

But the term "Tamil calendar", "Bikrami calendar", "Bengali calendar", etc refers the two systems together. There is no special separate name in English for the lunar part of each regional Hindu calendar, is there?, the one they use to schedule the Hindu festivals in Bengal / TN / Kerala / etc. When a source states Bengali calendar, they typically mean both. I read the Rao source from page 43 through page 54. On p. 45, it reads, "How the lunar (or luni-solar) year is linked to the solar year, will be discussed in the next section". Please see Figure 5.1 and its discussion, for what I implied by combining. I was using O'Neil's terminology in Time and the Calendars on what is "emphasized" (month/year, lunar/solar). Please feel free to summarize the relevant parts into this article from Rao's book, as it is a good source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, what is meant by "Tamil calendar", "Bengali calendar" etc. would be ambiguous. In my terminology, these terms should mean the answer they give when we ask them "what is the date today?". For Bengalis, it would be the solar month and the day within it. For a Telugu person, it would the lunar month, the fortnight, and the moon-phase within it. Thus the distinctions are clear. On the other hand, when you get a printed "Bengali calendar", all kinds of calendars might be printed on it jointly. The images on this page have the Bengali dates and the Gregorian dates printed side by side. The Bikrami calendar that you showed me the other day, also had the lunisolar tithis printed. But a Bikrami calendar follower would not tell you the tithi when you ask them today's date.

I will have to think a little bit about what to include from this source. The trouble is that we have two Bengali calendars, the Hindu Bengali calendar and the Bangladeshi calendar. The article is at present describing the Bangladeshi calendar, where the month-lengths are conventional. It seems that the Hindu month-lengths are based on some astronomical parameters, which I haven't yet understood. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The solar months are based on rasi (30 degree arc, 12x = 360 degrees), they vary slightly in these calendars, if I recollect right (but please check). One weakness of this article may be the lack of explanation of the lunar part of the Bengali Hindu calendar that helps schedule the Durga Puja and other festivals? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The "lunar part" is the standard Hindu calendar. As we discussed earlier, all Hindus across the world use the very same calendar to schedule these festivals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

About the month-lengths, I get the 30 degree part. But that doesn't tell us which months are longer and which are shorter. The source is also not telling us the leap year issue, i.e., how do they account for the fractional day in the sidereal year. That issue determines how the Pahela Baishakhi oscillates between 13 and 14 April. But apparently it never falls on 15 April. We don't need the precise calculations, but the general principles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The months have fractional days! Slight difference between the Sanskrit texts. For example, the Surya Siddhanta calculates Vaisakha to have 30.94 days, etc. If you add all their 12 solar months, it comes out to ~365.25 days in their Hindu traditional solar year. No 365, 365, 365, 366 needed! See Robert Sewell and Shankara Dikshita's The Indian Calendar, pages 10-11 for the calculated values. But please check, as there are more details behind all this, and my explanations are not comprehensive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Months start when a sankramana happens, no more no less. Now, you move to Gregorian calendar: because that calendar adds an extra day in Feb (in leap year), Pahela Baishakhi oscillates between 13 and 14 April. This "osccilation" is a consequence of that extra day: what should have been 1 Mar becomes 29 Feb. What should have been 2 Mar becomes 1 Mar. What should have been 3 Mar becomes 2 Mar and so on until what should have been 14 Apr becomes 13 Apr. Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So the lengths of the months were determined by precise astronomical calculations. That shows the unworkability of the Surya-Siddhanta. For a villager to know what today's date is, he would have to make a trip to the Village Brahmin! It is much more likely that the villagers would have just followed the lunar calendars they were familiar with and they could figure out the date by looking at the moon. That is why the month names are lunar rather than solar. Did the Tarikh Ilahi fix the lengths of months? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

According to pp.46–47 of this Sewell & Dikshit, the days and months are both natural solar, without any intercalations, the Tarikh-i Ilahi also had the same problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengali san

This source is a little confused but it elaborates what the Historical dictionary of the Bengalis was trying to say:

When Akbar introduced the solar Tarikh Ilahi calendar for state purposes, Bengal had already a solar calendar. The year of this calendar, however, commenced from the solar month of Vaishakha with the entry of the Sun to the 1st point of nirayana Mesha rasi as per Sūrya-siddhānta sidereal system and not from vernal equinox like the newly introduced Tarikh Ilahi calendar, but this calendar was not interfered with. The era, that was, however followed then in Bengal was Lakshmana Sena era which was used mainly in Mithila and other neighbouring areas for luni-solar calendar. When Ilahi solar era was introduced in AD 1584 with effect from AD 1556, Bengal also switched over to a new solar era, called as 'Bengali San'. [The confused part: This was done by adopting the commencement year of Tarikh Ilahi era to be also the commencement year of Bengali San.] This means that the starting era year of Bengali San was 963 in AD 1556 like the Tarikh Ilahi. Therefore, the Bengali San can be calculated by adding 963 with the number of solar years that have elapsed since 1556. The Bengali San commences from mid-April (Mesa Samkranti), and hence the Bengali San corresponding to AD 1983 (mid-April to December) will work out as (1983-1556) + 963 = 1390.

So, the only change that got made is that they switched from the Lakshmana Sena era to a new era which came to be called Bengali San. They didn't use Akbar's era. What did they use instead? Well, they used the Hijri era, of course.

The Muslims switched from lunar (Hijri) to solar (Surya-siddhanta) calendar. And, the Hindus, in return, switched from their Lakshmana Sena year number to the Hijri year number. This is coolly syncretic!

This explains what the Historical dictionary meant by "but the calendar started with the Hijri calendar value". Also, what Amartya Sen means when he says "the dates that are invoked in the calendrical accompaniment of the Hindu practices are attuned to commemorating Muhammads's journey from Mecca to Medina". No wonder he is so thrilled about it.

Sadly, all this also puts the edit-warriors here in a really pathetic light. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Shamsuzzaman Khan says he believes Murshid Quli Khan introduced the Bengali san. It is not possible. The difference between the Bengali san year number and the Hijri year number (1438 – 1424) tells us precisely how many years have passed since they started using the solar calendar. It works out to the time of Akbar's accession. The only thing Murshid Quli Khan (or whoever else that changed the era) did was to add 963 to the Tarikh Ilahi year number (because they knew that 963 AH was when Akbar acceded to the throne). In that way, they imagined that they started counting from the time of Hajj. But a solar calendar was already in use when they changed the era.

The other possibility is that Murshid Quli Khan changed from the Tarikh Ilahi system of months and dates to the Surya-Siddhanta system of months and dates. That also seems unlikely. Why would a Mughal governor change from the Mughal calendar to an older system that had already been replaced. Much more likely is that the Surya-Siddhanta system continued to be used even when Tarikh Ilahi was used for official purposes, and, whenever Tarikh Ilahi went out of fashion, the Surya-Siddhanta sytem remained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: @Ms Sarah Welch: This is only a one time comment and not meant for debate. In fact the matter is not even up for debate. The Bengali Muslims did not switch to a Hindu calendar, as Kautilya3 claims. The Bengali Muslims always followed the Surya Siddhanta-influenced calendar for agricultural purposes (do remember how agriculture is central in Bengali culture). Certain nationalists in India tend to equate anything Indian with Hindu, but that is wrong. The Surya Siddhanta and the Sanskrit language can be seen in a secular light as much as it as liturgically by Hindus. This is attested by leading authorities such as Amartya Sen.

Coming to the calendar, it was Akbar's reforms which modified the calendar in line with the erstwhile official Islamic calendar. Hence, the calendar reforms of the Mughals established a hybrid of both the Islamic and Indian calendars. This is not the same switching to any calendar. It was an early modern calendar. The Sanskrit origin names of months, seasons and days remain, while the year of the Prophet's migration is also used.

Please appreciate the practical application of this calendar. The reason it has survived is because of its importance in the rural Bengali economy. Do remember that Bengali Muslims have made up the bulk of farmers in the region for centuries. The Bengali Muslims are also the only Muslim community who maintain the Indic script, instead of the Persian-Arabic script. Experts have called the calendar the singular achievement of Bengali Muslim culture.

And Shamsuzzaman Khan is perhaps the foremost expert in this field. He did not suggest that it is not Akbar's calendar, rather it was streamlined under Murshid Quli Khan.--45.120.115.170 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@45.120.115.170 / others: Such "secular" phrasing is an opinion/prejudice/wisdom, in some instances implying a form of bashing of "Hindu / Indian nationalist" with a presumptuous meaning of "secular"!, in other cases it is bashing of "Muslim / Bangladeshi nationalist / whatever nationalist". Neither of these is consistent with the goals of the wikipedia project. We summarize sources, and the term "Hindu calendar" is very common in reliable sources. You obviously haven't read Surya Siddhanta or similar texts, because it extensively uses concepts, terms and deity names found predominantly in what we now call Hinduism (not Jainism, not Buddhism, not etc). But, that text has obvious Greek influences, per RS (but remember this is not an article on Surya Siddhanta either). The word "Hindu" itself is a debated one, from its origin to its meaning, and it can be imply many things, such as religion or culture or such. Wikipedia, at its best, tries not to pick a winner or take sides of the debate, we try to just summarize the debate and use the phrasing in the literature. And in this case, as Kautilya3's many posts above explain the published sources are stating that the calendar has roots that are much older than Akbar's rule and that the Bengali calendar is not a copy of the lunar Islamic calendar. Its history is richer, more interesting though hazy. The old version that presented the calendar primarily as "Muslim this and that" was a poorly written, heavy dose of partisan POV pushing. If this article were to become primarily "Hindu this or that", then that too would be wrong. All sides need to summarized, per wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@45.120.115.170, thank you for your comment which is not "meant for debate". Unfortunately, a lot of what you wrote is contentious and other is stuff is either vague or wrong. Here are the problems:

• The Bengali Muslims did not switch to a Hindu calendar, as Kautilya3 claims. I never claimed that. In fact, I have rarely used the term "Hindu calendar".
• The Bengali Muslims always followed the Surya Siddhanta-influenced calendar for agricultural purposes. This is partly vague (what is "Surya Siddhanta-influenced"?) and partly wrong (Surya Siddhanta doesn't name the months as vaishakha etc., which are related to the location of the moon). The very fact that the month names are related to the moon-positions means that Bengalis had used a lunar calendar in the past, which were retained despite all the other changes.
• Akbar's reforms which modified the calendar in line with the erstwhile official Islamic calendar. Again, partly vague (modified from what?) and partly wrong (Akbar's calendar moved away from the "official Islamic calendar", which is Hijri). I don't see anything in Akbar's calendar which has anything to do with Hijri.
• This is not the same switching to any calendar. It was. Akbar's calendar was neither Hijri (pure lunar), nor was it Surya-Siddhanta (the month lengths were different).
• Do remember that Bengali Muslims have made up the bulk of farmers in the region for centuries. I tend to think they were farmers for centuries before they became Muslim. Farming has nothing to do with Muslim-ness. This is an unnecessary intrusion of religion into the discussion, which can only confuse matters.
• And Shamsuzzaman Khan is perhaps the foremost expert in this field. What field are we talking about? Where is the evidence of his expertise? All that has been cited here is a press interview where he made some vague statements. What did he write about the Bengali calendar?
• He did not suggest that it is not Akbar's calendar, rather it was streamlined under Murshid Quli Khan. Wrong part: It is clear to the plain eye that it is not Akbar's calendar. The month-lengths are different. Vague part: what does "streamlined" mean?
• Also worrisome and unproductive is the discussion of "nationalism". We should leave that out of the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems you two are turning Wikipedia into a modern religious scripture.--45.120.115.170 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring again!

@ArmanJ: You removed sources and sourced content. Please see the discussion of Akbar above, and do not remove peer reviewed scholarly sources. You may add something from additional sources. But deleting sources and sourced content is disruption. Please explain your concerns and do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Goodness. I doubt sources paint the subject in such a controversial manner. Why are all facts being left out?--ArmanJ (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this controversial?

If it was a Hindu calendar the year would have been around 2000+. But the year is 1424 because of Akbar's remodeling.

I've worked hard on this page with good sources. Please, you can't just remove everything I added as well. Most of the 8000 bytes were from nationalist sources.

All credible sources say that the calendar was remodeled as Tarik-e-Ilahi. Why is only Wikipedia being controversial? --ArmanJ (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hindutva wallahs and Indian nationalists have hijacked Wikipedia. Simple facts are overly complicated by pseudo intellectualism. Very unfortunate. Period.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No that is not what the sources state. You write, "I doubt sources paint the subject in such a controversial manner." Have you even checked the citations and read the sources? Please see WP:FORUM and WP:TPNO, read the sources and then explain your specific concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The content is providing confusion in an area where there is a clear consensus. This is the Tarikh-e-Ilahi. The version being restored completely undermines the Mughal heritage of this calendar. And I'm afraid your sources maybe fringe and one sided. Because there is simply no room for such confusion as portrayed by the text.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok only I have the right to strike out my own comments (but alas someone did it without asking me). I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but accusing Wikipedia of political bias is not a personal attack. Good lord no wonder there are hardly any Bangladeshi editors working here.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No. See the discussion on Tarikh-e-Ilahi above on this talk page, and the sources cited in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the version you are promoting is very poor.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your allegation about "promoting" does not make sense. It is what the secondary and tertiary sources state. Have you read the cited sources? What is your concern with the numerous scholarly sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not privy to Wikipedian diplomacy. I am here to improve the content and this article needs a radical improvement. The fringe views and confusion laid out by the current version will be abhorred by many in India as well. But nations aside, there is simply a historical consensus here and the article is working against that like a sophistaced fringe.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussions are utterly and unnecessarily convoluted.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is brazen unfairness.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@ArmanJ: Your actions and vague allegations so far have been disruptive. Please see wikipedia's community-agreed content guidelines and policies, and let us work within them. Instead of WP:FORUM-y comments with your personal opinions / prejudice / wisdom, please answer the questions such as why have you repeatedly removed numerous WP:RS and added unsourced content? What is your concern with each of the source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My edits were constructive. The version you two restored through edit warring is disruptive, truly. I have worked for hours on this page and added substantial content. I deserve an explanation as to why they are being removed. Hiding behind the Wikipedia gaming system by claiming 8000 bytes are being removed is intellectually bankrupt. Anyone with knowledge on the matter will find the current article repulsive.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: "No that is not what the sources state." If that is true regarding the Tarikh-e-Ilahi then your sources are flawed. There is no doubt that the calendar is the Tarikh-e-Ilahi and those claiming otherwise are on the fringe. The vast majority of sources on the topic will attest that this is the Tarikh-e-Elahi, which became the modern Bengali calendar.--ArmanJ (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Amartya Sen stated that this is the Tarikh-e-Elahi. Whatever peer reviewed sources you and User:Kautilya3 are parading are likely to be fringe. Anyways, Wikipedia is already a joke on South Asian matters.--ArmanJ (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@ArmanJ: No, you are misquoting Amartya Sen (do read his book, see the discussion above). The explanation is above! Your edits, followed by edit warring that @Kautilya3 reverted, removed sources and sourced content (including that by Amartya Sen), and now you are attacking peer reviewed secondary and tertiary publications, when you state "If that is true regarding the Tarikh-e-Ilahi then your sources are flawed". Please read the numerous cited sources and explain your specific concerns. If you are unsatisfied with my explanations, please feel free to take this to one of various dispute resolution noticeboards or WP:ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I am not misquoting, such a shame you are resorting to fallacies. You need to read his book! Prof Sen would find the fringe views on this article repulsive. My secondary and tertiary sources quoted Amartya Sen. Your sources are fringe. As I said, a joke. Have a nice day. --ArmanJ (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are nonresponsive to my request. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Dhaka Tribune and Scroll.in are credible sources. Bangladesh did not invent this in 1987/1966, as you two have claimed previously. --ArmanJ (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, my source was a significant and widely publicized write up on the matter. To say that the calendar is a Bangladeshi invention amounts to WP:OR.

Someone needs to show the year of the Bengali calendar in India. If it is 1424, then it is the Tarik-e-Elahi. If not, and is over 2000, then it is the Hindu calendar. Is it 1424 according to the West Bengal calendar?r.--ArmanJ (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Ms Sarah Welch: The burden of proof is on you two. No where can I find that Bangladesh uses a modern created version. The Dhaka Tribune quotes a major Indian website Scroll.in, where the writer quotes Prof Amartya Sen among others. The Bengali calendar was part of the Din e Ilahi reforms. To claim otherwise without secondary or tertiary sources is outrageous Wikipedia:original research.--ArmanJ (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What modern created one? If you are discussing the 1987 adopted one, please see the two cited sources in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what you wrote in the previous section with Kautilya3, "The Bangladeshi version is indeed a modern invention created in 1966 and adopted in 1987."

How can you come to such a conclusion? The two cited sources do not contradict what I'm saying. There's a difference between the Hindu ritual calendar and the secular Bengali calendar. Again, if in India the Bengali year is 1424, then it is following the secular version. The history of the secular version is supported by mainstream views outlined here https://scroll.in/article/720351/bengali-new-year-how-akbar-invented-the-modern-bengali-calendar

Claiming otherwise is a tremendous intellectual disservice.--ArmanJ (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The 31 days for 5 months and 30 days for 7 months in the currently used Bangladeshi version is indeed a modern invention! See the two sources. Please do not remove those sources from this article. If you are having trouble understanding the policies or this article, please contact WP:TEAHOUSE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:COMMONSENSE. It's a revised version, as the article itself states! Not an invention! We would then have a Bangladeshi calendar. But we don't. Bangladesh and writers in India have called it the Bengali calendar. You cannot use the modern revisions as a pretext. That is original research.--ArmanJ (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3's context and wording on this talk page was clear to me. Let us focus on what this article actually states, "In Bangladesh, however, the old Bengali calendar was modified in 1966 by a committee headed by Muhammad Shahidullah, making....". Where in this article is the confusion? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 himself acknowledged that he could be wrong. The Bengali calendar is not the standard Hindu calendar. As my sources point out, it was remodeled in 1584 after the Islamic lunar calendar. It is still a solar calendar, but a formula was worked out, in the same way as the Persian solar calendar was remodelled. The remodelling was part of tax reforms. According to numerous sources (just use google books), the Tarikh-e-Elahi surivived in the Bengal region and eventually became known as the Bengali calendar.

The 20th century revisions were done to notably count leap years. But as my sources state, the calendar's base point has been 5 November 1556, the coronation date of Akbar, since the 16th century and continues to be so.--ArmanJ (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

All this is already discussed in the article, with sources. Per the WP:NPOV policy, the article needs to and does present the other sides, with cites to scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Other sides? You do realize you are on the fringe and talking without any proof? Which is what is called a fallacy? The article currently gives excessive WP:UNDUE weight to Hindu nationalist cultural claims. This is an eclectic calendar. The months and days are of Sanskrit origin, but the years are modeled in a secular Islamo-Persian model. The purpose of my edits was to exactly present the eclectic nature of the calendar.--ArmanJ (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@ArmanJ: You are going in circles, and being non-responsive. I already explained, the content is based on multiple verifiable mainstream WP:RS. It is your opinion / prejudice / wisdom when you allege "fringe" to be scholars, Yale University Press, Oxford University Press etc published literature. We don't rely on blogs / tabloids / newspaper op-eds for scholarship. Please read the cited scholarship and stop calling those scholars as "flawed" as you did above. Please stop uncivil comments about "Hindu nationalist / Muslim nationalist / etc" stuff per WP:TALK. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So the Dhaka Tribune and Scroll.in are blogs and tabloids you say? I should accuse you of being uncivil for gaming the system.

The calendar is secular. It was modeled during the last indigenous empire in South Asia, which happened to be the Mughal Empire. The article purposely undermines Akbar, who was one of the most renowned secular rulers in the subcontinent.

You are not even providing a page number. Publishing houses are not a benchmark for neutral scholarship. You are blocking legitimate improvements based on the works of esteemed intellectuals, including a Nobel laureate. It is often common to see that Wikipedia relies on nationalistic South Asian scholarship, instead of neutral academics. If I see bias on Wikipedia I am entitled to report and protest it.--ArmanJ (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more mainstream sources: The Daily Star, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and New Delhi Television. The current version of the article is fringe and undermines the mainstream narrative on the Bengali calendar's history.--ArmanJ (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see the article for scholarly cites with page numbers. For the rest, see my replies above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't guarantee that sources have been misrepresented. Your replies are mostly gaming and in circles.--ArmanJ (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Quit this incivility and quit casting aspersions. You are welcome to file a complaint at WP:ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, let's not waste time. The article as it is needs a lot of work to remove WP:UNDUE weight of WP:fringe viewpoints. The incivility lies in reverting my edits wholesale after hours of working, including new sections on seasons and festivals. I will work to improve the page in the future.--ArmanJ (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The version as it exists now also reflects a lot of work by other editors. The Akbar/Mughal/Islamic calendar side is already summarized. The article additionally summarizes and cites multiple scholarly sources, and it presents NPOV summary of the various sides. Please do not remove, allege or attack publications from Oxford University Press, Yale University Press etc or scholars as fringe. This is disruptive and WP:TE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The version as it is now reflects a very shabby, biased and ignorant understanding of the subject and misrepresents sources. It currently suffers from elements from WP:TE, WP:fringe, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. The tertiary sources I gave included direct quotations from the academics already mentioned in the article, but misrepresented.--ArmanJ (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

False. See explanation above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper/tabloid articles as sources

@ArmanJ: Please review an admin's explanation note here on newspaper and similar sources. Please respect it, and do not delete peer reviewed secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengali months

There is a table of months in this article. The rightmost column of that table lists Hindu Vikrami lunar month names. I propose replacing this with Hindu Vikrami solar month names (i.e. rashi names). The following is my reasoning: Bengali months start with sankramana hence they correspond to Vikrami solar months. Reasoning the other way, Bengali months do not begin/end with new moon or full moon. Hence, they have no correspondence whatsoever to Vikrami lunar months. I understand that Bengali month names are variants of Vikrami lunar month names, but in my opinion that is a mis-direction :-); the months are defined by the Sun's movement but their names are defined based on where the moon is during Purnima! Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why this allergy towards the term Hindu?

I really want to ask wiki editors, do they sincerely believe that the Bengali calendar is anything but a regional adaptation of Hindu Calendar? All months are essentially Sanskrit terms. It has just been modernised in the 20th century. 2409:4052:248D:AE54:4EEF:367:6D4F:A3FE (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@2409:4052:248D:AE54:4EEF:367:6D4F:A3FE: All month names of the Bengali calendar are derived from Sanskrit. But it has nothing to do with the calendar being a solar calendar. It has been used since the time of Akbar. — Diptyajit (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Md Dinislam Raj 103.253.47.7 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

BanglaBangla Barsapanj or celender

@ 103.138.24.166 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)