The Bamuni Konwar Enigma: Decoding the myth of Tsaopha Süw-dang-pha

Süw-dang-pha / 𑜏𑜢𑜤𑜰𑜫 𑜓𑜂𑜫 𑜇𑜡 (1397-1407), the eighth Tsaopha (king) of the Ahom Kingdom, is widely known as Bamuni Konwar (Brahmin Prince). He earned this title due to being born to the younger queen of King Tyao Khamti and subsequently raised in a Brahmin household in Habung village after his mother was falsely accused and exiled. Historians claimed that his upbringing in a Brahmin family marked the beginning of Hindu influence in the Ahom dynasty.

But what is the actual history? What is the actual truth? What is actually written in the Tai-Ahom manuscripts? Was Süw-dang-pha actually brought up in a Brahmin family, or was that a historical mistake?

The Enigma

In the Assamese translations of Ahom manuscripts, it is described that Süw-dang-pha was called Bamuni Konwar because he was brought up in a Brahmin family. It is also claimed that the first Hindu influence entered the Ahom court during his reign due to this upbringing, and that he brought the Brahmin Salgram (শালগ্ৰাম) deity into the Ahom court, placing it alongside the Ahom titular deity, Chumdeo and began worshipping it.

However, in the original manuscripts written in the Ahom language, it is nowhere mentioned that Süw-dang-pha was brought up in a Brahmin family, nor that he brought the Brahmin Salgram deity into the Ahom court and placed it beside the Ahom deity Chumdeo.

The Actual Truth

"𑜆𑜩𑜨 𑜎𑜤𑜀𑜫 𑜎𑜃𑜫 𑜁𑜣 𑜎𑜣 𑜉𑜣 𑜁𑜧𑜨 𑜋𑜪 𑜋𑜂𑜫 𑜆𑜩 𑜃𑜣 𑜉𑜠 𑜎𑜧𑜨 𑜋𑜰𑜫 𑜇𑜡 𑜏𑜢𑜤𑜰𑜫 𑜓𑜂𑜫 𑜼" (Poi luk lan khee-lee-mee khau tsam tsang pai nee maa lau tsaopha Süw-dang).

"Tsaopha Süw-dang-pha brought the members of the Khee-lee-mee family who raised him".

"তেওঁক তুলি-তালি ডাঙৰ-দীঘল কৰা খী-লী-মী পৰিয়ালৰ সদস্য সকলক চাওফা ছৗডাংফাই লৈ আনে"।

Ahom Buranji by G.C. Barua (Ahom script part)

Regarding the family in which Süw-dang-pha was raised, the Ahom Buranji mentions that he was brought up in a 𑜁𑜣 𑜎𑜣 𑜉𑜣 (Khee-lee-mee) family, not a Brahmin family. The meaning of 𑜁𑜣 𑜎𑜣 𑜉𑜣 (Khee-lee-mee) in Assamese is Dafala (a hill tribe), not Brahmin. In the Ahom language, Brahmins are called 𑜆𑜪𑜤 𑜃𑜡 (Pum-na).

Ahom Lexicons

Sealang Library Ahom Dictionary

The Historical Mistake

When the early Assamese and British historians were recovering the history of Assam, they translated many Ahom manuscripts into the Assamese language. In doing so, they mistakenly translated many Ahom sentences and words into Assamese in a way that altered their actual meaning in the Ahom language. Because of these mistranslations, a pseudohistory was created, and the actual history was buried deep beneath these fake historical explanations.

Tai-Assamese-English Dictionary by Dr. Puspa Gogoi

In the original Tai Buranji, only the word 𑜁𑜣 𑜎𑜣 𑜉𑜣 (Khee-lee-mee) exists. How did the Assamese and English translations come to render "Khee-lee-mee" as "Brahmin" when, according to the Ahom dictionaries, it means "Dafala" (referring to the Dafala people)? Süw-dang-pha should be called "Khee-lee-mee Konwar" instead of "Bamuni Konwar".

G.C. Barua mistranslated the word 𑜁𑜣 𑜎𑜣 𑜉𑜣 (Khee-lee-mee) into Brahmin

Due to these mistranslations, many fake stories were created and later considered folklore. Based on this, many historians believe Hindu influence reached the Ahom court during Süw-dang-pha’s reign because he was raised in a Brahmin family and brought the Brahmin Salgram deity to place alongside the Ahom deity Chumdeo. However, Ahom manuscripts never mention him being raised in a Brahmin family or bringing any Salgram deity. Such fake narratives are badly affecting authentic Ahom history.

Why does this mistake still continue?

The main problem with the majority of historians of Assam is their over-reliance on the work of early historians, whose writings were deeply flawed. Most of these early historians focused on mythology, folklore and oral traditions instead of consulting actual historical records. While useful, folklore and oral traditions should never be considered primary sources. There are many scholarly articles criticizing the history writing of early historians of Assam. This same problem persists today, with most modern historians, researchers, and scholars continuing to prioritize mythology, oral traditions and the work of their predecessors over primary sources. To truly understand Ahom history, one must consult original Ahom-language manuscripts, as well as Chinese, Burmese, Shan, Thai and other Tai historical records - sources that are generally ignored. The case of Bamuni Konwar is just one example of this ongoing issue.