Thet or Kado and Chakma

 Thet or Sak  or Kado and Chakma

There might have been the reasons for the Sak or Thet to disperse from the original country of their own in the time in memorial as well as in near recent time of the British colonialist. From the history book of the great learned men as follow. It is also from the history books of native Burman Historans.

“Abhiraja is stated to have founded Tagaung in the ninth century B.C. He was an Aryan Prince from Northern India, but the course of his migration is not set forth. On his death, the crown was bequeathed to Kanrajange, the younger of his two sons; while the elder Kanrajagyi, moved to the Chindwin valley, established his son, Muducitta, as king at kale, and crossing over to Kyaukpadaung, became the first ruler of the Arakanese, who thereby claim to be the elder branch of the race. Leaving one’s estate to the youngest child, in preference to the elder ones, is a custom still prevailing among the Chins and Kachins, and so on, so forth.

Now based on the recent finding of the great historians and scientists these can be verified scientifically, linguistically and physically. And those following Kanrajagyi settled in modern Arakan becomes Sak, Thet and Chakmas who were driven out to Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh, Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.

 Thet, Kado

* Where are they located?
There are three main Kadu varieties: Mawteik, Settaw, and Mawkhwin. The Settaw Kadu and the Mawkhwin Kadu live in Banmauk Township and the Mawteik Kadu live primarily in Indaw Township. The Mawkhwin are a small group, living in five villages between the Settaw Kadu and the Kanan. The Settaw and Mawteik groups are very large (over 30 villages each). However, language vitality among the Mawteik is very low. Burmese is the first and best language of most Mawteik people. Burmese is widely spoken among the Mawteik Kadu people, while the Settaw and Mawkhwin Kadu speak Kadu in almost every situation of their daily life.( from Joshua Project)

*What are their lives like?
All the Kadu subjects interviewed from the different varieties (Settaw, Mawkhwin, and Mawteik) identify themselves as belonging to the Kadu people group. However, they also reported that there are vocabulary and tone differences among the Kadu varieties. Overall, the Settaw variety was viewed as the most prestigious by the Kadu subjects. ( from Joshua Project)

 
The population of the Kadu in Banmauk Township has been estimated at 30,000. The Kadu population in Indaw Township, where the Kadu people live among other people groups, is unknown. The population of the Kadu reported to be living in other townships is also unknown. Thus, the Kadu population as a whole cannot be calculated yet. Some Kadu people living in Indaw Township identify themselves as Burmese or Shan-Kadu, even though both of their parents are Kadu. This identification seems to be because they themselves cannot speak Kadu.  ( from Joshua Project)
 

All of the Kadu people can speak Burmese well. In fact, in all the Maw-teik villages visited, it was evident that Burmese culture is being chosen over the Kadu traditional lifestyle and cultural norms. All of the Mawteik Kadu people said that they speak Burmese as their first and best language. However, in the Settaw Kadu villages and the Mawkhwin villages, Kadu is widely spoken. The Kadu people in Banmauk Township speak Kadu as their first and best language.( from Joshua Project)

Map of the place of Thet , Kado (Source: Joshua Project)

Chakma (source: Bangladesh Ethonology)

• Alternate names: Sakma, Sangma, Takam Also: in India -- Chakama, Takam, Tsakma; in Myanmar -- Daingnet, Sangma 

• Literacy: Literacy rate in first language: 70%. Literacy rate in second language: 70%
• Primary country: Bangladesh
• Region: Southeast, Chittagong Hills area, and Chittagong city
• Also used in: India, Myanmar (Burma)
• Religion: Buddhist, Christian
• Livelihood: Agriculturalists: paddy rice; fishermen
• Number of users: 326,000 (150,000 in Bangladesh (2007); 176,000 in India;  

How is the language of Chakmas? It is also very interesting to know their alphabet system which is very similar to Burmese, or Myanmar language. If the people, Chakmas are not related to Thet or Sak or modern Burma (Bramahdesh) why should they choose or use the alphabetical system so close(90%) or exactly same as Ba-ma-sa and Ba-ma-sa-kar.

                                                           Chakma Alphabet Table 

                                                            Burmese Alphabet Table 

Jinghpaw  

Fr. Sino-Tibetan Languages –edited by Randy J. laPolla, Graham  Hurgood.

Jinghpaw to Burmese and to the northern Burmish languages, while its similarities to Bodo-Koch and the Konyak group have to be older (benedict 1976:178). If Jinghpaw seems to be geographically remote from Bodo-Koch and the Konyak group, it should be remembered that a form of Jinghpaw known as ‘Singpho’ is spoken in Arunachal Pradesh, just north of Tangsa, the northernmost language of the Konyak group. There is no geographic break at all. French’s analysis does suggest that Jinghpaw is a bit less similar to Bodo-Koch and the Konyak group than these two are to each other, and that is how I have drawn them in Figure 11.1.

            Finally, we should take note of a scattered group of minor languages, known as ‘Luish’, Grierson, long ago (1921), recognized the relationship among these languages, and Benedict (1972: 5) pointed out their similarity to Jinghpaw. The least poorly known of these poorly known languages, are Sak of the Chittagong Hill Tracks in Bangladesh (Bernot 1966), and Kadu of upper Burma (Brown 1920). Within Northeastern India, Luish was once represented by Andro and Sengmai of Manipur, which are known only from an ancient wordlist (McCulloch 1859). Andro and Sengmai villages still exist, and I was able to visit them both in 1999. Villages prize the tradition that they once had their own languages but the only remnant that exists, apart from cherished photocopies of McCulloch’s wordlist, are some short chants in Andro, whose meaning no one any longer knows, and a dozen or so words dimly recalled by one man in Sengmai, possibly learned  from McCulloch’s list.

            Bernot (1966) assembled the available evidence on the Luish languages and, modest though the data on Andro and Sengmai are, its seems clear that they are rather closely related to Sak and Kadu. Bernot’s own data on Sak are the best that is available on any of these languages, and its special similarities to Jinghpaw are obvious. Its similarities to the Bodo-Koch languages are less strong, but still clear. The evidence remains thinner than we would like, but it is hard to doubt that the Luish languages should be placed on the Jinghpaw  branch of Bodo-Konyak- Jinghpaw, and that is how I have drawn on the tree.

Why and how are they in Arunachal Pradesh?  One of the reasons we find the recent history is as under:

The forefathers of the Singhpo migrated from northern Myanmar in 1793, settling in the plains of Tirap District in Arunachal Pradesh. The reason for their migration is unclear, although one source says that 'They arrived at their present habitat when a reign of terror was let loose by the Ahom king, Gaurinath Singha.' Arriving in their present location, the Singhpo 'drove out the Khamtis from the lowlands under the Patkoi hills'. (fromJoshua Project about Jingpho,Kachin,Singpho in Arunachal Pradesh)

In more-than two centuries since their arrival, the Singhpo have lost connection with their counterparts in other nations, and they have gradually developed distinct linguistic, cultural and religious traits. Due to their close interaction with the Khamti tribe, who speak a language from the Tai family, the Singhpo language has changed markedly from its original Tibeto-Burman form. One source states that now Singhpo only shares a 50 per cent lexical similarity with Jingpo in Myanmar. This figure makes more sense when we compare English and German, which share a 60 per cent lexical similarity.(fromJoshua Project about Jingpho,Kachin,Singpho in Arunachal Pradesh)

The Sal group includes Shafer’s Baric/Benedict’s Bodo-Garo-Konyak groups, plus Jinghpaw (Kachin) and the Sak or Luish group. The subgroup and its name were proposed by Burling (1983). It has some lexical peculiarities not shared with other Tibeto-Burman languages; most languages have some morphology including parts of that reconstructed for Proto-Tibeto-Burman by Wolfenden (1929), but relatively simple tonal systems. Shafer’s Kukish/Benedict’s Kuki-Chin-(Southern) Naga is more distantly linked with Sal, though this also shows some lexical links with Burmese, Pyu appears to belong in the Luish group.  Within the Sal group, the Kuki-Chin language Meithei is the longest-established living literary language.

( Source: TIBETO-BURMAN (BRADLEY:pp76)