Talk:Cuisine of Odisha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MODI SARKAAR


what is the meaning of putting a "so-called" before bengal- renaissance ? if there is a doubt about the renaissance then please cite a reference. Jeroje 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

links: the true origins of the roshogolla. Readerspeak: Another forgotten food culture to the fore

Can these links be even added as references? I guess not. SDas 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find appropriate references and then prove that rashogolla was invented in Orissa that will be great. It will increase the depth of cultural interaction of the eastern region even more. It will also resurface the coexistence of the great heritages and their collaboration. I also believe it might have been invented in orissa or might have been a simultaneous finding of the concept by two different regions. But a blog or a forum is probably not a good reference. I did not have any objection to the rasogolla, being a bengali I would like to see my state glorified but not on a false base. But my concern was the word "so-called" in front of the Bengal Renaissance in the article. Since the word so-called is most of the cases used when there is a doubt about the inference. Jeroje 04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]
(Side issue: There are ample Oriya references to Rasgulla's origins, and it is also well-known through at least one folk song, and also as a tradition in Puri. Something that is a tradition in the Jagannath temple precincts simply cannot be of recent vintage, where even tomatoes and potatoes are considered to be "foreign" and thus "impure". There also was a 1970s article from the Indian weekly Femina which I can dig up only when I go to India. Anyway, it is not glorification but authenticity. Bad things should also be written, for instance the rampant female foeticide/infanticide and the prohibition of "untouchables" from entering temple premises taking place in Orissa. The Adivasi part of Oriya culture is not represented in wikipedia either. If you go to the wikipedia entry on Orissa, you will see infantile gimmicks added there to glorify Oriya culture/Orissa. But that all is in bad taste. Fair is fair after all.)
Now to the main point that you made. By DEFINITION, the rennaisance (=rebirth) could only have happened if a civilization/culture was rediscovering its supposedly "glorious" past. Being the first province to fall to British occupation since the battle of Palasi (Plassey), and because Kolkata became the capital of occupied India, Bengal simply had the opportunity to imbibe modern British ways, whereas the rest of India plunged into a dark age through their very same occupation. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were also influenced, albeit to a lesser extent, through the British presence in Mumbai and Chennai. There simply was no rebirth of anything that took place in Bengal.
In my view, applying the word "rennaisance" to describe any cultural surge, automatically puts the West (where the "rennaisance" happened in a much grander scale) at a higher pedestal, which is wrong. If you ask me, the word "rennaisance" itself is a big misnomer to begin with, not suited even to describe Italy's history. For their was no moving back to the days of Rome, as Westerners would have one believe. Rome has been needlessly glorified for that purpose. Italy too experienced a cultural growth, not a cultural relapse after its centuries old dark ages. Unfortunately, my view in this regard would be construed as "POV" in wikipedia.
Therefore, please don't read the "so-called" part in "so-called Bengali rennaisance" as cynicism, only as non-committment to the idea.
(Furthermore, as a general rule, proving or finding a citation for a negation is far more difficult than one serving to confirm an idea. Lastly, a citation on Bengali rennaissance is absurd given the context of the subject - Oriya cusine.)
SDas 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It ws a rebirth alright, Atlest in the social awarness which was lost in the mughal rule. The ban on sati and remarriage act for the widowed hindu women all were present in India and in particular in bengal long before the sultanats and mughal empire. The standard of education also rose to the level of vedic and buddhist era. The art and crafts found back the lost glory. The time had also come when the bengali literature will come out of the "so-called" dark age. There are numerous references where the western rennaissance has been disputed on the basis that it was too centered on only one part of the society there was no educational reform for the mass, There was a huge religious point in it.
As for the chance you have mentioned it might be true to some extent but most of the forerunners of renaissance were not fruits of british raj, they had conventional education : Raja Rammohan Roy, Vidyasagar, Bharatchandra all had conventional education. Jeroje 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]
I beg to differ.
-Bengali theater is entirely a Western-influenced creation. It was nonexistent before the British occupation.
-The modern Bengali literature of Tagore and Bankim Chatterjee is vastly different from the devotional themes of Krittivas and the religious fervor of Chaitanya.
-During the Pala dynasty, who were mostly Buddhist, I suppose the literatary works must have been in Pali or Magadhi Prakrit, not Bengali.
-Untouchability did exist (remember Ekalavya?) in India. (How widespread it was, one cannot be sure. However, I admit that the British since Warren Hastings, did make worsen the caste system.)
-As far as the Vedic era is concerned, the less said the better. The Rg Veda contains vivid descriptions of slaughter and mayhem of the "Dasas" and "Dasyus" ad nauseam. The Rg Veda was written by a bunch of semi-barbarians, no more, no less. In any case, Bengal (and Orissa) lay well outside the so-called Aryavarta.
-Did the glorious tradition of sculpture from the days of the Pala dynasty ever resurrect in modern Bengal? I don't think so.
-The other achievements during pre-Muslim period that you mention was during the reign of Bimbisara and the Magadha empire. It is hardly Bengali. I think we can safely treat anything before Sasanka's rule as non-Bengali.
-Vidyasagar and Roy may have received traditional education, but they did live in a British-influenced milieu. Didn't Roy also receive pat of his education in England? In any case, most non-Indian history books (incorrectly) credit Bentick for Bengal's social reforms, not Roy.
Another point regarding Bengali literature: I have noticed that descriptions of the "Bengali rennaissance" allude to a continuity between the Pali language/literature and modern Bengali. That is incorrect, and smacks of linguistic chauvinism. Two other direct descendants of Pali, namely Oriya and Maithili bear a stronger resemblance to Pali than Bengali. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but was the famous medieval Bengali litterateur, Krittivas really a Bengali writer? Or was he Maithili? His last name "Ojha" certainly sounds Bihari! If I am right, it is again an evidence of chauvinism! Lastly, the Caryapada is also taken to be Bengali by default. In reality it is as much Oriya or Assamese or Maithili as it is Bengali. These four closely related languages had not split into distinct streams when the Caryapada verses were composed. Chandi Das may have existed, but the truth is that Bengali literature began in earnest only after the advent of Caitanya, and reached its pinnacle as late as in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Also, I did not imply that the cultural surge that Bengal experienced was a "fruit" of the British occupation. Bengal and Bangladesh (as well as Orissa and Bihar) are even today some of the poorest regions of the world as a result of British rule.
Before the British came, Murshidabad and Dhaka were famous for their textiles all over the world. This textile industry the British systematically destroyed, and captured the market for Manchester instead. Did Bengal ever regain its former position as an industrial world power? If it ever becomes a world leader in textiles, I will concede that a Bengali rennaisance did indeed happen. As of now, an important cash crop in Bengal/Bangladesh is jute, which was forced upon Bengal by the British.
It seems like a tenuous link, but events like the Nandigram massacre can ultimately be linked to the Zamindari system of the British that created a mass of impoverished, landless farmers in Bengal and Orissa for the first time. Have the conditions of these landless peasants improved? When it does, again, I will say that Bengal truly underwent a rennaisance.
Until then, the Bengali rennaissance, if it happened remains scant: ergo moot!
Anyway, this discussion is well beyond the scope of the article on Oriya cuisine. I'll end here. I'll not be logging in for a while now due to work pressure.
SDas 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it really looks like a POV. I will just correct a few, The concept of theater was a western concept alright but we had jatra , tarja and several other forms. Literature of Tagore and Bankimchandra are different alright but what is the point it makes ? I never said all the social taboos were removed I dont think it can even be removed from any society. But untouchability was less of a problem in WB refer to chaitanya. Roy went to europe to rope in european support for his reform policies not for education. "Ojha" is also a bengali last name and more than that Krittibas wrote in Bengali. The whole point baout charya-geetika being connected to Oriya and Assamese there is a lot of documentation on this I will not go into. Later part of the post I found really mis-directed.

Jeroje 03:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

Now it really looks like a POV.
My ONLY purpose is to show that there is enough room for doubt about this "Bengali rennaisance" thing, which I have well argued.
The concept of theater was a western concept alright but we had jatra , tarja and several other forms.
Jatra is also a well-established Oriya tradition, and I'll edit the article to make that clear. But Jatra is NOT theater. Hence the development of Western theatre in Bengal is not part of the Bengali "renaissance".
Literature of Tagore and Bankimchandra are different alright but what is the point it makes ?
It makes the simple point that the literature of Tagore and Bankim have no historic precedence within Bwngal, and hence do not constitutue a part of the Bengali "rennaisance".
I never said all the social taboos were removed I dont think it can even be removed from any society. But untouchability was less of a problem in WB refer to chaitanya.
So how does the removal of poverty (which actually exists even today in every part of India, including Bengal) constitute a Bengali "renaissance"? Getting rid of social evils happened in ALL parts of the world!
Roy went to europe to rope in european support for his reform policies not for education.
OK. I was just ASKING you as I did not know.
"Ojha" is also a bengali last name and more than that Krittibas wrote in Bengali.
Again, I was ASKING you. But I checked this time. He was born into a Maithili brahmin family, and his birthplace is Bihar. He was born in 1382, at a time when Maithili had NOT fully branched out of Bengali. So how does it make it Bengali exactly but not Maithili? All this again raises doubts about your Bengali "renaissance".
The whole point baout charya-geetika being connected to Oriya and Assamese there is a lot of documentation on this I will not go into.
I may not know anything about Bengali literature, but I do know a thing or two about linguistics. According to the book - "THE WORLD'S MAJOR LANGUAGES', edited by Bernard Comrie, in the chapter "Bengali", on page 491, it is stated that:
"There are reference works on Assamese, Oriya, and even Maithili that treat (Caryapada) hymns as the earliest specimens of each of these languages and their literatures."
That book is the virtual ENCYCLOPEDIA of world languages!
I am arguing that the language in the Caryapada is proto-Bengali-Oriya-Assamese-Maithili, i.e. a late form of the Ardhamagadhi Apabramsha, of which old-Bengali, old-Oriya, old-Assamese, and old-Maithili were mere dialects. I invite you to argue otherwise.
Later part of the post I found really mis-directed.
Perhaps you did. The source of my "really mis-directed" post happens to be based on peer-reviewed articles published in various journals by a certain:
Prof. David Clingingsmith, Ph.D
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Add to it a touch of standard scientific reductionism, and lo behold, you get my "really mis-directed" post!
Truly speaking, there simply was no major Bengali "renaissance" or "rebirth". The only real renaissance happened in Europe. What happened in Bengal can be appropriately be described as a "surge" or "growth". Indian History textbooks rarely if ever use the word "rennaisance" to describe the growth of Bengali literature/culture. They always use the word "growth" instead.
Q 1. If Bengali growth can be called a "renaissance", why may not that of other Indian states be called so? Whhat about Tamil Nadu for instance, which can boast of Sangam literature, and a history which is far richer than Bengal's (check Chola empire for instance)?
Q 2. Under these circumstances, may I ask you why did you insert that comment in this article on Oriya cuisine?
Q 3. Why, may I ask, is so much discussion on the single word "so-called" so bothersome, when I have given enough room for doubt?
Q 4. Why may I ask you, must an article on Oriya cuisine which has no bearing at all to Bengali culture (inspite of the passing reference) may not remain non-commital to the idea of a Bengali "rennaissance"?
Q 5. I supplied an elaborate justification for using the descriptor "so-called" in Bengali "rennaissance". You did not give any counter-arguments, simply dismising mine as "reall POV" and "mis-directed" without any facts to back it up. Yet, you went ahead and edited the article based on discussion in talk pages. What made you do that?
Q 6. Furthermore, why did you revert the main article TWICE, when clearly two other people did not agree with you?
Q 7. If this article:
Colonial Narratives/Cultural Dialogues: "Discoveries" of India in the Language of Colonialism
Jyotsna G. Singh
Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 49, #4, 1998, pages 466-470
as well as these links:
http://www.bihartimes.com/articles/shaibal/biharidentity.html
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=G3pZWGQT96RLPRcpzJjfgFYmGcG1QXkVGrdqXlJ1nzcJpHn2nqqG!-1120738337?docId=5000374127
specifically refer to "so called Bengali renaissance", why can't this article on Oriya cuisine?
SDas 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Now it really looks like a POV.
My ONLY purpose is to show that there is enough room for doubt about this "Bengali rennaisance" thing, which I have well argued.
there is doubt about eurppean renaissance, so let us call it so called renaissance. European_Renaissance#For_Better_or_For_Worse.
The concept of theater was a western concept alright but we had jatra , tarja and several other forms.
Jatra is also a well-established Oriya tradition, and I'll edit the article to make that clear. But Jatra is NOT theater. Hence the development of Western theatre in Bengal is not part of the Bengali "renaissance".

so you wanted to see actual "theater" in 17th century Bengal ? by the way I think the theater part missed the renaissance time frame,

"Ojha" is also a bengali last name and more than that Krittibas wrote in Bengali.
Again, I was ASKING you. But I checked this time. He was born into a Maithili brahmin family, and his birthplace is Bihar. He was born in 1382, at a time when Maithili had NOT fully branched out of Bengali. So how does it make it Bengali exactly but not Maithili? All this again raises doubts about your Bengali "renaissance".
I really dont see why this raises the doubt about renaissance, your logic is like this : during europian renaissance , the europian union did not exist so it cannot be called europian renaissance.
Later part of the post I found really mis-directed.
Perhaps you did. The source of my "really mis-directed" post happens to be based on peer-reviewed articles published in various journals by a certain:
Prof. David Clingingsmith, Ph.D
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Add to it a touch of standard scientific reductionism, and lo behold, you get my "really mis-directed" post!


so the article says that the recent political issues are because there were no renaissance ? I want to meet this person.
I never said all the social taboos were removed I dont think it can even be removed from any society. But untouchability was less of a problem in WB refer to chaitanya.
So how does the removal of poverty (which actually exists even today in every part of India, including Bengal) constitute a Bengali "renaissance"? Getting rid of social evils happened in ALL parts of the world!
so you see there is no european renaissance, since social reforms happened in all parts of the world.
Truly speaking, there simply was no major Bengali "renaissance" or "rebirth". The only real renaissance happened in Europe. What happened in Bengal can be appropriately be described as a "surge" or "growth". Indian History textbooks rarely if ever use the word "rennaisance" to describe the growth of Bengali literature/culture. They always use the word "growth" instead.
wow! "truely speaking ?" The only real renaissance happened in Europe. why do you think so because I have reference who doubts that? you seem to have read all the indian history textbooks .


Q 1. If Bengali growth can be called a "renaissance", why may not that of other Indian states be called so? Whhat about Tamil Nadu for instance, which can boast of Sangam literature, and a history which is far richer than Bengal's (check Chola empire for instance)?

I have no problem.
Q 5. I supplied an elaborate justification for using the descriptor "so-called" in Bengali "rennaissance". You did not give any counter-arguments, simply dismising mine as "reall POV" and "mis-directed" without any facts to back it up. Yet, you went ahead and edited the article based on discussion in talk pages. What made you do that?
there is no counter argument to no argument
Q 6. Furthermore, why did you revert the main article TWICE, when clearly two other people did not agree with you?
I am going to edit the so called, if you want to keep the so called then you have to keep the POV dispute and style edit notice, since there are some wikipedian who disputed it. Now its your choice.
it seems there is something disturbing you about bengal renaissance, I will suggest you make a new page which describes these counter arguments. It will be very valuable to wiki and to me in particular.

Jeroje 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

I am going to edit the so called, if you want to keep the so called then you have to keep the POV dispute and style edit notice, since there are some wikipedian who disputed it. Now its your choice.
Unlike your approach, Wikipedia recommends operating by consensus. However, who are these "some Wikipedians" other than you?
there is no counter argument to no argument
Meaningless sentence.
I want to meet this person.
OK, by all means do so. What's stopping you? Why are you declaring your intentions here?
there is doubt about eurppean renaissance, so let us call it so called renaissance.
I am not interested in editing the article on European renaissance. Period!
wow! "truely speaking ?" The only real renaissance happened in Europe. why do you think so because I have reference who doubts that? you seem to have read all the indian history textbooks .
This touch of sarcasm in your reply to a perfectly normal post can be construed as a personal attack. It is against Wikipedia norms.


it seems there is something disturbing you about bengal renaissance, I will suggest you make a new page which describes these counter arguments.
I have given you ENOUGH rational arguments that Bengali "renaissance" was no real renaissance. There is NOTHING wrong in being non-committal to this Bengali revisionist idea. Surely you understand why one needs to be "non-committal".
However, I will make a simple change that will sound OK to both of us, and hopefully to the others who reverted your posts. However, I'll warn you that there are ways to resolve a dispute in wikipedia, and I'll not hesitate to go there in future.
But before this rather lopsided debate ends, I want you to address Q 7. I supplied precedents for the usage of the term "so-called Bengali renaissance", including a newspaper article as well as a peer-reviewed, international, scholarly journal.
One more thing. When you make a simple one word edit, kindly make sure that you leave no typos. You left an extra space before the word "renaissance".
SDas 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


to remain non committal about something well established is not to express doubt about it, hence "so-called" is not non committal.


wow! "truely speaking ?" The only real renaissance happened in Europe. why do you think so because I have reference who doubts that? you seem to have read all the indian history textbooks .
This touch of sarcasm in your reply to a perfectly normal post can be construed as a personal attack. It is against Wikipedia norms.
this is nowhere near being uncivic since I just wrote down the logical conclusion to your statement.

Jeroje 15:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

Jeroje:

While you and I were discussing this here, I also was in touch with a few others. I have a better understanding of the source of your objection. Yes, other wikipedians too felt that the "so called" part can be removed when describing the Bengal renaissance.

While I do have strong philosophical objections to acknowledging that such a renaissance happened, they are my personal views. I think you were well justified in asking for the "so-called" to be removed.

There are two options: (i) either let the current wording stay as it is, or (ii) revert my edit to show your version, with the word "Bengal renaissance" intact

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PurbaOriyaRecipeBookCover.jpg[edit]

Image:PurbaOriyaRecipeBookCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Orissa Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Orissa or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be used for advertisement[edit]

I have fond www.odiakichen.com links are given in many places inside the content, a site link could be given once in the external link or in Reference if it cites something, but there is no point of spamming the site link in so many places.

And my sincere request to all members who are adding Odia cuisines, please do understand Odia cuisine doesn't mean every single cuisine eaten in a Odia home, rather the cuisine for which Odisha/Odia people are the source. And in the similar way instead of writing "'Muga Dali" if someone writes "Moong Daal" like Hindi it is a defame of Odia language and cuisine, please add Odia names, not Anglicised/Sanskritised/ Names which have other language substitutes. --ସୁଭପାSubha PaUtter2me! 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odisa traditional food[edit]

Food 223.178.222.27 (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023[edit]

49.14.109.54 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add some important lines in that page for everyone

Thank you

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuisine_of_Odisha&oldid=1200914969"