What's new

A Tale Of Two Bengals Where Never The Twain Shall Meet

I know. :) They also got some Hindu majority area like Khulna (52% majority), then almost completely cleaned it up, this was the plan for entire Bengal and Assam. :)

Their demand for Pakistan was mainly an anti-Hindu movement, the Muslim League supported Muslim peasants in Bengal because landlords of Bengal were Hindus while in Punjab-Sindh the Muslims Landlords formed the support base of Muslim League and the peasant class of Punjab-Sindh region hardly get any support of Muslim League against Muslim landlords. I can't understand the irony of this deep conflicting politics in Bengal and Punjab-Sindh. :laugh::laugh:
 
. . . . . .
abey ye gilli danda ka khel tujhe hi mubarak ho :angry:

Kya bola tum (with a British Accent).............yeh Gilli danda hai???

Thikey..........agar tum humko iss game me hara diya......toh hum purey BD ka lagaan, i mean SOFT LOAN maaf kardega.............

Lekin.........agar hum jeet gya.........toh tumhey dugna lagaan dena hoga???

15slid3.jpg


shart manjoor hai??????????????????
 
.
Their demand for Pakistan was mainly an anti-Hindu movement, the Muslim League supported Muslim peasants in Bengal because landlords of Bengal were Hindus while in Punjab-Sindh the Muslims Landlords formed the support base of Muslim League and the peasant class of Punjab-Sindh region hardly get any support of Muslim League against Muslim landlords. I can't understand the irony of this deep conflicting politics in Bengal and Punjab-Sindh. :laugh::laugh:
What the heck you talking about? East Bengal had always been a Muslim dominant area of Bengal. But when the British came in the 1750s they destroyed the Muslim industries and transferred some of the control to Hindus, who the British saw as meek and less likely to challenge the British dominance. Under Mughal rule, East Bengal was the centre of the worldwide muslin trade. The Muslims were in control of the region for several centuries and therefore would have been the key landowners in the area.
 
.
I have gone over the top here. I didn't really mean it. I think we should just keep the ones we will already have in the country but build a border all around Bangladesh so no more can get in the future. History has shown what happens when people of different ethnicities live together in the same area - eventually the blending becomes inevitable.


The people of West Bengal are broadly similar to us in ethnicity, genetics, culture. I think you will find most Bangladeshis would put ethnicity before religion. Many Bangladeshis are indeed supporting Pakistan over India, but if there was a West Bengal national team in this world cup (assuming they were a sovereign nation state here), then I think you will find Bangladeshis would have supported the Hindu WB over Muslim Pakistan. However, India consists of many ethnic groups so therefore Pakistan is the more obvious choice, as they at least share religion with us.

Do you seriously think Bangladesh would support Pakistan if there was a war between Pakistan and West Bengal? Of course not. Against India, yes, most Bangladeshis would support Pakistan.
this whole united Bengal stuff was probably the more implicit part of the Lahore Resolution. and it was the Nehru Congress that may have opposed it

supporting WB as part of United Pakistan or just East Bengal, and after all that has happened, supporting WB as a hypothetical independent country....two different things
 
.
What the heck you talking about? East Bengal had always been a Muslim dominant area of Bengal. But when the British came in the 1750s they destroyed the Muslim industries and transferred some of the control to Hindus, who the British saw as meek and less likely to challenge the British dominance. Under Mughal rule, East Bengal was the centre of the worldwide muslin trade. The Muslims were in control of the region for several centuries and therefore would have been the key landowners in the area.

No, it was not like that. Though Muslims were higher in numbers in East Bengal, but it was the Hindu land lords and zamindars & Zotdars who used to hold maximum landed property and wealth there, this was because the affluent class generally didn't convert to Islam, less affluent class did to get rid of the caste based discrimination. In fact this was also one of the reasons for driving out the Hindu Bengali population from East Bengal, you can find lots of historical accounts supporting this.
 
.
What the heck you talking about? East Bengal had always been a Muslim dominant area of Bengal. But when the British came in the 1750s they destroyed the Muslim industries and transferred some of the control to Hindus, who the British saw as meek and less likely to challenge the British dominance. Under Mughal rule, East Bengal was the centre of the worldwide muslin trade. The Muslims were in control of the region for several centuries and therefore would have been the key landowners in the area.

You are wrong, the peasants support to Muslim League in Bengal was because of the Hindu Landlords while the duplicity was shown towards Punjab-Sindh because landlords were mainly Muslim, in that case mainly the jealousy towards educated Sindhi-Punjabi Hindus that came as the support base for the League.

Your concerns for West Bengalis sounds like a joke even after knowing who were most desperate to get their Pakistan at any cost leading to Direct Action Day, Great Calcutta Killings and Noakhali Riots. Even the Punjabi-Sindhi Muslims weren't as desperate as you were for your Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
.
No, it was not like that. Though Muslims were higher in numbers in East Bengal, but it was the Hindu land lords and zamindars & Zotdars who used to hold maximum landed property and wealth there, this was because the affluent class generally didn't convert to Islam, less affluent class did to get rid of the caste based discrimination. In fact this was also one of the reasons for driving out the Hindu Bengali population from East Bengal, you can find lots of historical accounts supporting this.
During Muslim rule the Hindus generally would have been been outside the main economic system. They would have been highly discriminated towards and most likely lived in great fear. There are plenty of accounts of this. The Mughals would have mainly traded with other Muslim regions (but also with non-Muslim regions such as the Far East and Europe). Take for instance trade in muslin, much of it was exported to the Middle East. Sure, some Hindus would have owned land but lot of it Muslim invading forces would have forcibly taken. You will find Bankim Chatterjee's novel from which the India's national song is lifted, praises the British for usurping the Muslims. He was willing to sacrifice British rule so long as the Muslims were not in control.
 
Last edited:
.
No, it was not like that. Though Muslims were higher in numbers in East Bengal, but it was the Hindu land lords and zamindars & Zotdars who used to hold maximum landed property and wealth there, this was because the affluent class generally didn't convert to Islam, less affluent class did to get rid of the caste based discrimination. In fact this was also one of the reasons for driving out the Hindu Bengali population from East Bengal, you can find lots of historical accounts supporting this.

its during British era brahmin hindu bengalis became powerful in bengal. affluent class did converted during muslim rule

of bengal.
 
.
its during British era brahmin hindu bengalis became powerful in bengal. affluent class did converted during muslim rule

of bengal.

Bengali Hindus were first one in the British India to take western education, it was just simple thing. Very bad to see others in Punjab, Bengal and Sindh saw this with a sense of jealousy instead of taking the Western education themselves.
 
.
The conversion process in West Bengal should be well funded. West Bengal will come to Bangaldesh eventually. But I like NE girls better.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom