Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
This, in my MBA years many decades ago, was known as mother-in-law research; "How do you know?" "I asked my mother-in-law."I find only the Indians bear inferiority complex against the Bangali muslims.
An imaginary outcome from an imaginary finding; appropriate enough.So, they try to degrade them by propagating false information.
It is clear that there is no evidence of your premises. Is there any evidence of your conclusions? What false information are you exercised about? Please quote specific instances.
Ah, the cat is out of the bag.I am talking not about population of Bangladesh itself. I am talking about the Muslim population of Sube Bangal. Bihar, Jharkhand, west Bengal and Bangladesh were part of this Sube Bengal.
Population was divided only in 1947, but the 750 years of common history and the common heritage of muslim people of these areas cannot be divided by a date line.
Unfortunately, nobody claimed that there was a difference between Muslim people in the rest of North India and those in Bangladesh, now conveniently re-defined as Sube Bangal. That is because nobody claimed that there was a difference between Muslim people and Hindu people, or adivasis, or the Jains, or the Buddhists.
If you are claiming that Muslims (in decreasing space) of India, North India, Sube Bangal, Bangladesh are genetically different, either produce evidence or stop these racist vapourings.
Who gave you this illusion that Murshidabad was the only Capital of Bengal. It was the last Capital of Sube Bangal. Capital changed time to time. It was in Lakkhanabati (called Lukhnouti by the immigrant Muslims), then Pandua, then Gaur, and then to Orissa (don't remember the name). Was it Rajmahal?
The point that the poster made was that these were all in western Bengal, and in the province of Bengal, which was largely a Mughal construct. You obviously know, or you should know that Jaunpur occupied much of the space before Sube Bangal, so called.
To build a racial and genetic myth around a political grouping of a few hundred years is bizarre; Sube Bangal had a very short existence in history, and building a romantic myth around the 'different' people who came to inhabit it, in that short space of time, not before, not after, is childish.
Rohilkhand, with a shorter political existence, has a better claim to ethnic (not genetic) differentiation.
This is like arguing for a different genetic makeup in Provence as opposed to the rest of France, on the grounds of the difference between langue d'oc and langue d'oeil.
I understand that for whatever reason it is important for you to prove that the Muslim South Asian, wherever located, was different from the other South Asians, but this is well-worn territory. You would be well-advised to go through the Two Nation Theory, which stands thoroughly discredited today, not due to the INC developed and Sangh Parivar inherited One Nation riposte, but due to the obvious and clear underlying ethnic, linguistic and cultural roots of identity which were ignored at that time. You may find it useful to know, before deciding whether or not to invest in further investigation, that this is current thinking in Pakistani liberal circles. That might give you a hint.
After the death of Pathan Sultan Daud Khan Karrani in a battle in Orissa, the Orissa Pathans moved to east Bengal under the leadership of Osman Khan to join hands with the resistance built by Isha Khan Afghan, Baezid Karrani and other Chieftains there.
Read the article "The Last Pathan Hero of Bengal" written by Dr. Bhattasali to know how this Pathan hero Osman Khan fought against the Mughals in Uhar located in Sylhet/Mymensingh. So, where these groups of people go. Did they drown themselves in the Bay of Bengal and vanished?
There was no central Capital during the next 30 years after 1576. The Mughals conquered Dhaka in 1605 and made it the Capital of Sube Bangal. Murshidkuli Khan moved the Capital to Mursidabad many years later. So, learn from history before you blame others of complex mindedness. I am talking from the pages of history, but you are just imagining things.
By the way, who gave you this naive impression that high class muslims should live in the Capital and others would live in the hinterlands? Power changed in Bengal many tens of times.
When a dynasty falls, all his retinues are also disgraced and they flee to places where no one will trace them out. It happened many tens of times in Bengal and also in Delhi. This is why throughout the Centuries, thousands of Delhi Muslim families fled to Bengal after losing a war. But, your revered EATON Sahab could not have the foresight to see this important point. And you are following his footsteps blindly.
Is it your case that this handful of people, dynasties and their retinues, numbering perhaps at best in the thousands, made a genetic difference to approximately 120 million Bengalis?
Bhramin is not a good example to deny the theory of Mandell. There are plenty of Bhramins in south India who are just as dark as black african. I am not actually sure how they became bhramin (as non aryan) but they are now.
Lets look at it from outside the box. Native australians are darker skin so it is fair to imagine that Australian weather is conducive only to darker skin and anybody who settle there will eventually become darker in the course of time. But it did not for west european even after 600 years of settlement. Same goes for American African or American caucasian who did not turn Red Indian natives or anyway near to them. That is becuase evolution takes time and could take 100,000 years to alter a very minute fraction of the DNA.
But again if you look at Chile or Ecuador or Columbia, where most people looks like native only. That is becuase inter mixing. People were forced to intermix in those countries due to the fact that the European women could not conceive in the thin air and the height from the sea level. The conclusion from this two case are that people just dont change their facial or skin appearance in a very short period of time but only intermixing could put a drastic effect.
Now I have to go to Mandels number game here. As I concluded that the evolution is not the factor that Phatan became a bengali featured overnight but its intermixing which made them look more like Bengalis. Now why Bengalis did not became more like Pathan instead Pathan are more like Bengalis now? Its because number of Pathans are less in the stock than those were Bengalis. If for instance 80:20 the proportion of Bengali vs Pathan then after a period of say 500 years with population increase 800 people will look more like Bengali and 200 people will look more like Pathan. But again both the stock will bear some mark of Bengalis and some mark of Pathan. Nobody will remain pure as they came from original stock.
That is just a very simplified way of looking at it. But there are again more complex theories, the survival of the fittest. When two genes meet only the better part of the DNA suppose to pass on to the next generation. In this case as Bengalis are native then their gene should suit the local environment and should be passed on as the superior gene to the next generation. But this is again a very slow process shoul take 10s of thousands of years to see the distinct featurastic change. But the immunity to dieseases are in immediate effect.
I suggest to you that this ratio, far from being the 80:20 that you have described, is closer to 1:1000, perhaps even 1:10000. There are no records of large Pathan settlements in Bengal, however we define it, in the classical sense or as the artificial construct of Sube Bangal. On the other hand, there are records of large Pathan settlements in Upper India, well beyond the borders of Sube Bangal, which continue to remain intact to this day. Now, while the original Pakhtunkhwa Pathan tract in North West India, today North West Pakistan, is genetically seen to be distinct from other Pakistanis, who are genetically close to South Asian patterns, there is no difference, genetically, between Rohilkhand and its surrounds.
Are we to assume that there was a much larger immigration into Bengal, an unrecorded migration, unknown to exist as a separate tract as Rohilkhand existed, and that this was such a large sub-stratum that it genetically influenced the entire population much more than the Rohillas influenced their surrounding population?
1% is a lot..
We differ from Chimpanzee only by 4%
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
Even an Chinese and Black african's DNA dont differ more than 1%. Its just a very tiny fraction of a % DNA could make a complete different race.
I was wondering who would spot this, and of course, it had to be you.
It is not what I have said in all my posts about genetic superiority. Genetically no nation is more superior to any other nations. I cited the political history of this region to prove that Bangali muslims do not have a single source of genes. There have been admixtures of other people as well. I also cited about negro abisinian admixture in us. Does it also mean that I wanted to prove that we are genetically superior?
Unfortunately, in your racist obsession with Central Asia, and with at one time Turkic, at another time Pathan (two completely different genetic groups, as your close study of the genetic composition of these populations would have shown), you have completely overlooked the longer, deeper connection of Sube Bangal with another genetic type.
Since earliest recorded history, the eastern frontiers of South Asia, which at times merge with the eastern frontiers of the current Bangladesh, have seen an open frontier and the free influx of people of Tibeto-Burman stock, through the Brahmaputra Valley, and through the Arakan Peninsula, but also across the grain of the country, across the Khasi and Jaintia Hills.
I could remind you of the 1200 year history of Ahom domination of the Brahmaputra Valley, of the role of the Koch in northern Bengal, of the incursions of the Tibetans into Bengal during the period of expansion of the Tibetan Empire, an episode well-recorded in Tibetan history, and not acknowledged at all in Indian history, of the rule of Burma extending as far in as Cachar in as late as the 19th century, and of the permeable boundary between the tribes on the east side of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills and those on the west side.
By the way, do you really understand the meaning of Turkic blood? Read before you send trash again. Is it the present day Turkey that I was talking about? Learn about the definition of Turkic people. And also learn about the present day Turkey people, and why do they look so different from their cousins in the central asia. Now, you will come up again with another chart, perhaps.
What an explosion of bad temper!
The 'trash' contains full details of the 'Turkic' people, including the inhiabitants of the central Asian Russian republics that now form the CIS. If anybody genuinely wanted information, it was available for the asking.
As far as 'present-day' Turks are concerned, by which presumably we are to understand the inhabitants of the country known today as Turkey, it is astonishing that in spite of the mass migration of first the Seljuk Turks, and subsequently the Ottoman Turks, there should be such a regression to the original 'Anatolian' type.
This single item by itself proves the utter fatuity of the argument about a few thousand soldiers, courtiers, perhaps peasants (though no explicit records are cited or are available on this point) having been a genetic influence on the Bangali people, east, west or Suba Bangal. If the migration of two tribes en masse had no effect on such a territory as Anatolia, how the migration of a much smaller number would have had a dramatic effect on a much larger population is a mystery.
If an invasion has been discredited(?), then the immigration cannot be discredited. Look at the physical features of different groups/caste of Hindu people. You cannot just discredit a theory only because a German anthropologist studied the physical features of us and deduced the conclusion.
Physical features vary within the same unitary family; so what?
Aryan footprint is spread everywhere in the Sub-continent. Why people should deny the long bygone history of their own forebearers for silly reasons? It is not the common people who decide about history. It is history that proves the existence of truths.
It is amazing that in 2010 AD, someone still thinks that the Aryans were a people and that they had a footprint.
Incidentally, not the common people, but historians themselves have long decades ago blown apart the myth that 'Aryan' represented a people, and have shown us that there were Aryan languages, spoken by a core group of mixed ethnicity, and which rapidly spread out to beyond the core group. It is in this way that the languages spread, to populations which had no connection with the original core group.
One cannot cite political history when talking about genes and trying to prove the genetic background of group of people. Genes or genetic drift do not follow nor care about what happened politically.
As for not having a single source - that is true for nearly most of the population of earth. Humans have migrated to nearly everywhere and intermixing of genes is something which has happened with every local population. But my point of posting that chart and the links was to show that any Turkic, semitic or pashto gene present in Bangladeshi Muslims is an insignificant portion of the gene make up. You will find this portion is consistent with the portion that the population of North India and Pakistan (to an extent). This proves that the origin or ancestors of most of Bangladeshi Muslims were the natives of that land, not middle eastern people.
Thankfully my charts actually prove something and are backed by scientific proofs, unlike talking about history books and political history without actually providing any sort of proof to back up your points.
Btw what has Turkic people have any thing to do in particular with the topic? Here's their list if you need it - Turkic peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You could have mentioned that the Pushto are genetically distinct from South Asians otherwise, including the Baloch and the Sindhi, Punjabi, and so on.
Till date, there are no archaeological evidence to support mass movement of population or invasion to South Asia in pre-historic periods. Perhaps thats why researchers and archaeologist do not accept the invasion theory.
But of course there need not be much archaeological proof of an invasion for the theory to be actually true. Many mass movements in history have not been archaeologically attested but are true.
In this connection, in partial corroboration, in partial contradiction of your point, I invited your attention to the implications of the BMAC culture.
I have not gone through all your gobblish. It is because you want to say that people should not study the Normandy invasion by William the conqueror to know how a different genes were added to the native population of England. In your opinion, we should not know how the Turkic settlers from the central asia had changed themselves by mingling with the europeans there.
In your opinion, no one should also cite or study how because of influx of millions of european immigrants in the USA the native Red Indian population decreased by percentage. You also want to say we should not study how the native population in the latin americas changed due to Spanish cruelty and highhandedness.
You must be a pitiful silly creature without a creative mind.
Keep on living in your hard nut to crack typical Indian mind-shell and lecture your fellow countrymen.
I was not aware that a creative mind was required to study history. That might explain why I am not already rich and famous.
And what the influx of millions of european immigrants in the USA reducing the Red Indian population by percentges has to do with the present argument is baffling.
Is the case that the influx of milliions (!) of Pathan and Turkic labourers and peasants yearning for the feel of the earth between their toes after millions of years of forced labour as nomadic herdsmen reduced the native Bangladeshi ethnics to a minority?
What millions were these? Those millions who migrated during the existence of Sube Bangal and none else? Or those who migrated earlier and later and operating in stealth mode took over agriculture from the earlier inhabitants, without leaving a single trace of their presence? Other than, of course, the conclusive evidence of what has been described to us as the taller, fairer specimens who occur in the population?
where did I deny that population migration or invasion does not change the genetic make up of the local population? Perhaps if you had read the following, you would have saved your time.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there was migration of some middle eastern people to North India and Bangladesh and this would have brought their genes into the local pool. However the fact still remains that a significant majority of Bangladeshi people have the same genetic makeup as of the rest of the surrounding area.
Ancestry is not claimed simply by going back in time and seeing who was our parents parent and who were their parent and so on. If we go on this way, every living person today can claim ancestry to everyone who had lived in the past (around 1000-1400 AD barring pedigree collapse). [COLOR]This way every single person today can claim to have descent from the sahaba's or even the prophet(PBUH) himself.[/COLOR] This is why when ancestry and genes are talked about, researchers usually mention straight matrilineal (through mitochondrial DNA) and patrilineal (through Y chromosomal DNA) descent rather than common ancestor.
This proves that majority of bangladeshi muslim's ancestors were not middle eastern invaders but rather the original native bengali people. <--- refer to the charts if you want to see the genetic makeup.
Did you know that if ancestry is to be claimed the way you suggest (outside invasion and what not), then nearly every single person living in north, central and western India can claim that the Mughal invaders are their ancesters!
Btw what the heck is gobblish
You were doing so well until you got to this point. What a shame!
The word gobblish comes from the dialect spoken in and around Gobindopur, and was given prominence by the Gobindopur Sen family.
Gobindo "Gobbles" Sen was a rich Bengali zamindar whose superb knowledge of Persian, Turkish and Arabic brought him the understanding that he was descended of the same stock as the Germans. He and his family and two neighbouring villages thereupon migrated to Germany, where they took up land which was lying fallow and began cultivating it. All the members of the family and their neighbours to boot (did this sound tongue-in-cheek? I hope not) were brilliant in anything they did. They became completely adapted to local conditions, learnt German and spoke it like, erm, natives.
This family and its adjuncts were single-handedly responsible for introducing black hair to Germany, during their one hundred and twenty years in that land and in Austria, and another province known as Sude Germany, corrupted by non-Pushto speakers to Sudeten Germany.
In politics, they rose to the heights. Their most illustrious descendant looked visible non-German (he resembles my first cousin a lot), but still held high office as Reichs Minister for Propaganda from 1933 to 1945, and is well-known to historians as Joseph Goebbels.