From Buddhist East Bengal to Islamic Bangladesh

[Nilgiri]

I was actually mentioning Bengal presidency population comprised of 5 provinces which is natural boundary of Bengal.

Thats like saying entire Madras Presidency is counted as TN in earlier times.

Though I guess we do not make such a big hue and cry about it given there is no religious angle in our case.

"Natural boundary" is laughable. I suppose maximum Akhand Bharat is also a natural one too according to others.

You still have no source for your % figures of islamics in what Brits called "Bengal proper". So it will remain exactly what you called it: an assumption.

And you know what they say when you assume....you make an *** out of u and me.

Your quote:

And whole Bengal was like 56% Muslim during partition. My assumption is 100 years ago Muslims were 40% and 200 years ago like 20-30%.

 

[scorpionx]

The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 - Richard M. Eaton - Paperback - University of California Press

May be this can help.

 

[bongbang]

"Natural boundary" is laughable. I suppose maximum Akhand Bharat is also a natural one too according to others.

Over thousand year this is the natural boundary. Only upper Assam and Chittagong hills are exception. Buddhist Palas, Hindu Senas, Mohammedan or British rulers maintained that.

You still have no source for your % figures of islamics in what Brits called "Bengal proper". So it will remain exactly what you called it: an assumption.

I have given you the source where it shows Bengal proper had 17.6m Muslims out of 36m population. And total Bengal had 20.6m Muslims out of 66m population. Now calculate %. Bengal proper had like 49% and total Bengal had 23% Muslims according to 1872 census.

 

[Nilgiri]

Over thousand year this is the natural boundary.

Natural boundaries also exist for entire India.You are welcome to merge with India on our terms. We will never let you break a part of India away on your local interpretation of a natural boundary. Let us be clear on that. Accept that Indian Bengalis and those that you say are part of greater Bengal have moved on to bigger and better things.

You grow as much as you can first, and let us do so too and then we will revisit in another generation time as to who wants to merge with who (I can guarantee it will not be Indians wanting to leave and join some country that split in the first place because of religion over greater culture...and realised only later what a bad idea that was). Most concerned are too poor and hungry to care about this for the time being.

I have given you the source where it shows Bengal proper had 17.6m Muslims out of 36m population. And total Bengal had 20.6m Muslims out of 66m population. Now calculate %. Bengal proper had like 49% and total Bengal had 23% Muslims according to 1872 census.

Bangladesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

West Bengal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion in Bangladesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

West Bengal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of 2015, estimates are:

Bangladesh total population = 169 million

Of these 12.1% are Hindu = 20.4 million

86.3% are Muslim = 145.8 million


West Bengal total population = 95 million

Hindus are about 67 million

Muslims are about 25.6 million

The grand total for the former "Bengal proper" is 87.4 million Hindus and 171.4 million Muslims.

171.4 muslims is about 65%. Compare this to 50% during British time. Its about 15% difference due to:

a) Hindu Bengali migration away from Bengal proper to other parts of India over a long time

b) Historically higher population growth rates of Muslims in Bengal (but not really all that much more)

At most one may expect a 50/50 split from this trend in earlier times with the arrival of Islam (I am talking only Bengal proper...not this ridiculous "greater bengal"). So your figures of conversion of Hindus and mass continued conversion of Hindus is pretty much hot air....assumptions by you with no backing in any literary census. It is also interesting to note that Bengali Hindu population in Bengal proper is relatively consistent between the two periods at about 33%.

Show me one published estimate that claims 20% Muslim population in greater undivided Bengal in the early 1800s. It would have been at least 50% then itself since larger conversion of the weak so called oppressed Eastern Bengalis started much earlier.

Trying to run the Islamization of Bengal parallel with the Bengali renaissance under British Raj is quite stupid and has no evidence anywhere. The overall split was already there when the British arrived and it was definitely not as low as 20% Muslim......the people that wanted to be Muslim already were for the most part during Mughal rule....since thats when the most benefit accrued from being so. Thankfully enough Bengalis remained Hindu and we have our original Bengal to remind us of it....and we will forever keep it that way.

We are confident of our country, we have nuclear weapons, we are not submerging underwater with each passing year and we are growing economically faster than ever before. If you are insecure about your ancestors belonging to another religion or culture and acquiesing and converting to one from far away....that is your burden to bear. Your agenda of trying to make Hinduism look a certain way may be popular among your sort....it will never gain any support in India where the best part of Bengal and best Bengali people are firmly stationed and proud to be.

So make all the assumptions you want to, fact of the matter is you need a Visa to come over to this side of Bengal (proper or greater) or try your luck pole vaulting....since this border will always remain as long as you lot are as poor as you are...and you will only potentially merge with us over time.....never the other way around. Hope it is clear.

 

[Riyad]

Natural boundaries also exist for entire India.You are welcome to merge with India on our terms. We will never let you break a part of India away on your local interpretation of a natural boundary. Let us be clear on that. Accept that Indian Bengalis and those that you say are part of greater Bengal have moved on to bigger and better things.

So make all the assumptions you want to, fact of the matter is you need a Visa to come over to this side of Bengal (proper or greater) or try your luck pole vaulting....since this border will always remain as long as you lot are as poor as you are...and you will only potentially merge with us over time.....never the other way around. Hope it is clear.

India already broke away in 1947. Bangladesh was once part of India as a form of East Bengal and Assam but religious differences made us and Indians aliens to each other for the last day of the earth if there is last day. If East Bengal remained Buddhist or Hindu it would have never joined Pakistan in first place. Would have remained with India but Islamic identity has been stronger than ethnic identity for us hence we didn't remerge with India in 1971 but our culture is such that we couldn't remain with geographically isolated West Pakistan either. We remain separate from you and will remain so because of Islam but geographically India carries entire Bangladesh map with it. We can't change nature. So geographically we will remain with you but not politically ever. So stop welcoming us to merge with you as you know why.

 

[Saiful Islam]

I wouldn't rely on a theory proposed by an Indian. I'd rather rely on anecdotal evidence and records held by many all over Bangladesh on how they became Muslim and they will tell you.

The popular "spread by the sword" narrative is absolute rubbish and there to tarnish our religion. Islam came in many waves; whether it was the Turkic/Afghan conquest or Persian saints who searched for fertile land and then later on the locals slowly adhered to Islam and also some amalgamation happened. One thing many people forget to mention that it was the rich/upper class people that you would see often as Muslims in East Bengal. So it's not entirely true that lower castes converted to liberate themselves.

You say what the Sufis brought attracted the locals as they saw Allah as a loving god, but why isn't the bulk population adhering to any Sufi orders?

Whether it was Buddhism or Hinduism it doesn't make a difference, both idol worshiping religions.

 

[Nilgiri]

religious differences made us and Indians aliens to each other for the last day of the earth if there is last day.

Bengali muslims get along fine with Bengali Hindu majority in WB and the same for the most part in Bangladesh.

Certainly not extent of "alien". Or we would have not lifted a finger to help you in 1971.

but Islamic identity has been stronger than ethnic identity for us hence we didn't remerge with India in 1971

Well if religious identity was so strong, you would have just stayed part of Pakistan. You would be under nuclear umbrella right now. Instead you didnt accept that Bengali is not even an official language and there is definitely some cultural ties to a greater statehood based outside of purely religion...and hence 1971 happened.

I would not say either identity is stronger than the other. They may be about equal....enough to split away from Pakistan (which was formed in the name of Islam) but not join with India (because India is secular above everything).

So geographically we will remain with you but not politically ever. So stop welcoming us to merge with you as you know why.

It will be the direct response to anyone saying parts of India should be broken off and joined to Bangladesh....either directly or implied by "natural boundaries".

If you dont want to hear it, your compatriots should not broach the subject in the first place.

Merger will happen only in one direction between the two if it happens. We are not equals. You do not pick and choose what happens to a country several times larger and more powerful.

 

[bongbang]

Natural boundaries also exist for entire India.You are welcome to merge with India on our terms. We will never let you break a part of India away on your local interpretation of a natural boundary. Let us be clear on that. Accept that Indian Bengalis and those that you say are part of greater Bengal have moved on to bigger and better things.

Dont act like bigot and insecure by the said natural boundary. It was there, I never said we want to make it again. So stop jumping like a child. Tamils Keralans are never in the natural boundary of anything. So stop associating with something which you arent related.

You grow as much as you can first, and let us do so too and then we will revisit in another generation time as to who wants to merge with who (I can guarantee it will not be Indians wanting to leave and join some country that split in the first place because of religion over greater culture...and realised only later what a bad idea that was). Most concerned are too poor and hungry to care about this for the time being.

Again we have given time and taken time for ourselves. Its not like we are coming tomorrow. You have plenty of time, if we decide on something. Like we voted out and India was formed, we called yoyo come baby fight pak. You come with rolling your tail. You are only minute away from our call.

Trying to run the Islamization of Bengal parallel with the Bengali renaissance under British Raj is quite stupid and has no evidence anywhere. The overall split was already there when the British arrived and it was definitely not as low as 20% Muslim......the people that wanted to be Muslim already were for the most part during Mughal rule....since thats when the most benefit accrued from being so. Thankfully enough Bengalis remained Hindu and we have our original Bengal to remind us of it....and we will forever keep it that way.

In proper areas there is always certain kinds density of people because of wide activities and rural areas people are sparsely populated and less important. So Bengal proper which was center of activity of all activities it can have more of certain people. People whom were thousand years in that fold are divided. That is real Bengal. You got less important and rural areas and place of British. Though Im not saying they are not Bengali. Its just we would be more happy if Murshidabad, Malda and Nadia districts was with us.

We are confident of our country, we have nuclear weapons, we are not submerging underwater with each passing year and we are growing economically faster than ever before. If you are insecure about your ancestors belonging to another religion or culture and acquiesing and converting to one from far away....that is your burden to bear. Your agenda of trying to make Hinduism look a certain way may be popular among your sort....it will never gain any support in India where the best part of Bengal and best Bengali people are firmly stationed and proud to be.

No one is saying that lot. You are going on verbal diarrhea with your words. Proves again your insecurity as we may come to claim something. Best Bengali people my foot. Only ramnats of British. Just wait for the generation to die and we are already seeing what that Bengal is.

So make all the assumptions you want to, fact of the matter is you need a Visa to come over to this side of Bengal (proper or greater) or try your luck pole vaulting....since this border will always remain as long as you lot are as poor as you are...and you will only potentially merge with us over time.....never the other way around. Hope it is clear.

Your thought process is based on current system. In future the current boundaries will be abolished and natural boundaries will be formed. So many people will be jobless whom were artificially holding something, maybe that is what you are afraid of. Your timeline is 100 years, you will see after that what is coming, cant tell now what that is.

 

[Tshering22]

Not Buddhists But Islam attracted People of low class who felt oppressed. They converted en masse by sufi saints in the form of Shah Jalal Shah Poran Khan Jahan Ali etc. To escape the class divide.

Oh please. This myth has long been propagated by Islamic rulers and colonial Europeans to justify conversion either through force or lies.

Your theory falls flat on face as it doesn't apply to us Buddhists.

Come up with something else.

 

[Nilgiri]

Dont act like bigot and insecure by the said natural boundary. It was there, I never said we want to make it again. So stop jumping like a child.

Ok dada my bad. I misunderstood what you are implying.

Tamils Keralans are never in the natural boundary of anything

Actually there are if you are from here. Deccan plateau, ghats and certain rivers have always formed well known boundaries of our most famous kingdoms and empires.

So don't assume that only Bengal and "greater Bengal" have some history on this matter. They are all as equally irrelevant today....except in the story books and history lessons.

Again we have given time and taken time for ourselves. Its not like we are coming tomorrow. You have plenty of time, if we decide on something. Like we voted out and India was formed, we called yoyo come baby fight pak. You come with rolling your tail. You are only minute away from our call.

Rolling our tail? lol. You really think we are going to help you again if the nasty Burmese give you a hiding in CHT? Has our little boy grown up and learned to walk? or you going to cry and ask for help when someone is being mean to you again? No one hears it when we are scolding you little one....though we mean you well.

Though Im not saying they are not Bengali. Its just we would be more happy if Murshidabad, Malda and Nadia districts was with us.

Yeah you aren't getting them. People got raw deals all around because of partition. If people didnt like it, they could move.

We would be happy if your lot were just like West Bengalis culturally and religion wise....doing away with any need for a border to exist in the first place. But we can't just wish that now can we?

No one is saying that lot. You are going on verbal diarrhea with your words. Proves again your insecurity as we may come to claim something. Best Bengali people my foot. Only ramnats of British. Just wait for the generation to die and we are already seeing what that Bengal is.

In 2014 its GDP was about 134 billion USD using yearly exchange rate average of 60 INR to USD.

List of Indian states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Bangladesh during same year it was about 184 billion USD.

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

So West Bengal has about 73% of Bangladesh economy size....but WB population is about 56% that of Bangladesh.

So yes West Bengal is the "Best" Bengal still....and even as bad as they are doing compared to rest of India, still growing faster than you lot too in real terms:

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-growth-of-indian-states.php

I mean 6.6% annualised average real growth rate compared to Bangladesh annualised average real growth rate of 6.1% over the same period:

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

Best Bengal is still better by a mile . Don't let the truth hurt you too much....that our worst performing states are still doing better than you. Its the scale of difference between the two countries in general. At least the saving grace is that you are not as bad as our western neighbours who we were gracious enough to help you get rid off. Closer you become to us, the better your growth rate will be hehe. Its really that simple.

Your thought process is based on current system. In future the current boundaries will be abolished and natural boundaries will be formed. So many people will be jobless whom were artificially holding something, maybe that is what you are afraid of. Your timeline is 100 years, you will see after that what is coming, cant tell now what that is.

In 100 years lol? You and me will be long gone by then. I'm talking what we can expect to see within our generation.

Why not talk in timeframes of 1000s of years? Or millions of years? What's stopping you?

The more worse the situation is for you today, the more you hope things will change way distant in the future I guess.

But as long as Bangladesh has nothing to offer India but even cheaper labour of a cultural kind we have no need for...the border will be constricted to the appropriate level. Those that are desperate enough can take their lives in their hands to escape the floodwaters and stifling population crush....but thats their decision to make. No free rides to your lot, stay put and improve your own country please.

 

[extra terrestrial]

In 2014 its GDP was about 134 billion USD using yearly exchange rate average of 60 INR to USD.

List of Indian states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Bangladesh during same year it was about 184 billion USD.

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

So West Bengal has about 73% of Bangladesh economy size....but WB population is about 56% that of Bangladesh.

So yes West Bengal is the "Best" Bengal still....and even as bad as they are doing compared to rest of India, still growing faster than you lot too in real terms:

Indian states by GDP Growth 2015 - StatisticsTimes.com

I mean 6.6% annualised average real growth rate compared to Bangladesh annualised average real growth rate of 6.1% over the same period:

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

Slight corrections,

Your link shows that in 2014, West Bengal's GDP was $100 billion which is 56% of Bangladesh's $186 billion.

In 2011, West Bengal's population was 91,347,736 which is 64% of Bangladesh's population of 142.3 million.

The problem in comparing provinces with sovereign countries is that the stats for the countries are usually from international organizations while that of the provinces come from national agencies... so the chances of inaccuracies or discrepancies are higher in the stats for the provinces than that for the sovereign countries since the national agencies tend to show politically motivated inflated numbers...

 

[Nilgiri]

Your link shows that in 2014, West Bengal's GDP was $100 billion which is 56% of Bangladesh's $186 billion.

2013-14 corresponds to the 2013 FY. I am comparing 2014 FY. (I have had this exact same talk with Doyalbaba long time back) Same reason why 2015 corresponds to 2015 - 2016 FY and this is not put on the 2nd table on the wiki page yet (because the year has not yet finished fiscally for India).

That table on wikipedia page at the top is quite bad, since I did a back calculation and it is suggesting an INR exchange rate of 67 to 1 USD for the year of 2013 which is off by a wide mark (the average exchange rate during that year was around 60ish). Someone basically has used this years most recent exchange rate for 2013, which is a big mistake....but hey its wikipedia...what matters more are the core source links most of the time.

Using the rupee figures and exchange rate of 60:1 for 2013, WB had a current GDP of around 118 billion USD. IMF gives the figure for B'desh for 2013 Fiscal year as 161 billion USD. Again about 73% of Bangladesh, suggesting current growth between 2013 and 2014 was about the same since the ratios are about the same.

However one can say there is a bit more higher real growth in WB since INR has depreciated more against the USD compared to BDT (if I am not mistaken) and there is lower inflation rate in WB than Bangladesh in the same period (again if I am not mistaken)...hence suggesting that having the same current price growth between the two reflects higher real growth in West Bengal (though maybe by about half a percentage point in total since the differences are not all that huge).

In 2011, West Bengal's population was 91,347,736 which is 64% of Bangladesh's population of 142.3 million.

I am using the ratio for 2015 and assuming they hold approximately for 2013.

List of states and union territories of India by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demographics of Bangladesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From this we can see the yearly population growth for WB is about 1.3 % p.a from 2001 to 2011. The most recent population growth figure for B'desh is 1.6%. So for 2015 the population of Bdesh is around 169 million people. For WB it comes to around 95.8 million using the 91.3 million base of 2011 and multiplying it by 1.013^4. I rounded down to 95 million since I expect the population growth rate to be even lower (around 1% per annum in recent years)...but its fine for worst case scenario to say its around 96 million. 96/169 = 57%...1% higher than what I said earlier.

Bangladesh population was certainly not 142.3 million in 2013. That is more close to the population of Bangladesh in 2004. I do not know where you got that number from. In 2013, the population of Bangladesh was around 157 million. In 2011 it was around 153 million. So for 2013 with these numbers, the ratio is about 91.3/157 = 58%.

Google

The problem in comparing provinces with sovereign countries is that the stats for the countries are usually from international organizations while that of the provinces come from national agencies... so the chances of inaccuracies or discrepancies are higher in the stats for the provinces than that for the sovereign countries since the national agencies tend to show politically motivated inflated numbers..

That is correct, there are issues. Even comparing strictly entire countries through a common international organisation presents problems and errors. Thats why everything is at the root an estimate.....we have to start somewhere and accept its not the exact reality....but if the difference is large enough, there is probably an on the ground merit to it.

To me WB and Bangladesh are doing about the same overall on most things....but I think WB is higher....others can disagree and thats fine....but I will show what I base my assertions on at least.

 

[Aham Brahmasmi]

Thanks for the share. Pakistan too had a heavy Buddhist presence prior to the emergence of Islam, and because like Bengal it lay at the periphery of South Asia, as a consequence it too became more isolated from the Gangetic heartland of Medieval Hinduism. The humanistic ideals of Sufism explain to a great deal the conversion of the Buddhist populace of the Indus valley and East Bengal to Islam.



Was it exclusively the low caste though that converted in Bengal? You will often hear some Indians gloating about how Pakistanis are low caste people who converted to Islam, but Rajput tribes like Janjua, Bhati, Samma, Soomro or Bhrahmin tribes like Butt, Sheikhs (Allama Iqbals grandfather was a Kashmiri Pandit), were anything but low caste. I am sure Bengal too must have had high caste conversions to Islam.

wait, what ? even brahmins converted to Islam in Pakistan ?

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

It is interesting how Buddhist East Bengal became Islamic Bangladesh.


How did East Bengal become Muslim majority?

Picture: Ruins of Buddhist empire in Bangladesh.

Sharbatanu Chatterjee, Open-minded optimist, Indian by nature, knowledge-hungry liberal minded and g...
10.8k Views • Upvoted by Sarosh Mohammad, Muslim

This is a very interesting question and prompted me to read up a lot on the history of the historic region of Bengal. I have gathered opinion and words extensively from the resources mentioned below.

As Karl Marx had said, history of humankind is all about a history of class struggles. However, there are several theories to explain why West Bengal was Hindu-majority while East and North Bengal were Muslim-majority.

Fig 1: Bengal (Pre-partition)


In fact, this is quite paradoxical!

If one traveled from West to East along the vast land mass known as Indo-Gangetic plain in the pre-partition days, when there were some Hindus and some Muslims in every part of the plain, one would have observed that the proportion of Muslims in the population would go on reducing as one went east. Thus, the North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan and Sind were overwhelmingly Muslim ; Punjab was balanced, with a Muslim majority tapering off as one went from Attock to Ambala, west to east within the province ; and the United Provinces and Bihar were overwhelmingly Hindu. Yet suddenly the pattern reversed itself in East and North Bengal, and then again fell into place in the easternmost province of British India, namely Assam.

1. The First Theory:

This question had perplexed Syed Mujtabaa Ali who had come to the conclusionthat this was due to the arrival of Arab traders in the coastal towns of East Bengal, in the Chittagong-Barisal stretch (Bottom right in Fig 1) who had settled down and brought and spread their faith in much the same way as they did in the Malabar region of present-day Kerala, or in Malaysia or Indonesia. Annada Sankar Ray writes in his Jukto Bonger Sriti (Memoirs of United Bengal) that a tradition existed in Chittagong of writing Bangla in Arabic script. He attributes it to maritime trade relations between Chittagong and Arabia from the pre-Islamic period.

The theory of Islam being spread by this trade-and-contact route, rather than by the conquest-and-conversion route, is plausible, and also attractive, but is probably not correct.

(Plausible, because a similar phenomenon was noticed in the case of a number of Portuguese who had settled down in those parts, and had created Roman Catholic pockets. Buddhadeb Bose writes in the first part of his autobiography Amar Chhelebela (Bengali) that he had seen a person of almost pure Portuguese blood in the coastal town of Noakhali (of Noakhali genocide infamy) in the 1920s who spoke the usual Noakhali dialect. Gopal Haldar, in his reminiscences of pre-partition Noakhali mentions two villages adjoining Noakhali town called Shahebghata (literally, wharf of the Europeans) and Ezbelia (Isabella?), inhabited by ordinary-looking folk but of the Catholic faith, and with names like Gonsalves and Fernandes.)

This theory, on the other hand, is probably not correct, because firstly, it cannot explain how faraway places in North Bengal, such as Rangpur and Dinajpur became Muslim-majority, while places more accessible on the riverine route, such as Lower Assam, did not ; also why the Portuguese, who were no less proselytizers than the Arabs, could not spread their faith.

Finally, the theory is probably not correct because there is a better explanation.

2.The Second Theory:

That explanation is that this region, along with large parts of the rest of India and places as far west and north as modern-day Afghanistan and Xinjiang, had become entirely Buddhist, and by the sixth century or so this Buddhism had also become adulterated with diverse forms of animism, occult practices, promiscuity, and the like, something in the nature of what is known in Hinduism as vamachara, and had degenerated into a loose faith. The great Acharya Sankara set out on foot from faraway Kerala to set right this state of affairs and in a life of only 32 years got the country firmly back to the Hindu fold. It is possible that the Acharya could not reach the eastern parts of Bengal because of the relative inaccessibility of the delta. In fact the delta of Eastern Bengal was known in legend as Pandavavarjita Desha -- the land that even the Pandavas avoided. The population therefore remained Buddhist-Animist, and easily converted to Islam when the marauders from the west came to Bengal. Extensive ruins of Buddhist monasteries are found at Paharpur and Mahasthangarh in the northern parts of present-day Bangladesh. The Buddhist priest Dipankar Srigyan had set out from a village called Bajrajogini near Dhaka to convert the whole of Tibet to Buddhism. Buddhism held fray in East Bengal

The Muslims of East Bengal are therefore, in all probability, converts mostly from Buddhism-Animism and not from Hinduism. This view is also held by the eminent historian Vincent Smith among others. The argument finds great support from the fact that Buddhism has yielded elsewhere, as it did in East Bengal, much more easily to Islam than Sanatan (Orthodox) Hinduism. Thus once-Buddhist Afghanistan and Xinjiang eventually became totally Muslim, while Hindu India did not. Similarly, Buddhist East Bengal became Muslim-majority, while lands to the west, which had become Hindu under the influence of Sankara remained Hindu.

3. The Third Theory

Ashok Mitra of the Indian Civil Service has advanced a very different theory which he attributes to his Gurus in Anthropology and Demography, respectively Jatindra Mohan Datta and Sailendra Nath Sengupta.

According to him these two gentlemen worked out the total number of Muslims and Christians that had come to India from outside upto the 17th century. They then extrapolated this figure to 1951 using the prevailing rate of increase in population. Deducting the result from the total number of Muslims in India and Pakistan they came to the conclusion, among others, that ninety-five percent of the Bengali Muslims had been Hindus in the last, that is the nineteenth century. This is very interesting, but leads to a number of total absurdities. First, it is inconceivable that the number of Hindus converting to Islam would be more in the British age than in the Moghul or Nawabi age. There were several incentives to convert during those earlier ages, while there were only disincentives during the British times, at least upto the beginning of this century. Secondly any estimate of the total number of Muslims who entered India might be made, if at all, with some difficulty, but to estimate how many of them entered Bengal seems impossible. How they surmounted this obstacle is not mentioned in Ashok Mitra’s book. Thirdly, this theory does not explain the anomaly of sudden increase in Muslim population in East Bengal as one goes from West to East. Lastly, it presupposes that the rate of growth of population is the same among Hindus and Muslims whereas in fact it is not so ; the latter was always more than the former. Ashok Mitra does not endorse the conclusions of his Gurus, but cites them without comment. Neither Syed Mujtabaa Ali nor Annada Sankar Ray are confident that their views are correct or even supported by a substantial historical school.

4. The Fourth Theory (Most Probable):

M.R.Akhtar Mukul, a prominent present-day Bangladeshi intellectual, has tried an explanation in his book 'Purbapurusher Sandhane' (in Bangla, meaning 'In Search of Our Ancestors') . In this book also he has supported the contention that the Muslims of East and North Bengal are mostly converts from Buddhists. (Similar to Theory 2) He has commented upon the absence of recorded history of Bengalis in the period between the decline of Buddhism in India and the coming of Sufi saints to Bengal. Finally he has also concluded that the simple appeal of the Sufis, who preached a form of Islam in which Allah, the Muslim God, was looked upon as an object of love rather than fear, proved to be irresistible to the massses of Eastern Bengal. These masses, according to him, were at the lower end of the caste spectrum under the Brahminical hierarchy, and were an oppressed lot. They eagerly embraced the egalitarianism of Islam, and that is how Eastern Bengal became Muslim majority.

While the theory is basically in tune with the likely theory postulated earlier, Mukul has not been explicit as to whether the masses first converted from Buddhism to Hinduism, and then to Islam or directly from Buddhism to Islam. His emphasis on the presumed Brahminical oppression suggests the first, while (this is due to Tathagata Ray's emphasis) in all probability the second is what had actually happened. In his analysis as well as the interview that this author had with him Mukul had also betrayed a strong dislike for what he calls the 'Brahminical religion'. From the the annihilation of Buddhism in the plains of India (which has been referred to earlier in connection with the travels of Acharya Sankara) he has conjectured that Buddhists were also annihilated all over India, without revealing any basis for such a presumption, and without taking any account of the fact that ruins of Buddhist shrines, like Mahasthangarh in North Bengal or Nalanda in Bihar, had existed through the Hindu period, to this day without being vandalised. And last of all, his theory does not explain why what happened in Eastern Bengal did not happen in western part of Bengal, Magadh or Mithila regions (now parts of the Indian state of Bihar) or Avadh, Tirhut, or Rohilkhand (now parts of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh) - after all the Sufis could not have reached Eastern Bengal without passing through these regions, and there is no reason why the Sufis would not have tried their proselytisation in these parts. What, then, is the reason why the people responded to the Sufis in Eastern Bengal while they did not do so in such large numbers in Western Bengal, Magadh, Mithila, Avadh or Rohilkhand? The only plausible reason appears to be the extremely tenacious hold of Sanatan Dharma, as opposed to the looseness of the Buddhist-animist faith.

Hence, it appears that the subject has not been adequately researched. It is doubtless a very interesting topic of demographic research but the results, whatever they may be, may cause trouble, which may explain the reluctance to research.

The pattern of population in pre-1947 Bengal was roughly as follows : the province had one huge city and its industrial-commercial hub, its capital Calcutta. The rest of the province was known as moffussil, a region generally looked down upon by the inhabitants of the big city. In this region there were a few minor towns, such as Dhaka, Chittagong and Darjeeling, but the rest was predominantly rural. As already said, the western part of the province, including Calcutta, was Hindu-majority while the north and the east were predominantly Muslim. Even here there was an interesting pattern. The towns of even the east and the north, such as Dhaka, Mymensingh, Chittagong, and Rajshahi, were all Hindu-dominated.

The famous physicist, Meghnad Saha, in a speech before the Indian Parliament had said “ . . . the city of Dacca, the biggest city in Eastern Pakistan, it had a population of 200,000 before partition. 70 per cent of it were Hindus --- 140,000. They owned 80 percent of the houses there. . . . . I know it because I come from Dhaka”. The same position is stated by Annada Sankar Ray. The countryside on the other hand, was overwhelmingly Muslim.

5. Another confirmation:

Another confirmation of the conversion of Animists-Buddhists-loosely called Hindus theory is from the second link in the references. It seems that with the Mughal conquest of Bengal beginning the last decades of the sixteenth century their local governors made frantic efforts to settle land and expand agriculture. Large parts of East Bengal were nothing but thickly forested swamps in those days. People staying on the margins of society involved in boating, fishing etc who were, loosely speaking, Hindus but actually of no religion became part of this Mughal imperial design. They were settled on land and induced to farm and they were socially moored by small mosques led by spiritual preceptors who came into convert the locals to a new way of life. There was not much opposition because these were new areas but the local Hindu communities that existed reacted by closing their ranks and becoming more conservative.

This had the result of expulsion of many Hindus from the fold on the grounds that they had been "polluted" by contacts with the Muslims. These Hindus of course became Muslims. The net result was that more people started becoming Muslims. The Bengali Hindu society is much to blame, thus. In fact, the Brahmins who converted or their relatives converted were called 'Pirali Brahmins' after Pir Ali of Jessore (present Bangladesh).

Interestingly, Rabindranath Tagore, who has come to be almost synonymous with Bengal and Bangaliana (Bengaliness) is a Pirali Brahmin.

These are some of the reasons that the eastern part of historical Bengal had a majority of followers of Islam. And now, it is a foreign land. Nothing could be more tragic.

How did the Eastern part of the region of Bengal end up with a Muslim majority? - Quora

Indians will come here and say that Hindus were converted by the sword.

 

[Saiful Islam]

Ask the common man in BD which outweighs which and I can GUARANTEE you a 110% it will be deen over being Bengali or anything else for that matter, don't listen to the nonce's on here.