Maps about Bangladesh / Bengal

[LaBong]

A person economic condition determined his status in the society, which exist till this day. There is big difference in foreign muslim settlers and the brits and hindu Jaminder is that they inter married with locals. Thats why its very hard to distinguish a foreign flock from the native anymore.

That's the point I'm trying to make as well, there's no Hindu subjugation of Muslims in Bengal or vice versa, it's rich exploiting poor.

The noble folks didn't assimilated to peasantry classes, most of them migrated to greener pasture as soon as Brits came to power.

 

[LaBong]

5. This is the land we lost to the English Co's conspiracy aided by the "bania" money lenders and the Brahmonic high class led by the chief priest of Bardwan on 23 June 1757 at Palashy. When the English/British left in 1947, true to their crooked nature, they left this self contained natural geopolitical economic unit divided in a fashion that has left the peoples wanting in all spheres. Mountbatten, Radcliffe and the Indian Pak leaders who redrew the new maps were all aliens to this land. None of the people deciding our fate was a son of the soil.

Err I don't know if I read the wrong version of history but I thought It was Mirzafar along with Jagat Seth and some other while both Hindu and Muslims fought for Siraj - Mohan Lal, Mir Madan, Lutuf Khan and Rai Durlabh being the chief generals.

Also during partition Bengalis made top brass of both Congress and Muslim League, surely they could have arm twist Jinnah and Nehru if they wanted.

 

[eastwatch]

That's the point I'm trying to make as well, there's no Hindu subjugation of Muslims in Bengal or vice versa, it's rich exploiting poor.

The noble folks didn't assimilated to peasantry classes, most of them migrated to greener pasture as soon as Brits came to power.

You are talikg out of imaginations. You must have a static mind. Why do you think some Muslims remained always aristrocrat during the six centuries, and the natives remained poor peasants? Can you cite a historical reference about migration except that after Plassey about 80,000 muslims took jobs in the military of Ayudh?

But, it does not mean they left this country altogether, they just took jobs out of Bengal. No one left Bengal until it became Bangladesh. The old proverb said, 'There are thousands of roads to enter Bengal, but not a single road to get out of Bengal. Hope, you understand the meaning of this proverb.

 

[Md Akmal]

Err why would I believe that? As far as I know during Turko-Afghan rule in Bengal, most administrative and even military posts were held by Hindus and also bulk of semi-feudal land owners also were Hindus. The peasant class of Hindu and Muslim Bengalis suffered just as they suffered during British rule.

@ No Abir, you are wrong. It was during the time of Murshid Kuli Khan who gave most of the administrative posts to the Hindus including Zamindari. Murshid Kuli Khan was a convertee muslim from Deccan. He wanted to make a balance in the Bengal province. This was made immediately after he declared independence from Delhi sultanates.

@ During those days most of the common Bengalee Hindus and Muslims were "Kamar, tatee" and fisherman. Even hardly anybody could joined in the military forces.

 

[LaBong]

@ No Abir, you are wrong. It was during the time of Murshid Kuli Khan who gave most of the administrative posts to the Hindus including Zamindari. Murshid Kuli Khan was a convertee muslim from Deccan. He wanted to make a balance in the Bengal province. This was made immediately after he declared independence from Delhi sultanates.

@ During those days most of the common Bengalee Hindus and Muslims were "Kamar, tatee" and fisherman. Even hardly anybody could joined in the military forces.

1. Murshid Kuli Kha was the first Nawab of Bengal, and what in almighty's name is converted Muslim? Everyone in subcontinent are converted Muslims, probably some people from Kerala can claim to be converted first!

Hindu Jamindars exists much before Murshid Kuli Kha as they said be affected most by his stringent tax policy against semi feudals!

2. Have you not heard about the Doms, Bhils etc etc?

 

[LaBong]

You are talikg out of imaginations. You must have a static mind. Why do you think some Muslims remained always aristrocrat during the six centuries, and the natives remained poor peasants? Can you cite a historical reference about migration except that after Plassey about 80,000 muslims took jobs in the military of Ayudh?

But, it does not mean they left this country altogether, they just took jobs out of Bengal. No one left Bengal until it became Bangladesh. The old proverb said, 'There are thousands of roads to enter Bengal, but not a single road to get out of Bengal. Hope, you understand the meaning of this proverb.

We have already discussed this to death, there was offcourse migration to Bengal, but it wasn't of that great extent that you guys try to portray!

 

[Roybot]

Am failing to see the point of this discussion about migration. So am guessing what you guys are trying to say is pretty much every Bangladeshi on this forum and on this thread is of either Turkic, Arab or Pashtun origin and hence obviously superior to the Hindu Baniyas?

 

[integra]

Is it really necessary to derail every thread right into the gutters of eternal damnation?

 

[eastwatch]

A person economic condition determined his status in the society, which exist till this day. There is big difference in foreign muslim settlers and the brits and hindu Jaminder is that they inter married with locals. Thats why its very hard to distinguish a foreign flock from the native anymore.

However, social status cannot be equal for a group of victors and a group of vanquished. This happened also in Bengal. Whatever may be status of all those Turkic nomads in their native lands, they became victors in Bengal in 1198 AD. So, their social status was according to their poloitical status. They were certainly above the locals, both Hindus and converted Muslims, in the beginning.

But, this status could have interchanged places among both groups of Muslims as the days went by. Muslims pray in the same mosque, eat in the same plate and fight wars alongside each others. Gradually, Muslims of different background established an united society.

As both the foreign and local Muslims intermingled with each other, the distinction was gradually removed, and matrimonial relationships were established after two or three generations. This is how the social distinction was removed gradually.

After the Khilji Turks when Bengal was overwhelmed by the Pathans from Delhi and north India, these new arrivals took away the social and political aristocracy from the local (Turks have already become locals in 1537 AD) Muslims.

Later on, there was again another change in the status when the Mughals conquered this land in 1605 AD after a long 30 year war. They also settled their own people here in order to balance the force of local (Turks + Local converts + Arabs + Negroes + Pathans) Muslims.

There came another change when the British took over. All the Muslims (Turks + Local converts + Arabs + Negroes + Pathans + Mughals) all lost their individual identity under the British. All became landless peasants. No Muslim family was regarded aristocrat after the political power changed hands from the Muslims to the British and hindus.

So, Bengal became more of a melting pot for the Muslims during British era. Rabindranath Thakur being a reader of history wrote, '-----Mughal Pathan Ek Dehe Hoye Gelo Liin.-----'

 

[Roybot]

Do these foreign ethnicities in Bangladesh have peculiar surnames? Are Bhuiyans Turkic/Pashtun by any chance? My gf's surname is Bhuiyan and she has got pretty pale skin and sharp features for a Bangladeshi.

 

[InFn-0]

Well, so what is the conclusion of this ancestry thing? And this hardly matters anymore because currently the elite of the elite of Bangladesh society came from very modest backgrounds, which is a very good thing.

 

[mil-avia]

Bengal and nearby regions / 900 × 720 pixels / From "The East Indies including more particularly The British Dominions on the Continent of India" by Thomas Kitchin & John Blair, London, 1768 :

 

[LaBong]

Do these foreign ethnicities in Bangladesh have peculiar surnames? Are Bhuiyans Turkic/Pashtun by any chance? My gf's surname is Bhuiyan and she has got pretty pale skin and sharp features for a Bangladeshi.

There are Hindu Bhuiyans as well.

 

[InFn-0]

Just remembered, if you go by the Aryan invasion theory then Indians also have Iranian (Indo-Aryan if i am not mistaken) blood in them.

 

[Md Akmal]

Well, so what is the conclusion of this ancestry thing? And this hardly matters anymore because currently the elite of the elite of Bangladesh society came from very modest backgrounds, which is a very good thing.

@ Ofcourse it matters on our day to day activities, it matters on our attitude, our behaviour, our politics, our religion and what not.

@ Blood matters a lot and it had been proved many a times. The whole human nature is dependent on blood.

Now, I give some practical example from the people of our country.

1. Noakhali. Basically most of the people of Noakhali are Arab origin. Take for example Begum Khaleda Zia. Her father belongs to Feni(Noakhali) and her mother belongs to Punchagar. Her mother belongs to T-family. This family basically came from Murshidabad (Nobab family). After the fall of Seraj Daullah, british decided to evict the Nobab family of Murshidabad. Some of the elements were evicted from Murshidabad and settled at Punchagar. During the British time this T-family used to get lot of extra facilities like going to London any time and other economic facilities. Khaleda's father's family came from Arab. May be her grand father came from Arab.
The people of Noakhali are basically highly religious minded. Most of the women wears "Burkha" which is missing in North and South Bengal. In Bangladesh each and every village you will find a Noakhali "Imam" who teaches religious matters and leads the prayer. (To be continued)