Old Bangla Photos

[eastwatch]

Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiar Khilji was my Childhood hero, he was a turk..... He came like a storm riding a horse through the forest of Jharkhand, only 17 of his soldiers managed to follow him..... When he entered Nadiya with 17 horsemen no one noticed...... He went to the palace, killed guards and Laxman shen managed to escape by a boat from behind.... Wow! What a general!

Please get rid of this 17 horsemen childhood story and read accounts from contemporary history books like Taj-Ul-Nasiri written by Minhajuddin Siraj. Also, you may read 'History of Bengal' composed by Charles Stewart. There are tens of other authentic books to know the facts.

Bakhtiar was accompanied by about 12,000 Turkic horsemen in the Nadia invasion, who he hided in the deep jungle near that City asking them to rush when he sends signal. He came to that City with 17 of his men disguising themselves as traders. But, theere was sudden hassle with the guardsmen, and the Raja panicked and fled with a racing boat. Note also that Nadia was not a garrison City andf it was not that much protected because it was not the Capital of Bengal.

Nadia was not the Administrative Capital of Bengal. It was a City of temples and the Raja kept himself busy in religious activities there while his eldest son Biswarup Sen was administering the country from Lakkhanabati, the Capital of Bengal. Lakkhanabati is the word that was mis-spelled by the non-Bangali Turks to Lukhnauti.

So, it is not true that Bengal was conquered by only 17 men or Bakhtiar brought only 17 men from a 1500 km away Afghanistan and suddenly invaded Bengal. Bakhtiar brought more than 30,000 troops or family heads who domiciled in Bengal and whose descendents dominated the politics here for a few centuries. The initial number of Turkic settlers may have been more than 200,000 men and women. They were the first batch of Muslims in Bengal.

Note that Bakhtiar lost about 10,000 Turkic horsemen in Assam in a future expedition to Tibet. However, there were many tens of thousands of his people in Bengal who were ready to thwart any scheme by the Sen Rajas. Turk settlers dominated the politics of Bengal until about the middle of 14th Century. However, their influence continued for many more years.

 

[Musalman]

Therein lies your problem..There in lies your identity which is religion based
While I was talking from cultural point of view..
I asked how did Khiliji involve in the development of Bengali culture which I can be proud of
I found none
And excuse me..
WE, are not only Hindus ..
By culture I mean it is Hindu, Muslim, Christian and how religion imbibes within the cultural aspect
While as a religious follwower you still follow your traditions ..
When I am proud of my culture why should I bother about Khilji..
Do you take pride is desturction, killing , murders, tears..?
I don;t ..
that is why I said in the beginning of my reply to Asad that.. Al Zakir is a honest soul
He wants to remove external influences and might even think of removing language influence
Like removing Devnagari script and replacing with Nastalisq script..
For him Bangaladesh = Islam and nothing else
But some other of his country men interacted with me
Which led me to believe that there is very very deep chasm in identity of what a Bangaldeshi is
On our part I am proud of our cultural heritage.. my language, my foos, my dance, thatre, literature etc..
which is not just Hindu, Muslim etc etc but involves all religions
And definitely not proud of people who attacked others , caused misery, tears to satisfy his expansionist ego..

You're not well-versed in the history of Bengal, I recommend you to research a bit before putting up off-topic flames. Bakhtiyar had this particular fetish for Budhhists, destroyed the greatest university subcontinent ever had, beheaded thousands of monks. Most of Budhhists then converted to Islam and many of them now show what you call Stockholm Syndrome.

Upper and middle class(being politically correct at using 'class') Hindus had always been well-to-do in Bengal, even under Islamic rule most of administrative posts, landlords and even general ranks were primarily constituted of Hindus.

LOL I was right about the Aloo I may not be well versed with Bengals history just as u have no idea about the Lahori sense of humor yaar Do not take every comment that seriously Itna likh dala

 

[kobiraaz]

Please get rid of this 17 horsemen childhood story and read accounts from contemporary history books like Taj-Ul-Nasiri written by Minhajuddin Siraj. Also, you may read 'History of Bengal' composed by Charles Stewart. There are tens of other authentic books to know the facts.

Bakhtiar was accompanied by about 12,000 Turkic horsemen in the Nadia invasion, who he hided in the deep jungle near that City asking them to rush when he sends signal. He came to that City with 17 of his men disguising themselves as traders. But, the Raja panicked and fled with a racing boat.

Nadia was not the Administrative Capital of Bengal. It was a City of temples and the Raja kept himself busy in religious activities there while his eldest son Biswarup Sen was administering the country from Lakkhanabati, the Capital of Bengal. Lakkhanabati is the word that was mis-spelled by the non-Bangali Turks to Lukhnauti.

So, it is not true that Bengal was conquered by only 17 men or Bakhtiar brought only 17 men from a 1500 km away Afghanistan and suddenly invaded Bengal. Bakhtiar brought more than 30,000 troops or family heads who domiciled in Bengal and whose descendents dominated the politics here for a few centuries. The initial number of Turkic settlers may have been more than 200,000 men and women. They were the first batch of Muslims in Bengal.

Note that Bakhtiar lost about 10,000 Turkic horsemen in Assam in a future expedition to Tibet. However, there were many tens of thousands of his people in Bengal who were ready to thwart any scheme by the Sen Rajas. Turk settlers dominated the politics of Bengal until about the middle of 14th Century. However, their influence continued for many more years.

ok. Nowhere i mentioned that Khilji had only 17 men... He entered the city with 17 men.... Anyway i will study on it and will come back to you..

 

[Al-zakir]

The opinion of general bengalis of "bhadrolok" ilk would be - barberians will be barberians.

Anyway why does a bihari leftover care what indian bengalis think? I'm sorry because of racist undertone of my post.

When you go to sleep, your mother must be telling you: beta soja aur na Bakhtiyar ah jaye ga......

And what's your beef with Bihari anyways. Did they hurt your feeling or something.

 

[Al-zakir]

Some people take pride in a Khilji who had nothing to contribute to Bengali culture and was just a marauding adventure who thrived in misery of people..and destruction of centers of learnings

Well, he is the hero to most conservative Muslims in Bangladesh. I got to know about him in primary school. When I was reading about him, my chest pump up with pride. We Bangladeshi can not think about our Identity without worrier like him. However, it is true that he did not contribute to Bengali Hindu culture rather enriched Islamic culture. In Bangladesh, Muslim and Hindu has their separate culture. We talk, dress and eat differently. However, Hindus now a days trying to blend in with Muslim community by adopting some Muslim culture.

 

[Al-zakir]

Al Zakir bhai based on the post by Farhan bhai , Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiar Khilji put aloos on the Hindus i mean he beat the hell out of them, why would they like him :p

You got it, yet they think we are same people just because we have some common language. We are two different people all together. Our history, food, cloths, social status make us different.

 

[kobiraaz]

You got it, yet they think we are same people just because we have some common language. We are two different people all together. Our history, food, cloths, social status make us different.

whats wrong if someone believes that Hindu Muslim Vai vai? Yes i always knew that hindus and muslims are just like water and oil..... After visiting this forum i also came to know almost all of them hate muslims, even innocent palestinians are terrorist to them..... But is hating innocent Hindus is permissible by Islam?? Waiting for your reply....

P.S. there is difference in language.... Example:We call bathing as ' gosol ' they call it 'Snan'...

 

[JonAsad]

ehm ehm-
Guys where da fotos?-
Post them and stop talking plz -

 

[kobiraaz]

British Soldiers, Dhaka 1933

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 AM ----------

USA military men in Dhaka 1945, WW II

 

[kobiraaz]

Ustad Alaudding Khan (L) and Jaynul Abedin (R), Dhaka (1955)

---------- Post added at 01:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 AM ----------

2 Bangladesh army men during insurgency war against Shanti Bahini 1981

 

[kobiraaz]

THE ONE AND ONLY ZIA UR RAHMAN

 

[kobiraaz]

 

[kobiraaz]

1946 Hindu Muslim Riot kolkata

---------- Post added at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 AM ----------

---------- Post added at 01:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 AM ----------

---------- Post added at 01:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 AM ----------

---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 AM ----------

 

[kobiraaz]

"Kumar Ramendra Narayan Rai choudhury" at Joydebpur palace with tiger. He is famously known in history as the "Bhawal Sanyasi" c early (1900) (Joydevpur Palace, Dhaka )

---------- Post added at 02:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 AM ----------

Urdha-Bahu Sannyasi, Eastern Bengal (1860)

Print showing a 'sanyasi' or wandering Hindu mendicant taken by an unknown photographer in the early 1860s. Sanyasis or sadhus are holy men who have taken the path of renunciation. In the Hindu tradition, a man's life was divided into four ashramas or stages: brahmacharya (childhood and celibate youth), grihastha (householder) vanaprastha (householder devoted to spiritual pursuits) and sanyasa (ascetic). Sanyasa was in essence the culmination of an ideal life, when a human being practised austerity and tried to discover life's truths and oneness with God. Having turned their back on material comforts, sanyasis sported unshorn hair and beards, meditating and performing rigorous penances and retreating to isolated caves, forests and hills. In modern times, they appear more as wandering mendicants than true holy men, roaming India, begging for food. Sanyasis have a particular allegiance to Shiva (one of the three great gods of the Trinity in Hindusim) who is also known as ‘The Great Ascetic’. He is usually visualised meditating, seated crosslegged on a tigerskin, smeared with ash, wearing a loincloth and with matted hair, garlanded with a rudraksha mala or necklace of seeds, Rudra being one of his many names. Sanyasis smear their bodies with sacred ash or bhasma, they sometimes wear or sit on animal skins, and they use rudraksha seed rosaries. This is one of a series of portrait studies of individuals and groups from Eastern Bengal (modern Bangladesh and Assam). It is possible that they were taken in response to the Government of India's call for photographs representing various ethnic types and castes from across the sub-continent.

---------- Post added at 02:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------

Portrait of a Dosadh 'syce' or groom - Eastern Bengal 1860's

 

[eastwatch]

ok. Nowhere i mentioned that Khilji had only 17 men... He entered the city with 17 men.... Anyway i will study on it and will come back to you..

Yes, you did not say that only 17 horsemen conquered the entire Bengal. The reason I elaborated a little about that Nadia invasion is to inform the people about the truth. We must not indulge ourselves in fantacy when we study history. This untrue 17 horsemen story has created another falsehood: since only 17 horsemen came to Bengal, therefore, all the Muslims in Bengal have been converted to Islam. Our Mullahs are fond of spreading this falsehood only to glorify our religion.

But, the reality is many Muslims from the poor central asia including Afghanistan migrated to a food-surplus Bengal, not only in and immediate after 1203 AD, but also many centuries after that. In the later times most of these non-Bangali Muslims came from north India, all have now become Bangali Muslims.This is one of the reasons that Muslims became so numerous in Bengal.

The name BANGALAH (Bengal) was finally established at a later time during Mughal rule from about 1605 AD. Usually, the name of an entity used to be called by the name of its Capital before that, such as Delhi (though it used also to be called Hindustan), Jaunpur, Pandua, Lakkhanabati (mis-prononced as Lukhnauti by the foreign Turks), Gour (it was GHOR, a name given by the migrant Turks in memory of their Capital Ghor in Afghanistan, but was Bengalized by the local Hindus as GOUR).

All of us today are known as Bangali because this name was introduced during Mughal time. But, even during British time Muslims here were called 'Muslims of Bengal.' Even our local Hindus used to call us just Musalmans. But, since the Muslims belong to this land, they can easily say they are Bangali Muslims.

Nationalism starts from the land a people live in, and certainly not from a religion. Religion-based nationalism brings in a kind of fuzziness. A nation is composed of a land and its people. This is why Arabs call themselves Arabs, Malaysians call themselves Malay or Malaysian. Some people try to make a distinction between Bangali Muslims and Muslim Bangali. It is a meaningless argument.