Old Bangla Photos

[eastwatch]

Self deleted.

 

[eastwatch]

It's like worshipping the Goth barbers who after inheriting Roman civilization, wasted all their energy on rampage and destroying artworks.

Yes, you are right. He, like all warriors before and after him during the middle age, Bakhtiar was a brute and a killer. But, by his act of yesterday Muslims became a majority gradually in the next few Centuries and through many upheavals of politics and wars today we have finally become a free nation without outsiders dictating their wish on us. Bakhtiar was the pioneer, and he should be regarded as the (1st) Father of Nation. We are nobody if we discard our Muslim identity that was introduced by Bakhtiar. He is obviously revered by us. May Allah bless his soul.

 

[eastwatch]

The thing is, the event have been described by British historians such as that it fits with Macaulay's racist description of Bengalis. But the fact is Khilji led a reconnaissance mission to an unprepared aged king with main army closely following and he only acquired ownership of an unimportant city. Lakhhan Sen still ruled most of Bengal for many years thereafter.

Nadia was not really an unimportant City of Bengal because the King was living there. Usually, a King's residence City is the Capital of the country. However, the administrative Capital was in Lukhnouti and the kingdom was ruled by Biswarup Sen in the name of his aged father.

Malik Bakhtiar chose Nadia because he wanted to capture or kill Laksman Sen who was living there instead of making a siege of Lukhnouti. What really happened in the next few years after this even is not known. But, Minhaj implies that Biswarup capitulated and did not give a fight. Instead, he chose east Bengal as his family's domain where the Sen family ruled for a few more decades.

That eastern Bengal was under Sen rule can be seen when Tughril, the adopted son of Badshah Ghiyasuddin Balban of Delhi, raised the banner of rebellion in Bengal against his father. Balban sent expedition under a general named Amin Khan and then someone else. But, they failed to capture Tughril or won any decisive battle. Balban went WEST to Punjab, but then detoured through a northern route and suddenly arrived at the border of Bengal with 200,000 troops.

This panicked Tughril. Balban made sure that Tughril does not run away to the east to the Kingdom of the Sens. He recognized the Sen Dynasty in eastern Bengal and moved against Tughril, who was captured and taken to Delhi.

This proves that Sen family was still dominating over eastern Bengal. Balban expedition was in 1280. It means Sen Dynasty was still ruling part of eastern Bengal.

 

[Zabaniyah]

i dont know... Sometimes i feel all the major industries except for RMG sector Such as Jute, Fertilizer, paper, electricity was established in Pakistan era.... Maybe we are better today, maybe not! Yes we have escaped terrorism problem which has become a headache for you for last decade.... But United pakistan always sounded cool to me..... Anyway we have learnt nothing..... Our politicians are ruining all our progress.... Only our hardworking people give us some ray of hope... If our GDP continues to grow in the present style our economy will become 20th large economy in 2050 and that is huge.....

Of-course, there have been improvements. For instance, the state of the poor in the Pakistan-era were much worse than now. Rickshaw pullers can now buy warm clothing. Just an example.

And as far as our identity goes, please understand that we must take responsibility for our history. Our history did not just start from 1971, it was way before that. I feel that our leaders are not only being irresponsible for Bangladesh's day-to-day affairs, but also our history that lead to our existence today.

Tameem is right, it was our forefathers who agreed for a "Arabish-like" language for all Muslims in India, and worked hard toward that, it was not the West Pakistanis. And that ideology only lasted 24 years. Can you imagine?

Urdu was simply not thoroughly accepted among Bengali Muslims since it wasn't necessarily infused in their culture to begin with. The population of Bengali Muslims exploded after WWII and the devastating Bengal Famine. I call this the Bengal population boom, and those guys simply didn't speak a word in Urdu Farsi. There simply wasn't enough consensus behind the whole issue of language. Farsi was like far-away galaxy, although I am a tremendous admirer of Persian culture and heritage.

Obviously, geography also played a role here. Farsi and Urdu were never really standard languages for our neighborhood like East India, Burma and China.

I am not saying that a culture based on Persian (suppose) and some indigenous values in East Bengal are impossible to implement (America's founding fathers based the US on Roman culture), it was just that our leaders simply didn't gather enough consensus on the issue of language and culture, even though much of Bengal's population were poor and illiterate. One should never underestimate them.

The bottom line is, we need to take more responsibility for our culture and history, and most importantly, accepting it. Which we sadly aren't doing.

Of-course, there were other factors too. India clearly intended to smash Pakistan into two by exploiting the very issue discussed above, coupled with a fantastically planned propaganda and psychological warfare machine. Not even the Americans today can comprehend that. Also, strategic level defenses in Pakistan's Eastern front were inadequate and strangely ignored. They focused mainly on Kashmir. India's plan was to enable it to easily assault and conduct operations in East Pakistan against the West Pakistani military with minimal local resistance (Bengalis).

As far as our economy is concerned, there'll be some hard times ahead. Thanks to AL's flawed economic policies. They use the wrong policies to address economic issues, coupled with the rampant borrowing and misuse of the funds.

And of-course, we need to control the population as well. We have the potential to implement a similar economic model as Singapore, based on Capitalist principles (responsible Capitalism), and throw Socialism/Communism into the Bay of Bengal, it's simply not for us (and a failed one). And getting to the same benchmark as the likes of Singapore will take a long time, a very, very long time.

 

[LaBong]

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.

Bold part is factually incorrect. Bengal was one of Mahajanapadas in iron age India, it was known was Vanga(Bango).

Gauda(Gaur) was capital of Palas. Palas were known as Lords of Gauda. Gopala, the founder of Pala linage was elected in a democratic election in Gaur in 7th century.

 

[eastwatch]

Bold part is factually incorrect. Bengal was one of Mahajanapadas in iron age India, it was known was Vanga(Bango).

Gauda(Gaur) was capital of Palas. Palas were known as Lords of Gauda. Gopala, the founder of Pala linage was elected in a democratic election in Gaur in 7th century.

No, it is not incorrect. Bengal in older days were divided into Kingdoms of Harikel, Vanga, Samatat and Gaur. During the Turkic Muslim period Gaur became the Capital and their Kingdom was known as Gaur as was the tradition in those days. When other parts of Bengal and Bihar were annexed these were also known as parts of Gaur.

The name BANGALAH or Bengal was first attributed to the entire Bangladesh, west Bengal and Bihar only during Mughal period. Abul Fazal's Ain-I-Akbari is probably the 1st document to testify this re-naming of entire Bihar and Bengal as Subeh Bangal. Dhaka became the new Mughal Provincial Capital, but the entire Province was no more called by this name.

 

[kobiraaz]

Offering Eid prayer, Dhaka (1954)

 

[kobiraaz]

Eid day Fair, Dhaka (1954)

 

[kobiraaz]

On way to visit relatives on Eid day , Dhaka (1954)

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

Governor Sher-e-Bangla AK Fazlul Haque at home on Eid day, Dhaka (1954)

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

Children in identical dress on Eid day-Dhaka (1954)

 

[LaBong]

No, it is not incorrect. Bengal in older days were divided into Kingdoms of Harikel, Vanga, Samatat and Gaur. During the Turkic Muslim period Gaur became the Capital and their Kingdom was known as Gaur as was the tradition in those days. When other parts of Bengal and Bihar were annexed these were also known as parts of Gaur.

The name BANGALAH or Bengal was first attributed to the entire Bangladesh, west Bengal and Bihar only during Mughal period. Abul Fazal's Ain-I-Akbari is probably the 1st document to testify this re-naming of entire Bihar and Bengal as Subeh Bangal. Dhaka became the new Mughal Provincial Capital, but the entire Province was no more called by this name.

Mughals called it Bangal because they couldn't pronounce Banga/Bangla properly, but the name was there since time immemorial. The word Bangal turned into Bengal in Britis tongue. Yes ancient Vanga might not encompassed of all of today's Bengal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanga_Kingdom

Gaur has been capital since the time of Shashanka of 7th century.

 

[kobiraaz]

Kabuliwalas (Afghans) chatting on Eid day, Dhaka (1954)

---------- Post added at 11:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------

Adamjee Jute Mills (1954)

[/COLOR]Dr.Muhammad Shahidullah (R) and Kazi Motahar Hossain (L), Dhaka (1954)

---------- Post added at 11:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 PM ----------

On November 10, (1987), Noor Hossain - a young progressive democratic activist stood bravely at Zero Point, in the heart of the capital Dhaka city,Bangladesh, amid a shower of bullets being fired by the police force with the slogan 'Down With Autocracy' boldly written on his chest and 'Free Democracy' on his back.
This brave soul embraced martyrdom on the spot while demonstrating against military autocratic ruler Ershad Shahi, aged only 26.
His killing sparked a movement all over the country turning into a revolution on December 06, 1990 which brought an end to Ershad regime thus beginning a new dawn of democracy in the country.

 

[kobiraaz]

Gulistan area under Martial Law , Dhaka (1958)

 

[kobiraaz]

President Zia-ur-Rahman is attending the army parade on victory day along with Yasir Arafat and Mr. Ahmed Sékou Touré President of the Republic of Guinea, Dhaka 16th December, Dhaka (1980)

I LOVE HIM, MISS HIM! SAD I NEVER SAW HIM !

 

[Zabaniyah]

Zia-ur-Rahman was the only person with leadership for the nation.

 

[Maira La]

Yes, you are right. He, like all warriors before and after him during the middle age, Bakhtiar was a brute and a killer. But, by his act of yesterday Muslims became a majority gradually in the next few Centuries and through many upheavals of politics and wars today we have finally become a free nation without outsiders dictating their wish on us. Bakhtiar was the pioneer, and he should be regarded as the (1st) Father of Nation. We are nobody if we discard our Muslim identity that was introduced by Bakhtiar. He is obviously revered by us. May Allah bless his soul.

May Allah not bless his soul!

He wasn't a preacher. He was a warrior. He didn't come here to spread Islam. He came here to conquer!

But as a warrior, he was an awesome dude. I heard he was a short ugly guy with disproportionally long hands, but I guess it was his brain that helped him plan all his winning strategies in the battlefield.