Tagore, The Islamophobe....

[EasyNow]

no self-respecting Bangladeshi can support Tagore as their own poet. Shakespeare is English. he was not French that the French were imposing on the English during their occupation of England. if the French did do that with one or more of their poets, you would call any dissenting Englishman as "radical" right?

You're argument does not hold water. Bangladesh was not under 'occupation', it was one country. You' want to disown Tagore for not being Bangladeshi when the country didn't even exist?

If that is the case you should also reject all the other 'occupiers' in our history.

Additionally, Tagore spent over 20 years of his life living in territory that is now BD, these were his own family lands - so no one here has a right to judge his Bangladeshi-ness.

Why have you brought the word 'radical' into the conversation. Its another poster who said Tagore extremists should be exterminated. As you've brought it up, is that radical? Or is your morality reserved for anyone who doesn't agree with you only?

 

[dawn_news]

You're argument does not hold water. Bangladesh was not under 'occupation', it was one country. You' want to disown Tagore for not being Bangladeshi when the country didn't even exist?

If that is the case you should also reject all the other 'occupiers' in our history.

Additionally, Tagore spent over 20 years of his life living in territory that is now BD, these were his own family lands - so no one here has a right to judge his Bangladeshi-ness.

Why have you brought the word 'radical' into the conversation. Its another poster who said Tagore extremists should be exterminated. As you've brought it up, is that radical? Or is your morality reserved for anyone who doesn't agree with you only?

His lands? He was brahmin and lands were stolen by British and given to him. Pundit historical occupation has been being in mandir and eating food left by zamindars. But British wanted slaves so they gave likes of Tagore huge amount of land taken away from poor farmer.

 

[nForce]

His lands? He was brahmin and lands were stolen by British and given to him. Pundit historical occupation has been being in mandir and eating food left by zamindars. But British wanted slaves so they gave likes of Tagore huge amount of land taken away from poor farmer.

If you want to talk about landlords then you should be more concerned about Bhuttos, Zardaris and Sharifs..Rabindranath Thakur is a person who is known for his great contribution to art and culture, not for the land he owned.It is because of low-lives like you, who discriminate people on the basis of religion, sect, caste, belief and language, that Pakistan lost its eastern part in the fist place.

 

[IamBengali]

I heard Pakistan's original national anthem was written by a Hindu poet but later some Mullah protested the anthem and Pakistani Govt. had to change it to Pak Sar Zamin Sad Bad.

A Bangladeshi late novelist Dr. Humayun Azad wrote a novel criticizing Pakistan's national anthem and later he was killed brutally by Jamaat leader Delwar Hossain Saidee's group.

This is the book for which he was killed.

Pak Sar Jamin Saad Baad, a scathing criticism about a Islamic fundamentalist group Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh.[4] In 27 February 2004, Azad came under a vicious attack by unidentified assailants following the publication,[5] which exposed the main Islamic fundamentalists in his country.[6]

His son was recently (needs date) kidnapped by fundamentalists whose aim was to find out Prof. Azad's whereabouts. Faxes had recently been sent to newspapers in Bangladesh threatening that he would be killed if he did not recant before September (needs year)[citation needed]. In late July (needs year), Prof. Azad wrote a moving letter to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and other political leaders calling on them to restore freedom in Bangladesh and pleading for protection to himself and his family[citation needed].[6]


Pak Sar Jamin Sad Bad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[INDIC]

His lands? He was brahmin and lands were stolen by British and given to him. Pundit historical occupation has been being in mandir and eating food left by zamindars. But British wanted slaves so they gave likes of Tagore huge amount of land taken away from poor farmer.

Who gave the land to arains after the canal colony boom in Punjab and ultimately which political party hugged the Unionists of Punjab-Sindh in the end days of British India to protect those landlords at any cost.

If you want to talk about landlords then you should be more concerned about Bhuttos, Zardaris and Sharifs.

The unionist controlled Muslim League was only concerned about the peasants of Bengal because the landlords were Hindus while in Punjab-Sindh same landlords were angels because they were not Hindus and those unionist formed the core of Muslim League, in that case the educated Punjabi-Sindhi Hindus were evil.

 

[Ajatashatru]

I don't know if the above lines belong to Gurudev Tagore but everything written there is true, especially about Islam and Hinduism. Christianity in India has changed much since Gurudev's days (especially since colonial European missionaries are gone) but Hindus and Muslims have stayed just like described above.

 

[khair_ctg]

You're argument does not hold water. Bangladesh was not under 'occupation', it was one country. You' want to disown Tagore for not being Bangladeshi when the country didn't even exist?

If that is the case you should also reject all the other 'occupiers' in our history.

Additionally, Tagore spent over 20 years of his life living in territory that is now BD, these were his own family lands - so no one here has a right to judge his Bangladeshi-ness.

Why have you brought the word 'radical' into the conversation. Its another poster who said Tagore extremists should be exterminated. As you've brought it up, is that radical? Or is your morality reserved for anyone who doesn't agree with you only?

Bangladesh with its present borders was the demand of Muslims. Tagore not only DID NOT belong to such Muslim demands of statehood but was part of the reason that Muslims and Hindus parted ways with their own notions of nationhood. not just the Tagores, but countless other zamindars had oppressive presence in E. Bengal before 1947 Partition. I visited many old mansions formerly occupied by Brahmin zamindars. and you don't need dig deep to learn (and even see it for yourself today) the oppression, and suffering borne by those tey ruled.

R. Tagore may have spent 20 years in BD but his family over multiple generations including himself had lifetime zamindari interests in BD. it covered everything from physical and economic subjugation of Muslims to cultural domination, like restriction of Muslim practices and changing the Muslim names of places.
I definitely think R. Tagore has been inappropriately imposed on Bengal Muslims and this sorry attempt to re-paint him as part of the Bengal Muslim polity is inappropriate. what's not inappropriate is @aazidane's particular post you mentioned in the context of Indians coming to this BD subforum and constantly talking of extermination of people opposed to indian policies. I don't enjoy this verbal jousting though. besides your over the top support of historical Muslim-oppressors, your overlooking of hatred in Indian posters and enthusiastic accusation on aazidane's post make it seem you hold some grudge against Muslims in general.
I wouldn't be surprised if you wrote Mir Nisar Ali was a radical for the rebellion he put up

 

[Saiful Islam]

No one cares about Brahmin this, Brahmin that. Infact, most, if not nearly all of them have no clue about "Brahmins" except the place Brahmanbaria lol. So if someone is Brahmin, it holds no significance in Bangladesh. Bangladesh and all this caste bull-sh-t doesn't go together. All we know is that we live in Hazrat Shahjalal's RA country...End of!

 

[kushan]

Muslims in Bengal weren't just converted ones. Who do you think the Muslim invaders into Bengal over those centuries married? The very first Muslims came to Bengal in the 12th century at which time the population of Bengal would have been nothing like today, a small percentage of what it is today, so they would have had significant genetic impact. Also, although the elite rulers were often Turks, particularly during the Mughal period, their subordinates were mostly Afghan, particularly Pashtuns. During the six or seven centuries of Muslim rule in India it was mostly a joint Pashtun and Turk effort.

They were not merely subordinates of turks, Lodhi, suri and karrani afghans were rulers of bengal. Moreover khiljis themeselves were half-afghans

 

[dawn_news]

Who gave the land to arains after the canal colony boom in Punjab and ultimately which political party hugged the Unionists of Punjab-Sindh in the end days of British India to protect those landlords at any cost.

ask @RazPaK im not Arain jats always had lands in Punjab long before british came. The main difference while in Punjab the land was in hands of farmers while in Bengal it was given to pundits who oppressed bengali muslims.

 

[dawn_news]

The unionist controlled Muslim League was only concerned about the peasants of Bengal because the landlords were Hindus while in Punjab-Sindh same landlords were angels because they were not Hindus and those unionist formed the core of Muslim League, in that case the educated Punjabi-Sindhi Hindus were evil.

Sindh yes but not in Punjab, only some south punjab were under feudal control and still are. Punjab is huge, try to differentiate between different regions of it and how it was.

 

[Skies]

This is the book for which he was killed.

I condemn such attack, because as like my Awami Friend, I believe that "the answer to a pen should be given by a pen".

But why does he have butt-hurt about what Pakistanis chose as their national anthem?

 

[INDIC]

ask @RazPaK im not Arain jats always had lands in Punjab long before british came. The main difference while in Punjab the land was in hands of farmers while in Bengal it was given to pundits who oppressed bengali muslims.

Most of the peasants of Punjab lived in debt but since the landlords of Canal Colonies were Muslims unlike Hindu landlords of Bengal who also controlled Muslim League, nobody criticize feudalism in Punjab-Sindh and they were treated as angels instead there was a general jealousy towards educated Punjabi-Sindhi Hindus who controlled economy of Lahore-Karachi and people thought creation of Pakistan will give them dominance on everything.

Sindh yes but not in Punjab, only some south punjab were under feudal control and still are. Punjab is huge, try to differentiate between different regions of it and how it was.

Punjab Unionist Party and Sindh Ittehad Party were the unionists from both Punjab and Sindh who joined Pakistan movement after the safeguard was provided to their interests. Bengal and Punjab-Sindh were conflicting to each other on many issues.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

I heard Pakistan's original national anthem was written by a Hindu poet but later some Mullah protested the anthem and Pakistani Govt. had to change it to Pak Sar Zamin Sad Bad

Not quite. Pakistan never had a national anthem before 1954 - after which the Qaumi Tarana by Ahmad G. Chagla/Hafeez Jullundhuri was adopted. There were quite a few other people who wanted their poems to become the national anthem as well - one such person was Jagannath Azad, who happened to be a Hindu.

EDIT: I just checked; that propaganda book was written by an Islamophobe

 

[dawn_news]

Most of the peasants of Punjab lived in debt but since the landlords of Canal Colonies were Muslims unlike Hindu landlords of Bengal who also controlled Muslim League, nobody criticize feudalism in Punjab-Sindh and they were treated as angels instead there was a general jealousy towards educated Punjabi-Sindhi Hindus who controlled economy of Lahore-Karachi and people thought creation of Pakistan will give them dominance on everything.



Punjab Unionist Party and Sindh Ittehad Party were the unionists from both Punjab and Sindh who joined Pakistan movement after the safeguard was provided to their interests. Bengal and Punjab-Sindh were conflicting to each other on many issues.

As i said only Sindh and some parts of South Punjab were feudal. Educated hindu urban is only true for Sindh not Punjab. Controlling economy of Lahore-Karachi is just another bs in long list of you brain farts