Bangladesh protests Pakistan Parliament resolutions

[Syed Naved]

Yes,a lot of changes take places , during your or in our time at least we got the chance of learning history,but present book's hero is only one.It is Muzib and his history.

 

[Contrarian]

Correction , We may be proud Bangladeshi or Muslim but not PROUD BANGALI . Because, Bangali means Indian Bengali also .

Wrong.
You are Bangali.
Bangladesh is a 'desh' for 'Banglas'.

So either you are a proud Bangali or you are a Pakistani/Arab spit licker.

And

our tribals are not Indian root. People of plain area are even not pure Indian origin . We are mixed people . So , we may be Bangladeshi not BANGALI .

All of you people are are of Indic descent.

 

[DarkPrince]

Wrong.
You are Bangali.
Bangladesh is a 'desh' for 'Banglas'.

So either you are a proud Bangali or you are a Pakistani/Arab spit licker.

All of you people are are of Indic descent.

sorry bro without West Bengal we cant call ourselves proper bengalis. so give us WB 1st.

and by the way pakistanis are also indians most of them were high caste hindus.

 

[Contrarian]

sorry bro without West Bengal we cant call ourselves proper bengalis. so give us WB 1st.

What flawed logic is this.

Do a majority of Afghans dont call themselves Pukhtoon because a large number of Pukhtoons are Pakistani.

Bangladeshi's = Bangla + Desh.

There are Bengalis in India as well, that does not mean that Bangladeshis are not Bengalis.

and by the way pakistanis are also indians most of them were high caste hindus.

Sorry again.
An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis were Hindus. So? Whether high cast or low cast, they were the first ones to be defeated in any invasion from the West.

 

[DarkPrince]

What flawed logic is this.

Do a majority of Afghans dont call themselves Pukhtoon because a large number of Pukhtoons are Pakistani.

Bangladeshi's = Bangla + Desh.

There are Bengalis in India as well, that does not mean that Bangladeshis are not Bengalis.

Sorry again.
An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis were Hindus. So? Whether high cast or low cast, they were the first ones to be defeated in any invasion from the West.

you missed the point.

anyways north indians are still better warriors than rest of the indians

 

[Contrarian]

anyways north indians are still better warriors than rest of the indians

No, they are not.
Thats just martial race bullcrap that the British invented and Pakistani's love to believe as they think it applies most to them.

 

[DarkPrince]

No, they are not.
Thats just martial race bullcrap that the British invented and Pakistani's love to believe as they think it applies most to them.

look at your own army

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Summing up -
Bengali language was actually indigenous but Sanskritized by Hindu Brahmins. - Hindus are to blame
Pakistan Movement was created because the Hindus were brutal/evil/whatever - Hindus are to blame
Insurgency started in E.Bengal due to Hindu teachers and RAW propaganda - Hindus are to blame
Little/no genocide by the Pak Army in BD, all Hindu and Indian propaganda - Hindus are to blame
BD wants to be Arab/or whatever once again but being prevented by Hindus - Hindus are to blame
Bengali literature was Farsi/Urdu etc but hijacked by Tagore & other Hindus - Hindu are to blame
The Awamy League merged with the EP Congress and who's to blame ???? - Hindus are to blame
Bangladesh is a sovereign country because they broke out of Pakistan - Hindus are to blame
Bangladesh's ruling party is Awamy League and it has sold BD to India - Hindus are to blame
etc etc etc etc etc - Hindus are to blame

 

[DarkPrince]

Summing up -
Bengali language was actually indigenous but Sanskritized by Hindu Brahmins. - Hindus are to blame
Pakistan Movement was created because the Hindus were brutal/evil/whatever - Hindus are to blame
Insurgency started in E.Bengal due to Hindu teachers and RAW propaganda - Hindus are to blame
Little/no genocide by the Pak Army in BD, all Hindu and Indian propaganda - Hindus are to blame
BD wants to be Arab/or whatever once again but being prevented by Hindus - Hindus are to blame
Bengali literature was Farsi/Urdu etc but hijacked by Tagore & other Hindus - Hindu are to blame
The Awamy League merged with the EP Congress and who's to blame ???? - Hindus are to blame
Bangladesh is a sovereign country because they broke out of Pakistan - Hindus are to blame
Bangladesh's ruling party is Awamy League and it has sold BD to India - Hindus are to blame
etc etc etc etc etc - Hindus are to blame

stop blaming hindus you ugly bharti

 

[Contrarian]

look at your own army

Do take a look at our Army.
Indian Army has more or less just continued British Indian Army's practices. The old designs are still continuing.
Even then, they are slowly being eroded. You see more and more South Indians joining the Armed Forces now than ever before.

 

[Syed Naved]

Wrong.
You are Bangali.
Bangladesh is a 'desh' for 'Banglas'.

So either you are a proud Bangali or you are a Pakistani/Arab spit licker.

All of you people are are of Indic descent.

Bangladesh is of course is a country but not for Bangals but for Bangladeshis only . Whoever believes in " Bengalism " instead of " Bangladeshism " has no place to stay in BD , but yes he/she is free to change the nation .

And it was those Arab Rulers/ Muslim rulers who developed India. So, it would be better for you know history better rather thn a typical silly Indiots lolz

And by your saying,it doesn't changed the fact that Bangladeshis are mixed nation and non Indic.
In fact before 47 there was no India at all, it was a sub continant with varoius independant kingdoms only .

It was muslims who bring it united,developed it and make it a nation .

 

[Sugarcane]

stop blaming hindus you ugly bharti

Kalay shahzaday, were you also imprisoned because of elections?

 

[Syed Naved]

Racial Origin of the Muslim Population

We all know that Hindus, including Buddhists and Animists, lived in Bengal
before 1200 A. D. The ruling power was in the hands of Brahman Sena dynasty. While
an adventurer and ambitious Turk Muslim named Bakhtiyar Khalji defeated Laksmana
Sena, the fate of the population of this region as though started to change. With that,
change also came in their religious identity. Muslims, increasing with a slow, but steady
figure, were replacing Hindu population. With this increase, the then Bengal, which is
now Bangladesh, contains Muslims as the majority of her population and today the
Hindus are the minority. Some say, Muslims living here are all no doubt converts from
Hindus, though it seems not logical.
Some say, all Muslims living here must have had
their foreign origins, since some foreign titles, like Shah, Sayyid, khan belong still to
some families and these titles, as we know, belonged once too to some Sultans, Wazirs
and high officers. Others say, we are the descendants of sufi-saints, since they hold the
titles, as Pir, Faqir etc. Discourse on this issue also exists among the researchers. To
know the truth, we should analyze the racial origins of Bengal Muslims of Sultanic
period. Muslims of that period were of two kinds-----Immigrants from different Muslim
countries and Local converts. Now, discussion on these two types will continue in the
following.

Muslim Out-comers

Historians count the years from 1200 to 1576 as Sutanic period in Bengal. In that time,
uncountable Muslim out-comers rushed to this green land. Nationally, most of them were
Arabs, Persians, Turks, Abyssinians and Afghans.

In general, three kinds of people came here---conquerors, preachers and traders.




Conquerors and Rulers:
Either at the end of 1204 or in the beginning of 1205,
Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji, originally who was a Turk, invaded Nadia1
and
defeated King Laksmana Sen. Later he established his rule in Lakhnawati (Gaud). From
that time till 1338, various tribes of Turks sat on the throne of this rich land.

Sultan Ilyas Shah and his descendants, who remained in power as independent Sultans of
Bengal with great credit and success, were Iranians.

From 1487-1493, four Habshis, i.e. Abyssinians reigned this region for 6 years. Though there was a controversy on their
lineage, Sultan Ala-al-Din Husain Shah and his dynasty were identified as Arabs.Lastly, Afghans held the power of Bengal for 38 years until Akbar conquered Bengal.

The descendants of all these sultans settled themselves around Sonargaon, Satgaon and Lakhnawati. Also, their wazirs (ministers), amirs (nobles), other high officers and soldiers were mostly from their followers, who accompanied them at the time of the invasion of Bengal, and later settled themselves in this land .


Preachers: Now it is clear that even before the advent of Bakhtiyar Khalji in Bengal, Arab and Persian preachers with their own racial traders came to this land by sea-route.

Later, in lieu of ever going back to homeland, they started to live generations after generations around coastal areas and, to some extent, here and there of Bengal.
For instances, Bayazid Bustami (874 A.D.) in Chittagong, Sultan Mahmud Mahisawar (1047 A.D.) at Mahasthan in Bogra, Muhammad Sultan Rumi (1053A.D.) at Madanpur in Mymensingh and Baba Adam (1158-1189 A.D.) at Bikrampur in Dhaka.


All these saints left enough traces of their coming to the above mentioned places in pre-Islamic
Bengal.

Most of the Sultans patronized sufi-saints-ulama as well as took their advice in administration. Their positions were high in the society as the symbols of purity and guardians of Sharia (The laws of Islam).
For this, many sufi-saints came to this land during Sultanic period and started to live here permanently.


In the period of Sultan Firuj Shah, Sufi Hajrat Shah Jalal with his 313 followers came
from Turkey at first to Satgaon, then went to Sylhet. From that time till his demise, he stayed in Sylhet with his great influence on people.
While Fakhr-al-Din Mubarak Shah was on the throne of Sonargaon, 12 Aulias (saints) came to Chittagong for the preaching of Islam.
The names of three famous Sufis, contemporary of Sultan Ilyas Shah, whom he revered heartily, were found as Shaikh Akhi Siraj-al-Din Usman, his disciple Shaikh Ala Al Haque & Shaikh Raja Biabani .Ala al haq & his family settled here .


Traders: Even before the adventurous foot-step of Bakhtiyar Khalji in this country, Arab and Persian traders came by sea-route in the coastal areas of Chittagong.




The rich surplus agricultural and industrial products paved the way for flourishing trade and commerce in Bengal attracting traders from outside. A great number of Arab, Persian and Turk merchants came to Bengal immediately after the conquest of Nadia by Bakhtiyar Khalji and later settled themselves keeping the bridle of trade and commerce in
their hands strongly.


From 1338 to 1538, in these two centuries, Sultans of Bengal were no more under the authority of Delhi’s. Those days, being enthusiastic by the warm welcome of these independent immigrant Sultans, flocks of many Muslim out-comers of all kinds, such as, merchants, traders, preachers, soldiers, ulama-mashaikhs, adventurers etc. gathered in this country 10 and started to inhabit from one generation to another.



Discourse on who the majority are


Historical accounts regarding conversion in Bengal in Sultanic period are not enough.
This is why, our conclusions always raised debates and doubts among the scholars, who
tried to opine everything in their own ways. Though we can’t claim our own opinions as
indisputable, at least can hope that our arguments and reasons must have taken us near
the truth.

According to H. Beverly, the conversion of the numerous low caste people to Islam,
being resulted from the ‘exclusive caste system of Hinduism’, was the reason of the
increase of Muslims in this territory. 20 That means, he thought, coverts were the majority among the Muslims of Bengal.

On the basis of the measurement of nasal height, H.H. Risley opined in 1982 that Bengal
Muslims were actually converts from the lowest classes of Hindus. 21 That is, he
indicated the untouchables.


But Risley forgot that Abyssinians, with their many features similar to non-Aryans’
including short nose, also came to Bengal numerously in Islamic period and made this place their safe habitations.

Rubbee refuted Beverly-Risley theory saying that the majority of Bengal Muslims is the new generations of foreigners. Muslim Rulers always transferred their capital from one city to another, namely Gaud, Rajmahal, Dacca, Murshidabad. Those cities have major Muslim population and those people are none but the descendants of those ruling races, once in power.


Muhammad Mohar Ali believed that Muslims of Bengal were largely immigrants and partly local converts. Converts were mostly from highest classes of Hindus including lowest classes too, as well as Buddhists and others.


Analyzing all above arguments and historical accounts, it seems that in Sultanic period, immigrants outnumbered local converts. So, foreigners were the majority. And converts came mostly from low-class Hindus as well as Buddhists and others. But a few converts came from Brahmans and Kayasthas.

Instances of mass conversion were not found. Conversion occurred slowly. M. Mohar Ali estimated that the rate of conversion was 15% of total locals in more than five hundred years.
So, it can be inferred that less than 3% of the population embraced Islam in a century!

Many Muslim Families, bearing racial titles still living in many parts of Bangladesh,
prove that they are descendants of their foreign forefathers, who came from different
Muslim countries, such as Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Asia Minor, Iran, Turkey etc.
Examples of such titles are Khaja, Khan-panni, Mirza, Sayyid etc .

So,here is no doubt/confusion that we're non Indic . Strange thing is why Indians think that they are the root of all. Silly Indians and their silly senti knowledge.

 

[Contrarian]

Bangladesh is of course is a country but not for Bangals but for Bangladeshis only . Whoever believes in " Bengalism " instead of " Bangladeshism " has no place to stay in BD , but yes he/she is free to change the nation .

Bangladesh by its very name is a desh for Banglas.
Understand the term before you talk.

And it was those Arab Rulers/ Muslim rulers who developed India. So, it would be better for you know history better rather thn a typical silly Indiots lolz

Are you a 5 year old child?
If not, stop using the term lolz among other terms.
No. Arab rulers/Muslim rulers did not develop India.
India was a rich country even before they came. One of the prime motivations for these people to come to India was because India was rich.

And by your saying,it doesn't changed the fact that Bangladeshis are mixed nation and non Indic.

Bangladeshi's are mixed.
And all those that they are mixed with are Indic.
Bangladeshi's are consequently completely Indic.

In fact before 47 there was no India at all, it was a sub continant with varoius independant kingdoms only .

It was muslims who bring it united,developed it and make it a nation .

No. Muslims were neither the first to unite India, nor the last.
Read your history, and not the madrassa version.

 

[Syed Naved]

Bangladesh by its very name is a desh for Banglas.
Understand the term before you talk.

Are you a 5 year old child?
If not, stop using the term lolz among other terms.
No. Arab rulers/Muslim rulers did not develop India.
India was a rich country even before they came. One of the prime motivations for these people to come to India was because India was rich.


Bangladeshi's are mixed.
And all those that they are mixed with are Indic.
Bangladeshi's are consequently completely Indic.


No. Muslims were neither the first to unite India, nor the last.
Read your history, and not the madrassa version.

Bengal is desh for or could be a desh for that, but Bangladesh is for Bangladeshis.Here no place for so called your bengalism.
And if I'm 5 year than you a 1 year child. Read your history but Not the purohit or Mandir versions .

And I also said,that the foreigner's or in easy word the non convertible were in majority . What you want to say,that all the history which doesn't match your is a lie and what match your version is true ?

If you believe so , than you are nothing but a child who is still in his mother's womb.