Creation of Bangladesh: Shining Moment or Strategic Blunder

[Joe Shearer]

@eastwatch

This discussion is going in a particularly bad way. I hope that you will take stock of the situation before you paint yourself into a corner.

You are right upto a certain extent. But, it is very difficult to retain the facial features of a group of of people who migrate to a moist climate of a foreign land and in the next two or three generation they intermarry with the local convets.

Where is this taking us?

Look at the Bangali Brahmins. Those who still live under shades and do worshipping may retain their complexion. Otherwise, the Brahmins who are forced to do cultivation in the hot and humid climate lose their complexion in two generations. Bengal weather is not good for fair complexion. This is what Rabidranath Tagore also said.

It is quite impossible to distinguish between various castes in scientific terms. From the chromosomal and haplotype point of view, there is less than 1% variability throughout South Asia, including Pakistan, except for defined parts of the east of India, and for one ethnic group in what is now Pakistan.

The rest is uniform.

The Brahmins are in no way distinguishable from the rest, genetically. Variations in pigmentation that have been pointed out are Mendelian in character, and have no value of any kind.

President Obama's mother is a white woman. Then why her son should look like a black man?

I have a joke answer for you - because his father was a black man?

Before writing any more of this kind of unbelievable school-boy stuff, please take the trouble of looking up Mendel's Laws, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Individual Assertion.

Where on earth do you live that you managed to retain this Brahminical superstitions?

But, of course, he is less black than many other blacks. But, you cannot say that he is less white than other whites.

Are you out of your mind?

Same thing happened to the Bangali Muslim population, too. Like Obama, the descendents of all those immigrants look more like the local population and less like some of their forebearers.

Yes, you are out of your mind.

Eastwatch, you are a Hitlerian, Stewart Chamberlain brand of racist of no education and of no knowledge of genetics and of colour issues.

98% of the Bengali population today is Muslim. They are totally indistinguishable from the neighbouring population in the Gangetic Valley, in genetic terms. Skin colour is not and has not been since the darkest days of Nazi Germany or the worst period of Brahminical oppression in South Asia a criterion for differentiation, on any basis. I have said before and say again, there is a less than 1% variability in the DNA of residents in South Asia, with exceptions already mentioned.

Even then you will find quite a percentage of sharp nosed and fair complexioned tall Bangali Muslims. I sometimes wonder how it is possible after many centuries of mixing some of us are still retaining those? But, the reality may be that these mixings truly started when most of the descendents of foreign muslims lost their identity due to poverty during the British period, and started to mix with all other muslim groups of populations.

And to you this is a bad thing?

Now-a-days no one tries to identify himself with foreign blood line. So, truly we have become Bangladeshis. But, history must not be allowed to be written in a way that unfairly and intentionally demean our status.

Please explain which group you seek to represent by this nonsense? Who is the 'we' here? And in what way are you being demeaned?

If I have understood you right, your claim is that the people of Bangladesh are largely the descendants of 13th to 15th century migrants from central Asia, and are genetically different from all others (all other what?). Presumably you have not come across the extensive genome mapping studies, and their descendants, the haplotype identification studies which have been taken up in South Asia along with other parts of the world. These studies, the closest scientific tests taken to determine genetic identity, show very clearly that there is no significant racial or ethnic variation in South Asia. fullstop.

I advise you to take a cold shower the next time this idea rears its ugly head. It is deeply regrettable that you thought fit to articulate this idea.

 

[eastwatch]

Eastwatch, I don't know how to put it politely, but you're suffering from a deep complex which makes you trying to find your ancestry to imagined Pathan settlers.

Yes there were Pathan generals and subedars of nabwab, but they have mainly settled in Bihar, in Gaya, Nawada, Aurangabad, Patna, Munger, Darbhanga etc. Some moved to East Pakistan after partition, but they didn't have enough time to be assimilated to be called Bengali.

You're forgetting one thing here, the main bastion of Nabwab was in West-Bengal and East part of Bihar, Murshidabad was the Capital. It was more convenient for them to be settled near the capital city than far east of Bengal (I'm not talking about Nabwab of Dhaka here who is a Kashmiri merchant and got his title after 1857).

As Iajduni mentioned, the migration would have left drastic effects had it been as great as you're trying to prove.

And for the bold part, bigots are plenty in both side of border. Don't be afraid seeing the scarcity of them coming from WB in this particular forum.

I find only the Indians bear inferiority complex against the Bangali muslims. So, they try to degrade them by propagating false information. I am talking not about population of Bangladesh itself. I am talking about the Muslim population of Sube Bangal. Bihar, Jharkhand, west Bengal and Bangladesh were part of this Sube Bengal.

Population was divided only in 1947, but the 750 years of common history and the common heritage of muslim people of these areas cannot be divided by a date line.

Who gave you this illusion that Murshidabad was the only Capital of Bengal. It was the last Capital of Sube Bangal. Capital changed time to time. It was in Lakkhanabati (called Lukhnouti by the immigrant Muslims), then Pandua, then Gaur, and then to Orissa (don't remember the name). Was it Rajmahal?

After the death of Pathan Sultan Daud Khan Karrani in a battle in Orissa, the Orissa Pathans moved to east Bengal under the leadership of Osman Khan to join hands with the resistance built by Isha Khan Afghan, Baezid Karrani and other Chieftains there.

Read the article "The Last Pathan Hero of Bengal" written by Dr. Bhattasali to know how this Pathan hero Osman Khan fought against the Mughals in Uhar located in Sylhet/Mymensingh. So, where these groups of people go. Did they drown themselves in the Bay of Bengal and vanished?

There was no central Capital during the next 30 years after 1576. The Mughals conquered Dhaka in 1605 and made it the Capital of Sube Bangal. Murshidkuli Khan moved the Capital to Mursidabad many years later. So, learn from history before you blame others of complex mindedness. I am talking from the pages of history, but you are just imagining things.

By the way, who gave you this naive impression that high class muslims should live in the Capital and others would live in the hinterlands? Power changed in Bengal many tens of times.

When a dynasty falls, all his retinues are also disgraced and they flee to places where no one will trace them out. It happened many tens of times in Bengal and also in Delhi. This is why throughout the Centuries, thousands of Delhi Muslim families fled to Bengal after losing a war. But, your revered EATON Sahab could not have the foresight to see this important point. And you are following his footsteps blindly.

 

[TopCat]

You are right upto a certain extent. But, it is very difficult to retain the facial features of a group of of people who migrate to a moist climate of a foreign land and in the next two or three generation they intermarry with the local convets.

Look at the Bangali Brahmins. Those who still live under shades and do worshipping may retain their complexion. Otherwise, the Brahmins who are forced to do cultivation in the hot and humid climate lose their complexion in two generations. Bengal weather is not good for fair complexion. This is what Rabidranath Tagore also said.

President Obama's mother is a white woman. Then why her son should look like a black man? But, of course, he is less black than many other blacks. But, you cannot say that he is less white than other whites. Same thing happened to the Bangali Muslim population, too. Like Obama, the descendents of all those immigrants look more like the local population and less like some of their forebearers.

Even then you will find quite a percentage of sharp nosed and fair complexioned tall Bangali Muslims. I sometimes wonder how it is possible after many centuries of mixing some of us are still retaining those? But, the reality may be that these mixings truly started when most of the descendents of foreign muslims lost their identity due to poverty during the British period, and started to mix with all other muslim groups of populations.

Now-a-days no one tries to identify himself with foreign blood line. So, truly we have become Bangladeshis. But, history must not be allowed to be written in a way that unfairly and intentionally demean our status.

Bhramin is not a good example to deny the theory of Mandell. There are plenty of Bhramins in south India who are just as dark as black african. I am not actually sure how they became bhramin (as non aryan) but they are now.

Lets look at it from outside the box. Native australians are darker skin so it is fair to imagine that Australian weather is conducive only to darker skin and anybody who settle there will eventually become darker in the course of time. But it did not for west european even after 600 years of settlement. Same goes for American African or American caucasian who did not turn Red Indian natives or anyway near to them. That is becuase evolution takes time and could take 100,000 years to alter a very minute fraction of the DNA.

But again if you look at Chile or Ecuador or Columbia, where most people looks like native only. That is becuase inter mixing. People were forced to intermix in those countries due to the fact that the European women could not conceive in the thin air and the height from the sea level. The conclusion from this two case are that people just dont change their facial or skin appearance in a very short period of time but only intermixing could put a drastic effect.

Now I have to go to Mandels number game here. As I concluded that the evolution is not the factor that Phatan became a bengali featured overnight but its intermixing which made them look more like Bengalis. Now why Bengalis did not became more like Pathan instead Pathan are more like Bengalis now? Its because number of Pathans are less in the stock than those were Bengalis. If for instance 80:20 the proportion of Bengali vs Pathan then after a period of say 500 years with population increase 800 people will look more like Bengali and 200 people will look more like Pathan. But again both the stock will bear some mark of Bengalis and some mark of Pathan. Nobody will remain pure as they came from original stock.

That is just a very simplified way of looking at it. But there are again more complex theories, the survival of the fittest. When two genes meet only the better part of the DNA suppose to pass on to the next generation. In this case as Bengalis are native then their gene should suit the local environment and should be passed on as the superior gene to the next generation. But this is again a very slow process shoul take 10s of thousands of years to see the distinct featurastic change. But the immunity to dieseases are in immediate effect.

 

[justanobserver]

There are plenty of Bhramins in south India who are just as dark as black african. I am not actually sure how they became bhramin (as non aryan) but they are now.

You do know that the Aryan Invasion theory was discredited? Being fair doesn't fit into the 'Aryan' notion of beauty. It was the Brits who popularized this theory of fair Aryans civilizing the dark skinned barbarians

 

[TopCat]

there is a less than 1% variability in the DNA of residents in South Asia, with exceptions already mentioned.

1% is a lot..
We differ from Chimpanzee only by 4%
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

Even an Chinese and Black african's DNA dont differ more than 1%. Its just a very tiny fraction of a % DNA could make a complete different race.

 

[Zeluvaa]

If conversion is true, then it is only half true. The other part of truth is since the invasion and capture of Bengal by the Turkic general Bakhtiar from the hands of bullying Sen Dynasty, there were continuous influx of muslim migrants from the hinterlands of Afghanistan and other regions.

In some occasions they were Turkic, but in some occasions they were Pathans as well as central asians. Was it a crime for them to come and settle in a paradise called Bengal, where everything a man could desire in those days for himself and his family was available? It was quite different from their original home countries.

You are right upto a certain extent. But, it is very difficult to retain the facial features of a group of of people who migrate to a moist climate of a foreign land and in the next two or three generation they intermarry with the local convets.

President Obama's mother is a white woman. Then why her son should look like a black man? But, of course, he is less black than many other blacks. But, you cannot say that he is less white than other whites. Same thing happened to the Bangali Muslim population, too. Like Obama, the descendents of all those immigrants look more like the local population and less like some of their forebearers.

I don't like to indulge in topics of so called genetic superiority, but the above posts are fail on an epic proportions.

Let me post a haplogroup map

If you can make out, please do that there is not much similarity between south asian and bangladeshi Y haplogroups to those of semitic or turkish ones.

If you have any background in genetics, then read this and enlighten yourself.
ECOL 195, Lecture 8

BioMed Central | Full text | Phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup R7 in the Indian peninsula
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf <--good one

Further more, Bangladeshi people have high concentrations of M2 Haplogroup of mitochondrial DNA, a group which they share with people of South East Asia and on general south asia.
Look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)#Distribution

@Obama's skin colour - he is black because the gene which handles skin colour (or melanin production) was inherited from the fathers side, because his fathers gene in this regard was dominant, while his mothers was recessive.

And your argument about skin colour amalgamation is simply preposterous.


So please refrain from making ridiculous and bold statements about genetics, gene drift and population ancestry when you have no background or formal education in or about it. Or atleast back yourself with sources.

I knew this malady of genetic superiority, denying native origins and claiming semitic ancestry affected few of our western neighbours, but I did not knew couple of our eastern neighbours were afflicted too with the same thing. Dam this thing on this board is infectious!

Lets hope tomorrow the Indian, chinese and other sane members do not rise up and say they have Semitic, turkish, Martian, Jedi, Klingon ancestry too.

 

[justanobserver]

^^
One thing I've learnt from from spending time on this forums , its the same rhetoric whether from our western neighbour or our eastern one, both of them want to be arabs, persians, and turks.

 

[LaBong]

I find only the Indians bear inferiority complex against the Bangali muslims. So, they try to degrade them by propagating false information. I am talking not about population of Bangladesh itself. I am talking about the Muslim population of Sube Bangal. Bihar, Jharkhand, west Bengal and Bangladesh were part of this Sube Bengal.

Population was divided only in 1947, but the 750 years of common history and the common heritage of muslim people of these areas cannot be divided by a date line.

Who gave you this illusion that Murshidabad was the only Capital of Bengal. It was the last Capital of Sube Bangal. Capital changed time to time. It was in Lakkhanabati (called Lukhnouti by the immigrant Muslims), then Pandua, then Gaur, and then to Orissa (don't remember the name). Was it Rajmahal?

After the death of Pathan Sultan Daud Khan Karrani in a battle in Orissa, the Orissa Pathans moved to east Bengal under the leadership of Osman Khan to join hands with the resistance built by Isha Khan Afghan, Baezid Karrani and other Chieftains there.

Read the article "The Last Pathan Hero of Bengal" written by Dr. Bhattasali to know how this Pathan hero Osman Khan fought against the Mughals in Uhar located in Sylhet/Mymensingh. So, where these groups of people go. Did they drown themselves in the Bay of Bengal and vanished?

There was no central Capital during the next 30 years after 1576. The Mughals conquered Dhaka in 1605 and made it the Capital of Sube Bangal. Murshidkuli Khan moved the Capital to Mursidabad many years later. So, learn from history before you blame others of complex mindedness. I am talking from the pages of history, but you are just imagining things.

By the way, who gave you this naive impression that high class muslims should live in the Capital and others would live in the hinterlands? Power changed in Bengal many tens of times.

When a dynasty falls, all his retinues are also disgraced and they flee to places where no one will trace them out. It happened many tens of times in Bengal and also in Delhi. This is why throughout the Centuries, thousands of Delhi Muslim families fled to Bengal after losing a war. But, your revered EATON Sahab could not have the foresight to see this important point. And you are following his footsteps blindly.

All the capitals you mentioned are/were on the west bank of hoogly river. Murshidabad was only notable though.

Whatever you mentioned above are specific cases not example of large scale immigration. And those small group of people may have jumped on Bay of Bengal, crossed Himalaya to China, settle in Metiabruz/Dhaka. I don't have any clue. I don't see any significant Pathan diaspora in West Bengal's Muslim population, they may have all chosen to migrate to BD.

 

[eastwatch]

If you have any background in genetics, then read this and enlighten yourself.

Further more, Bangladeshi people have high concentrations of M2 Haplogroup of mitochondrial DNA, a group which they share with people of South East Asia and on general south asia.

And your argument about skin colour amalgamation is simply preposterous.

So please refrain from making ridiculous and bold statements about genetics, gene drift and population ancestry when you have no background or formal education in or about it. Or atleast back yourself with sources.

I knew this malady of genetic superiority, denying native origins and claiming semitic ancestry affected few of our western neighbours, but I did not knew couple of our eastern neighbours were afflicted too with the same thing. Dam this thing on this board is infectious!

[

It is not what I have said in all my posts about genetic superiority. Genetically no nation is more superior to any other nations. I cited the political history of this region to prove that Bangali muslims do not have a single source of genes. There have been admixtures of other people as well. I also cited about negro abisinian admixture in us. Does it also mean that I wanted to prove that we are genetically superior?

By the way, do you really understand the meaning of Turkic blood? Read before you send trash again. Is it the present day Turkey that I was talking about? Learn about the definition of Turkic people. And also learn about the present day Turkey people, and why do they look so different from their cousins in the central asia. Now, you will come up again with another chart, perhaps.

 

[eastwatch]

Bhramin is not a good example to deny the theory of Mandell. There are plenty of Bhramins in south India who are just as dark as black african. I am not actually sure how they became bhramin (as non aryan) but they are now.

Yes, I have seen such Brahmins. The one south Indian Brahmin I asked about it, replied that there were inter-marriages before the caste system was introduced. There may be other reasons, like marrying others outside their own caste in old times.

 

[eastwatch]

You do know that the Aryan Invasion theory was discredited? Being fair doesn't fit into the 'Aryan' notion of beauty. It was the Brits who popularized this theory of fair Aryans civilizing the dark skinned barbarians

If an invasion has been discredited(?), then the immigration cannot be discredited. Look at the physical features of different groups/caste of Hindu people. You cannot just discredit a theory only because a German anthropologist studied the physical features of us and deduced the conclusion.

Aryan footprint is spread everywhere in the Sub-continent. Why people should deny the long bygone history of their own forebearers for silly reasons? It is not the common people who decide about history. It is history that proves the existence of truths.

 

[Zeluvaa]

I cited the political history of this region to prove that Bangali muslims do not have a single source of genes.

One cannot cite political history when talking about genes and trying to prove the genetic background of group of people. Genes or genetic drift do not follow nor care about what happened politically.

As for not having a single source - that is true for nearly most of the population of earth. Humans have migrated to nearly everywhere and intermixing of genes is something which has happened with every local population. But my point of posting that chart and the links was to show that any Turkic, semitic or pashto gene present in Bangladeshi Muslims is an insignificant portion of the gene make up. You will find this portion is consistent with the portion that the population of North India and Pakistan (to an extent). This proves that the origin or ancestors of most of Bangladeshi Muslims were the natives of that land, not middle eastern people.

By the way, do you really understand the meaning of Turkic blood? Read before you send trash again. Is it the present day Turkey that I was talking about? Learn about the definition of Turkic people. And also learn about the present day Turkey people, and why do they look so different from their cousins in the central asia. Now, you will come up again with another chart, perhaps.

Thankfully my charts actually prove something and are backed by scientific proofs, unlike talking about history books and political history without actually providing any sort of proof to back up your points.

Btw what has Turkic people have any thing to do in particular with the topic? Here's their list if you need it - Turkic peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If an invasion has been discredited(?), then the immigration cannot be discredited. Look at the physical features of different groups/caste of Hindu people. You cannot just discredit a theory only because a German anthropologist studied the physical features of us and deduced the conclusion.

Aryan footprint is spread everywhere in the Sub-continent. Why people should deny the long bygone history of their own forebearers for silly reasons? It is not the common people who decide about history. It is history that proves the existence of truths.

Till date, there are no archaeological evidence to support mass movement of population or invasion to South Asia in pre-historic periods. Perhaps thats why researchers and archaeologist do not accept the invasion theory.

But of course there need not be much archaeological proof of an invasion for the theory to be actually true. Many mass movements in history have not been archaeologically attested but are true.

 

[eastwatch]

One cannot cite political history when talking about genes and trying to prove the genetic background of group of people. Genes or genetic drift do not follow nor care about what happened politically.

As for not having a single source - that is true for nearly most of the population of earth. Humans have migrated to nearly everywhere and intermixing of genes is something which has happened with every local population. But my point of posting that chart and the links was to show that any Turkic, semitic or pashto gene present in Bangladeshi Muslims is an insignificant portion of the gene make up. You will find this portion is consistent with the portion that the population of North India and Pakistan (to an extent). This proves that the origin or ancestors of most of Bangladeshi Muslims were the natives of that land, not middle eastern people.

Thankfully my charts actually prove something and are backed by scientific proofs, unlike talking about history books and political history without actually providing any sort of proof to back up your points.

Btw what has Turkic people have any thing to do in particular with the topic? Here's their list if you need it - Turkic peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Till date, there are no archaeological evidence to support mass movement of population or invasion to South Asia in pre-historic periods. Perhaps thats why researchers and archaeologist do not accept the invasion theory.

But of course there need not be much archaeological proof of an invasion for the theory to be actually true. Many mass movements in history have not been archaeologically attested but are true.

I have not gone through all your gobblish. It is because you want to say that people should not study the Normandy invasion by William the conqueror to know how a different genes were added to the native population of England. In your opinion, we should not know how the Turkic settlers from the central asia had changed themselves by mingling with the europeans there.

In your opinion, no one should also cite or study how because of influx of millions of european immigrants in the USA the native Red Indian population decreased by percentage. You also want to say we should not study how the native population in the latin americas changed due to Spanish cruelty and highhandedness.

You must be a pitiful silly creature without a creative mind.
Keep on living in your hard nut to crack typical Indian mind-shell and lecture your fellow countrymen.

 

[Zeluvaa]

I have not gone through all your gobblish. It is because you want to say that people should not study the Normandy invasion by William the conqueror to know how a different genes were added to the native population of England. In your opinion, we should not know how the Turkic settlers from the central asia had changed themselves by mingling with the europeans there.

In your opinion, no one should also cite or study how because of influx of millions of european immigrants in the USA the native Red Indian population decreased by percentage. You also want to say we should not study how the native population in the latin americas changed due to Spanish cruelty and highhandedness.

You must be a pitiful silly creature without a creative mind.
Keep on living in your hard nut to crack typical Indian mind-shell and lecture your fellow countrymen.

where did I deny that population migration or invasion does not change the genetic make up of the local population? Perhaps if you had read the following, you would have saved your time.

Humans have migrated to nearly everywhere and intermixing of genes is something which has happened with every local population.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there was migration of some middle eastern people to North India and Bangladesh and this would have brought their genes into the local pool. However the fact still remains that a significant majority of Bangladeshi people have the same genetic makeup as of the rest of the surrounding area.

Ancestry is not claimed simply by going back in time and seeing who was our parents parent and who were their parent and so on. If we go on this way, every living person today can claim ancestry to everyone who had lived in the past (around 1000-1400 AD barring pedigree collapse). This way every single person today can claim to have descent from the sahaba's or even the prophet(PBUH) himself. This is why when ancestry and genes are talked about, researchers usually mention straight matrilineal (through mitochondrial DNA) and patrilineal (through Y chromosomal DNA) descent rather than common ancestor.

This proves that majority of bangladeshi muslim's ancestors were not middle eastern invaders but rather the original native bengali people. <--- refer to the charts if you want to see the genetic makeup.

Did you know that if ancestry is to be claimed the way you suggest (outside invasion and what not), then nearly every single person living in north, central and western India can claim that the Mughal invaders are their ancesters!

Btw what the heck is gobblish

 

[LaBong]

Lets not call it invasion. But there are many proves(with some glitches!) of Aryan immigration. But the whole Aryan-Dravidian conflict as depicted by populists is too simplistic in nature. Present Indian population is the result of Aryan-Dravidian assimilation and inter-mixing, not of conflict.