I was thrilled to read your post, and astonished that you had attempted to address several issues on a purely logical basis. As it happens, we differ, but it is only fair to record the enjoyment that your well-marshalled arguments brought out.
I have read similar account above in the "History of Bengal" written in 1803 (I have the original book) by Charles Stewert, and also in a few Persian language history books translated into Bengali/English. He wrote that the main army consisting of 10,000 Turkic horsemen hid behind in jungles and Afghan Turkic general Bakhtiar Khilji advanced towards Nadia with 17 of his ablest warriors disguised as traders. The present day Bihar was already under his control.
This is more or less the true account that you have represented; the 17 horsemen business has been used as a propaganda tool by racists to denigrate Bengalis; we saw an example just a few posts back. The impact of this surprise attack is not to be underestimated; it was a wonderful example, and one that should be cited as very good warcraft, and not in any other sense.
Since muslims are fond of telling about the myth of 17 horsemen, this has created also another myth. This myth is, since there were only 17 of them, therefore, all other muslims were forced to convert. It is just not true. There were certainly conversions of the Budhists in Bengal, but there were too many influx of foreign muslims in Bengal as well, not only in 1203 AD, but also throughout many centuries after that.
This is not quite so certain. The Buddhist population was disaffected; the Sena dynasty had lost its grip on the people, and was even as a dynasty nowhere near as popular as the earlier Palas were; Sena views on religion were harsh and intolerant, perhaps a reflection of their less permissive milieu (they are said to be migrants from the Deccan), and their imposition of resurgent Hinduism on the Tantrik Buddhists of Bengal cannot have been without resentment, not just among the Buddhists but among the caste Hindus as well. This was the period, after all, of the repeated attempts by these kings to 'improve the stock' of Brahmins in Bengal; what a way to retain the loyalty of your existing subjects!
On the other hand, traders from Arabia had been familiar with Bengal since the times of the Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar, so there was an history of more than a millennium of trade and travel exchanges. We already know that the similar contacts with the south-west corner of India had resulted in arguably the first mosques in India excluding Sind being built here, on the west coast, and the establishment of several colonies of Muslims, converts all, definitely from the ninth century onwards, all due to peaceful conversion.
Is it straining credibility too much to argue, as many have done, that the bulk of conversions were peaceful, and by Arab traders preaching their faith among the Buddhists of East Bengal?
The patterns of settlment bear this out.
Immigrants settled in Murshidabad, also in tracts of Burdwan and Bankura. It is recorded that in the course of exploration and conquest, Afghan tribesmen penetrated this way into Orissa, and settled there too in large numbers. Now, if the Muslim population in Bengal had been due to immigration, these western regions would have had many more Muslims than the east.
That is not the case today, and I submit that going back and looking at the records, it will be found that it was not the case then. Note that Sultanate penetration of
eastBengal, even Mughal penetration of Bengal was accomplished at a very late date.
So if the immigrants were to be found in west Bengal, and the majority of Muslims were to be found in east Bengal, where there was also a majority of Muslims in the general population, what does the logic of their respective locations indicate? Where did this non-immigrant majority of the population come from other than conversion? And considering that Muslim forces got there very late, how did these conversions happen?
People with lack of knowledge of the political history of Bengal during muslim era cannot just analyze the effects of these immigrations. Effects of these immigrations must be analyzed with the number of local population in those times when immigration occured.
For example, I assume that the population in Bihar and Bengal in 1203 AD was no more than 3 million, and the Turkic immigration at no less than 250,000. But, people tend to think that the local Hindu population was static at todays 300 million people. So, the immigration had very little effect. People forget that population is always increasing.
Most of Hindustan including Bengal had a very few number of population in those days. Most of the lands used to remain covered with thick jungle because it was not necessary also. Newly arrived people were allocated fallow lands by the muslim govt in Lukhnouti. They took possession of these lands and gradually opened these for cultivation.
Very true. But does this not reflect the situation in west Bengal, rather than east Bengal? Where were the forests in the delta region?
Again, while acknowledging your comment about the existence of fallow land in plenty for new immigrants, I am not sure where you have got the information that what was distributed was fallow land for cultivation assigned to immigrants who wanted to take to a life of agriculture. Was this what happened?
I do not remember the sources after a gap of forty years between now and when I studied it as an history student. Was it not a distribution of already-cultivated land to feudal vassals, for their use for their own maintenance? Who were the immigrants? Were they not the cavalry and infantry of the Sultanate of Delhi, of Jaunpur long after, of Lukhnauti and of the little Afghan fiefdoms spreading through western Bengal?
For this immigration model to be logically coherent, as I mentioned, there ought to have been a larger population of Muslims in western Bengal, reducing as we got to east Bengal. The position, historically as well as today, the opposite!
I apologise for writing a long post. But, I thought since you are well-versed in history, therefore, you would like this discussion. I expect the same from other posters as well.
It was very satisfying to read a closely-read, closely-argued case. Please continue. Others more capable of it than I will no doubt keep you company, while the rest of us are happy to read these fascinating exchanges.
