@eastwatch
It is possible to engage in a discussion on historical matters, on any matter whatsoever, on any subject whatsoever, without imputing motives or hidden agenda to another discussant.
If this general proposition is acceptable to you, I submit another, more specific, proposition: I have no motives or hidden agenda in arguing that the bulk of Muslims in Bengal were native converts, and that only an insignificant number were migrants.
A corollary to the theorem: I have an open mind, and given suitable evidence, am willing to be persuaded.
If you believe that this is not so, then you will understand that there is no discussion possible, where a discussion implies an attempt to understand each other's views, and even to evaluate each other's views for acceptability within a given framework of reference. Instead of a discussion, there will be a sterile series of statements of our respective points of view, ending with frustration and a disengagement due to stalemate.
We can continue if you wish, but from my side, I will neither indulge in one-sided polemic, nor engage with one-sided polemicists. Do let me know if you disagree violently.
To understand the immigration from the central asia to Bengal, a person needs to examine the entire political history of Bengal in the muslim era. It is not possible for me to elaborate here on this vast subject. Please read many of the old history books written in Persian to understand the political process and thus the process of immigration.
This is interesting but in an undergraduate programme in India in the late 60s, there was not much scope for studying original sources in the vernacular. I am afraid reading the sources in Persian is beyond me.
A bare minimum programme would be the names of the books that you have in mind.
If you are aware of any good translations of these, even better; please let me know.
There were immigrations not only from the west, but also from Ethiopia/Eritria and Arabia. And do not get a surprise when I say that there was a Negro Muslim Dynasty in Bengal. History is not to be imagined nor it is a make-believe thing. It must be studied thoroughly before someone comes to a specific conclusion.
I do not know about a dynasty, but know that there were individual kings of African stock.
It is very reassuring to hear that history must be studied thoroughly before someone comes to a specific conclusion. In that case, you will agree to allow time for your views and their premises, and their authorities and references, to be studied thoroughly before we come to a specific conclusion.
My question is, was there any bar or taboo in those days for not accepting any muslims from other countries, or even Hindus from other parts of Hindustan? If not, then why someone should think naively that that there were no Muslim immigration from the poor regions of asia to a rich region of Muslim dominated Bengal when the situation here was so coductive?
No, none whatever. There was no question of this migration issue except in the indirect context of discussion on how conversion happened.
The Hindutva view, a pessimistic view, which nevertheless holds true for certain parts of the country, was that conversion happened by conquest, and subsequent application of troublesome, asymmetric laws to the conquered population, leading to conversions to escape oppression.
The liberal view, an optimistic view, is that irrespective of what happened in other parts of the country, in the cases of Kerala and the Bengal hinterland, most conversion took place due to the evangelical zeal of traders who preached Islam, and won people over with their preaching of what was then an enlightened religion, offering people a very acceptable alternative to their existing religion.
You have outlined an interesting view that accounts for a significant section of the Muslim population as originating from migration into the country.
These three views together present elements of reality which should all be considered. Obviously, no one factor accounts for all of the population. Obviously, also, as you will no doubt readily acknowledge, the first two views have some currency in re Bengal, and have detailed information relating to them. You have cited Persian documents and books of history; unless we have had a chance to examine them, and to get an evaluation of their worth and their context, surely we are not required to accept them at the level of pontifical infallibility. You have quoted your sources in general; once you quote them in specific, we can come to some conclusion.
Until such time, you must understand that all we can do is to note your novel views with interest.
Do not forget that Bengal was the richest region in entire Hindustan. It used to produce one-third of the total wealth. Read Abul Fazal's Ain-i-Akbari to know that. Perhaps, it will surprise you to read also that this is why the Mughals fought a 30 yr war to wrest control of this province. The war started during the reign of Akber in 1570s and ended during the time of his son Jahangir in 1605/6.
I have read what you have said and will bear it in mind. If in the middle of the night, it should occur to me why a region which lay fallow and from which land grants of rich, arable land could be made readily should account for such a major share, 1/3, of the revenue of Hindustan, I will make a note of it and will lose no time in informing you. The rest of Hindustan was presumably in worse case than Bengal, to produce through the rest of the Gangetic Plain only twice as much as Bengal.
As I have said, I note your observations with interest, but would like a reasonable opportunity to validate these, before forming an opinion. It would be sad if the time taken leads to imputations of any kind.
@Joe Shearer, this long war is just one of many many reasons that west Bengal became less muslim and east Bengal became more muslim.
The logic thoroughly escapes me.
A long war is waged. The bulk of the war takes place in one, the western part of a province. That part is found at the end to harbour less professing the religion of the winner than the part where the war had hardly any effect.
In other words, Mughal operations reduced the comparative share of the Muslims in the population of West Bengal, and left undisturbed the greater share in East Bengal. Difficult to fathom, to say the least.
I have only one explanation. That is that there was uniform migration into all parts of Bengal, not the areas closest to the migrants, but to all areas (farfetched, but let us assume so).
Now, in this situation of uniform and equal migration, war broke out. Its deleterious effects lowered - selectively - the Muslim population in the western portion of the province; the balance, in the east, was left untouched, at its previous high levels.
Let's try again. There was equal migration; a migrant from central Asia, from Samarkand or from Bukhara, came to seek land from Chittagong in indifference to whether it was in Chittagong or in Dinajpur. The war broke out; migration to western Bengal dried up or shrank, migration to eastern Bengal continued, for 30 years.
I know that the Nawab bari of Dhaka were merchants from Kashmir. I know that there are other settler families. I also know that there are genealogical studies showing that there are absolutely no differences in terms of DNA among different settlers in south Asia. The internet is afloat with references and there is not much point going into that.
Even today, people move from one region to another, from one country to another just to make a better living. But, Indians always object to the historical fact that there were bulks of Muslim immigrations to the entire Hindustan through many centuries. It was all over India, but it was more in Bengal. I am talking about Bengal in its historical perspective, but, you are thinking of a Bengal which is very poor today. This is why your vision is blurred.
It is interesting to note your observation that 'Indians' always object to the historical fact that there were bulks (sic) of Muslim immigrations to the entire Hindustan through many centuries.
I note with some interest that I am unconsciously part of a great mass movement in the academic world, and had never suspected being such a part.
I have already pointed out that DNA does not say anything in support of your curious thesis. It is not clear to me what looking at Bengal in its historical perspective and looking at Bengal which is very poor today has to do with the matter, unless in a roundabout way, your argument is that since Bengal was rich, very rich, almost twice as rich as any comparable part of Hindustan, there was preferential migration here rather than to other parts of India.
Again, it is amazing that your zeal and enthusiasm fails to take into account that if this were the case, then migrants from Bihar and Oudh and Kanauj, even migrants from Mewat and the Eastern, cis-Sutlej Punjab would have crowded here in greater numbers, far greater than migrants from the steppes of Central Asia.
Look at the languages Hindi/Urdu/Bangla to see the footprints of all those muslim immigrants in historical times.
Yes, this is clearly very important for you. Unfortunately, I am unable to agree.
While Bangla was taking in loan words from other languages used solely by one community - pani for jal, chirag for pradip and the whole lexicon which is so well known - Upper India was forming an entire language in an amalgam of Hindi grammar and Turkish, Persian and Arabic nouns and verbs.
I suggest that you allow these claims of yours, and your authorities and references to be checked, before we continue this discussion any further. And I also suggest that we deal with such things rationally, not at the level of faith.
All the discussions finally end up with a religious angle. This won't do well for your country, south Asia or the entire world. To make the world a better place, focus more on development, education & health for your country. The greatest religion is to be true to your own nature.
. Anyway Khojas were courtier of Mughal and Nabwabs and not exactly natural immigration.
