SarthakGanguly
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,416
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Wrong. I am not a Bengali so I am being as neutral as possible. The DAD spurred the first attacks. The Hindus were not Yazidis. They hit back. For a place (Calcutta) with a Muslim minority, the results were obvious. Noakhali was not a response to anything. At least not as per the rioters.Lol, I'm sure, being an educated person, you know that it was the other way around in Kolkata. Or try paying a visit to your nearest university library in Kolkata.
Noakhali was in response to the Kolkata massacre. Having said that, I don't want to fight over "who killed more". Both sides did wrong, and it's a terrible chapter in Bengal's history that should never repeat. We're generally more tolerant of other religions/minorities, compared to other ethnic groups in the subcontinent.
Besides there can be no comparison between the Muslim Government(Bengal) and the Hindu minority(Bengal had a Hindu minority). The Muslim National Guards took part in the riots. The results were obvious. It started on the Id ul Fitr when the purest of the pure decided to cleanse their land of kufr on 29th August. DAD was even before that. There were obviously and typically forced conversions which were boasted by the ML leaders. Had it been a revenge of a Calcutta killing the total annihilation of the Noakhali Hindus could not have been in response to it. It was done because the Pure decided that it was time to clean the place up. Period.
According to M. A. Khan, at least 95% of the Hindus of Noakhali were converted to Islam. According to Justice G.D. Khosla, the entire Hindu population of Noakhali had been robbed of all they possessed and then forcibly converted to Islam
I agree that Bengalis in general are more tolerant than other ethnic groups in the subcontinent and I accept that fact totally.