In pictures: Darasbari Mosque in Gaur, the old Capital of Bengal

[bluesky]

• 
  In pictures: Darasbari Mosque

• Tribune Online Report
• Published at 10:18 AM October 07, 2016
• Last updated at 02:09 PM October 07, 2016
• 
• 
• 
• 
  
  
• 
  Photo: Syed Zakir Hossain/Dhaka Tribune
  
• 
  Photo: Syed Zakir Hossain/Dhaka Tribune
  
• 
  Photo: Syed Zakir Hossain/Dhaka Tribune
  
• 
  Photo: Syed Zakir Hossain/Dhaka Tribune
  
• 
  Photo: Syed Zakir Hossain/Dhaka Tribune
  

Darasbari Mosque is located in the old capital Guar, presently under the district of Chapainawabganj. The remaining of the largest mosque in Bangladesh is now in ruins located in Shibganj. The mosque was built in 1479 AD by Shamsuddin Abul Muzaffar Yusuf Shah.

 

[bluesky]

I was unaware of such a beautiful mosque in Chapainawabganj. I am surprised to see the beautiy of Darasbari Masjid there although I knew this Chapainawabganj Zilla and Maldaha Zilla in India together was the Capital of Bengal and was known as GAUR almost from the start of the Turkic Muslim rule by Ikhtier-ud-Din Muhammed Bakhtier Khilji.

He conquested Bengal at the head of Turkic-Afghan troops in around 1198.The famous Novelist Bankim Chandra Chatterjy wrote in his novel 'KopalKundola' that the number was 15,000 when the soldiers of Islam attacked Nadia. Other sources like the famous historian Bukanan in his 'History of Bengal' said of 12,000 troops. Entire northern India from Ghor in Afghanistan to Delhi and to Bengal in the east fell under the leadership of Turkic people who domiciled in these vast areas.

I have computed the combined population of the then Bengal that includes Bangladesh, west Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand was no more than 3.5 million (Hindu). The Turkic invasion caused the domiciling of at least 300,000 Muslim Turks and Afghans in this old Bengal.

 

[Braith]

Turkic Muslim rule by Ikhtier-ud-Din Muhammed Bakhtier Khilji.

.

They were not Turks.........they were 'Afghanized' people when arrived in India, and they , unlike Turks, were not slaves of Shahabuddin Gahuri, but free mercenaries like Afghans.. Even in 9th century A.D, they are mentioned to be domiciled in Pashtun belt of Afghanistan. Ghaznavid sources mention them separately from Turks and Afghans, as if they were a distinct nation. Its Ferishata of 17th century who says that they were Turks/Mongols with Afghan habits and customs , but contemporary history 'Tarikh-i-Feroz Shahi' informs us that Khiljis were not Turks. An earlier source of 13th century , Tabqat-i-Nasiri, written by a Ghurid, also tells us that Khiljis were not Turks.

 

[bongbang]

irony is two of the most finer Muslim historical cities, Gauda and Murshidabad are on the Indian side and in BD none compared to them. The real Gauda city bordering BD area on Indian side is much more rich. I agree the Darasbari Mosque is quite unknown. People mostly know about Choto Sona mosque of Chapai. There are some other old mosques such as Shah Nimatulah and Chamchika mosque.

 

[Braith]

Afghan monuments in Bengal

 

[bluesky]

They were not Turks.........they were 'Afghanized' people when arrived in India, and they , unlike Turks, were not slaves of Shahabuddin Gahuri, but free mercenaries like Afghans.. Even in 9th century A.D, they are mentioned to be domiciled in Pashtun belt of Afghanistan. Ghaznavid sources mention them separately from Turks and Afghans, as if they were a distinct nation. Its Ferishata of 17th century who says that they were Turks/Mongols with Afghan habits and customs , but contemporary history 'Tarikh-i-Feroz Shahi' informs us that Khiljis were not Turks. An earlier source of 13th century , Tabqat-i-Nasiri, written by a Ghurid, also tells us that Khiljis were not Turks.

Thank you for your input. I have read similar statement like your one by some other Pakistani poster with the similar references of contemporary history books. If these people are not Turks, then who were they? Could it be that they were Afghans/Pathans. I have read the history of Muslim domicile in Arakan from Bengal in 1430 when Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah was the Sultan of Gaud. He sent an expedition of the Muslim troops, who have been termed as Afghans, and not as Turks, by the contemporary historians of Arakan.

So, they were either a group of pure-blooded Afghans, a mixed-blooded group of Afghans or a mixed-blooded Turk-Mongols. However, I cannot single handedly alter the chronology that was written first in Taj-ul-Nasiri. There is one other gross mistake written in the History of Bengal. It speaks of an invasion of Tibet by Bakhtier Khiliji in around 1203. But, Assamese contemporary history called Burunji speaks of fighting in Assam proper, where he was defeated.

 

[Cyberian]

Masha'Allah very khoobsurat..

 

[Braith]

Thank you for your input. I have read similar statement like your one by some other Pakistani poster with the similar references of contemporary history books. If these people are not Turks, then who were they? Could it be that they were Afghans/Pathans. I have read the history of Muslim domicile in Arakan from Bengal in 1430 when Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah was the Sultan of Gaud. He sent an expedition of the Muslim troops, who have been termed as Afghans, and not as Turks, by the contemporary historians of Arakan.

So, they were either a group of pure-blooded Afghans, a mixed-blooded group of Afghans or a mixed-blooded Turk-Mongols. However, I cannot single handedly alter the chronology that was written first in Taj-ul-Nasiri. There is one other gross mistake written in the History of Bengal. It speaks of an invasion of Tibet by Bakhtier Khiliji in around 1203. But, Assamese contemporary history called Burunji speaks of fighting in Assam proper, where he was defeated.

Early Arab geographers have used term Turk for every one east of Khurasan, for example they have called people of Tibet as Turks in 10th century (Al-Tanbih by Masudi). The same book say that "Ayghan" (Afghans) are kind of Turks. So it seems Khiljis have been mistaken to be Turks or they were people close to Turks (like white huns), but were not exactly Turks.

One thing is confirmed, Khiljis were already Pashtunized in 13th century in terms of language and culture , as their abodes were in Pashtun belt. There is document of 1220 A.D, fihan-namah, in which the Khilji Turks are still to be found in and around Ghazni , and Zabulistan. The contemporary author Najib bakran is saying that "their language has undergone alterations and has become a different dialect". i.e they had adopted Pashto...

Nowadays Ghilzais live in Ghazni and Zabulistan (Zabul).........so such a large nation like Khiljis did not disappear into thin air but were absorbed by indigenous Pashtuns.

 

[kobiraaz]

Stop including Bihar in your posts, we where never apart of Bengal, we only paid tribute to Nawabs. We had our own Rajas like the Bettiah Raj, Maksudpur Raj, Jagdispur, Sonbarsa etc.

We are completely different to Bengalis, here is how the British compared us:

Ah more manly than bangalis still not independent.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Wow, very interesting. I need more information.

 

[damiendehorn]

Stop including Bihar in your posts, we where never apart of Bengal, we only paid tribute to Nawabs. We had our own Rajas like the Bettiah Raj, Maksudpur Raj, Jagdispur, Sonbarsa etc.

We are completely different to Bengalis, here is how the British compared us:

More manly, yet still paying tribute to Bengalis.....

 

[Bilal9]

Stop including Bihar in your posts, we where never apart of Bengal, we only paid tribute to Nawabs. We had our own Rajas like the Bettiah Raj, Maksudpur Raj, Jagdispur, Sonbarsa etc.

We are completely different to Bengalis, here is how the British compared us:

Bhai this is a thread about a nice archeological piece of interest - do we HAVE to spoil it by troll comments??

 

[kobiraaz]

What do you mean independent? We never demanded our own country, we like to live with other Hindus.

That is because your Bihari identity couldn't transcend Hindu Identity.

 

[bluesky]

Stop including Bihar in your posts, we where never apart of Bengal, we only paid tribute to Nawabs. We had our own Rajas like the Bettiah Raj, Maksudpur Raj, Jagdispur, Sonbarsa etc.

We are completely different to Bengalis, here is how the British compared us:

Bihar, Jharkhand, west Bengal and today's Bangladesh together was called Sube-Bangalah after it was subdued by the Mughals in 1605. Before that Bihar and Jharkhand were part of the Sultanate of Bengal with Capital in GAUD, where the Darasbari Mosque is located.

Before the Mughal conquest, Bihar/Jharkhand was a part of Bengal, whatever might have been its language. And also after the Mughal conquest Bihar remained a part of Mughal Bengal, its Capital being in Dhaka. Foreign Turk and Afghan Muslims who domiciled in Bengal and Bihar dominated the politics of the eastern Hindustan for about four Centuries, and the State Capital of this greater Bengalwas almost all the time was in LUKHNOUTI,GAUD and PANDUA. All these were very near to each other.

The Mughal Bengal Capital was in Dhaka and then moved to Murshidabad and it remained so until the fall of Nawab Sirajuddowla in June 23, 1757. From 1200 to 1757 Bihar remained a part of greater Bengal. Of course, Biharis are Biharis and they should remain so. No one is challenging your statement.

Wow, very interesting. I need more information.

You may not like what I say about the people of what is Turkey now. The main Turkic tribes live in the Central Asian countries of Uzhbekistan, Azarbaizan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, Kazakhstan as well as in Uighur and partly in Afghanistan. The people here have similar facial and physical features. But, the Turkish people look so different from them.

Why? It is because in around the 11th century the Seljuk Turks won the Battle of Manzikert against the Byzantine Empire in 1071 that opened the gates of Anatolia to them. Turkish language and Islam were introduced and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway.

Only 12% of central asianTurkic blood was introduced in Turkey when they took over Turkey in those early years of history. Because of the above historical facts and a continuous mixing of culture and blood, very few people today in Turkey look like their cousines living in the central　asian countries. Turkic people look very similar to Greeks.

 

[Species]

I've also showed you that Biharis only paid triubute to Turkic nawabs but where never ruled.

So now you pay tribute to Delhi but not ruled.