Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

[khair_ctg]

No one knows what a Dalit is in Bangladesh, nor do we know what a Pasmanda Muslim is. Someone's been spreading rumours, I suggest you read a good book. We call Pomegranate in Bangla, Dalim, but that's about it lmao.

If the Muslims of Bengal, especially Bangladesh, were Dalit converts, I assure you we would know about it.

that is true, to some extent. some times they take more indirect forms. btw isn't Dalim a Muslim name? Pomegranate is called Anar in Bangla

 

[Saiful Islam]

that is true, to some extent. some times they take more indirect forms. btw isn't Dalim a Muslim name? Pomegranate is called Anar in Bangla

The word "Mondal" I've heard, rarely though. The Dalits I've never heard of my parents or family never mention it, once I came to this forum did I know what a Dalit was. There are Dalits in Pak and BD, that's not surprising, but they bulk of Dalits are in India and they think whatever is in their country the same applies to ours. It doesn't.

The Khiljis were mostly assimilated into modern Pashtuns and not into Bengalis. Beides that they were never a pure Turk tribe but rather mixed with Pashtun tribes since the beginning. They were also treated like that by other Turks.

They're still classified as a Turkic group regardless. The khilijis are referred to as Turkic rule but many histories also refer to them as Pashtuns or Pathans. Pathan or Afghani is a more popular word in Bangladesh. Bakhtiyar Khilji was taught in schools in BD. Don't know about now.

 

[the just]

that is true, to some extent. some times they take more indirect forms. btw isn't Dalim a Muslim name? Pomegranate is called Anar in Bangla

Nope,dalim is bangla.Anaar is a parsi word.

 

[Saiful Islam]

Nope,dalim is bangla.Anaar is a parsi word.

They call anaar pomegranate in bangla but Dalit I think is the informal way of saying it.

Nope,dalim is bangla.Anaar is a parsi word.

Sorry my bad, Anar is persian, but i guess it's used in Bangla as well.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Because Bangladesh in the west do not give a flying f-ck if we are descendants of this or that, nor are most of them knowledgeable about genealogy. Tribe/Caste system doesn't come into play much in the everyday life of a BDeshi, except sometimes you may hear the word "Sayyidor bongsho", meaning family of Sayyid, or Choudury zaat, meaning the Choudry type. There are more, way more, but they are never spoken of being irrelevant in Bangladeshi life. I assure you in real life we do not say we are foreign this, or foreign that. All that we know is that our awliya was Hazrat Shahjalal and his 360 companions.

But when the Indians said that Bangladeshis share genetics mostly with South Indians I started laughing, I mean, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but who the hell are they to say my race is this, do they know better, or me?

I suggested that so Bangladeshis can prove Indians wrong.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer sir Can we connect South Indians and bengalis on the basis of migration or genetics?

There is a legendary account of the Sri Lankans being descended from a shipload of migrants from Bengal, or perhaps Odisha. It is such a tangled account that it makes little or no sense. However, it is true that the Sinhala language is Aryan in terms of language family, not Dravidian, as one might have expected a language to be if it were occurring deep within the strongholds of Dravidian languages.

Apart from this, there is little else that I personally know about. There is the history of the Sena Emperors, who were supposed to be Karnataka kshatriyas, and founded an empire in Bengal. That would be migration from the south to Bengal.

There is reason to believe that an Austric language preceded Dravidian languages, but you asked for migration or genetic evidence, and I do not know of any such.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Central Asia? Silk route was throughout Eastern Europe to East Asia. You are forgetting about Southwest silk road which went through Tibbet, Rangpur, Dhaka, Chittagong into Burma. I know geography was different from its current form, I'm talking from archaeological evidences.

What are your sources? References?

All the available information is that this southern trade route was as late as the Song dynasty. A cursory look at primary references will show you what age the Song were.

Another important but under-examined aspect of trade throughout greater Asia is the connection between maritime and overland trade. Overland trade routes were often complimented by sea routes; the two types of networks worked in tandem. Between 750 and 1000 Arab traders from the Caliphate in Baghdad could travel by sea from the Persian Gulf through the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea or cross by land through former Sogdian territory into China's western region. The settlements of Arab traders in Sri Lanka in this period resulted in the connection of long-distance trade between the Persian Gulf region and China's southern seaport of Nanhai (Guangzhou).31 Further west along the South China coast was Hepu, often described the maritime gateway for merchants traveling to or from the easternmost sections of the overland Southwestern Silk Road.32 Along the way several seaports acted as starting points for northerly connections to the prevailing East-West overland routes that flourished when inland empires were at peace; in turn, these gave way to sea routes when the peace was lost. One such hybrid maritime-overland route involved Indian Ocean traders crossing the Bay of Bengal to land at the mouth of the Irrawaddy River and load or unload cargo that traveled the river valleys north to the southern spur of the Southwestern Silk Road mentioned above.33

Such trade links fits well into the general trend of "Southernization" described by Lynda Shaffer in world historical terms, as Indian Ocean trade by Arab, South Asian and Southeast Asian seafarers created alternate routes for the 12th-century East-West circulation of goods between South China and the Mediterranean region.34 The important role maritime links played in sustaining overland routes through northern Southeast Asia into China's southern frontier until the end of the Song dynasty should not be ignored, just as we must keep in mind the complementary role played by Southwestern Silk Road in global connections.

World History Connected | Vol. 6 No. 1 | James A. Anderson: China's Southwestern Silk Road in World History

 

[Joe Shearer]

Silk Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Southwestern route[edit]
The southwestern route is believed to be the Ganges/Brahmaputra Delta, which has been the subject of international interest for over two millennia. Strabo, the 1st-century Roman writer, mentions the deltaic lands: "Regarding merchants who now sail from Egypt...as far as the Ganges, they are only private citizens..." His comments are interesting as Roman beads and other materials are being found at Wari-Bateshwar ruins, the ancient city with roots from much earlier, before the Bronze Age, presently being slowly excavated beside the Old Brahmaputra in Bangladesh. Ptolemy's map of the Ganges Delta, a remarkably accurate effort, showed that his informants knew all about the course of the Brahmaputra River, crossing through the Himalayas then bending westward to its source in Tibet. It is doubtless that this delta was a major international trading center, almost certainly from much earlier than the Common Era. Gemstones and other merchandise from Thailand and Java were traded in the delta and through it. Chinese archaeological writer Bin Yang and some earlier writers and archaeologists, such as Janice Stargardt, strongly suggest this route of international trade as Sichuan-Yunnan-Burma-Bangladesh route. According to Bin Yang, especially from the 12th century the route was used to ship bullion from Yunnan (gold and silver are among the minerals in which Yunnan is rich), through northern Burma, into modern Bangladesh, making use of the ancient route, known as the 'Ledo' route. The emerging evidence of the ancient cities of Bangladesh, in particular Wari-Bateshwar ruins, Mahasthangarh, Bhitagarh, Bikrampur, Egarasindhur, and Sonargaon, are believed to be the international trade centers in this route.

 

[khair_ctg]

Nope,dalim is bangla.Anaar is a parsi word.

dalim may be more sanskrit and anar may be more farsi

They call anaar pomegranate in bangla but Dalit I think is the informal way of saying it.

 

[Charon 2]

The word "Mondal" I've heard, rarely though. The Dalits I've never heard of my parents or family never mention it, once I came to this forum did I know what a Dalit was. There are Dalits in Pak and BD, that's not surprising, but they bulk of Dalits are in India and they think whatever is in their country the same applies to ours. It doesn't.



They're still classified as a Turkic group regardless. The khilijis are referred to as Turkic rule but many histories also refer to them as Pashtuns or Pathans. Pathan or Afghani is a more popular word in Bangladesh. Bakhtiyar Khilji was taught in schools in BD. Don't know about now.

I don't deny the partially Turkic origins of Khiljis but the problem here is that Khiljis are mixed with Pashtuns since the 8th century while the "Turkic" Khilji dynasty was established in the 12th century. Indians and even the Turkic nobility considered them as Afghans so I see no sense in it to classify them as Turkic if they are Pashtunized since the 8th century. I would consider them as Turko-Pashtuns and that's it.

Position in Turkic Indian society

The Khilji Turks were not recognized by the older nobility as coming from a pure Turkic stock, even in Singam and Kuselan (since they had intermarried with non-Turks: Indians, Afghans (Pashtun) and Arab Bedouins); their customs and manners were seen as different from those of other Turks. Although they had played a role in the success of the Turkic armies in India, they had always been looked down upon by the leading Turks (the dominant group during the Slave dynasty). This tension between the Khiljis and other Turks (kept in check by Balban) surfaced in the following reign, and ended in the displacement of the Ilbari Turks.[16]

However if you call the modern Ghilzai Pashtuns as Turkic it would be the same as if you call the South Slavic-speaking Bulgarians as Turkic. Both nonsense

 

[kalu_miah]

I don't deny the partially Turkic origins of Khiljis but the problem here is that Khiljis are mixed with Pashtuns since the 8th century while the "Turkic" Khilji dynasty was established in the 12th century. Indians and even the Turkic nobility considered them as Afghans so I see no sense in it to classify them as Turkic if they are Pashtunized since the 8th century. I would consider them as Turko-Pashtuns and that's it.

Position in Turkic Indian society

The Khilji Turks were not recognized by the older nobility as coming from a pure Turkic stock, even in Singam and Kuselan (since they had intermarried with non-Turks: Indians, Afghans (Pashtun) and Arab Bedouins); their customs and manners were seen as different from those of other Turks. Although they had played a role in the success of the Turkic armies in India, they had always been looked down upon by the leading Turks (the dominant group during the Slave dynasty). This tension between the Khiljis and other Turks (kept in check by Balban) surfaced in the following reign, and ended in the displacement of the Ilbari Turks.[16]

However if you call the modern Ghilzai Pashtuns as Turkic it would be the same as if you call the South Slavic-speaking Bulgarians as Turkic. Both nonsense

There is a huge difference between modern Ghilzai Pashtun and Khilji of 12th century, just like there is big difference between Oghuz Turks and current population of Turkey.

With due respect, it matters little what an anonymous poster in PDF would consider them as whatever, if you have verified sources, just cite those sources with links and quote from them, which will speak for themselves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't deny the partially Turkic origins of Khiljis but the problem here is that Khiljis are mixed with Pashtuns since the 8th century while the "Turkic" Khilji dynasty was established in the 12th century. Indians and even the Turkic nobility considered them as Afghans so I see no sense in it to classify them as Turkic if they are Pashtunized since the 8th century. I would consider them as Turko-Pashtuns and that's it.

Position in Turkic Indian society

The Khilji Turks were not recognized by the older nobility as coming from a pure Turkic stock, even in Singam and Kuselan (since they had intermarried with non-Turks: Indians, Afghans (Pashtun) and Arab Bedouins); their customs and manners were seen as different from those of other Turks. Although they had played a role in the success of the Turkic armies in India, they had always been looked down upon by the leading Turks (the dominant group during the Slave dynasty). This tension between the Khiljis and other Turks (kept in check by Balban) surfaced in the following reign, and ended in the displacement of the Ilbari Turks.[16]

However if you call the modern Ghilzai Pashtuns as Turkic it would be the same as if you call the South Slavic-speaking Bulgarians as Turkic. Both nonsense

@kalu_miah is right.

On a thread of this sort, it is necessary to cite references and quote from sources extensively, to retain credibility. One's assertions may be right or wrong; for those reading one, these assertions need support and evidence.

 

[Charon 2]

There is a huge difference between modern Ghilzai Pashtun and Khilji of 12th century, just like there is big difference between Oghuz Turks and current population of Turkey.

With due respect, it matters little what an anonymous poster in PDF would consider them as whatever, if you have verified sources, just cite those sources with links and quote from them, which will speak for themselves.

With due respect but comparing The situation of Turks and Ghilzai Pashtuns is a good joke. Oghuz Turks speak the same language like their ancestors 1000 ago and modern Turks have also a good chunk of Oghuz Turkic DNA. Ghilzais are Pashtuns and speak an Eastern Iranian language. They are also genetically not close to any Turkic people.

This qoute is from Wikipedia and the soruces are right here.

part1_05

 

[eastwatch]

@Joe Shearer sir Can we connect South Indians and bengalis on the basis of migration or genetics?

Do you read and understand Bengali? I cite a few sentences from the great Historian Rakhaldas Bannerjy. In his Bangalar Itihash (History of Bengal) he wrote," Uttar theke ele Mongol Jati, Daskhin theke elo Drabir jaitiyo jonogoshthi. Aar Choto Nagpor theke elo Negro jatiyo lokjon. Ei tin jater shongmisrone adi Bangalir utpotti.

So, you can see that Muslims and Hindus alike Bangali people are basically a mix of at least three genetically separate groups of population. If you look closely you will see that all their physical features are prominent among the Bangalis.

 

[kalu_miah]

With due respect but comparing The situation of Turks and Ghilzai Pashtuns is a good joke. Oghuz Turks speak the same language like their ancestors 1000 ago and modern Turks have also a good chunk of Oghuz Turkic DNA. Ghilzais are Pashtuns and speak an Eastern Iranian language. They are also genetically not close to any Turkic people.

This qoute is from Wikipedia and the soruces are right here.

part1_05

I was not referring to the quote from wiki that you presented, but your own opinions and comments.

Language has very little to do with genetics. Here is a genetic admixture map of many different population:

To see bigger picture please click on the picture above or the link below:
http://i48.tinypic.com/14y4i0.png

You can see Yakuts have unmixed North East Asian genes (Yellow), whereas most East Asians are a mix between Yakut type North East Asian and Dai (Thai, orange) type South East Asian genes.

Turkey population are closest to people of North Caucasus - Adyghe, N. Ossetians, Chechens, Lezgins, Balkars and Kumiks, but not Nogais. Only difference is you have 15% Bedouin which is not present in North Caucasus people. You have around 5-10% East Asian genes with more North East Asian (Yakut, yellow) than South East Asian (Dai/Thai, orange). Russians actually have much more North East Asian genes than Turkey population.

Pathans/Pashtuns also have East Asian genes, but its mostly South East Asian (Dai, orange) and a little Yakut.

So it is a huge source of misconception for people of the world that the name of your country is Turkey and your people are called Turk, if you compare the genetic admixtures of "real" historic Central Asian Turks to today's Turkey population. The name Turk comes from GokTurk (I am sure you know, but I am presenting for other readers):
Göktürks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GokTurk genetic admixture back then would probably look more like todays Altaians, who are more than 60% Yakut (yellow) and around 20% Dai/Thai (Orange). So they are around 80% Asian and 10% Eastern Iranic (Green) and 10% Western European (Dark Blue).

Turkey name can be justified only due to the fact that your people speak a Turkic language, not because of genetic admixture of the population. A more appropriate name is Ottoman or Osmanli, which represents the true imperial heritage of Turkey.

Hope I have not offended you by saying any of this. But I am just expressing my frank opinion.