Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

[pakbrother]

I think you are under the impression that you are a "Muslim Master". This is not the case, you were referred to as Ajlafs, you were considered dogs by Turkics and Afghans. I hope you know that the African stockmen were Muslim and the highest number of Siddis are found in Balochistan in Pakistan so it's more likely that you are African. All of what you are saying has been disproved by genetic testing, maybe your madrasah disagrees.

Siddis are found here in small numbers, so what? they never got to mix with others and they still form a unique society of their own. I don't understand why you are denying your own ancestry?

 

[pakbrother]

Posting pictures of South Indians shoes not constitute genetic proof.

So you mean South Indians are not part of Indians? And who told you they are South Indians?

Here is some more

 

[Truth Finder]

Posting pictures of South Indians shoes not constitute genetic proof.

Stop feeding ignorant trolls. Let them bark for master's attention.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@kalu_miah, the more you get praise for deep research and unearthing really sound sources of information, the more you seem determined to come to zany conclusions which are not in any way connected to those sources and to what the sources are trying to say. Sometimes, you flatly contradict the sources that you have yourself put up.

In this case, too, of the Radcliffe Award, you manage to get whiney and self-pitying at a stage. Looks like you can't help that being your default state of being.

Try to remember that the reason for the major monuments to Muslim rule lying in the vicinity of the Bhagirathi, the Hooghly channel is simply this: before the sixteenth century, through the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the main channel of the Gaanges was the Hooghly, not the Padma-Jamuna. That comes from Eaton, remember? Where would a ruler situate his capital and its monuments? On an obscure back-water, or on the mainstream of the main river of his country?

As for the Radcliffe Award, he was not influenced by anyone, British or Indian. Why take his balanced award, and cry buckets of tears over it? Why are you not weeping about the cases where he meted out even-handed justice at the cost of Hindus, for instance, over Hilly Tipperah and the Chittagong Hill Tracts?

It is sad to see someone switch from apparently impartial expositor of facts to a thoroughly partisan animal busy pushing his partisan case at the cost of the truth.

I'm not an ignorant troll, I have clearly stated my facts:

Aside the Rajputs, Indian Hindus are hybrid of Austroasiatic and African slaves. You also have huge physical similarity with the Red Indians. Your hybridization took place in the middle ages when the Muslim rulers of India needed to increase the number of their slaves. Your ancestors were crossed with the Abyssinian slaves from Africa for their physical competence, while few women slaves had sexual relations with their masters. There were African stockmen in every Hindu village for their hybridization. Thus the race of Indian Hindus came into being.

Well done on an exceptionally early display of bigotry and ugly racism. I predict a bright future ahead for you; it just needs someone to light the match.

Hi Joe Shearer,
Is Romila Thapar's interpretation of Indian history right? I mean, her tone.

Tone?

Could you elaborate?

I am an historian, not a musicologist. :-O

 

[Truth Finder]

Tone?
Could you elaborate?
I am an historian, not a musicologist. :-O

Marxist.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Marxist.

Oh, I see.

Well, the thing is that there is no such thing as neutral, or objective history. History consists of the same facts, identical or nearly identical, interpreted by historians according to their own historiography. Any decent historian has an historiography, a way of looking at history, a perspective. Marxist historiography is just that, one of the ways of looking at history. I do think that Romila Thapar is a Marxist, and there is nothing wrong with that, even if I differ from her. When I differ from her, I differ from her interpretation: naturally, because I am not convinced about the Marxist analysis of philosophy, society, politics and history.

Is her interpretation right? Of course it is, from her point of view. If I were to write on the same subjects, I would read different, because my interpretation of the same facts would be different. But I only have respect for her, for being a great historian.

Was that useful?

 

[Truth Finder]

Oh, I see.
Well, the thing is that there is no such thing as neutral, or objective history. History consists of the same facts, identical or nearly identical, interpreted by historians according to their own historiography. Any decent historian has an historiography, a way of looking at history, a perspective. Marxist historiography is just that, one of the ways of looking at history. I do think that Romila Thapar is a Marxist, and there is nothing wrong with that, even if I differ from her. When I differ from her, I differ from her interpretation: naturally, because I am not convinced about the Marxist analysis of philosophy, society, politics and history.
Is her interpretation right? Of course it is, from her point of view. If I were to write on the same subjects, I would read different, because my interpretation of the same facts would be different. But I only have respect for her, for being a great historian.
Was that useful?

Sir, I am a history enthusiast. Would you please tell me some negative points of Romila Thapar? I am a rightist, but find her arguments very logical, like, Ashoka's move to be a Buddhist was merely political, Hindus cared a damn about Somnath when it was attacked, Hindu rulers from the Nandas to the Marathas were equally good or cruel etc.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I am a history enthusiast. Would you please tell me some negative points of Romila Thapar? I am a rightist, but find her arguments very logical, like, Ashoka's move to be a Buddhist was merely political, Hindus cared a damn about Somnath when it was attacked, Hindu rulers from the Nandas to the Marathas were equally good or cruel etc.

The single biggest difficulty that reading her work poses is her association with the old school of thought, which supposedly said that there was an 'Aryan' invasion of India. Actually, that was not fully her view; currently, she appears to believe that there was immigration, but in small groups, not in broad sweeping masses, and that there was a cultural appropriation of the discourse between the immigrants and those already in the country by the immigrants.

This may, in fact, be rather close to the correct interpretation, based on facts as they are known today.

The trouble is that Thapar is thought to be the main, or one of the main opponents of the Hindutva school of revisionist history (actually, I'm being unfair; there are more facets of ultra-right wing history than just Hindutva). Anything she does will grate on the nerves of those professionally bound to that school of ultra-right historians.

My suggestion: ignore calls to do this, that or the other, and have an independent opinion.

 

[scorpionx]

The net result is that in Bengal, migration of non-South Asian Muslims and South Asian Muslims of foreign origin (Ashraf) from outside Bengal, happened in much greater scale than in other areas of South Asia. The majority or the bulk of Muslims however were converted from local people, as they were the main work force working under these Muslim pirs. So I believe these Pirs, along with former Mughal officials and soldiers who become Zamindars and sublease holder petty Zamindars, are the ancestors of our rural gentry. while Urban Ashraf were exclusively of foreign origin from way back in Sultanate era, a class I believe became much bigger in Bengal than in other areas of South Asia, to run the Mughal agro-industrial project.

I find it astonishingly difficult to understand how,after reading so many thesis and counter thesis made by the early Englishmen to the elite Ashraf class,@kalu_miah made such profound error in identifying the roots of Islamic diffusion in East Bengal.

Perhaps he has been remarkably satisfied by the Arab migration theory championed by Abu A Ghaznavi, who in response to Henry Beverley’s census report stated that Muslims in Bengal are not the Chandal or kaivartya converts, attributing it to the large scale diffusion of Afghans to the remote villages and land grants by Hussain Shah. Kalu Miah quite obviously, knowingly or unknowingly has missed the excellent observation made by E.A Gait’s 1901 census report. Gait observes, “the proportion of Hindus of other castes in these parts of the country is, and always has been, very small. The main castes are the Rajbansis (including Koches) in North Bengal, and the Chandals and other castes of non-Aryan origin in East Bengal.” A brilliant observation which rejects quite convincingly the social liberation theory clamoured by the ashraf class and supported by a number of officials like James Wise.Kalu,in all possibility has missed the Gazetteers report of Noah Khali,Bogra and Pabna where the crux of the subject is majority of the Muslim cultivators and communities of lower social order descends from the aboriginal castes of the respective districts.

Last but not the least, kalu Miah in his support for Muslim migration theory completely overlooked three anthropological studies made in the late 30’s by Eileen Macfarlane, B. K. Chatterji and A. K. Mitra and the one in 1945 by D.N Mazumder and C.R Rao where they all agreed to the facts that the serological datas of Muslim population of East Bengal have closer affinities to the lower caste Hindu neighbours like Mahishyas,Bagdis or the tribal groups and convincingly disassociates the Muslim population from any foreign extractions or even from the Shias or Sunnis of North India.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I have been reading this book part by part for the last one or two months. The way the person who introduced me to such a brilliant research piece came to such weird and wrong conclusion just makes me laugh.What's wrong in acknowledging the roots where we actually belong? Does it make any difference today?

 

[extra terrestrial]

I find it astonishingly difficult to understand how,after reading so many thesis and counter thesis made by the early Englishmen to the elite Ashraf class,@kalu_miah made such profound error in identifying the roots of Islamic diffusion in East Bengal.

Perhaps he has been remarkably satisfied by the Arab migration theory championed by Abu A Ghaznavi, who in response to Henry Beverley’s census report stated that Muslims in Bengal are not the Chandal or kaivartya converts, attributing it to the large scale diffusion of Afghans to the remote villages and land grants by Hussain Shah. Kalu Miah quite obviously, knowingly or unknowingly has missed the excellent observation made by E.A Gait’s 1901 census report. Gait observes, “the proportion of Hindus of other castes in these parts of the country is, and always has been, very small. The main castes are the Rajbansis (including Koches) in North Bengal, and the Chandals and other castes of non-Aryan origin in East Bengal.” A brilliant observation which rejects quite convincingly the social liberation theory clamoured by the ashraf class and supported by a number of officials like James Wise.Kalu,in all possibility has missed the Gazetteers report of Noah Khali,Bogra and Pabna where the crux of the subject is majority of the Muslim cultivators and communities of lower social order descends from the aboriginal castes of the respective districts.

Last but not the least, kalu Miah in his support for Muslim migration theory completely overlooked three anthropological studies made in the late 30’s by Eileen Macfarlane, B. K. Chatterji and A. K. Mitra and the one in 1945 by D.N Mazumder and C.R Rao where they all agreed to the facts that the serological datas of Muslim population of East Bengal have closer affinities to the lower caste Hindu neighbours like Mahishyas,Bagdis or the tribal groups and convincingly disassociates the Muslim population from any foreign extractions or even from the Shias or Sunnis of North India.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I have been reading this book part by part for the last one or two months. The way the person who introduced me to such a brilliant research piece came to such weird and wrong conclusion just makes me laugh.What's wrong in acknowledging the roots where we actually belong? Does it make any difference today?

So you are presenting the British Raj bullshits as facts? They didn't even realize that East Bengal was actually a Muslim dominated region until the end of 19th century and you are using their interpretations to determine the genealogy of Bengali Muslims? I'm not at all paranoid with Arabian or Central Asian ancestry, but you do realize that Bengali is an ethnicity based on wide range of racial mixtures, applicable to both the Hindus and Muslims.

 

[scorpionx]

So you are presenting the British Raj bullshits as facts? They didn't even realize that East Bengal was actually a Muslim dominated region until the end of 19th century and you are using their interpretations to determine the genealogy of Bengali Muslims? I'm not at all paranoid with Arabian or Central Asian ancestry, but you do realize that Bengali is an ethnicity based on wide range of racial mixtures, applicable to both the Hindus and Muslims.

Ah!! Read the complete book,buddy.Read Eaton's book first.I will come later.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Ah!! Read the complete book,buddy.Read Eaton's book first.I will come later.

I'm not talking about Eaton's book, my post was about your illogical use of the British era bullshits to baselessly refute Kalu Miah's opinions
.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm not talking about Eaton's book, my post was about your illogical use of the British era bullshits to baselessly refute Kalu Miah's opinions
.

@kalu_miah is being refuted because he needs to be refuted: his facts, even according to his own sources, are wrong.

I suggest that you stay out of discussions where you are so obviously completely out of your depth. Stick to troll-fests; more your style, I think. Keep your bad language and your ill-tempered interventions out of this discussion.

 

[Saiful Islam]

It is quite sad actually, we're dying over which group received the most admixture.

And you don't see Arabs complaining, some of them blatantly have African features like curly hair, caramel skin etc. In this world you don't get by on how you look, end of the day it is how you perform.

 

[extra terrestrial]

@kalu_miah is being refuted because he needs to be refuted: his facts, even according to his own sources, are wrong.

I suggest that you stay out of discussions where you are so obviously completely out of your depth. Stick to troll-fests; more your style, I think. Keep your bad language and your ill-tempered interventions out of this discussion.

So you'll determine who will stay out of discussions? though I don't see you having such privileges. And troll fests, well they more appropriately go with your fellow countrymen who have been derailing each and every thread in this section, just like what you have manifested right now, accusing someone of bad language and ill-tempered interventions without any evidence. Why don't you guys just leave when you don't have anything constructive to discuss, I'm pretty sure you have better things to do in your life than trolling here.