Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

[TopCat]

yes...Any problem for you??

Thank you ... At least a brave heart found who is proud of his identity. Now go and slap that Nair on his face...

 

[SrNair]

That means he does not want to be called as Dalit which many Indians are... So you need to buff off and stop supporting a bigot who still brag about being a Nair (and in the same tone saying cast system is irrelevant). I wanted to show him, his real place and which is not any better than his fellow Dalit countrymen.



You are a Dalit?

Check your #195 post.I was debate with much decency and from that
post you started to insult us.
Dalit or non dalit is not an issue here.
According to our constitution and law I am not a dalit.But doesnt mean I am caste follower or bigot or something like that.

Then you starting to talk about Nairs in BD then where is the proof Mr?

Honestly as far as I know in this PDF you are one of the greatest shameless creature Who are you to showing my place?
Remember your people illegally polevault and came here for a life.Till now we dont treat them badly and we dont gonna do that.We have some respect to that people ,their hardwork .But you ,you are a low life that twisting history with out any proof.
Others are lot better than you and they have proof to back up their claim.

You are embarrasment to your nation.
Where is your proof Mr?
To back up your claim.

yes...Any problem for you??

Check his #195 post.That is the reason.

 

[abjktu]

Check your #195 post.I was debate with much decency and from that
post you started to insult us.
Dalit or non dalit is not an issue here.
According to our constitution and law I am not a dalit.But doesnt mean I am caste follower or bigot or something like that.

Then you starting to talk about Nairs in BD then where is the proof Mr?

Honestly as far as I know in this PDF you are one of the greatest shameless creature Who are you to showing my place?
Remember your people illegally polevault and came here for a life.Till now we dont treat them badly and we dont gonna do that.We have some respect to that people ,their hardwork .But you ,you are a low life that twisting history with out any proof.
Others are lot better than you and they have proof to back up their claim.

You are embarrasment to your nation.
Where is your proof Mr?
To back up your claim.



Check his #195 post.That is the reason.

i know...

 

[Joe Shearer]

That means he does not want to be called as Dalit which many Indians are... So you need to buff off and stop supporting a bigot who still brag about being a Nair (and in the same tone saying cast system is irrelevant). I wanted to show him, his real place and which is not any better than his fellow Dalit countrymen.



You are a Dalit?

A pretty thin argument.

All that rigmarole doesn't explain your frequent references to Nairs in Bengal, their equivalence to Dalits (in Bengal) and your harping on their complexion. Just because you haven't seen or met fair Nairs doesn't mean they aren't there. The fair ones are fairer than Turkish Bangladeshis, by the way, so a little less of the swanking about on issues of skin complexion would be a good idea.

And about bragging about being a Nair, they were top dogs in that part of the country; they brag about it like the Rajputs brag about being Rajputs, or the Jats about being Jat.

It sounds like you made things up after realising that you were on pretty thin ice.

Better luck next time. If you deserve luck for such a crude, racist point of view.

 

[abjktu]

Thank you ... At least a brave heart found who is proud of his identity. Now go and slap that Nair on his face...

For what???its you who started attacking my community....Sreekumar is my fellow Indian..Moreover i have linguistic/cultural ties with Mr.Sreekumar...

 

[tahsin]

Why Bangladeshis in west don't take out genetic test? It only cost 99$ Otherwise there is no point in believing theories. Especially when alternatives exist like simple genetic test.

Because when you submit to Harappa after receiving your results from whatever genetics firm you submit your DNA to, you cannot be sure if the figures are fiddled with as Harappa is run by a Pakistani, so we don't know what his ulterior motive could be, as he may want to show Bangladeshis to be 'low caste' converts. Harappa comprises too few Bangladeshis anyway (just 5 I think) to get any sort of definitive picture.

My gut feeling, from looking at Bangladeshis from all strata, is they are of mix origin, various genetic inputs have been added. Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman, Austro-Asiatic, Turkic, Iranian genes are all mixed in the genepool. Some can look more Indo-Aryan, some more Dravidian (South Indian), some show Turkic or/and Iranian influence (influence rather than necessarily look Turkic or Iranian), some Tibeto-Burman influence. Bangladeshis are truly of mixed origins.

 

[tahsin]

Contrary to popular belief,there are barely any Arab genes in Bangladesh. Bangladesh did have a port in Chittagong which actually had Arab traders bring Islam to Bangladesh as early as the 8th Century, but it was really Turkic movement into Bangladesh starting in the 12th century that brought Islamic culture into the country in a meaningful way.

That Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks is a stupid myth which was disproven by every genetic test which were done on Bengalis. Bengalis are genetically Muslim converted Dalits and they cluster neither with Arabs nor with Afghans or Turks, Persians... In genetical tests

You don't expect people to cluster with Arabs, Turks, etc. we are talking about influence rather than be fully Turkic, Persian, or whatever.

As you can see from this graph, this particular Bangladeshi clusters quite close to Kalash, who are similar Central Asians, though they do have substantial South Indian as well.

 

[Charon 2]

Contrary to popular belief,there are barely any Arab genes in Bangladesh. Bangladesh did have a port in Chittagong which actually had Arab traders bring Islam to Bangladesh as early as the 8th Century, but it was really Turkic movement into Bangladesh starting in the 12th century that brought Islamic culture into the country in a meaningful way.



You don't expect people to cluster with Arabs, Turks, etc. we are talking about influence rather than be fully Turkic, Persian, or whatever.

As you can see from this graph, this particular Bangladeshi clusters quite close to Kalash, who are similar Central Asians, though they do have substantial South Indian as well.

View attachment 137078

The Kalash people are genetically isolated and don't cluster close with any Turkic peoples. Central Asian doesn't mean only Turkic as Tajiks are also Central Asians. This PCA aDNA plot shows that Bangladeshis are basically Hindu converts to Islam without significant Turkic, Arab or Persian genetical influence

 

[tahsin]

The Kalash people are genetically isolated and don't cluster close with any Turkic peoples. Central Asian doesn't mean only Turkic as Tajiks are also Central Asians. This PCA aDNA plot shows that Bangladeshis are basically Hindu converts to Islam without significant Turkic, Arab or Persian genetical influence

How do you decipher from this chart alone that Bangladeshis were basically Hindu converts? Please explain. Where in the chart would this be suggested? Also remember, even if people have foreign admixture it doesn't mean they will cluster right amongst that foreign group. Many gypsies have significant European admixture but are not clustered with Europeans since they also have lots of genetic influence from their original groupings.

Even if there isn't much Turkic or Persian influence, what we do know is that Eastern Gangetic Plains was subject to a large Indo-Aryan migration historically. What's wrong being Hindu converts? South Asians, particularly those from northern South Asia, are descendants of the Aryans, which some would say to be superior to Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc.

There was a later Indo-Iranian migration into Northwest India (which includes modern day Pakistan), but the Aryan migration into the Gangetic Plains were people who were similar to Northern Europeans. Of course they've all since mixed with local Dravidian and tribal populations.

 

[TopCat]

How do you decipher from this chart alone that Bangladeshis were basically Hindu converts? Please explain. Where in the chart would this be suggested? Also remember, even if people have foreign admixture it doesn't mean they will cluster right amongst that foreign group. Many gypsies have significant European admixture but are not clustered with Europeans since they also have lots of genetic influence from their original groupings.

Even if there isn't much Turkic or Persian influence, what we do know is that Eastern Gangetic Plains was subject to a large Indo-Aryan migration historically. What's wrong being Hindu converts? South Asians, particularly those from northern South Asia, are descendants of the Aryans, which some would say to be superior to Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc.

There was a later Indo-Iranian migration into Northwest India (which includes modern day Pakistan), but the Aryan migration into the Gangetic Plains were people who were similar to Northern Europeans. Of course they've all since mixed with local Dravidian and tribal populations.

This @Charon 2 is an Indian low caste in Turkik disguise. Please move on instead of arguing with him.

 

[Charon 2]

How do you decipher from this chart alone that Bangladeshis were basically Hindu converts? Please explain. Where in the chart would this be suggested? Also remember, even if people have foreign admixture it doesn't mean they will cluster right amongst that foreign group. Many gypsies have significant European admixture but are not clustered with Europeans since they also have lots of genetic influence from their original groupings.

Even if there isn't much Turkic or Persian influence, what we do know is that Eastern Gangetic Plains was subject to a large Indo-Aryan migration historically. What's wrong being Hindu converts? South Asians, particularly those from northern South Asia, are descendants of the Aryans, which some would say to be superior to Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc.

There was a later Indo-Iranian migration into Northwest India (which includes modern day Pakistan), but the Aryan migration into the Gangetic Plains were people who were similar to Northern Europeans. Of course they've all since mixed with local Dravidian and tribal populations.

I never denied the Indo-Aryan heritage of Bangladeshis I just denied that they have any significant Turkic, Persian or Arab admixture. In this chart we see that Bangladeshis cluster closer to other Indo-Iranian speaking peoples like Sindhis who are also mostly Hindu converts to Islam. But don't forget that Bangladeshis have a significant percentage of ASI admixture which makes them genetically half Dravidian. ANI admixture suggests Indo-Iranian contribution and Northern European admixture is basically non existent in Bengalis

This @Charon 2 is an Indian low caste in Turkik disguise. Please move on instead of arguing with him.

Yeah yeah keep on dreaming. Your ancestors were Hindu low castes who were converted to islam.

 

[Bilal9]

Pyara Handsome ka kam nahi...

Kaloi Amar Alo...

No offense to anyone or anyone's view intended.

 

[tahsin]

I never denied the Indo-Aryan heritage of Bangladeshis I just denied that they have any significant Turkic, Persian or Arab admixture. In this chart we see that Bangladeshis cluster closer to other Indo-Iranian speaking peoples like Sindhis who are also mostly Hindu converts to Islam. But don't forget that Bangladeshis have a significant percentage of ASI admixture which makes them genetically half Dravidian. ANI admixture suggests Indo-Iranian contribution and Northern European admixture is basically non existent in Bengalis



Yeah yeah keep on dreaming. Your ancestors were Hindu low castes who were converted to islam.

Of course everyone is a convert, even Arabs were converts, after that Iranians were converts. This does not mean converts can't have foreign blood. When a foreign people come into rule, they convert people but they also settle among local populace.

There is some Perso-Turkic admixture in some Bangladeshis whether you like it or not. There was significant number of people with Turkic or Persian or Perso-Turkic influence that moved to Bangladesh between the time Turks first came into the country in the 12th Century until the end of Mughal rule in the 1750s. Some people will be descendants of those people. However , they are are all mixed into the gene pool of Bangladesh. You are really not going to get people who look outright Turkic or Persian but there is influence on quite a lot of people.

The Northern European admixture was carried into the Subcontinent by the Aryans. Indo-Aryans were a different people to Indo-Iranians. Indo-Aryans were an European like tribe while the Indo-Iranians were an Iranid tribe.

Anyway, I fail to believe you are Turkish. Why would a Turk care, you are obviously an Indian.

As for my earlier comment, I completely take that back. No one people is superior to another, what makes anyone superior are their deeds not what they are, which is an accident of birth anyway. No one can control what ethnicity they are, they are simply born with it.

 

[Charon 2]

Of course everyone is a convert, even Arabs were converts, after that Iranians were converts. This does not mean converts can't have foreign blood. When a foreign people come into rule, they convert people but they also settle among local populace.

There is some Perso-Turkic admixture in some Bangladeshis whether you like it or not. There was significant number of people with Turkic or Persian or Perso-Turkic influence that moved to Bangladesh between the time Turks first came into the country in the 12th Century until the end of Mughal rule in the 1750s. Some people will be descendants of those people. However , they are are all mixed into the gene pool of Bangladesh. You are really not going to get people who look outright Turkic or Persian but there is influence on quite a lot of people.

The Northern European admixture was carried into the Subcontinent by the Aryans. Indo-Aryans were a different people to Indo-Iranians. Indo-Aryans were an European like tribe while the Indo-Iranians were an Iranid tribe.

Anyway, I fail to believe you are Turkish. Why would a Turk care, you are obviously an Indian.

As for my earlier comment, I completely take that back. No one people is superior to another, what makes anyone superior are their deeds not what they are, which is an accident of birth anyway. No one can control what ethnicity they are, they are simply born with it.

Sorry but just because I'm interested in anthropology and genetics it doesn't make an Indian. No major Turkic and Persian genetical contribution in modern Bangladeshis. Both Genotype and phenotype confirm this. Indo-Aryans were an European tribe? Lol what are you smoking?


The ANI admixture of South Asians comes from these Indo-Aryan tribes. Northern European admixture is non-exist in Bangladeshis just like ANI admixture is non-existent in Europeans.

 

[Bilal9]

Sorry but just because I'm interested in anthropology and genetics it doesn't make an Indian. No major Turkic and Persian genetical contribution in modern Bangladeshis. Both Genotype and phenotype confirm this. Indo-Aryans were an European tribe? Lol what are you smoking?


The ANI admixture of South Asians comes from these Indo-Aryan tribes. Northern European admixture is non-exist in Bangladeshis just like ANI admixture is non-existent in Europeans.

Türkiye'de hangi şehir Bay Charon geliyorsunuz?