Vulnerable Bangladeshi Hindus look up to Modi

[bluesky]

I think @WAJsal has already checked @Riyad 's IP, requesting him to check it again.

Also tagging other Bangladeshis who have similar complaints. @bongbang @Doyalbaba

There is a reason why Hindu Bengalis in Bangladesh has reduced from 1/3rd of their total population to just 5%-6% or so now, within a short span of 70 years. Bangladesh will eventually become 'Hindu Bengali Free' by 2025-2030. So much for a "Secular Country for Bengalis"!

Go back to the 1st census by the British of Bengal Presidency in 1880 and then in 1890. You will see Muslim population in entire Bengal (comprising Bangladesh and west Bengal) was just above 1/3rd of the entire population. So, how during the next 60 years or so this small population rose above 50% that caused also the partition of India in 1947?

The wise Hindus maintained abstenism, no multi-wives, no widow marriages. The result was less increase of Hindu population. Now, about the Muslim habits. No abstenism, prevalence of multi-marriages and widow remarriage. All these combined together to raise their population in older times as well as it is now.

Hindus in BD tend to produce less children, but the Muslims have still a trend to produce more children. Only this factor has resulted in lesser percent (10%) of Hindus. Note that their total population becomes larger every year.

 

[dray]

Go back to the 1st census by the British of Bengal Presidency in 1880 and then in 1890. You will see Muslim population in entire Bengal (comprising Bangladesh and west Bengal) was just above 1/3rd of the entire population. So, how during the next 60 years or so this small population rose above 50% that caused also the partition of India in 1947?

The wise Hindus maintained abstenism, no multi-wives, no widow marriages. The result was less increase of Hindu population. Now, about the Muslim habits. No abstenism, prevalence of multi-marriages and widow remarriage. All these combined together to raise their population in older times as well as it is now.

Hindus in BD tend to produce less children, but the Muslims have still a trend to produce more children. Only this factor has resulted in lesser percent (10%) of Hindus. Note that their total population becomes larger every year.

That's a bull$hit argument your tribes give. Hindus are taking less children only now because of better education and social awareness, previously even they used to have 10-15 children even in well to do families. And west of Bengal was always Hindu majority and east of Bengal was Muslim majority with about a third of its population Hindus. Now almost half of the Hindu population in West Bengal are Hindus from East Bengal, now Bangladesh. How did they end up here? You can't whitewash the history even if you wish.

 

[bluesky]

That's a bull$hit argument your tribes give. Hindus are taking less children only now because of better education and social awareness, previously even they used to have 10-15 children even in well to do families. And west of Bengal was always Hindu majority and east of Bengal was Muslim majority with about a third of its population Hindus. Now almost half of the Hindu population in West Bengal are Hindus from East Bengal, now Bangladesh. How did they end up here? You can't whitewash the history even if you wish.

It is　you who is bullshitting by not acknowledging the historical facts. Why the Muslim population rose tabove 50% in 1947 when it was just 34% of the entire population of Bengal Presidency in 1990 if Hindus were producing the same number of children like the Muslims?

To you it is just a miracle and not histrical fact. Go to Asiatic Society and get the Census reports of 1880 and 1890 or read a book titled `Haqiqat-e-Musalman-e-Bangal` written by Khondokar Fazle Rabbi, the then Murshidabad Estate Manager. You will get the Census Report there.

Hindus in BD produce less number of children even now as well as in west Bengal. So, Hindu population is still decreasing (in percentage points) in both these places. Please know the Muslim/Hindu population trend in west Bengal. It is almost same as in BD.

 

[dray]

It is　you who is bullshitting by not acknowledging the historical facts. Why the Muslim population rose tabove 50% in 1947 when it was just 34% of the entire population of Bengal Presidency in 1990 if Hindus were producing the same number of children like the Muslims?

To you it is just a miracle and not histrical fact. Go to Asiatic Society and get the Census reports of 1880 and 1890 or read a book titled `Haqiqat-e-Musalman-e-Bangal` written by Khondokar Fazle Rabbi, the then Murshidabad Estate Manager. You will get the Census Report there.

Hindus in BD produce less number of children even now as well as in west Bengal. So, Hindu population is still decreasing (in percentage points) in both these places. Please know the Muslim/Hindu population trend in west Bengal. It is almost same as in BD.

Percentage of Muslim population was lesser in Bengal Presidency because it was including of large parts of Hindu majority areas, Hindu population in the region now known as Bangladesh has decreased steadily since 1940's primarily because of the exodus due to religious persecution, the very large population of East Bengali Hindus in India didn't fall from the sky. Tribes from the CHT area in Bangladesh were also driven out to India in the same manner. Now, which part of it is difficult to understand for you?

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Percentage of Muslim population was lesser in Bengal Presidency because it was including of large parts of Hindu majority areas,

You are true in this statement.Then Bengal presidency included hindu majority Bihar,orissa,assam.After their shedding in 1911, Remaining Bengal became muslim majority.

Hindu population in the region now known as Bangladesh has decreased steadily since 1940's primarily because of the exodus due to religious persecution, the very large population of East Bengali Hindus in India didn't fall from the sky.

This statement is only partially true.Some hindu left BD indeed for persecution.But most of them left for supposed better prospect in India.Urbanization is an ongoing trend in both India and BD.Many rural hindu from BD prefer to settle in Kolkata rather than Dhaka,Chittagong as it very easy for them to get citizenship.Hindu in general see India as their real spiritual homeland where they can prosper unlike Bangladesh.They think India as a big wide welcoming place to settle comfortably.There are many cases in Bangladesh where hindu family buy property in kolkata gradually with income in BD ,send their children in Indian school and one day move over there after selling their possession in BD. Is this sound like persecution to you?

You may ask why opposite is not true? Why indian muslim don't migrate in BD? I think firstly it may be because Bangladesh,with indepence in 1971,no longer believe in Pakistan ideology,which is muslim homeland for south asian muslim.So after 1971, door is shut for indian muslim.Muslim migration in BD happened during 1947-1971 period.Bihari muslims are the testament of that.

Secondly, 80 percent Indian muslim have no cultural affinity with Bangladesh and they live far of from Bangladesh.Other 20 percent Bengali muslim live near Bangladesh should be the natural candidate for migration.But they are not migrating BD.I think reasons may be due to the fact that, Indian bengali muslim lives in muslim dominated districts where they are majority,so less minority feeling and incentive to look elsewhere.

Another reason is that ,up until few years ago,west bengal was economically better off than BD.So it have influenced both Bangladeshi hindu and west bengal muslim,encouraging the former and discouraging the letter for migration.Another plus point was Kolkata which was largest city in south asia was a magnet for both west bengali people (hindu and muslim alike) and Bangladeshi hindus.While Dhaka became big only recently.In 1950s and 60s west Bengal was much more urbanized and had vibrant city life compared to then BD and also economically west bengal was easily twice as rich then east pakistan on per capita basis.

So hindu migration is more about psychological affinity and cost benefit calculation than any physical danger.I am also telling this others like @Nilgiri who may have curiosity on this issue.

 

[kobiraaz]

So wait the Bangladeshi Hindus are indirectly asking India to govern Bangladesh? Isn't that betrayal of your own country? No wonder these people are all from the land of mir zafar... :/

Mir Zafar was born in Iraq, a syed who claimed ancestral link with Ali R. He came to Patna Bihar and joined Alivardi's Army and fought for him against Bengal nawab Sarfaraz khan. That is how Mir Zafar was promoted and gained significant power.
Jagat Seths were Zain and were originally based in Patna. And none of the traitors were Bengali.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Mir Zafar was born in Iraq, a syed who claimed ancestral link with Ali R. He came to Patna Bihar and joined Alivardi's Army and fought for him against Bengal nawab Sarfaraz khan. That is how Mir Zafar was promoted and gained significant power.
Jagat Seths were Zain and were originally based in Patna. And none of the traitors were Bengali.

How did he become a general in Bengali army and a trusted man of Siraj ud daula?

 

[kobiraaz]

How did he become a general in Bengali army and a trusted man of Siraj ud daula?

The same way Siraj's grandfather Alivardi Khan did.

Alivardi's family was from Iran who worked for Emperor Aurangzeb's second son. But this son lost succession war against his elder brother after Aurangzeb's death. As a result Alivardi's father lost his wealth and became poor. So they migrated to Bengal to the court of Suja ud din who was son in law of Bengal Nawab Murshid quli Khan. Suja ud din received the Alivardi Family because He was also from the same tribe of Iran. Alivardi soon became general. When Suja ud din became Nawab of Bangla Bihar Odissha as Murshid Quli had no son, he made Alivardi the Governor of Bihar. Alivardi increased his bihar army under the pretext of Persian Nadir shah's invasion. When Suja died his son Sarfaraz became the new Nawab. But with a superior army Alivardi killed Sarfaraz and became the new Nawab.

Mir Jafar came to Bihar from Iraq as a poor man but from a family who had Prophet's Blood in their vein. Alivardi was then Governor of Bihar and made Mir Jafar his general. Mir Jafar married AliVardis sister. Then when Alivardi became the nawab he made Mirjafar the Governor of Odishha.

 

[Michael Corleone]

The same way Siraj's grandfather Alivardi Khan did.

Alivardi's family was from Iran who worked for Emperor Aurangzeb's second son. But this son lost succession war against his elder brother after Aurangzeb's death. As a result Alivardi's father lost his wealth and became poor. So they migrated to Bengal to the court of Suja ud din who was son in law of Bengal Nawab Murshid quli Khan. Suja ud din received the Alivardi Family because He was also from the same tribe of Iran. Alivardi soon became general. When Suja ud din became Nawab of Bangla Bihar Odissha as Murshid Quli had no son, he made Alivardi the Governor of Bihar. Alivardi increased his bihar army under the pretext of Persian Nadir shah's invasion. When Suja died his son Sarfaraz became the new Nawab. But with a superior army Alivardi killed Sarfaraz and became the new Nawab.

Mir Jafar came to Bihar from Iraq as a poor man but from a family who had Prophet's Blood in their vein. Alivardi was then Governor of Bihar and made Mir Jafar his general. Mir Jafar married AliVardis sister. Then when Alivardi became the nawab he made Mirjafar the Governor of Odishha.

How much of a guarantee is it that he came from prophets family line? I mean he is from Iraq. Prophet lived in Saudi.

 

[kobiraaz]

How much of a guarantee is it that he came from prophets family line? I mean he is from Iraq. Prophet lived in Saudi.

There is no written guarantee. However Contemporary historians listed that his najafi family had linked with Ali's son Hosein R. and Mir. Jafar was shia. As you know most of the Shia's of that time were in Kufa Iraq it is very much possible..

However My point was don't call Bangla a land of Betrayal. It is only those Muslims who came from West betrayed Bengal again and again.

 

[Michael Corleone]

There is no written guarantee. However Contemporary historians listed that his najafi family had linked with Ali's son Hosein R. and Mir. Jafar was shia. As you know most of the Shia's of that time were in Kufa Iraq it is very much possible..

However My point was don't call Bangla a land of Betrayal. It is only those Muslims who came from West betrayed Bengal again and again.

Why would I call it a land of betrayal? I say the Bengali people are traitors... So many experiences that makes me say this. Both personal and public... Ex. BDR mutiny

Najafi families are said to be distant relatives of Ali. It might be possible. But I don't believe someone even distant relatives would do such magnitude of sin of betrayal.