West Bengal and Bangladesh together make ONE country - Laboni Sarkar

[libertycall]

It will be a huge strategic gain if it happens. I mean look at the map, Nepal, bhutan, sikkim, assam, China, all will depend on Bangladesh.

Burma remains the linchpin or center of gravity in the region. It's a question of which way Burma turns that will have an enormous impact. The current ruling ethnic group in Burma are Chinese who migrated from Yunnan several hundred years ago, and displaced the native sub-continental groups such as the Rohingya. If Burma becomes a satrapy of China (and China has been building lots of transport links into that country) then all the other minor states in the region will either have to fall under the defense umbrella of India or risk being swallowed up by China.

 

[mb444]

More accurately it was not created by the Muslim 'aristocracy', it was created by a mixture of the descendants of Safavi Shia migrants who benefited enormously from the colonial era e.g. Sayyid Mir Jaafar of Najaf allied with the urban Barelvi populations of central india and bengal.

The old native aristocracy of the sub-continent such as the central indian Deobandis, Pathans/Pashtuns, Rajputs, Baluchis etc. tended to support large scale secular movements such as the Khudai-Khidmatgars and Khaksars

Muslim league was primarily created by the Muslim aristocracy and merchant classes of Bengal. Your contention is not backed by any facts. Simple search would show you who the founding members of Muslim league was

What is Shia or Sunni got to do with anything . The last of the proper nawab of Bengal Shiraz-ud-dullah was Shia..... What of it. Other bengali sultans were Sunni. The last nawab family of Dhaka of which Kwaja sallimullah was the 4th presided over and was the primary architect of Muslim league. If he is not aristocracy not entirely sure who is. It is true the nawab title was bought by his great grandfather from the Brits who was a leather merchant, but then again so what.

Your silly contention are just that silly. Bengal
Is primarily hanafi sunni with marginal presence of berelvi or suffi or ahmedi.

 

[libertycall]

Muslim league was primarily created by the Muslim aristocracy and merchant classes of Bengal. Your contention is not backed by any facts. Simple search would show you who the founding members of Muslim league was

What is Shia or Sunni got to do with anything . The last of the proper nawab of Bengal Shiraz-ud-dullah was Shia..... What of it. Other bengali sultans were Sunni. The last nawab family of Dhaka of which Kwaja sallimullah was the 4th presided over and was the primary architect of Muslim league. If he is not aristocracy not entirely sure who is. It is true the nawab title was bought by his great grandfather from the Brits who was a leather merchant, but then again so what.

Your silly contention are just that silly. Bengal
Is primarily hanafi sunni with marginal presence of berelvi or suffi or ahmedi.

The native Muslim aristocracy of the sub-continent is not the same as the Muslim 'nawabs' from Arabia, Iran, or Mongolia; none of whom are natives of the subcontinent. This is not simply because they are the descendants of migrants but because they explicitly regarded themselves as foreigners superior to the native people of the subcontinent.

The native Muslim aristocracy were in the main Sunni Hanafis, while the Shia were almost entirely descended from Arab and Iraqi migrants. The relationship between the two groups was lacking animosity until the Safavids took over Persia and imported fanatical Shia clergy from Lebanon, and some of these clergy made their way into the subcontinent.

Since the East India company was slowly taking over the subcontinent at the time, some of these migrants being of a more fanatically religious mindset than their more moderate brethren assisted the East India Company in overthrowing not only the Sunni native aristocracy but also their more moderate Shia brethren in an attempt to seize power. It was in the context of this conflict that the system of alliances between the aristocracies in the subcontinent was prevented from resisting the East India company. Most of the remaining native Muslim aristocracy in the aftermath of the First War of Independence were blown to bits by cannons or were sent to Kali Paani--where they were later joined by the Hindu Indian nationalists.

As for my 'silly contention', perhaps you can tell me about Sayyid Mir Jaafar Ali of Najaf and how he came to be the nawab of Murshidabad? and can you tell me where Murshidabad is on the map? And where did the infamous incident where thousands of subcontinental craftsmen and women weavers have their thumbs cut off by the agents of the East India company occur?

And if you really want to impress me can you tell me what was Sayyid Iskander Ali Mirza's relationship to Sayyid Mir Jaafar Ali of Najaf, and how was it that Sayyid Iskander Ali Mirza came to be ruler of Pakistan before he was removed by Ayub Khan?

I refer you to 'Medieval Deccan History' edited by A.R. Kulkarni, M.A. Naeem, and T.R. de Souza for details of the relationships between these groups. I also advise you to read some of the work of Vali Nasr the Shiite Iranian author and apologist for the Ayatollahs on the ethnic and sectarian ruling elites in Pakistan.

 

[mb444]

The native Muslim aristocracy of the sub-continent is not the same as the Muslim 'nawabs' from Arabia, Iran, or Mongolia; none of whom are natives of the subcontinent. This is not simply because they are the descendants of migrants but because they explicitly regarded themselves as foreigners superior to the native people of the subcontinent.

The native Muslim aristocracy were in the main Sunni Hanafis, while the Shia were almost entirely descended from Arab and Iraqi migrants. The relationship between the two groups was lacking animosity until the Safavids took over Persia and imported fanatical Shia clergy from Lebanon, and some of these clergy made their way into the subcontinent.

Since the East India company was slowly taking over the subcontinent at the time, some of these migrants being of a more fanatically religious mindset than their more moderate brethren assisted the East India Company in overthrowing not only the Sunni native aristocracy but also their more moderate Shia brethren in an attempt to seize power. It was in the context of this conflict that the system of alliances between the aristocracies in the subcontinent was prevented from resisting the East India company. Most of the remaining native Muslim aristocracy in the aftermath of the First War of Independence were blown to bits by cannons or were sent to Kali Paani--where they were later joined by the Hindu Indian nationalists.

As for my 'silly contention', perhaps you can tell me about Sayyid Mir Jaafar Ali of Najaf and how he came to be the nawab of Murshidabad? and can you tell me where Murshidabad is on the map? And where did the infamous incident where thousands of subcontinental craftsmen and women weavers have their thumbs cut off by the agents of the East India company occur?

And if you really want to impress me can you tell me what was Sayyid Iskander Ali Mirza's relationship to Sayyid Mir Jaafar Ali of Najaf, and how was it that Sayyid Iskander Ali Mirza came to be ruler of Pakistan before he was removed by Ayub Khan?

I refer you to 'Medieval Deccan History' edited by A.R. Kulkarni, M.A. Naeem, and T.R. de Souza for details of the relationships between these groups. I also advise you to read some of the work of Vali Nasr the Shiite Iranian author and apologist for the Ayatollahs on the ethnic and sectarian ruling elites in Pakistan.

why would I care to impress you? Shia/sunni schism had very little to do with anything as far as bengal is concerned and certainly very little to do with the development of muslim bengali identity. what you are talking about in another context might be apt but within this discussion is completely irrelevant.

 

[asad71]

Burma remains the linchpin or center of gravity in the region. It's a question of which way Burma turns that will have an enormous impact. The current ruling ethnic group in Burma are Chinese who migrated from Yunnan several hundred years ago, and displaced the native sub-continental groups such as the Rohingya. If Burma becomes a satrapy of China (and China has been building lots of transport links into that country) then all the other minor states in the region will either have to fall under the defense umbrella of India or risk being swallowed up by China.

1.The Burmese have been v smart in using it's strategic location and huge potential resources to woo all sides simultaneously. China, Russia, USA, Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK, India and Thailand have all been thoroughly exploited by the Burmese.
2. What is now becoming visible is India's efforts to ensnare BD and Burma into a deadly trap. India faces her top adversary to the west; her backside must be kept neutralized. In spite of multifarious boundary, insurgency and other issues, India has found it expedient to invest heavily in Burma. RAW and MI cooperate with Burma's MSS and exchange info. Burmese Buddhist extremism and India's Hindu extremism find a common danger in the growing Muslim power/population in this sub-region. India sells arms to Burma - some her own production and others imported. India trains the Burmese military and has advisers posted in that country.
3. Since 1947, India has been targeting BD which she sees as a fortress of emerging Muslim renaissance in the subcontinent. Initially IB and then RAW and now MI also, has successfully made deep penetrations into all sectors and segments of life in BD. Culture and media has been the major target appreciating Bengali's weakness for culture, language, music, literature, drama, etc.Back in 1948, Mahtabuddin, the publisher of The Daily Ittefaq was arrested for holding secret meetings with IHC officials for a possible merger with India. Today it is difficult to identify an individual in these sectors not under RAW's pay. Even BD's security services have been penetrated. And of course the political power in BD is wielded from Delhi through the obligated Shekh Family Inc, the children of those killed on 15 Aug 1975 and the remnants of Gen Uban's Mujib Bahini and JRB.
4. Watch carefully how BD's military is developing into a police force. Whereas five to seven Divs would be sufficient to discourage any India adventure, there are now eleven Divs - which obviously means sacrificing quality for quantity. MBT-2000 and JF-17 were selected by the military backed govt, but it is anathema to talk about these because of Pakistani inputs. Instead BD is moving towards Russian inventory in common with India's. I see a deep conspiracy in this - a conspiracy that will remind you of 1971.
5.India is slowly pushing BD into a limited conflict with Burma. On the political platform that will save SHW from contesting another election where she will loose because all the dirty tricks of RAW have been exposed in the past elections. But more crucially the war will throw BD deeper into India's poisonous embrace. Today BD is isolated and friendless except India's supposed "friendship". For spares of Russian eqpt there is no country that will help BD except India who will exact her pound of flesh.
6. Perhaps Pakistan's current policy of total withdrawal from BD, though diabolical, is correct. Once overrun we will fight a protracted and deadly war to last long. Like Rajput Gen Man Singh and Maratha raider Vaskar Pandit, India's aggression will find fierce opposition under every bush in BD. India will not have troops and resources enough to find comfort. The converse of Pakistan's doctrine of "Def of East Pakistan lies in the West" will emerge to be true.

 

[syed1]

LoL. A lot of people have claimed the same thing many times. Bangladesh and West Bengal are two different entities. One is an independent, sovereign nation(Bangladesh) and another one is a state of a sovereign country(India).

 

[Al-zakir]

I agree with her. Bangladesh lost its Muslim identity. It's a full blown Hindu nation now. Just tune in to Bangladeshi tv channel and find out of yourself.

 

[Saiful Islam]

I agree with her. Bangladesh lost its Muslim identity. It's a full blown Hindu nation now. Just tune in to Bangladeshi tv channel and find out of yourself.

The only thing to do is disconnect ourselves from this so called 'Bangladeshi' identity which has been hijacked.

 

[khair_ctg]

the concept of Muslims and Hindus of Bengal being one ethnicity is nonsense.

the definitions of being Hindu and Muslim of Bengal are different. being Hindu Bengali has had a more purist definition of nativity to Bengali-speaking regions and association with the Brahmin Bengali language.

being Bengali Muslim historically meant geographically located in what is known as Bengal and being part of a pan-Hindustan community. even rules of provincial governments declaring independence from central govt in northernmost Hindustan were not strictly confined to what we know as Bengal. and Bengali Muslims have more diverse ancestries and they had no standard unified Bengali language but many dialects and association with Urdu and Farsi.

a nation acknowledging the diversity is fine, but one that is not is an oppressive one. we can already see it on display in Bangladesh.

@Maira La Kindly go over an gem of an response here.

sorry that was too much reality for you

 

[khair_ctg]

Yes, it can be true. The high caste Hindus do looks differently - more caucausoid, but common Hindus and Muslims looks the same. Being bombarded with Bangladeshi labourers (most of them Muslim) all around my town, can vouch for this fact. yes, there are no turks,persians,afghans I found among them. more so I see Tamil-Teluguish features and tiny bodied people - is what an average momin-e-Bangladeshi looks like?

it's a fact Turkic (not today's Turkish), Mongols, Afghans, Persians, Abyssinians besides lower caste Hindus, Buddhists and tribals form ancestry of Bengal's Muslims. that stands regardless of who you associated some Bangladeshi Muslim day labourers with.

instead try telling a gulf Arab person that he is not Arab because you think there are South Indians who like him. that should be do-able as i have seen some gulf Arab people that look like that.

 

[Maira La]

it's a fact Turkic (not today's Turkish), Mongols, Afghans, Persians, Abyssinians besides lower caste Hindus, Buddhists and tribals form ancestry of Bengal's Muslims. that stands regardless of who you associated some Bangladeshi Muslim day labourers with.

instead try telling a gulf Arab person that he is not Arab because you think there are South Indians who like him. that should be do-able as i have seen some gulf Arab people that look like that.

Have to agree with @takeiteasy. Most common Hindus and Muslims in India/Bangladesh look indistinguishable. ANd it makes sense, because both come from a common ASI stock.

Ctg might be a little mixed because of its unique history, but most people beyond the coastal areas are ASI to the core, with the Urban elites being an exception.

 

[khair_ctg]

Have to agree with @takeiteasy. Most common Hindus and Muslims in India/Bangladesh look indistinguishable. ANd it makes sense, because both come from a common ASI stock.

Ctg might be a little mixed because of its unique history, but most people beyond the coastal areas are ASI to the core, with the Urban elites being an exception.

Hindus and Muslims all over the subcontinent might look indistinguishable. Muslims have Buddhist and lower caste Hindu ancestries from Bangladesh to Afghanistan.

it still does not at all refute the statement that Muslims and Hindus are different ethnic communities.

p.s. there are Anglo-Indians who could tell you for sure they have at least one ancestor from the British Isles. yet they might look just like an 'average' Hindu in the area.

Anglo-Indians: Is their culture dying out? - BBC News

 

[takeiteasy]

it's a fact Turkic (not today's Turkish), Mongols, Afghans, Persians, Abyssinians besides lower caste Hindus, Buddhists and tribals form ancestry of Bengal's Muslims.

A small piece of Gobar in a tank of milk does not make a change to the milk.

 

[dray]

1.The Burmese have been v smart in using it's strategic location and huge potential resources to woo all sides simultaneously. China, Russia, USA, Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK, India and Thailand have all been thoroughly exploited by the Burmese.
2. What is now becoming visible is India's efforts to ensnare BD and Burma into a deadly trap. India faces her top adversary to the west; her backside must be kept neutralized. In spite of multifarious boundary, insurgency and other issues, India has found it expedient to invest heavily in Burma. RAW and MI cooperate with Burma's MSS and exchange info. Burmese Buddhist extremism and India's Hindu extremism find a common danger in the growing Muslim power/population in this sub-region. India sells arms to Burma - some her own production and others imported. India trains the Burmese military and has advisers posted in that country.
3. Since 1947, India has been targeting BD which she sees as a fortress of emerging Muslim renaissance in the subcontinent. Initially IB and then RAW and now MI also, has successfully made deep penetrations into all sectors and segments of life in BD. Culture and media has been the major target appreciating Bengali's weakness for culture, language, music, literature, drama, etc.Back in 1948, Mahtabuddin, the publisher of The Daily Ittefaq was arrested for holding secret meetings with IHC officials for a possible merger with India. Today it is difficult to identify an individual in these sectors not under RAW's pay. Even BD's security services have been penetrated. And of course the political power in BD is wielded from Delhi through the obligated Shekh Family Inc, the children of those killed on 15 Aug 1975 and the remnants of Gen Uban's Mujib Bahini and JRB.
4. Watch carefully how BD's military is developing into a police force. Whereas five to seven Divs would be sufficient to discourage any India adventure, there are now eleven Divs - which obviously means sacrificing quality for quantity. MBT-2000 and JF-17 were selected by the military backed govt, but it is anathema to talk about these because of Pakistani inputs. Instead BD is moving towards Russian inventory in common with India's. I see a deep conspiracy in this - a conspiracy that will remind you of 1971.
5.India is slowly pushing BD into a limited conflict with Burma. On the political platform that will save SHW from contesting another election where she will loose because all the dirty tricks of RAW have been exposed in the past elections. But more crucially the war will throw BD deeper into India's poisonous embrace. Today BD is isolated and friendless except India's supposed "friendship". For spares of Russian eqpt there is no country that will help BD except India who will exact her pound of flesh.
6. Perhaps Pakistan's current policy of total withdrawal from BD, though diabolical, is correct. Once overrun we will fight a protracted and deadly war to last long. Like Rajput Gen Man Singh and Maratha raider Vaskar Pandit, India's aggression will find fierce opposition under every bush in BD. India will not have troops and resources enough to find comfort. The converse of Pakistan's doctrine of "Def of East Pakistan lies in the West" will emerge to be true.

Such diabolical conspiracy theories! You keep thinking all these $hit all day, na?

 

[asad71]

Such diabolical conspiracy theories! You keep thinking all these $hit all day, na?

Anyone who has crap crammed in his head will not see the absolute truth in what I have stated. There is no theory - let alone conspiratorial. India, spearheaded by RAW, has made much advance in their plans to enslave BD seen by global Bengalis as their free home, and by global Muslims as the growing heart of Islam in this region.