Why Bengal has more population compared to other ethnic regions?

[A Town]

We had indeed. But the political peace was relatively less abused by foreign invaders as it did in North West India for thousand years. Most of the invasions depleted in the upper Gangetic plain, which allowed time and space for it's dwellers to settle down.

It actually makes sense, NW India is incredibly sparsely populated. And if you look at Bengal, they have had a relatively peaceful history and time to settle and grow.

Not really talking about thousands of years ago but the 1971 dilemma and everything after that was still messy. Only around late 90's was peace restored but things are shifting back to the old days.

1971 was indeed a violent period for Bengalis however it was only roughly 40 years ago and was the only violent part of Bengals history.

 

[Saiful Islam]

It actually makes sense, NW India is incredibly sparsely populated. And if you look at Bengal, they have had a relatively peaceful history and time to settle and grow.


1971 was indeed a violent period for Bengalis however it was only roughly 40 years ago and was the only violent part of Bengals history.

I wouldn't really consider it "Bengal's history", it really had nothing to do with Bengal in the first place as it was an internal matter. Politics is a dirty game in Bangladesh and after 1971 things went pear shaped. I do agree about the past (1000 years) most foreign invaders found it hard to come into Bengal because of our terrain. Bengali people are very agile and athletic when it comes to marshy terrain. The Islamic rule in Bengal wasn't really violent most foreigners were awliyas and daee's (spread the message of Islam) but we did go through turkic invasion. After 1500 Bengal especially East Bengal came under many different Islamic rule.

It actually makes sense, NW India is incredibly sparsely populated. And if you look at Bengal, they have had a relatively peaceful history and time to settle and grow.


1971 was indeed a violent period for Bengalis however it was only roughly 40 years ago and was the only violent part of Bengals history.

If you think about it, out of the 3 countries, it was only Bangladesh that went through invasion. The Indo-Pak beef was always battle of the greatest, it was just a point scoring game. I mean the population was intact whilst Bangladesh went through a full invasion and this is the modern period we are talking about.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Largest ethnic groups in the world:

1) Han Chinese
2) Arabs
3) Bengalis

 

[arp2041]

Largest ethnic groups in the world:

1) Han Chinese
2) Arabs
3) Bengalis

4. PDF TROLLS

 

[A Town]

I wouldn't really consider it "Bengal's history", it really had nothing to do with Bengal in the first place as it was an internal matter. Politics is a dirty game in Bangladesh and after 1971 things went pear shaped. I do agree about the past (1000 years) most foreign invaders found it hard to come into Bengal because of our terrain. Bengali people are very agile and athletic when it comes to marshy terrain. The Islamic rule in Bengal wasn't really violent most foreigners were awliyas and daee's (spread the message of Islam) but we did go through turkic invasion. After 1500 Bengal especially East Bengal came under many different Islamic rule.




If you think about it, out of the 3 countries, it was only Bangladesh that went through invasion. The Indo-Pak beef was always battle of the greatest, it was just a point scoring game. I mean the population was intact whilst Bangladesh went through a full invasion and this is the modern period we are talking about.

In terms of foreign invaders, Bengal was incredibly lucky as only the Turks where ever able to make a foothold.
Bengalis where indeed good fighters but they where never in the path of the invaders full force.

North West Indians being positioned on the edge of India had to deal with Arabs, Afghans, Turks, Huns, Mongols, Greeks etc. It took the Turkic invaders 500 years to break our borders lol and only Afghans, Turks and Brits where ever successful. We never had the time to settle and build a agricultural and population centre like Bengal did.

 

[khair_ctg]

that's like asking why are there more Arabs than people of Bengal? why more Pashtuns than Kashmiris? why more Tamil people than Telugu? for Bangladesh and West Bengal (India) population, there can be a range of factors. fish in the diet doesn't seem too important an issue. it's not like Bangladeshis are the only people in the world who have fish (great halal food imo) Punjabis and Balochis have fish in their cuisine. and surrounding states under India like West Bengal, Assam and Tripura consume a lot more fish and we don't see their population or pop density significantly higher. i think though with such high population warranted a much larger state in 1947. such a large population may have hampered the quality of life or resource available per capita

 

[khair_ctg]

the Turkic-Afghans (or just Afghans) from 12th to 16th century hardly had a foe in Bengal. Bengal was definitely not impossible to Muslim settlers at least compared to regions more eastwards. Mughal settlers from 16th century did not even consider an indigenous Bengali without Afghan blood to be a worthy opponent in the event of a rebellion to the Mughal empire. Northeast Bengal in the Sylhet/Jalalabad area is very interesting. as Bengal became sort of a place of retreat for the retreating Afghans in the context of the subcontinent. Northeast Bengal became the same for retreating Afghans in the context of Bengal. both Afghans and Mughals still had to deal with clearing a lot of dense hinterland and wildlife at a level they probably didn't need to do even in Western Bengal. Eastern Bengal was a rather newly settled territory.

 

[Contrarian]

Isnt BD soon to achieve replacement level fertility rate?

 

[Saiful Islam]

that's like asking why are there more Arabs than people of Bengal? why more Pashtuns than Kashmiris? why more Tamil people than Telugu? for Bangladesh and West Bengal (India) population, there can be a range of factors. fish in the diet doesn't seem too important an issue. it's not like Bangladeshis are the only people in the world who have fish (great halal food imo) Punjabis and Balochis have fish in their cuisine. and surrounding states under India like West Bengal, Assam and Tripura consume a lot more fish and we don't see their population or pop density significantly higher. i think though with such high population warranted a much larger state in 1947. such a large population may have hampered the quality of life or resource available per capita

Fish is only popular amongst the older Bangladeshis. We consume a hell of a lot of Meat and Chicken. Our expenses for Chicken and Meat is ridiculous.

 

[scorpionx]

Not really talking about thousands of years ago but the 1971 dilemma and everything after that was still messy. Only around late 90's was peace restored but things are shifting back to the old days.

1971 was a very very brief period when we look at the broader picture of history. If we consider even Palestine, Iraq or Syria and their casualties, the degree to which humanity suffers is way more horrible than '71 effecting the demographic structure of their countries.

 

[shiv]

because they are a confused bunch and they follow a simple principle ..

"When confused just fcuk"

 

[dray]

You came correct. Any type of contraception is haram lol. But in all seriousness, the Bangladeshis ere are all benefit/insurance fraudsters that's why they breed like crazy.

Inshallah I'll try to have about 15 kids minimum.

Ameen!! But all 15 with only one wife or planning for more??

 

[SHAMK9]

Why you post retarded threads?

 

[punit]

You came correct. Any type of contraception is haram lol. But in all seriousness, the Bangladeshis ere are all benefit/insurance fraudsters that's why they breed like crazy.

Inshallah I'll try to have about 15 kids minimum.

even withdrawing before ejaculation is haram!

 

[Sriram]

Because politically this region has been less violent than rest of India in history, land has been extremely fertile in the lower Gangetic delta. These causes increase the possibility for a more dense population than anything else I guess.

When u say India i guess u mean northern India, TN has been way more peaceful throughout the recoded history, and we have very low fertility rate, and its no less is fertile lands,
reason must be something else... most probably literacy rate and woman's freedom to choose the number of kids IMO