10-24-2006, 08:36 PM
Wrong, differential fertility between Hindus and Muslims was the main reason for parititon of Bengal and it is differential fertility that will again make them take over WB, not illegal infiltration alone.
and why the differential fertility dear?? why could (during muslim rule) a muslim have 5 kids and feed them well too, while a hindu could not support a family of 3 even, esp there was a girl child?? besides differential fertility certainly the only reason. bengal became a majority muslim state (and before that a majority buddhist state) because all the lower castes converted enmass. AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT BENGAL WAS PARTIONED BECAUSE OF POPULATION YOU SHOW HOW IGNORANT OF HISTORY YOU ARE. BENGAL WAS PARTIONED TO WEAKEN BENGAL, TO CURB OUR ULTRANATIONALISM, TO LEAVE CALCUTTA WITHOUT A HINTERLAND AND BANGLADESH WITHOUT A FOUNTAINHEAD. BENGAL'S PARTITION WAS A BRITISH MOVE TO PROLONG THEIR STAY HERE, AS WERE SO MANY OF THEIR MOVES (INDUCTING MUSLIMS IN RAJ ARMY, SETTING UP GANDHI ETC)
All of these self piteous sob stories are not really helpful, even Punjab had to go through many of these things.
punjab had to go through more BLOODSHED than any other state. and most of that bloodshed was during the partition of india (into india and pakistan) itself, not during the 200 year colonial period, unless you count the jalionwallah bagh massacre. no famines took place in the punjab, not artificially engineered once anyway.
Lesser population does not indicate progress either as you will find out when Muslims take over Europe and WB.
all over the world the most prosperous countries have the humblest population growth. the biggest conclusion that can be drawn from low population growth, is that the female education is high (proven many many times over, high female education at least till primary level reduces population growth).
If they all get pushed into Uttaranchal, they would live in crazily cramped conditions but they would still live, not get kicked out.
you missed the point. i meant to say uttaranchal's population density would suddenly grow many fold if all u.p. hindus are shoved into uttaranchal. Almost all BD muslims moved into west bengal, during partition of bengal and then during 1947 and again during 1971. hence the artificially caused high population density of west bengal, and thus the need to arrest the growth.
I am sure they didn't teach this in the progressive circles of WB where it's always progressive to lay blame on Hindus and Hindu culture for everything wrong with India.
just what i expected. the dowry theory is one person's thesis. there are similar theories about how 9/11 was a israeli job, how pearl harbour was known to americans etc etc. First its such an islamic thing to the core, this dowry. english society is not known to have dowry, islamic society does. The english may have at most added fuel to the fire (and tried to make dowry more widespread) to screw up our society further. Which begs the question, why west bengal/bengal, the hotbed of the english presence in india doesnt have dowry at all. or why only the parts of india whch suffered under the muslims have dowry. surely madras presidency should have lots of dowry !!
You know sitting as you do in your progressive WB and writing nonsense about other states will not save you from the loving treatment your Muslim brothers will give you once they take over, then all you progressives will run to our backward states only.
for 150 years, we were the light of india. no state has produced a string of luminaries like we have. bark all you want, but facts remain facts. i wrote no nonsense. north india (bimaru belt/gangetic belt - the part of india where everything thats hindu was manufactured, from yoga to astronomy to stastra to ayurveda et al) had been sodomised by islamic hounds for 1000 years, purely because of the location of islamic countries, esp afghanistan. and bengal bore the brunt of british loot and suffered the biggest engineered famines. both facts. best accept it. also try to write correct english.
And whose fault is it that we had Islamic rule or colonisation, I don't wallow in self pity like a loser and neither did Punjabis who went through much worse during Parititon but look at Punjab today.
our (we indians) fault that we had islamic rule. and the islamic rule's fault that we had british rule.
bengal's present day condition is thanks to Jyoti basu and his commies. we actually recovered quite well from 1947 to 71 and were the state with the first iit, first iim, first metro rail, first city/state bus transport, first satellite city (modelled on salt lake city, utah). everything went for a toss thanks to the refugee problem of 1971. anyway, like i said we are still the third biggest economy.
having said that, i have to accept that punjab did go through a bloodbath during partition (bengal's population switch had already taken place to a great extent mind you during 1917 partition). and yes thanks to their enterprise and business acumen thay have a lot of well earned prosperity and well being.
All this has nothing at all to do with the prime reason why Bengal will be lost, differential fertility, plain and simple.
bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.
and why the differential fertility dear?? why could (during muslim rule) a muslim have 5 kids and feed them well too, while a hindu could not support a family of 3 even, esp there was a girl child?? besides differential fertility certainly the only reason. bengal became a majority muslim state (and before that a majority buddhist state) because all the lower castes converted enmass. AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT BENGAL WAS PARTIONED BECAUSE OF POPULATION YOU SHOW HOW IGNORANT OF HISTORY YOU ARE. BENGAL WAS PARTIONED TO WEAKEN BENGAL, TO CURB OUR ULTRANATIONALISM, TO LEAVE CALCUTTA WITHOUT A HINTERLAND AND BANGLADESH WITHOUT A FOUNTAINHEAD. BENGAL'S PARTITION WAS A BRITISH MOVE TO PROLONG THEIR STAY HERE, AS WERE SO MANY OF THEIR MOVES (INDUCTING MUSLIMS IN RAJ ARMY, SETTING UP GANDHI ETC)
All of these self piteous sob stories are not really helpful, even Punjab had to go through many of these things.
punjab had to go through more BLOODSHED than any other state. and most of that bloodshed was during the partition of india (into india and pakistan) itself, not during the 200 year colonial period, unless you count the jalionwallah bagh massacre. no famines took place in the punjab, not artificially engineered once anyway.
Lesser population does not indicate progress either as you will find out when Muslims take over Europe and WB.
all over the world the most prosperous countries have the humblest population growth. the biggest conclusion that can be drawn from low population growth, is that the female education is high (proven many many times over, high female education at least till primary level reduces population growth).
If they all get pushed into Uttaranchal, they would live in crazily cramped conditions but they would still live, not get kicked out.
you missed the point. i meant to say uttaranchal's population density would suddenly grow many fold if all u.p. hindus are shoved into uttaranchal. Almost all BD muslims moved into west bengal, during partition of bengal and then during 1947 and again during 1971. hence the artificially caused high population density of west bengal, and thus the need to arrest the growth.
I am sure they didn't teach this in the progressive circles of WB where it's always progressive to lay blame on Hindus and Hindu culture for everything wrong with India.
just what i expected. the dowry theory is one person's thesis. there are similar theories about how 9/11 was a israeli job, how pearl harbour was known to americans etc etc. First its such an islamic thing to the core, this dowry. english society is not known to have dowry, islamic society does. The english may have at most added fuel to the fire (and tried to make dowry more widespread) to screw up our society further. Which begs the question, why west bengal/bengal, the hotbed of the english presence in india doesnt have dowry at all. or why only the parts of india whch suffered under the muslims have dowry. surely madras presidency should have lots of dowry !!
You know sitting as you do in your progressive WB and writing nonsense about other states will not save you from the loving treatment your Muslim brothers will give you once they take over, then all you progressives will run to our backward states only.
for 150 years, we were the light of india. no state has produced a string of luminaries like we have. bark all you want, but facts remain facts. i wrote no nonsense. north india (bimaru belt/gangetic belt - the part of india where everything thats hindu was manufactured, from yoga to astronomy to stastra to ayurveda et al) had been sodomised by islamic hounds for 1000 years, purely because of the location of islamic countries, esp afghanistan. and bengal bore the brunt of british loot and suffered the biggest engineered famines. both facts. best accept it. also try to write correct english.
And whose fault is it that we had Islamic rule or colonisation, I don't wallow in self pity like a loser and neither did Punjabis who went through much worse during Parititon but look at Punjab today.
our (we indians) fault that we had islamic rule. and the islamic rule's fault that we had british rule.
bengal's present day condition is thanks to Jyoti basu and his commies. we actually recovered quite well from 1947 to 71 and were the state with the first iit, first iim, first metro rail, first city/state bus transport, first satellite city (modelled on salt lake city, utah). everything went for a toss thanks to the refugee problem of 1971. anyway, like i said we are still the third biggest economy.
having said that, i have to accept that punjab did go through a bloodbath during partition (bengal's population switch had already taken place to a great extent mind you during 1917 partition). and yes thanks to their enterprise and business acumen thay have a lot of well earned prosperity and well being.
All this has nothing at all to do with the prime reason why Bengal will be lost, differential fertility, plain and simple.
bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.