10-24-2006, 11:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Muslims first became a majority in Bengal in the 1881 census, the tilt came through excessive Muslim breeding not through conversions.
Ya we know all about these conspiracy theories of British setting up Gandhi (utter nonsense), keep living in your fantasies, the basis for partition was that the states of British India that were Muslim majority would go to Pakistan, Hindu and Sikh leaders stepped in salvaged WB and E.Punjab while morons like Sarat Chandra Bose were proposing a United Bengal with a Muslim majority, even if the British wanted to they could not have prevented the partition of Bengal except by explicitly taking the Hindu side, if Muslims formed 70% of East Bengal it was natural that the area would go to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Peasants in Punjab were suffering in the hands of the moneylenders. The Land Alienation Act 1900 had failed in its objective of saving the agriculturist from the clutches of the moneylenders. At the top of it Plague had taken a toll of nearly four million people in Punjab which was followed by famine and earthquake in 1905.
http://www.punjabilok.com/misc/freedom/fre...gle_punjab1.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the turn of the century there was a net population decline in Punjab due to the famine.
Having a famine had nothing to do with Islamization, infact more Muslims died in the Bengal famine (natural considering that they were a slight majority) during the world war.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Progress does not mean being prosperous alone, progress also includes the capability to save your culture from Islamic inroads, many of the European countries lack the will and will be islamisised.
It's no use having money if you get screwed over by others.
And you don't know what you are talking about, higher female education does not necessarily reduce population growth as witnessed by Kerala where Muslims have the same education levels as xtians and Hindus but have double the birth rate of the state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no need to arrest anything and you are talking nonsense. BD Muslims never moved to WB in 1947, many moved out as witnessed by fall in Muslim % in WB in the 1951 census. They moved in during 1971 and have been moving in ever since.
Simply export the excess Bengali Hindus to other states while continuing to maintain a high birth rate so that Muslim % will not grow and the very fact that BD Muslims are pouring in indicates that Bengal still has space left which the Muslims are filling in, if the Hindus kept their birth rate constant the Muslims would have no space left to fill and wouldn't enter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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 !!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the book before you start spouting nonsense, here are some statistics:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Geographical distribution of dowry deaths, 1994
Source: National Crimes Bureau, Home Ministry
Andhra Pradesh - 396
Arunachal Pradesh - 0
Assam - 13
Bihar - 296
Goa - 0
Gujarat - 105
Haryana - 191
Himachal Pradesh - 4
Jammu & Kashmir - 1
Karnataka - 170
Kerala - 9
Madhya Pradesh - 354
Maharashtra - 519
Manipur - 0
Meghalaya - 0
Mizoram - 0
Nagaland - 2
Orissa - 169
Punjab - 117
Rajasthan - 298
Sikkim - 0
Tamilnadu - 83
Tripura - 6
Uttar Pradesh - 1977
West Bengal - 349
http://www.indiatogether.org/wehost/nodowri/stats.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does it look like WB has no dowry at all?
Also Maharashtra was independent of Muslims for 150 years before the British came so why does it have a high rate of dowry deaths?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the fault of Bengalis that Bengal had Muslim rule continuously not others fault and it was our fault that we had British rule, since you don't seem to know your history Hindus were ruling most of India when the British entered the scene, so Muslims were nowhere in the picture except in some states like Bengal and Mysore.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think they used to say the same thing about partition "partition will not happen" but they found out the reality too late and you will find it out too.
Muslims first became a majority in Bengal in the 1881 census, the tilt came through excessive Muslim breeding not through conversions.
Ya we know all about these conspiracy theories of British setting up Gandhi (utter nonsense), keep living in your fantasies, the basis for partition was that the states of British India that were Muslim majority would go to Pakistan, Hindu and Sikh leaders stepped in salvaged WB and E.Punjab while morons like Sarat Chandra Bose were proposing a United Bengal with a Muslim majority, even if the British wanted to they could not have prevented the partition of Bengal except by explicitly taking the Hindu side, if Muslims formed 70% of East Bengal it was natural that the area would go to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Peasants in Punjab were suffering in the hands of the moneylenders. The Land Alienation Act 1900 had failed in its objective of saving the agriculturist from the clutches of the moneylenders. At the top of it Plague had taken a toll of nearly four million people in Punjab which was followed by famine and earthquake in 1905.
http://www.punjabilok.com/misc/freedom/fre...gle_punjab1.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the turn of the century there was a net population decline in Punjab due to the famine.
Having a famine had nothing to do with Islamization, infact more Muslims died in the Bengal famine (natural considering that they were a slight majority) during the world war.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Progress does not mean being prosperous alone, progress also includes the capability to save your culture from Islamic inroads, many of the European countries lack the will and will be islamisised.
It's no use having money if you get screwed over by others.
And you don't know what you are talking about, higher female education does not necessarily reduce population growth as witnessed by Kerala where Muslims have the same education levels as xtians and Hindus but have double the birth rate of the state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no need to arrest anything and you are talking nonsense. BD Muslims never moved to WB in 1947, many moved out as witnessed by fall in Muslim % in WB in the 1951 census. They moved in during 1971 and have been moving in ever since.
Simply export the excess Bengali Hindus to other states while continuing to maintain a high birth rate so that Muslim % will not grow and the very fact that BD Muslims are pouring in indicates that Bengal still has space left which the Muslims are filling in, if the Hindus kept their birth rate constant the Muslims would have no space left to fill and wouldn't enter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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 !!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the book before you start spouting nonsense, here are some statistics:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Geographical distribution of dowry deaths, 1994
Source: National Crimes Bureau, Home Ministry
Andhra Pradesh - 396
Arunachal Pradesh - 0
Assam - 13
Bihar - 296
Goa - 0
Gujarat - 105
Haryana - 191
Himachal Pradesh - 4
Jammu & Kashmir - 1
Karnataka - 170
Kerala - 9
Madhya Pradesh - 354
Maharashtra - 519
Manipur - 0
Meghalaya - 0
Mizoram - 0
Nagaland - 2
Orissa - 169
Punjab - 117
Rajasthan - 298
Sikkim - 0
Tamilnadu - 83
Tripura - 6
Uttar Pradesh - 1977
West Bengal - 349
http://www.indiatogether.org/wehost/nodowri/stats.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does it look like WB has no dowry at all?
Also Maharashtra was independent of Muslims for 150 years before the British came so why does it have a high rate of dowry deaths?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the fault of Bengalis that Bengal had Muslim rule continuously not others fault and it was our fault that we had British rule, since you don't seem to know your history Hindus were ruling most of India when the British entered the scene, so Muslims were nowhere in the picture except in some states like Bengal and Mysore.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think they used to say the same thing about partition "partition will not happen" but they found out the reality too late and you will find it out too.