04-14-2006, 03:11 AM
WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24170
Some remark :
1) Aleya, as far I know is an imaginary charecter, not based on any
historical facts. Some moviemaker like Khan Ataur Rahaman
established Aleya as a mysterious charecter and well wisher of nabab.
However, in history I did not find any such evidences of aleya.
2) Sirajdullah has been portrayed as "Banglar shesh swadhin Nwabab".
However, you'll be astonished to know shiraj, "Banglar nawab" did not know
Bengali at all.
3) Siraj was no Bangaalee. I did not see any reason for a
Nawab of Turkish origin for being "Anto-praan" for fellow bangalee. He
tried to capture Bangla similar way just as French or Mughal
invaders did. Even though some school "history books" portray French
invaders are good, cause they tried to save our land aligning with
Nawab, from Benia British, i found this interpretation of "saving
Bangla" was funny. British invaders came to this land for the same or simillar
reason Frech, Portuguese, Mughal, Turkish invaders came. Indeed,
eventually it was the British who won and ruled Bangla. But that does
not make french and Mughal invaders as "great", just because they
were loosers. Neither they were the protector of Bengal. In fact, they are as
"evil" as "beniya Engrej".
4) Siraj did extreme cruelty on his countrymen. according
to "Siarul Mutakhkharin" of Golam Hosain, the authentic book
referred to in many books,
"The character of this Nabab was not any better than that of Nero,
the torturous king of Rome. And what says Jinn Law', the French
warrior, who himself tried to save the Nabab ? "His character was
the worstâ¦.famous for womanizing, â¦..everybody knew about his
extreme crueltyâ¦..used to drown the boats in the riverâ¦.with women
and childrenâ¦used to enjoy it sitting on the bankâ¦â¦.." (from Jinn Law's diary).
I wrote one piece 2/3 yrs ago in Bangla "Juktir Aloy Desher Bhab-
murti and deshperm" where I mentioned some facts on Siraj
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/DEASHPREMavijit.pdf
It will be highly appriciated if you or someone comment on this.
Avijit
Why is that? May I ask? Is that just because Bakhtiar Khilji came as an invador from outside? Was Lakshan Sen or Lakshman Sen a Bengali? He was not, they came from Karnatak and Lakshman Sen followed Ballal Sen, who came from Karnataka. Even Raja Adisur was not Bengali either. He brought in 5 Brahmins from Kanyakubja, who as per this logic, could not be Bengali either.
We therefore rightfully consider all those as Bengalis, who have settled down in Bengal and considered this as their own country and did not repatriate profits and wealth elsewhere or went back to retire elsewhere as in "home". IT was the English who first did that.
BTW, those who now harbour the idea of being a "Hindu" here in bengal would do much justice and would make much sense to trace their roots from Puran and other histories. The Brahminical doctrinaire imported in Bengal was the act of first invasion, when the first 5 Brahmins were given Jaigirs at their request and were allowed to marry as many local women as they would wise and would procreate [and not fathering] as many times as they could. All these procreations merely borrowed the surnames and the Kulin stamp, though the surnames are all concocted and the history is redoubtable. Within a few generations the entire Bengal got flooded by these surnames through polygamy of the highest order[ talk about mythical muslim procreation]. This invasion is simply institutionalised rape and if that is considered as sons and daughters of the soil then a history does not need the word "invasion".
The act of "snatching Hindu brides" may not be seen as the sufficient proof of a
communalistic behavior. "Hindu brides" could be attractive for some other
reasons. Mohanlal was his commander-in-chief. He had a mysterious, but very much
human, relationship with Aleya who found a safe solitary shelter in one corner
of his palace. She used to sing "bhajans" from his little corner. No protest
came from any side. True, lack of restraint was a black spot in his character.
That made him unpopular in certain quarters. Conspirators (vested interest
groups irrespective of religious identity ranging from profit seeking "benias"
to the ambitious power hungry army officers) used this loophole in his character
as a capital. The cunning officers of the East India Company extended full
cooperation to these conspirators. He and his comrade Mohanlal tried hard to
defend the freedom of "Bangla, Bihar, Orissa." This "lompot" non-Bengali Nawab
did not compromise. That's a great pride for us. That's a
pride because at least we had a ruler who shed his blood to protect the country
from foreign invasion. Generally, these are all historical facts. We should see
him and his period (we were in there!) from a broad perspective. Loose moral
character of his young life should not eclipse our rational judgement. More
importantly, the myth that has been created over a couple of centuries inspired
us in our struggle for independence at various periods of time. That's a great
asset for us. Why do we throw it away?
-----SC
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24170
WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24134
Some Remarks:
Not knowing your own land's history could be a deterrent in one's progress and development towards a positive future. But pretensions of knwing it poses even a greater danger. It allows present day ideologies and communal politics to freely color the history any which way that fits the history-narrator's agenda.
For us Bangalees, the task of retrieving our real history has been rendered most difficult, almost impossible, by several factors. The most immediate hurdle is communalism which in turn was introduced by the British. After a lot of research and study, I realize that the British were oblivious that they were planting the seed of communalism that did not exist in the Indian or Bengali communities in the way THEY thought there must have existed. We simply swallow the European racism and evaluate each other (within our own land and our own race) from their point of view.
Siraj-ud-Dowla is indeed the "shesh swadhin Nawab" of Bengal. The significance of "swadhin" has to be understood in two ways. First, because Alibardi, his grandfather had the enormous courage, guts and intelligence to declare himself the Sultan of Bangla, Bihar and Orissa independent of the fealty to the Imperial Mughal rule of Delhi. There was an economic side, as there is always in all history. He knew his portion of the land was the richest revenue payer of the Empire, and he decided to keep it for the provinces, in the provinces, and not send it out to Delhi.
This was an infuriating action, and Delhi's Imperial wrath at Alibardi's insubordination was unforgiving and inconsolable. It conspired with the Maratha mercenaries to raid Bengal with the "borgi" raids and struck a monetary deal with them. It even gave East India Company the Dewani to collect revenue in Bengal (in 1765). So, it was the desperation of the Mughal Empire of losing Bengal that brought down the woes upon Bengal.
Siraj-ud-Dowla is the last ruler of Bengal who was independent BEFORE a foreign mercantile Company took over by armed force. It was not an "invasion" by any standard of the old rules of the "war" game. There was no such thing as "British invasion" of Bengal. The East India Company simply overthrew a weak government with some hired fire power in order to establish its commercial interests in rich Bengal without the impediment of any established commercial code of behavior.
<b>We should celebrate the demise of the last great ruler of independent, pre-colonial Bengal with all the dignity, pride, and honor it deserves.
</b>
Farida Majid
Siraj-Ud-Doula , as history reveals, was highly
communal. He was fond of snatching Hindu brides
( He snatched beautiful daughter-in-law of Jagat Seth
brothers and tried to abduct daughter of Maharani of
Natore).
Akabar was true secular Muslim empire in India.
So was Maohammad Bin Tughlak. Akbar should be the
icon of secular India not Siraj Ud Dulla, who was
highly communal and a lewed sex maniac.
-Biplab
Some remark :
1) Aleya, as far I know is an imaginary charecter, not based on any
historical facts. Some moviemaker like Khan Ataur Rahaman
established Aleya as a mysterious charecter and well wisher of nabab.
However, in history I did not find any such evidences of aleya.
2) Sirajdullah has been portrayed as "Banglar shesh swadhin Nwabab".
However, you'll be astonished to know shiraj, "Banglar nawab" did not know
Bengali at all.
3) Siraj was no Bangaalee. I did not see any reason for a
Nawab of Turkish origin for being "Anto-praan" for fellow bangalee. He
tried to capture Bangla similar way just as French or Mughal
invaders did. Even though some school "history books" portray French
invaders are good, cause they tried to save our land aligning with
Nawab, from Benia British, i found this interpretation of "saving
Bangla" was funny. British invaders came to this land for the same or simillar
reason Frech, Portuguese, Mughal, Turkish invaders came. Indeed,
eventually it was the British who won and ruled Bangla. But that does
not make french and Mughal invaders as "great", just because they
were loosers. Neither they were the protector of Bengal. In fact, they are as
"evil" as "beniya Engrej".
4) Siraj did extreme cruelty on his countrymen. according
to "Siarul Mutakhkharin" of Golam Hosain, the authentic book
referred to in many books,
"The character of this Nabab was not any better than that of Nero,
the torturous king of Rome. And what says Jinn Law', the French
warrior, who himself tried to save the Nabab ? "His character was
the worstâ¦.famous for womanizing, â¦..everybody knew about his
extreme crueltyâ¦..used to drown the boats in the riverâ¦.with women
and childrenâ¦used to enjoy it sitting on the bankâ¦â¦.." (from Jinn Law's diary).
I wrote one piece 2/3 yrs ago in Bangla "Juktir Aloy Desher Bhab-
murti and deshperm" where I mentioned some facts on Siraj
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/DEASHPREMavijit.pdf
It will be highly appriciated if you or someone comment on this.
Avijit
Why is that? May I ask? Is that just because Bakhtiar Khilji came as an invador from outside? Was Lakshan Sen or Lakshman Sen a Bengali? He was not, they came from Karnatak and Lakshman Sen followed Ballal Sen, who came from Karnataka. Even Raja Adisur was not Bengali either. He brought in 5 Brahmins from Kanyakubja, who as per this logic, could not be Bengali either.
We therefore rightfully consider all those as Bengalis, who have settled down in Bengal and considered this as their own country and did not repatriate profits and wealth elsewhere or went back to retire elsewhere as in "home". IT was the English who first did that.
BTW, those who now harbour the idea of being a "Hindu" here in bengal would do much justice and would make much sense to trace their roots from Puran and other histories. The Brahminical doctrinaire imported in Bengal was the act of first invasion, when the first 5 Brahmins were given Jaigirs at their request and were allowed to marry as many local women as they would wise and would procreate [and not fathering] as many times as they could. All these procreations merely borrowed the surnames and the Kulin stamp, though the surnames are all concocted and the history is redoubtable. Within a few generations the entire Bengal got flooded by these surnames through polygamy of the highest order[ talk about mythical muslim procreation]. This invasion is simply institutionalised rape and if that is considered as sons and daughters of the soil then a history does not need the word "invasion".
The act of "snatching Hindu brides" may not be seen as the sufficient proof of a
communalistic behavior. "Hindu brides" could be attractive for some other
reasons. Mohanlal was his commander-in-chief. He had a mysterious, but very much
human, relationship with Aleya who found a safe solitary shelter in one corner
of his palace. She used to sing "bhajans" from his little corner. No protest
came from any side. True, lack of restraint was a black spot in his character.
That made him unpopular in certain quarters. Conspirators (vested interest
groups irrespective of religious identity ranging from profit seeking "benias"
to the ambitious power hungry army officers) used this loophole in his character
as a capital. The cunning officers of the East India Company extended full
cooperation to these conspirators. He and his comrade Mohanlal tried hard to
defend the freedom of "Bangla, Bihar, Orissa." This "lompot" non-Bengali Nawab
did not compromise. That's a great pride for us. That's a
pride because at least we had a ruler who shed his blood to protect the country
from foreign invasion. Generally, these are all historical facts. We should see
him and his period (we were in there!) from a broad perspective. Loose moral
character of his young life should not eclipse our rational judgement. More
importantly, the myth that has been created over a couple of centuries inspired
us in our struggle for independence at various periods of time. That's a great
asset for us. Why do we throw it away?
-----SC
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24170
WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24134
Some Remarks:
Not knowing your own land's history could be a deterrent in one's progress and development towards a positive future. But pretensions of knwing it poses even a greater danger. It allows present day ideologies and communal politics to freely color the history any which way that fits the history-narrator's agenda.
For us Bangalees, the task of retrieving our real history has been rendered most difficult, almost impossible, by several factors. The most immediate hurdle is communalism which in turn was introduced by the British. After a lot of research and study, I realize that the British were oblivious that they were planting the seed of communalism that did not exist in the Indian or Bengali communities in the way THEY thought there must have existed. We simply swallow the European racism and evaluate each other (within our own land and our own race) from their point of view.
Siraj-ud-Dowla is indeed the "shesh swadhin Nawab" of Bengal. The significance of "swadhin" has to be understood in two ways. First, because Alibardi, his grandfather had the enormous courage, guts and intelligence to declare himself the Sultan of Bangla, Bihar and Orissa independent of the fealty to the Imperial Mughal rule of Delhi. There was an economic side, as there is always in all history. He knew his portion of the land was the richest revenue payer of the Empire, and he decided to keep it for the provinces, in the provinces, and not send it out to Delhi.
This was an infuriating action, and Delhi's Imperial wrath at Alibardi's insubordination was unforgiving and inconsolable. It conspired with the Maratha mercenaries to raid Bengal with the "borgi" raids and struck a monetary deal with them. It even gave East India Company the Dewani to collect revenue in Bengal (in 1765). So, it was the desperation of the Mughal Empire of losing Bengal that brought down the woes upon Bengal.
Siraj-ud-Dowla is the last ruler of Bengal who was independent BEFORE a foreign mercantile Company took over by armed force. It was not an "invasion" by any standard of the old rules of the "war" game. There was no such thing as "British invasion" of Bengal. The East India Company simply overthrew a weak government with some hired fire power in order to establish its commercial interests in rich Bengal without the impediment of any established commercial code of behavior.
<b>We should celebrate the demise of the last great ruler of independent, pre-colonial Bengal with all the dignity, pride, and honor it deserves.
</b>
Farida Majid
Siraj-Ud-Doula , as history reveals, was highly
communal. He was fond of snatching Hindu brides
( He snatched beautiful daughter-in-law of Jagat Seth
brothers and tried to abduct daughter of Maharani of
Natore).
Akabar was true secular Muslim empire in India.
So was Maohammad Bin Tughlak. Akbar should be the
icon of secular India not Siraj Ud Dulla, who was
highly communal and a lewed sex maniac.
-Biplab