Jump to content

What Is The Difference Between Bengali And Bangladeshis?


Recommended Posts

Bangladeshis are ethnically Bengalis. Their language is also Bengali. The only factor distinguishing them from their cousins across the border is religious adherence, not ethnicity. It is a confected nation which should never have come into being, just like Pakistan. And India for that matter, the rag-tag patchwork which the Sikhs were deceived into becoming part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only factor distinguishing them from their cousins across the border is religious adherence, not ethnicity.

Thats not entirely true Balkar. The fact is it is language and language only that they have in common.

Ethnically...racially...they are very different because with the Bangladeshis a mongoloid gene (i.e from Burma and other areas of S.E Asia is the norm whereas it is not common among the Bengalis (the Indian state of Bengal), but there are also so many cultural differences besides the obvious religious one. Lets take food for example; copious amounts of fish and meat are the mainstay of the Bangladeshi's diet whereas the Bengalis partake in an entirely different vegetarian diet. Behaviour and ability is another difference. Unlike the Bangladeshis, the Bengalis are renowned for their intellectual and academic ability, especially in terms of literature etc. For example, throughout the 50 years, whilst the rest of India (including the pathetic dumbed down Punjab) has produced and developed a taste for nonsense mind-destroying Bollywood movies the Bengalis only produce meaningful artistic movies without singing and dancing that win numerous worldwide awards.

So, like I said, the only thing the Bengalis and Bangladeshis have in common is the language. Nothing else.

But...please don't think I am putting the Bangladeshis down because I am actually in awe of them and salute them for what they did in years gone by and how the Sikhs of Punjab must salute them and learn from them :

When Jinnah made Bangladesh part of Pakistan he tried to do there what he did in Lahore and the rest of Punjab (Pakistan)....He tried to get the masses to turn their backs on their mother tongue and embrace a foreign language from central India: Urdu.

The pathetic Punjabis in Pakistan Punjab meekly and shamelessly turned their back on their mother (mother tongue) but the Bangladeshis were made of stronger stuff....truer stuff. They started rioting in Dhaka in what are now known as the 'Language Riots'. This language issue became the catalyst for freedom and so, in the name of their mother tongue, they fought for and gained their freedom. They deserve our upmost respect for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

Bangladeshis are ethnically Bengalis. Their language is also Bengali. The only factor distinguishing them from their cousins across the border is religious adherence, not ethnicity. It is a confected nation which should never have come into being, just like Pakistan. And India for that matter, the rag-tag patchwork which the Sikhs were deceived into becoming part of.

Some Punjabi's are descended from Greeks when Alexander took it over and some stayed to grow crops because of the fertile land.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not entirely true Balkar. The fact is it is language and language only that they have in common.

Ethnically...racially...they are very different because with the Bangladeshis a mongoloid gene (i.e from Burma and other areas of S.E Asia is the norm whereas it is not common among the Bengalis (the Indian state of Bengal), but there are also so many cultural differences besides the obvious religious one. Lets take food for example; copious amounts of fish and meat are the mainstay of the Bangladeshi's diet whereas the Bengalis partake in an entirely different vegetarian diet.

The Bengalis have one of the finest literary traditions in the subcontinent, that is true. And they have put us Punjabis to shame by the manner in which they have defended and cherished their mother tongue.

But I'm quite certain that they're not Mongoloids. Proximity to Mongoloid peoples such as the Burmese doesn't count for much, the Bangladeshis are Muslims, I can't picture them intermarrying with the Burmese Buddhists. I also can't detect any traces of the horde when I look at them. With certain South Asian populations, like the Hazara of Afghanistan, the Mongoloid accretions are quite obvious. The Bangladeshis look exactly the same as their Bengali cousins to me - short and dark-skinned.

Dietary differences can also boil down to religion, at least in the Indian subcontinent. Muslims consume more meat, the Hindus much less so. It is common knowledge, and unsurprising knowledge, when one considers that the Muslims revere a desert warlord whereas the Hindus place greater importance in gentler and more sagacious men. Punjabi Sikhs are almost identical to Punjabi Muslims with respect to their ethnic constitution (excepting the inbreeding/first cousin marriages by the Muslims, and the things that come of it), but the Muslims eat far more meat by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Punjabi's are descended from Greeks when Alexander took it over and some stayed to grow crops because of the fertile land.

Greeks, Scythians, Arabs, Afghans, you name it. If they raped, pillaged or invaded, chances are that their genes are floating about somewhere in the Punjabi genepool.

That sort of thing came to an end with the arrival of the Sikh Panth, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

Greeks, Scythians, Arabs, Afghans, you name it. If they raped, pillaged or invaded, chances are that their genes are floating about somewhere in the Punjabi genepool.

That sort of thing came to an end with the arrival of the Sikh Panth, of course.

The power of Guru Sahib!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are basically the same people, Bangladeshis because they are from Bangladesh and bengalis because they come from the state of West Bengal. Bangladesh used be a part of the state of Bengal which was also partitioned in 1947.

The only difference is religion. Bangladeshi follow the desert rapist hence their involvement abroad in drugs gangs and child grooming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Posts

    • There's no debate that all Sikhs must recite Rehras Sahib daily but Chaupai Sahib and the short Anand Sahib were only added to "Rehras Sahib" by SGPC and other jathebandis in the 1900s. In Guru Granth Sahib Ji's saroop, "Sodar Rehras" appears from "So dar tera keha" to "Saran pare ki rakho sarma", which is basically the first half of "Rehras" in all standard Gutka Sahibaan. So why do we recite these? I agree doing more Baani can never be bad, but most Amritdharis recite Benti Chaupai and Anand Sahib in their morning Nitnem so why should we recite these two Baania again instead of a new one? That time could be used to read Shastar Naam Mala, Shabad Hazaare etc. And why do these two Baanis get more importance than the others? Surely if we recite Chaupai Sahib and (part of) Anand Sahib twice in a day then we should also recite Japji Sahib, Jaap Sahib and Tav Prasad Savaiya twice as well? Note: Pls correct me if I'm wrong about SGPC. My theory is that they added these into Rehras Sahib as they removed them from the morning Baania but still had to include them in the daily Nitnem somehow, but this doesn't explain why older Samparde like Budha Dal also have this version of Rehras Sahib in their Gutkeh - someone enlighten Daas pls Bhul Chuk Maaf
    • There's no debate that all Sikhs must recite Rehras Sahib daily but Chaupai Sahib and the short Anand Sahib were only added to "Rehras Sahib" by SGPC and other jathebandis in the 1900s. In Guru Granth Sahib Ji's saroop, "Sodar Rehras" appears from "So dar tera keha" to "Saran pare ki rakho sarma", which is basically the first half of "Rehras" in all standard Gutka Sahibaan. So why do we recite these? I agree doing more Baani can never be bad, but most Amritdharis recite Benti Chaupai and Anand Sahib in their morning Nitnem so why should we recite these two Baania again instead of a new one? That time could be used to read Shastar Naam Mala, Shabad Hazaare etc. And why do these two Baanis get more importance than the others? Surely if we recite Chaupai Sahib and (part of) Anand Sahib twice in a day then we should also recite Japji Sahib, Jaap Sahib and Tav Prasad Savaiya twice as well? Note: Pls correct me if I'm wrong about SGPC. My theory is that they added these into Rehras Sahib as they removed them from the morning Baania but still had to include them in the daily Nitnem somehow, but this doesn't explain why older Samparde like Budha Dal also have this version of Rehras Sahib in their Gutkeh - someone enlighten Daas pls Bhul Chuk Maaf
    • Uncle, realistically are you gonna challenge it in real life? I could fully jhatka and eat a steak wearing Bana bilkul tere samne but on God you could do nothing about that 😂
    • Flintstone Saab, can't you type in one message? Or must you drop the full Godfather trilogy with every response, minimum 3 responses? 1) They don't jhatka cows at Hazur Sahib because it's in a country called "India", in a state called "Maharashtra" - and beef is strictly illegal there 2) I said a quote from Adi/Dasam Granth saying "you can't eat beef" - "protection of cows" could be Maharaj talking about defending them for Hindus, same reason we do Aarti-Aarta. If u reference a quote, u gotta say the context of the verse. Otherwise there are verses in SGGS Ji which seemingly tell you to convert to Islam; of course that's not what Maharaj is saying but without context many quotes from Baani seem misleading 3) Why does 90% of your "evidence" come from living people, like "the head of Taruna Dal" or "Baba Pala Singh" - very rarely (like less than 10%) of it is from the Gurus' direct words. Do you realise that these people are humans with flaws/bias? Maharaj ended the line of human Gurus for a reason 4) Funnily enough, even Budha Dal's maryada in the Sundar gutka does not ban beef. If individual Akaalis taboo it, that doesn't mean it's the actual hukam lol 5) You mention Naamdharis guarding cows but they are also vegetarians who do not carry a kirpan and say Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not a Guru - using them as an example is funny 😂   6) Bro who uses "diapers" and "mate" in the same sentence? 😂 Man really tried sounding like Andrew Tate with the British/American accent mix 7) So you're about 30 years old and still beefing strangers online? Brooooo where's your MOTHER, did Aunty Ji never shout you away from ur keyboard? "Oy Flentstone puttar, thalle aa hun, roti ban gyi!!!!" 8 ) Wait since you're some Uncle, how do you balance work life with ur keyboard warrior shift? Or do u just sit vailah at home, like unemployed? SERIOUS QUESTION: Is your account rank on this forum the only thing on your CV ?😂😂😂  9) Can you imagine Maharaj condoning you calling me names like "mughal"? You keep reading about these "heads of Taruna Dal" but you need to google "Guru Nanak Dev Ji's teachings on kindness and anger" instead - you're basically trying to solve degree level maths equations when you can't even understand "1 + 1 = 2"  (prediction - I bet he's gonna respond debating one little detail of this post like my joke about accents, but fully miss the bigger picture, or get upset again. He also will likely reference another "sant" or author, or pull a random quote completely out of context😂)
    • ਕੇਵਲ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਨਾਮੇ ਹੀ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਪਾਈ ॥ Kaeval Raam Naam Man Vasiaa Naamae Hee Mukath Paaee || केवल राम नामु मनि वसिआ नामे ही मुकति पाई ॥ The Naam, the Name of the Lord alone abides in the mind; and through the Naam, the Name of the Lord, one finds liberation.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use