Why is Bangladesh Muslim when the rest of the Gangetic Plain isn't?

The most accepted theory is that Islam was the "religion of the plow." Hindu peasants in areas that had been densely populated for a long time, like most of North India, remained 'Hindu' since there wasn't much local change associated with Muslim rule.

But eastern Bengal (now Bangladesh) was largely jungle until the advent of Muslim rule. Most of the area that is now Bangladesh was cleared and settled under the Delhi and Mughal sultans. So the new settlers adopted Islam, either because they were never 'Hindu' in the first place and Islam became associated with civilization, or because they had to create new communities and lives and this unsettled situation was amenable for the spread of Islam.
 
Because it's an exceptionally fertile part of the Plain, being around the delta, so it naturally attracted a lot of Turkic invaders - a lot more than any other part of Bengal. It also had a large population of lower castes, and lower castes tended to convert.

The most accepted theory is that Islam was the "religion of the plow." Hindu peasants in areas that had been densely populated for a long time, like most of North India, remained 'Hindu' since there wasn't much local change associated with Muslim rule.

But eastern Bengal (now Bangladesh) was largely jungle until the advent of Muslim rule. Most of the area that is now Bangladesh was cleared and settled under the Delhi and Mughal sultans. So the new settlers adopted Islam, either because they were never 'Hindu' in the first place and Islam became associated with civilization, or because they had to create new communities and lives and this unsettled situation was amenable for the spread of Islam.

That doesn't explain why they speak the same language and have the same culture as people across the border. If that theory was correct, wouldn't they speak Hindustani?
 
it naturally attracted a lot of Turkic invaders
The most Muslims of Turkic origin lived around the upper Gangetic Plain, where the capital and the great monuments are. That region is decidedly not majority Muslim.

lower castes tended to convert.
Why would that be the case to a far greater degree in East than West Bengal?

If that theory was correct, wouldn't they speak Hindustani?
They speak Bengali because either they came from West Bengal, or accepted Bengali culture as part of the process of civilizing. But their religion is Islam, either because (if you were a Bengali immigrant) Islam, the religion of the state that was encouraging the settlement of East Bengal, was associated with their new lives in a frontier without things you were familiar with, or (if you were a local) because Islam was associated with agriculture and civilization. Hence why in Bangladesh there is still an aphorism that a good Muslim is a good farmer.
 
The most Muslims of Turkic origin lived around the upper Gangetic Plain, where the capital and the great monuments are. That region is decidedly not majority Muslim.

I believe Muslim rule was quite concentrated in Bengal, where they had an Iraqi Muslim ruler in the Seven Years War. This rule existed well before the Delhi Sultanate, and these rulers didn't rule with the syncretic and relatively tolerant hands of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate.

It should also be noted that there were still a fair many Buddhists in Bengal, especially concentrated in the east. The other area where Buddhism was strong in India, the Kashmir Valley, also became rather Muslim, so that hints at a correlation.

Why would that be the case to a far greater degree in East than West Bengal?

Because the two parts of Bengal didn't have the same concentrations of castes. Castes tended and do tend to vary in concentrations from region to region. I guess, in east Bengal, there were few Brahmins (which makes sense due to its history of Buddhism).

They speak Bengali because either they came from West Bengal, or accepted Bengali culture as part of the process of civilizing.

Surely the Sultanates and the Mughals wouldn't send in uncivilized people to settle into Bengal?

And none of this explains why Tripura (the portion of Indian Bengal to the east of Bangladesh) is Hindu.
 
I believe Muslim rule was quite concentrated in Bengal,
There is no correlation between the advent of Muslim rule in Bengal and the popular Islamization of East Bengal. Rather, there's a gap of around two centuries - Ilyas Shah was the first Muslim to rule Bengal in the 14h century, but it was not until the coming of Mughal rule in the 16th century that popular mosque-building really kicks off to a greater degree than in the rest of North India. This era is in line with the population increases in eastern Bengal under the Mughals, an experience shared by West Punjab (another frontier region) but not by the rest of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, which remained Hindu.

that hints at a correlation.
Buddhism was dying out by the sixteenth century except in the far east of Bengal (around Chittagong), which was ruled from Mrauk-U anyways until fairly late in Mughal times. I don't see a correlation. To the contrary, the 16th century saw the rise of Chaitanya's Vaishnava movement in Bengal.

I guess, in east Bengal, there were few Brahmins
Correct. But there were few Brahmins not because of Buddhism, but because it was a frontier region until the Mughal era. Most Pala centers were either in India or in northwestern Bangladesh, somewhat removed from the Delta area.

Surely the Sultanates and the Mughals wouldn't send in uncivilized people to settle into Bengal?
These would have been the people already living in eastern Bengal who became 'civilized' in the course of Mughal rule.

And none of this explains why Tripura (the portion of Indian Bengal to the east of Bangladesh) is Hindu
Mughal influence in Tripura was much weaker than in what is now Bangladesh.
 
Bangladesh is Muslim because of the Bengal Jagir (fief) being the personal plaything of many Turkic colonial dynasties when the Muslim Sultanates were first setting themselves up in India. In the east there was no hereditary Rajput warrior caste to speak of and Bihar had been on a constant decline ever since the fall of the Gupta golden age, Pataliputra went from the premier city in north India to the middling town of Patna. The Palas tried to halt it to their best of efforts but could not get Bengal and Bihar out of the economic collapse (as the two regions were quote linked at the time).

Another thing to note was the end of the pearl trade that was so valuable for the Sena rulers and much of Bengal. With the conquest of much of North India by Turks, pearls from Gujarat and further south could no longer make its way to the land and likewise Gujarat suffered a small economic setback when the sugarcanes from Bengal could no longer reach them. This terrible commodity situation led to the fall of the Senas and the rise of much poverty and warlordism in the area.

When the Qutbuddin Aibak set his generals loose upon all lands east of Prayaga it was the most zealous of them all, Mohammed bin Bakhtiyar Khilji who answered the call. He set forth and easily bowled over all resistance the local warlords could show and by 1198 had sacked Nalanda which in result sealed the death blow for mainstream Buddhism in the mainland sub-continent. Nalanda was already starting to wither as a university-town but could easily have lasted another century or so before Khilji destroyed vital records that held the history of the ancient sub-continent.

Khilji instantly set about converting the locals, quite often by sword due to his reported zealous nature but that wasn't the only reason people converted. Bengal is a massive watershed and one of the most fertile regions in the world due to it's ashen soil and frequent flooding. However with economic collapse and a reported string of famines according to Al-Biruni which probably lasted till after his visit, the crops were failing and many devout Buddhists and Hindus were forced to eat their cattle. Conversion to Islam meant that they could do this with all livestock and help alleviate their hunger with moral justification.

By the 1300s Buddhism had almost disappeared from the area and three dynasties from Delhi had practically given free reign to their governors of Bengal, many of whom were hereditary kinsmen that had no experience actually administrating the provinces they ruled and Bengal practically be became a poor and forgotten backwater. The only way to rise high was to be Muslim, inspiring many conversions but even the Turkic upper-class was extremely racist and refused entry of the locals to many forms of government.

It was not until Farlhuddin Shah, a minor governor did this start turning around and it was only with the rise of Shamsuddin Ilyas Shahi did Bengal's fortunes change and syncretisation begin. Ilyas Shah adopted Indo-Aryan customs and properly acclimatised the local rulership and began a more meritocratic system. It took Bengal nearly a hundred years more to actually get on par with the nation's to their west.

After the Ilyas Shahi dynasty failed Raja Ganesha, a feudal Hindu lord took control of Bengal and continued its economic rise but his son converted to Islam when he realised all of the upper nobility and half of the lower nobility was Muslim and if the dynasty was to survive it needed to change to the times.

Sher Shah Suri and the Mughals also allowed Bengal to its own devices from its governors but by the late 1600s suncretization was done and half of Bengal was Muslim. When the Nawab's took power most of them were not of the religious type but conversion continued and that lasted all the way until the British took Calcutta and established their Presidency.

Partition also has a massive role to play in the fact why Bangladesh is Muslim. Whereas before 1947 village communities would often be 60/40 like they were through out the rest of the Indo-Gangetic belt, the biggest forced migration in the history of the human species changed that. But the end of Partition a lot of Hindus moved out of Bangladesh into West Bengal, the Indian state and many Muslims had to migrate the other way.

Why did Buddhism,die out?

Well the rise of the Hinduism as we know it was starting and especially Vaishnavism and Kali worship allowed the consumption of meat to an extent that Buddhism simply didn't as said above there were many rampant famines in medieval Bengal. Also theGupta revival and classical Golden Age left the Buddhist university of Nalanda slightly neglected in favour of the more western and scientific university of Taxila before that too fell apart.

So when pressure was felt from the west by foreign invaders, the incapability of the Buddhist lower and upper nobility in the rest of the North was a sort-of domino effect and it was even felt in Bengal. However the lack of a Rajput warrior society in the east also meant that there was no real shield against invaders and thus the ahimsa that was taught in Buddhism was simply not viable anymore like it had been in classical times. And once Nalanda went down in flames any knowledge that might have helped Buddhisms survival also went away.

However it is important to note that even prior to the Muslim invasions there was already a Shinto-Buddhist relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism and they really were not separate faiths. People used to pray to their local animistic deities that would fall under the umbrella of Hinduism when they went about their daily life and when in times of death and birth Buddhism offered them solace and understanding.
 
Last edited:
Top