Your perception regarding the social stratification is that of the British colonial era. During Sultanate and Mughal periods, trading and weaving was the mainstay of Bengal economy. Bengal was a major trading hub. Traders from Arabia, Malaya, Persia, Portugal as well as from other parts of the subcontinent (especially Gujarati/Marwari merchants) were converging on Bengal, there was even an active riverine trade route to China (thru Brahmaputra). Lots of them settled down here. There even used to be a sizable Armenian community in Dhaka, as well as Greek, Portuguese and Jewish trading communities. Though they alone wouldn't have made significant demographic impact, it shows that there were other foreign elements apart from the nobles, military and administration.
Also, when the Afghans were routed by the Mughals, they melted into the background so as not be considered foreigners anymore.
There is nothing wrong with herding cattle. Many people do that, Gujars are not alone. We have Yadavas, Ahirs and Meenas who are involved in herding. Aryans too were herders. Gujars are part of Indian society. I live in Delhi, which is half surrounded by Haryana.
mate, bengal is one of densest regions on the planet, its unimaginable that seventy percent turks/arabs and yet bengalis look nothing like turks and arabs and then speaking bengali as well, there is not even a change of bengali script.
bengal would have become muslim because of as you said, a lot of activity by the sufi saints, bengal also had many trade relations with the arabs and the muslims, so its also probable that bengal was already in contact with the muslims much before the muslim invaders even arrived, it is known that bengal was one of the principle trade hubs of the region like gujarat, konkan coast etc. Here its also a possibility that when the muslims invaded bengal the dominant religion might have been buddhism, and was ruled previously by a hindu sena dynasty which would have pretty much weakened buddhism to the point that it was easy to convert a large population into islamic one. when the ruler is a muslim there is always a great possibility that the entire population would become muslim like malaysia, indonesia etc
even queen elizabeth is part sayyed as her DNA study shows some inheritance with the arabs, and as it turns out five hundred or more years ago, a moorish queen escaped to portugal during reconquesta and married into portugese royalty and some of her descendents then got married to the british royalty, its only a millionth of a shared ancestry
That is not a fair surmise. Many areas in India were ruled by Muslims but the majority population still remained Hindu. Muslims ruled in Gujarat, Bhopal, Hyderabad, etc. Hindus still make the majority of the population of that area. Though I do not say that it has no effect. Depends on who ruled and how repressive the regime was. In Spain, the whole population became Christian overnight, because the options were Christianity or death.
There's actually Mughal revenue records for the process. They also leased ploughs to those that cleared lands but didn't have them, cost of which were to be realized later from taxes payable.
Rivers in Bengal flow from north to south, hence the Mughals built canals connecting rivers on east-west alignment so as to bring large areas under irrigation. Agricultural boom in eastern Bengal was a direct result of Mughal central planning.
The posts by the OP is full of factual errors. Almost every point is her own nationalistic interpretation stemming from the deep rooted inferiority complex. Following points are my counter arguements.
1.Most of the conversions to Islam in Bengal took place relatively recently,during the late Mughal erra. This can be further substantiated from the fact that there is not a single Islamic pilgrimage site in Bengal which is visited by other Non-Bengali Muslim communities. North Indians had been converting to Islam en mass long before and as a result lots of Islamic pilgrimage sites came into existence in northern parts of India. Various Islamic Sufi traditions eventually came into existence in northern India. However not a single Islamic tradition developed in Bengal that would have become popular among other Indian Muslims. They do have the revered saint Shah Jalal's tomb in sylhet ,but it is hardly known to anyone outside Bangladesh. Even their brethren in West Bengal are not aware of any such place existing in Bangladesh.
2.Shah Jalal bringing a lot of foreigner is also over exaggeration. Most of Shah jalal's companion were of Indian origin. Companions like Arif, Junaid, Selim, Mohammed shariff and helimuddin came from various parts of India. Even Sylheti Nagri script which is attributed to Shah Jalal and his companion is of Indian origin(derived from nagri script). I highly doubt that the migrants from arid regions of Arabia and Iran had survived long in the dense jungles of Sylhet. If there were a lot of foreign immigrants Bengal would have develop an arabic based script as it has happened elsewhere. However even the Islamic literatures of Sylhet were written in Indic scripts.
3. Last but not the least, there was no historical enmity between the Buddhists and Hindus in Bengal. Not a single contemporary Buddhist source states about Hindus persecuting Buddhists. Bengal practiced a Hindu-Buddhist syncretic religion. Even the Pala kings of Bengal patronized both religions. Hinduism eventually became the dominant religion because of the fact that Buddhism could not entirely become independent of Hinduism by rejecting Hindu code of laws, Astronomy and Astrology. KIngs were still dependent on Brahmins for statecraft and law making. When Buddha was accepted into the Hindu pantheon, Buddhism started to become less popular.
Okay, but you claim that these Gujars are Turkic Iranian nobles. Why have these nobles come to India to herd and farm? Why have they completely forgotten their noble ancestry? Just admit that you have not fully researched your theory.